I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the Featured List criteria. There is a well developed lead, and the scope of the article is well defined, meaning that there are 20 entries in the list. For each entry – as well as the location, date, and type of castle – I have attempted to give a brief outline of the history of the castle and who owned it. This information is not always available, so some entries are longer than others. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes time to review the list, and I hope you enjoy it. Nev1 (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, an excellent list. I have a few thoughts, though:
I might consider moving the first sentence lower in the paragraph, or a rework of the first few sentences; the second sentence seems like a better start to the article when compared to recently promoted lists.
On this point I disagree. The opening sentence provides tells you what the article is about (ie: the 20 castles in Cheshire), whereas if what is now the second second were to take its place, you wouldn't find out about castles stragiht away. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"connected to bailey" - a bailey, and is there a link for bailey, either to Wiktionary or an appropriate article?
"a" added. A wikilink to bailey just takes you straight to the motte-and-bailey article, but it is explained later in the sentence that a bailey is a an "enclosure where the barracks and workshops were located". Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"although lack the motte" - they lack, and again, is there a link for motte?
"they" added. As for the link, it's the same problem as for "bailey", but I have now explained in the previous sentence that a motte is a mound. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would link "battlements" unless it's a redirect to another article already linked.
"Castles along the border were constructed when the Norman advance was slowed by Welsh opposition, as a result there are fewer in south Wales than north Wales" - change comma to a semicolor, and comma after result.
"The remains are often protected in law such as the 11 sites which are Scheduled Monuments, and 5 are listed buildings." - suggest "The remains are often protected by law – 11 sites are Scheduled Monuments, and 5 are listed buildings."
I don't believe that you need to name your footnotes "alt names 1" and the like. I think that lower-case letters or single numbers would be sufficient, the former preferred because of possible misinterpretation as references.
Since the table is sortable, entries like "listed building" need to be linked each time they appear, not just the first time. This is because the table can be sorted into any order, so "the first" may become the fourth or fifth.
I've added more links to address this problem, although since listed building is linked in the lead, I don't think it needs to be linked in the table too. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox doesn't contain a direct link to this article, so it should be removed.
While navboxes are meant to be used only when the article is mentioned in the box, I think it's still useful to the reader. I am prepared to removed it though as it's not especially important. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general convention is that navboxes link related articles together, not that they provide a portal to other articles. For example, if there were a navboxes about castles in England or the UK, and this list was included, I would be all for it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There are 20 castles in Cheshire, a county in North West England." -- Do not bold, only bold the title of the article. castles in Cheshire is not the title
Debolded.
"Also, Warrington Castle is historically a part of Lancashire but is within the current boundaries of Cheshire." --> In addition, Warrington Castle is historically a part of Lancashire but is within the current boundaries of Cheshire. (sounds better IMO)
"Castles were introduced to England by the Normans – although there are a few sites in the south-east pre-dating the Norman conquest – and were owned by the social elite." -- The dash should be an emdash without spaces
Per MOS:EMDASH - Parenthetical (Wikipedia—one of the most popular web sites—has the information you need). A pair of em dashes for such interpolations is more arresting than a pair of commas, and less disruptive than parentheses (round brackets).--Truco22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but since ndashes are a stylistic alternative to mdashes, it doesn't matter which one is used. IMO mdashes are ugly and ndashes are far more elegant. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The key phrase here is "stylistic alternative", meaning that ndashes can do everything that mdashes do. From MOS:EMDASH "Spaced en dashes – such as here – can be used instead of unspaced em dashes in all of the ways discussed above. Spaced en dashes are used by several major publishers, to the complete exclusion of em dashes." Nev1 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct: one can use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes; it doesn't matter as long the usage is consistent throughout the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The primary purpose of a castle was military: to be used as a base of operations and to control the surrounding areas." -- Add for the before "military"
I don't think "for the" is necessary, also it wouldn't quite be correct as there was no standing army in the Middle Ages and forces were raises by local lords. The castles belonged to the social elites rather than being a communal fortification. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"They consist of a motte (a mound) – surmounted by a keep or tower – connected to a bailey, an outer enclosure where the barracks and workshops were located." -- no spaces [emdash]
"Ringworks are similar to motte-and-bailey castles although they lack the motte;[6] although contemporary with motte-and-baileys, they are an uncommon form of fortification." -- replace the second "although" with another word like however,
That doesn't flow well, you would need to change that however to ;however, My suggestion seems to work better.
You're right, it still doesn't flow well, however neither would "however contemporary with...". I'm going with the simple solution and have changed the first "although" to "but". Nev1 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A fortified manor house was the administrative centre of a manor – a division of land in medieval England – and was usually the home of the local lord." -- same thing here about the dashes
"Compared to north Wales, relatively few castles are found in Cheshire as many were built on the western side of the River Dee, such as Holt Castle." -- Comma before "as many"
"Most of these castles were motte-and-baileys and were originally of turf and timber construction, although they were sometimes later replaced by stone structures if a long-term castle was needed."
"As well as the 20 known castles in Cheshire, Salter in his 2001 gazetteer of the castles in Cheshire and Lancashire lists Mud Hill in Coddington ( [show location on an interactive map] 53°05′29″N 2°49′03″W / 53.091352°N 2.817631°W / 53.091352; -2.817631 (Mud Hill)) and Peel Hall near Manley ( [show location on an interactive map] 53°13′17″N 2°44′59″W / 53.221258°N 2.7497°W / 53.221258; -2.7497 (Peel Hall)) as possible sites of castles." -- who is "Salter"?
A historian (now mentioned in the article) who wrote a gazetteer of castles, not just in Cheshire but across England and Wales IIRC. He's a very reliable source. Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notes may need a good copyedit because I see some statements with WP:WEASEL words like "probable" and "probably".
When dealing with buildings that are often about 800 years old, records are usually incomplete. As a result, there is some uncertainty about issues such as when they were built. Where there is no archaeological or documentary evidence, historians have to make an educated guess. Rather than me taking what historians say is probable and reporting it as certain or undisputed would be academically wrong. Therefore, there is some uncertainty around these issues and it will remain so as I will not be removing "probably" or "probable". Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, but I would still seek a copyedit or wait for a reviewer to review the notes because I've never seen a table with that amount of notes, the most I've seen is like 2 or 3 sentences.--Truco22:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under the constructed section, the first word needs to be capitalized regardless. In addition, be consistent with "probably" and "probable"
No, as far as I know there are very few medieval castles scheduled to be built in the 21st century ;-) In this case, scheduling refers to legislation protecting some of the castles. The term Scheduled Monument is explained in the lead and the column has now been renamed "Scheduled Monument". Nev1 (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the notes during my initial review, which is how I discovered some of the missing links. They look fine to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A comprehensive list with a good lead and much detail (for a list) about each castle. (My own involvement has been with images and tweaks only.) A valuable addition to information about the heritage of Cheshire. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about this bit: "Castles along the border were constructed when the Norman advance was slowed by Welsh opposition; as a result, there are fewer in south Wales than north Wales" - why do we care how many castles there are in the north/south of Wales in an article on castles in Cheshire? I don't really see what that bit is doing in there, unless I'm missing something...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the article isn't about Wales so the part after the semi-colon has been removed. I think the first part is still relevant as it explains why some castles were built. Nev1 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentA fascinating article, and you've clearly done a lot of research on it, but it's spoilt for me by the list part being crammed into the sortable-table-squashed-up-by-a-column-of-pictures-up-the-side format. That's an ideal layout for genuinely tabular data, such as sports stats, but not for reading lengthy annotated prose from. Did you consider having two sections? (1) containing the left-hand part of the current table, as a sortable table, but without the detailed notes, each line linking to (2) the detailed notes, in normal-size print so those of us with imperfect sight can read them, each castle having its own subsection or its own paragraph in a bulleted list. Then arrange the pictures as appropriate. Would have been rather more user-friendly... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This all started with list of castles in Greater Manchester (on which this list is based); originally, that list was section based rather than tabulated. In the FLC discussion consensus emerged that because a few entries were short (only a few sentence) it would be better presented as a table [2]. I initially opposed a tabulated list as I feared it would lead to information being lost, however I was wrong and as a result you see the current table. To some extent, the problem with some stubby sections: if the table was to be converted to prose, or just the notes separated, about half a dozen a dozen entries would be very short. Also, separating the information would complicate navigation and I think would actually be less user-friendly. Re images: there sadly aren't enough for them to be distributed evenly throughout the article (for example, there are three of Beeston Castle used in the list). Perhaps they could be moved to a gallery at the end of the list to give the table more room to breathe. The smaller text size was chosen to make the table look neater, but if it causes problems for some users I will happily return the text to the normal size. Nev1 (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really see the problem with the section lengths in the older version of Castles in Greater Manchester: if the level 2 headings had been changed to level 4, say, it would have looked quite tidy, but that's by the by. You may well be right that separating the information would be less user-friendly, I haven't really thought it through.
As it stands, with the pictures up the side, which basically forces use of very-reduced font (90% is very small indeed), it pretty much fails on Criterion 5(a) Style/Visual appeal: last time I found a relevant bit of MoS, it said we shouldn't use reduced fonts without a good reason, and I don't think having the pictures next to the table is a good enough reason. With the full width available for the table, as Manchester Castles has, then the notes would still look tidy at 95% font size if having it full-size makes the larger entries excessively tall or messy.
Couple of other things: the Constructed column doesn't sort chronologically (neither does the corresponding column in Manchester castles); presumably they should? and
Where metric conversions result in fractions of feet, shouldn't you convert into feet and inches rather than decimal feet. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the ribbon of images to the end of the list, in a gallery, and have increased the text size of the table. The construction dates sort fine for me (and now so do the ones on Greater Manchester, thanks for reminding me), so I'm not sure what the problem is. Good point about feet and inches, it should now be converting to that rather than decimal. Nev1 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list does indeed sort chronologically, I must have misread something the first time, sorry. But it seems odd that Kingsley Castle (Medieval, possibly Norman) sorts between 1100 and 12th century, while Dodleston Castle (Medieval) and Warrington castle (Medieval), whose notes say "probably built in the Norman period", sort after 15th century. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweak Warrington Castle's entry so it now sorts properly, but for Dodleston Castle I thought I'd just stick it at the end as medieval is so big a range (revealing Cheshire's website describes Dodleston Castle as medieval, the range it gives for medieval is 1066 AD to 1539, not particularly helpful). Nev1 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dodleston's fine, it was really just the mention of Norman in Warrington's prose. Comment(s) satisfactorily resolved, and I just got an edit conflict with you when I went to remove the |thumb|right's from the gallery :-) Thanks for your patience. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"although there are a few sites in the south-east pre-dating the Norman conquest"-->although a few sites in the south-east pre-date the Norman conquest
"The primary purpose of a castle was military: to be used as a base of operations and to control the surrounding areas.[2] However, the purpose of a castle was not solely militaristic." The second sentence is largely redundant. You said primarily, which implies that there are other uses too. If you had said "only", that would have been different.
"Castles can take a variety of forms, the most common of which is the motte-and-bailey.[4] They consist of a motte (a mound) – surmounted by a keep or tower – connected to a bailey, an outer enclosure where the barracks and workshops were located." "They" is ambiguous—are you referring to castles in general or the motte-and-bailey?
"Away from the troubled borders, baronial " What do you mean by "troubled"?
I would have thought it was clear from the earlier mention of Cheshire's strategic position as a defence against Wales and the need for castles that the borders were troubled. (Wales and Cheshire had very poor relations in this period.) I have removed "troubled" for now as it could be construed as POV. Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which survives to a height of 5.2 m"—what do you mean by "survives"?
I am nominating this for featured list because... same as my recent FLCs, I want to expand them to a higher class, etc. All comments will be taken care of quickly.WillC15:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The ROH World Tag Team Championship is a professional wrestling world tag team championship owned and copyrighted by Ring of Honor (ROH), and contested for it their tag team division." --> The ROH World Tag Team Championship is a professional wrestling world tag team championship owned and copyrighted by Ring of Honor (ROH); it is contested for in their tag team division.
"Title changes that happen on ROH's primary television program, Ring of Honor Wrestling, air up to three to five weeks apart. " -- "happen" would be better worded as occurred
"The inaugural champions were The Prophecy (Christopher Daniels and Donovan Morgan), whom ROH recognized to have become the champions after defeating The American Dragon and Michael Modest on September 21, 2002 at ROH's Unscripted event in the finals of a one-night tournament." -- The last name of Daniels and Morgan should only be mentioned
"As of April 2009, The Briscoe Brothers' fourth reign and Austin Aries' and Roderick Strong's only reign are tied for most defenses, with 18; The Briscoe Brothers' second and third reign, Dan Maff's and B.J. Whitmer's first reign, The Second City Saints' (CM Punk and Colt Cabana) first reign, The Backseat Boyz (Trent Acid and Johnny Kashmere), and The American Wolves (Davey Richards and Eddie Edwards) are all tied for the least defenses, with zero." -- What reigns were the Backseat Boyz and American Wolves in? I would end the sentence instead of having the semi-colon.
Why are some columns aligned in the center and others to the left?
Pre my other FLcs. Some wanted the first five centered, while the rest they didn't. Was going by other comments trying to avoid those problems in this article.--WillC19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For vacated reigns, the days held needs a dash not a "0"
"A.J. Styles and The Amazing Red defeated Christopher Daniels and Xavier, who was filling in for Donovan Morgan." -- What do you mean filling in for Morgan?
"Became the ROH World Tag Team Championship after Aries and Strong defeated Naruki Doi and Masato Yoshino in Japan on July 9, 2006." -- Incomplete sentence.
"The championship was vacated when Maff left Ring of Honor. The company covered Maff's leaving by saying he was forced to retire as the result of an automobile accident, which never occured" -- 1)Use ROH instead of spelling it out 2)Typo on occurred
"The Kings of Wrestling's (Chris Hero and Claudio Castagnoli) fourth defense is not recognized by Ring of Honor considering it was defended at a Combat Zone Wrestling event which was not sanction by ROH." --> The Kings of Wrestling's (Chris Hero and Claudio Castagnoli) fourth defense is not recognized by ROH because it was defended at a Combat Zone Wrestling event, which was not sanction by ROH.
"Each reign is ranked highest to lowest, reigns with the exact number mean they are tied for that certain rank" --> Each reign is ranked highest to lowest, reigns with the exact number mean they are tied for that certain rank" --the comma should be a semi-colon
I used the source mainly as a quote. It is a review of the event on DVD which tells the account of the title getting destroyed. Other than that small note it isn't used for anything else so I believed it would be reliable enough for the quote alone.--WillC19:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also for the qoute that Maff left the company in a small video package. I thought it would be reliable enough for those small events.--WillC19:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Although it is a review of the event, the quotes have statements that are directly from the event and not opinionated, I would instead use {{cite video}} to source these statements.--Truco22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The |people= parameter is not correct in having Ring of Honor, unless you state that its the roster, but if not, you need to remove it. In addition, is there a way you can split the second paragraph into 3 paragraphs, its really long.--Truco14:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Used for vacated reigns in order to not count it as an official reign"-->Used for vacated reigns so as not to count it as an official reign (fix this on other lists also)
"which was destroyed by The American Dragon and Michael Modest after they were defeated by The Prophecy to become the inaugural champions." They couldn't have become the inaugural champions if they lost, right? Confusing sentence that needs work.
Extremely Strong Oppose Please never nominate something you didn't significantly contribute to without consulting the principal contributor(s). On WP:FLC, it reads "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination." -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith00:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
Oppose for now -- Please consult User:Rlendog if he gives you permission to nominate this. If not, you don't have the right to nominate something you didn't work on, as stated on the FLC instructions.--Truco00:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
'Since starting play as the New York Gothams in 1883, the Giants have employed 36 different managers.' -- 'Since starting place' really doesn't sound right, how about Since their inception as the New York Gothams in 1883 (or replace inception with any other similar word)
'The Giants won two World Series championships during the 19th century, in 1888 and 1889, with Jim Mutrie as their manager in both years' -- 1)No links? = To World Series1888 World Series? 2)No need for the 'in' before 'both years.'
'While managing the Giants, the team won the National League championship 10 times—in 1904, 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924—and played in the World Series championship nine times (no World Series was played in 1904) and won three, in 1905, 1921 and 1922.' -- Consider splitting after 'and played in' because the sentence just runs-on, in addition, delink World Series here if you link it earlier where I suggested.
'The Giants moved from New York to San Francisco in 1958 with Bill Rigney as their manager.' -- Comma before 'with'
'The current Giants manager, Bruce Bochy, has been managing the team since 2006.' --> The current Giants manager, Bruce Bochy, has managed the team since 2006.
'Heinie Smith has the lowest winning percentage of any Giants manager, with .156.' [no need to repeat it in consecutive sentences]
'The lowest winning percentage of any Giants manager who managed at least 100 games is .389, by Jim Davenport in 1985' - Why is this needed? In addition, how many games were for the other ones mentioned earlier?
List
Is the 'Managers with multiple tenures' really needed? Its obvious by the fact that they are mentioned more than once in the tables, its not common for these to be like this and instead have a footnote explaining that they are mentioned more than once for multiple tenures.--Truco00:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I addressed most of them. I left in the Jim Davenport sentence, but added a phrase to the sentence on Heinie Smith to note that his record was achieved in just 32 games. The reason for including Davenport is because, since Smith had so few games managed, some may consider the record trivial. In the extreme, a team may have had an interim manager who lost the only game he managed. He would have the lowest winning percentage in team history (or vice versa if he won the game as interim manager), but it's a pretty trivial situation. Admittedly, 32 games is a lot more than one or two, but it is still a pretty small sample, and it is worth noting the manager with the lowest winning percentage over a more substantial sample. I could remove the Davenport comment if it is really problematic though.
As for the "Managers with multiple tenures", I think that is necessary, and it is disappointing that this information is missing from many (but not all) similar lists. Someone coming to this article should be able to find out that Bill Rigney won 406 games with the Giants, or that John Montgomery Ward had a .583 winning percentage without having to do the math himself. This is an even mroe critical issue for the other manager list I have been working on, the Yankees, with managers like Billy Martin having 5 tenures over which to add up his record. Rlendog (talk) 02:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have asked Rlendog whether the list was ready and he wanted it to be nominated. Let's keep this FLC open until he replies. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay with this going forward. I think it is in good shape and I am not sure what additional improvements are needed and would be interested in the feedback and getting this up to FL. Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have Rlendog's consent to move forward with the nom, I'll post my comments when I get home from work this afternoon (they are waiting on a WordPad document on my computer's desktop). KV5(Talk • Phils)14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recent consensus has been to unlink years in prose, even if they are going to seasons. The only ones we have been linking are World Series.
"McGraw's successor, Hall of Famer Bill Terry who manged the team from the middle of the 1932 season until 1941, also was a successful manger." - managed/manager, plus this is a horrible run-on, re-word
"3rd most" - third
"Durocher was the manager for the Giants most recent World Series championship 1954." - Giants', and in 1954
"In their first 28 years in San Francisco through the 1985 season" - stunted, re-word
Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them all. The one I wasn't sure about was the "two colums in references". I wasn't sure what that meant. If I have not addressed it, please let me know what I need to do. Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have been clearer. Change the {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}} so that the reference list is in two columns instead of one. I will return to check the rest of my comments tomorrow afternoon, as I have a gig this evening and work tomorrow morning. KV5(Talk • Phils)20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Criterion 1, per everything KV pointed out above. Four typos in a lead is simply unacceptable in any article, never mind an FL. Add in the many MoS glitches already mentioned and there is serious work to be done. To offer an original comment, does the lead really need to be six paragraphs long? In particular, most of the second paragraph has little to do with the Giants or their managers.Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have fixed the typos and any MoS issues. I think the second paragraph is necessary. The first two sentences address the early Giants' managers. The other two paragraphs don't sepcifically address a Giants' manager, but I think they are necessary to explain the fact that I am sure many will find surprising that Jim Mutrie managed the Giants to two World Series titles before 1900. Rlendog (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He managed the Giants to the National League championship 10 times, in 1904, 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924. McGraw's Giants played in the World Series championship nine times (no World Series was played in 1904) and won three, in 1905, 1921 and 1922." I don't like the phrasing of "manag[ing]" a team to the championship. Perhaps "While manager of the Giants, the team [won/appeared in] the National League championship ten times—in 1904, 1905, 1911, 1912, 1913, 1917, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924—and played in the World Series championship nine times (no World Series was played in 1904), winning three: in 1905, 1921 and 1922."
"1981-1984" Should be an en dash.
I think the note about stats being accurate through so-and-so season should be above the table, not below.
Oppose - After the rapid turnaround in the fortunes of this FLC, I'm disappointed to find a couple of basic MoS errors and sourcing queries. I should have read this closer before dropping my original oppose, but hopefully this will only be temporary.
First big thing I see is that all numbers of more than 1,000 should have commas in the appropriate pace, excluding years. This covers the table and lead photo.
Remove "different" from the second sentence, as it only makes the sentence wordier.
The cite for managers' roles doesn't mention team strategy. I also think we could do better than a straight dictionary reference.
Actually, the American Heritage definition (which is not the first) does mention that the manager is not just "a person who manages". I recognized this because this was taken verbatim from List of Philadelphia Phillies managers and the other manager lists that I worked on, including the reference. The word "strategy" is never directly used, but it is certainly implied. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"John McGraw became the Giants manager...". Apostrophe for Giants.
"beginning a streak of more than 50 consecutive years in which the Giants were managed by a Baseball Hall of Famer." A more specific number would be better.
Source needed for the 1904 World Series not being played. Should be easy enough to find one and stick it after the parentheses.
"including a National League championship in 2002." Change "including" since it doesn't work well there. Try "winning" or something similar that avoids repetition.
Several columns in the Managers with multiple tenures table don't need to be sortable, as they are nothing but dashes. Also remove sorting from the Ref column in the general managers table.
The addition of general managers feels like an afterthought. The only information about them in the prose is the number and definition. At least tell us who the first and current GMs are. If a five-paragraph lead is needed to fit it in, so be it. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any kind of official San Francisco Giants source that you would be able to include (not that one is necessary, but it would be nice to have one in there). -- Scorpion042215:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference for the general managers was already from the Giants' official page, but I now added a link to the manager list on the Giants' official page as a general reference.Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because... I'm working my way through all the main promotion championship history articles that have yet to be expanded to FL. I am also going to expand each championship article to GA or higher. Currently I've gotten List of TNA X Division Champions to FL, and it looks like it at the moment that List of TNA World Tag Team Champions will pass its FLC. I'm working on the TNA X Division Championship in a subpage at the moment, so I am true to my word. Seeing as the ROH World Championship history is long enough for FLC, I added it to my list of projects along with ROH's World Tag Team Championship. Any comments will be addressed as quick as possible. This article does not look like it is sourced greatly but the three general refs really source everything in the article by themselves. Number of defenses, champions, results, etc. Yes the ROH Championship's first name was ROH Title, it was not referred to as ROH Championship to my knowledge. It is sourced by ROH's official site where they have the history cut among names. It begins with ROH Title and after Joe's reign it begins as ROH World Championship. None of the live events were pay-per-views besides just one and it is linked with-in the article.WillC09:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, because it has been bugging me, for the ones wondering why I haven't reviewed another FLC and I keep nominating lists for FLC, it is because I am unsure of myself at this time. I want to make sure I know what a FL is and get enough knowledge before I review. After this list I will probably start reviewing if this passes.--WillC09:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The championship was created and debuted on July 17, 2002 at ROH's Crowning a Champion event. -- well since this wasn't at a pay-per-view, you need to replace event with live event
Well it technically wasn't a house show since it was released on DVD, but I guess that link would work.
The championship was named the ROH Title up until the championship was renamed in May 2003 to the ROH World Championship after then-champion, Samoa Joe, defeated The Zebra Kid in London, England on May 17, 2003 at a event called Frontiers of Honor, that was a joint partnership event with the professional wrestling promotion Frontier Wrestling Alliance. -- This sentence is very repetitive, how about The championship was called the ROH Title up until the championship was renamed in May 2003 to the ROH World Championship after then-champion Samoa Joe defeated The Zebra Kid in London, England. The renaming was a result of the title being defended outside the United States for the first time. (too much wording about the other promotion which is not needed).
On August 12, 2006, the ROH World Championship was unified with the ROH Pure Championship after then-champion Bryan Danielson defeated ROH Pure Champion Nigel McGuinness in Liverpool, England. -- like stated in the pre-review, state that by unify the title the Pure Title was disbanded. To be honest, I don't see how this has affected this particular championship: the WWE Intercontinental Championship has been unified with 3 other titles, and only 1 is particularly notable that is mentioned (when it was unified with the World Title).
Well this match was held under Pure match rules, the Pure Championship has been the only secondary title ever in ROH, etc. Fixed.--WillC21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The inaugural champion was Low Ki, whom ROH recognized to have become the champion after defeating Christopher Daniels, Spanky, and Doug Williams in a Four Way 60-minute Iron Man match on July 27, 2002. -- be consistent, so where was this match? (live event?)
The current champion is Jerry Lynn, who is in his first reign as champion. -- no need to state that he is in his first reign since you established earlier that there have been no multiple reigns
BY my comment on pipelinking to live event I didn't mean to do it for the actual names of the events, i mean it like at the Taboo Tuesday live event. [just in the lead, not in the table]--Truco23:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The title was called the ROH Championship up until it was renamed in May 2003 to the ROH World Championship after then-champion Samoa Joe defeated The Zebra Kid in London, England. The renaming was a result of the title being defended outside the United States for the first time." The second sentence is ungrammatical, and the ideas generally don't flow well. Maybe: "Originally called the ROH Championship, the title was renamed to the ROH World Championship in May 2003 after the title was defended outside the United States for the first time—earlier that month, then-champion Samoa Joe had defeated The Zebra Kid in London, England."
Can you center the first five columns, as well as the "Successful defenses" column? Columns with figures look better centered. Apply this to your other lists as well.
In the key, you say the dagger and color indicates the current champion, but there is only one champion. Maybe "Indicates the current champion(s)". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first one, it was found reliable at the Over the Edge (1999) (FAC), because its from Discovery. The second one: when I use this source its for titles from the past which the info is published in a book. If ROH publishes a list for the reigns, this is unnecessary.--Truco22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I could of sworn, someone mentioned it there. Either way, its used in that FAC and Ealdgyth didn't say anything about it (considering it was one of the first refs). In addition, the site is run by Discovery, and their information is published the same way that Discovery does for all their other sites.--Truco23:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first link does nothing to convince me. The second is better, but it doesn't demonstrate how he is an expert in wrestling. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be removed because its OR if you don't source it. In addition, these sources could probably cover how he wrote the article. This could easily be replaced if it were a WWE article since they tend to be honest about it on their site, but I don't know how TNA works.--Truco01:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it is OR. Most understand the titles aren't won legit. As for the WWE and TNA thing, hahaha. WWE being honest, I needed that. Hey, have you heard of a guy named Chris Benoit, I've never heard of him.--WillC01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disrespectful to the WWE yes. I miss Benoit and WWE should have never tried to bury his legacy. Yeah with the corporate site, they must or they'll have a lawsuit on their hands for false advertisement.--WillC02:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for you to know, the reason I'm not talking about the sources is I don't know. I just use sources I see used it other FLs, FAs, or GAs. I figure if they are good enough there, then they are good enough to use in this. That is why I asked Truco to take care of these problems, I use most of the sources he uses in other lists. He knows more about reliablity of sources than me.--WillC00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It failed to chart on the UK Singles Chart and in Europe, and she left the record company before an album was released. -- (1)I don't know but the repetitive "and"s disturb me, how about using a semi colon instead? (2)What European chart?
done
Later that year Jamelia released "I Do" with Parlophone, which was followed up in 2000 with "Money", her first top five single, and her debut album Drama. -- (1)Comma after year (2)Its unclear whether her first top five single refers to "Money" or is an individual statement. If its part of "Money" it would be best to have it in parenthesis.
done
Jamelia's second album, Thank You, released in 2003, is her most successful to date, charting at number 4 on the UK Albums Chart, as well as charting in Australia, New Zealand and Europe. -- Is it possible to give a note that states those other countries charts rank albums as well
done, with a slight recast of sentence
Thank You was subsequently re-released with two new songs, "See It in a Boy's Eyes" and "DJ". -- the comma after songs should be a colon
done
In 2004 Jamelia performed "Universal Prayer" with Tiziano Ferro for release on his album, 111 Centoundici. -- (1)Comma after 2004 (2)No need for the comma before the album name
done
It featured on the soundtrack album to the feature film The Edge of Reason, and was released as a double A-side with "DJ". -- (1)+was before featured (2)Replaced featured with included to avoid repetitive use of that word (feature film)
Good idea; done
At the end of 2004, Jamelia recorded an updated version of the charity record, "Do They Know It's Christmas?", as a part of Band Aid 20. -- In this context there is no need for the commas before/after the name of the record
done
It became the Christmas Number One. -- Instead of a new sentence, why not connect this with the previous sentence with a semi colon?
Sure, done
Music videos
Why not link all the directors? Since you have some that are red links and others that just aren't linked.
done
References
I see some red links for publishers, either link all the publishers or do not link those that have red links.--Truco15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redlinked publishers are notable enough for Wikipedia articles. They are notable music video directors/photographers/cinematographers, or music video production companies who have a number of notable directors under their employ. In time I'm sure they'll get created; I don't see the point in removing them to add them in later. WP:REDLINKS are OK.
For the last point, I meant that there are publishers (which don't have articles, yet they aren't linked), while others (that don't have articles, yet are linked): there is an inconsistency. I never stated that redlinks are not okay, I know they are.Truco20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It was also the twenty-sixth best selling single of 2003."-->It was the 26th best-selling single of 2003.
"around the world"-->worldwide
"It also appears"-->The song also appears
"Jamelia's third, and most recent album" No comma
"Despite being labelled a "one-hit wonder" by members of the music industry,[6] seven of Jamelia's singles have charted inside the top 10" Sounds as if the singles were labelled "one-hit wonder[s]". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is included on the soundtrack album to the feature film The Edge of Reason" => "it was...."?
Not done using past tense would imply that it no longer features on the soundtrack, but it still does.
"Jamelia's third and most recent album, Walk with Me was released" - missing comma after album title
Done
"As a collaboration" - maybe change to "In collaboration" or "Collaborations", currently the subheadings "As a solo artist"/"As a collaboration" kinda convey the bizarre sense that she was a collaboration on the tracks in question, if that makes any sense
Done
"(as Band Aid 20)" => "(as part of Band Aid 20)"
Done
Book references don't cite page numbers
Not done unfortunately. I don't have the books to find out what page number she is listed on. There is someone on Wiki who does, but I can't remember who. {{cite book}} says only the Title is the required field; I've given more information than that, with editors, publication date, edition, and ISBN, so it's not as if it's poorly referenced or unreferenced.
Support - all seems OK now. I didn't realise that book citations didn't require the page number. If it's of any use, in the 2005 edition of the Guinness book, she's on page 256 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nomination of another Guitar Hero song list. Now, I realize that the criteria have recently changed and that there's a subjective possibility that this list may not pass (one could argue it could fit into Guitar Hero: Metallica without issues; there is a similar suggestion for a merge of List of songs in Guitar Hero into Guitar Hero (video game)), but I don't believe this would help as the resulting article would be dominated by this list; per Summary Style, the info on this list is more specific than what is generalized in the article. This might be considered a good test case for any future lists. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not try creating an article that has all of the song lists? That might have more uses, then you would be able to sort by artists, etc. -- Scorpion042222:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be long, plus it would make difficult to include the tiering aspects of the game; I can see it as a completely separate list ("List of songs that have appeared in the Guitar Hero franchise") but not as a replacement to the current lists. A quick count in my head across GH1, 2, 80s, 3, Aerosmith, WT, and M gives about 360 songs on disk alone; add in 75 more for the DS versions(*), and another ~100 songs and growing for DLC. And there's no end to sight for the franchise. To compare, a completely separate list that is not featured but has 500+ songs is List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series and this is starting to get unwieldy, and that shows no signs of stopping either. If this franchise was long and since completed I would agree with this approach, but the potential growth of this is puts too many questions out there.
(*) I have been toying with merging the DS games to one article as they're all treated equivalently by sources, and resulting in their individual tracklists to be merged into a seperate but single list for all of them, which seems like a reasonable break. That I've not done yet, but seems perfectly fine in this case. --MASEM (t) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The full set list for the game for all platforms contains 49 songs, 28 from the band over their entire musical career, and 21 others from bands that are "their personal favorites and influences from over the years". -- be consistent with the use of setlist (without the space)
Playing as a single player or in competition or cooperation with others, players attempt to match notes on instrument controllers as indicated by scrolling notes on-screen in order to score points and prevent the song from ending in failure. -- the two or's is really confusing the first part of the sentence
Songs can be played in a Career mode in both single player and band modes to work through the songlist below, or players may jump into any song using the game's Quickplay feature. -- songlist should be song list
The following list is the complete set list of songs featured in the game. --> setlist
Tiers are arranged in approximately difficulty, which varies between the single player instrument careers and the band career modes, with later tiers representing more difficult songs.
List
I would find a key useful to explain the column headers, such as the "year" being the year the song was released. In addition to explaining the "360/PS3 Career (Band)".
The notes are not complete statements, remove the full stops
I don't like the system used for the footnotes, can a symbol or a different system be used? Like {{ref label}} and {{note label}}?
While no new downloadable content has yet been announced for the game, PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360 players who have previously downloaded the tracks from Death Magnetic for Guitar Hero World Tour or Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock will have these tracks incorporated into Guitar Hero: Metallica, with the exclusion of "All Nightmare Long" which already appears on the main setlist. -- I'm confused, how do they download this? How do they obtain these previous tracks?
The Death Magnetic tracks become available after completing the eighth tier and are played in The Stone Nightclub venue. -- There is a lot of "video game jargon" here, like what is The Stone Nightclub venue?
I believe I have addressed all the points above but a double check of the wording language that was confusing would be appreciated. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consecutive uses of or I don't really think is grammatically correct, unless you properly use commas or reword it.--Truco16:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"28 from the band over their entire musical career" A bit redundant, "over their entire musical career" is unnecessary. How about "28 from the band itself", which will flow nicely into the next phrase.
"include three additional tracks"
"similar to Guitar Hero World Tour allowing for "-->similar to Guitar Hero World Tour that allows for
"or players may jump into any song using" "jump into" is too loose.
"[reads] like the quintessential 'Best Of' track list for the band" You can eliminate the brackets by moving the brackets further in: reads "like the quintessential 'Best Of' track list for the band"
I'm assuming the songs that aren't linked are not notable enough to have their own articles. If this is not the case for some of them, please redlink as necessary.
"While no new downloadable content has yet been announced for the game"-->Although no new downloadable content has been announced for the game
"who have previously purchased playable" Consider the opposite, could the players have purchased these games in the future?
"with the exclusion of "All Nightmare Long"" Comma after here.
"The game does support"-->The game supports
Regarding the notes: I did not realize that the notes were referring to specific songs. Could you add demonstrative pronouns to make it clearer? For example, "These songs are included..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of the above except on the linking of song names - do you want all song names linked even if that creates redlinks, or leave as is based on the fact we're only linking to songs, not albums, on this table? Also, note Truco's comment above about formatting the section of the reflist - your edit conflicts with his advice. --MASEM (t) 04:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the songs aren't notable enough to warrant their own article, redlink them. The reflist issue has been resolved after discussion with Truco. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, right now, the songs not linked don't have articles; are they notable to have articles if someone were to make then? That's hard to judge, I would say that all these songs are likely notable if someone did the legwork. There's also cases of songs that have redirects to albums (such as "Beautiful Mourning", and as the game (and in general for the GH series) doesn't attempt to identify the album these songs are from, we're careful not to make that assumption on these lists; thus linking the redirect seems off. If you feel different, I can do that linking, but I'm being consistent with the other GH lists. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's huge. But I promise, I'm almost done with the Silver Slugger topic. This list took quite some time, mostly because it's three times the size of the others. I appreciate any and all who are brave enough to review, and will address all comments. KV5(Talk • Phils)17:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only just noticed this: you only use color for "Major League leader at outfield" but not for "Member of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum". Any reason for this inconsistency?
Because then I would have to create another color for players who have done both. The dagger alone doesn't violate WP:ACCESS, so I chose to use only one color, rather than three. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There have also been five three-time outfield winners and eighteen two-time awardees in the Silver Slugger's history." Two comments:
Some of this is redundant, such as "in the Silver Slugger's history". Perhaps "There have also been ... two-time Silver Slugger awardees.
Second, per WP:MOSNUM, adjacent quantities should be written in different formats. Instead of "fivethree-time outfield winners and eighteentwo-time awardees", try "5three-time outfield winners and 18two-time awardees".
This is personal preference, so you don't have to do it, but I prefer to see columns with figures (i.e. Year and all the stat columns) centered. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I do too, but I would actually prefer that the entire table be centered in that case for visual continuity. I can go either way. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is "at" outfield really the proper title? I realize it's consistent with the other positions, but outfield isn't a position per se (but rather divided into right field, etc.). Should it perhaps be named "from the outfield" or "in the outfield"? If "at" is really the common/correct usage, then it's fine.
"At" isn't the common usage, but I am of the impression that moving the list to an format inconsistent with the others would be a problem when this goes to WP:FT. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered changing all of them to another format so that outfield fits? For example "List of Silver Slugger-winning outfielders (shortstops, first basemen, etc.)" or something like that? I'm not saying you have to, but it's something to think about. Cool3 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be consistent with the naming conventions for stand-alone lists. I have seen the lists of Naval Academy graduates go through in that format, but I really don't like the way it looks. KV5(Talk • Phils)17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"These voters consider several offensive categories in selecting the winners, including batting average, slugging percentage, and on-base percentage, in addition to "coaches' and managers' general impressions of a player's overall offensive value"." is a rather long and convoluted sentence. Perhaps break it in two? (not vital, but I think it would make for better flow)
I don't see that it's convoluted; it's an independent clause ending with a prepositional phrase containing a direct quote, and there is a descriptive phrase inserted in the middle. It reads fine to me. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The part that read poorly to me was in addition to "managers' and coaches' general impressions of a player's overall offensive ability." In particular "managers' and coaches'" made it rather clunky, so I've taken the liberty of removing that. I think it flows better now and is just as clear. Cool3 (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the prize is presented to outfielders irrespective of their specific position." Is it a prize? It seems award would perhaps be the more appropriate term?
"Ken Griffey, Jr., Vladimir Guerrero, and Tony Gwynn have each won seven Silver Sluggers in the outfield; Juan González, Kirby Puckett, and Sammy Sosa have won six times. Two players have won five times (Albert Belle and Dave Winfield), and four-time winners include Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, and Gary Sheffield." There's an odd shift in style here. All of these take the same form "X has won..." except the last one "four-time winners include". Why not say "Four players have won the award four times..." or something similar? I believe it would flow much better. Same for three-time winners, etc.
Again, avoiding repetition. I know there's repetition in there already, but I was getting tired of writing "X has won" over and over... KV5(Talk • Phils)11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if there was a smoother transition from paragraph three to paragraph 4 of the lead.
Probably would be nice, but this is the same format used for all of the other lists, and I honestly have no desire to go back and re-write every single lead in the topic to add a transition that's difficult to find. Both sections talk about leaders, so I think it flows all right. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of slightly rewriting the beginning. In my opinion, it flows better now, but of course if I've made any changes that are incorrect, feel free to change them back. Also, one last point of clarification: "The award is a silver bat trophy, 3 feet (91 cm) tall, engraved with the names of each of the winners from the league." Is the trophy made out of silver (i.e., the metal) or painted silver? Cool3 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add: I did change some of your edits back. We had a little outbreak of semicolon fever in the middle (which I'm guilty of from time to time), which I fixed; and I fixed a capitalization error. I did restore part of the quote in ¶1, but that's for consistency's sake. If others editors concur that this part should be removed, I'll go back and trim it from the other six lists as well. The phrase added in ¶4 is made explicit in the table, so I trimmed that too. KV5(Talk • Phils)15:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Semicolon fever" good phrase. I think it would be quite useful to know if it's silver metal or just silver color though. I'll try to find a source myself. Cool3 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Piazza holds several Major League records for catchers in a Silver Slugger-winning season, most set in 1997. how about adding the before most set?--Truco15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be proper grammar. I can see an alternative: "Piazza holds several Major League records for catchers in a Silver Slugger-winning season; most were set in 1997." The other alternative I see would become quite redundant. KV5(Talk • Phils)15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Only one minor issue here: the caption for Russell Martin's photo. There's an unneeded also, and I'd move "as a catcher" to the end of the caption. Other than that, it looks great. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the 'also'. The wording was intended to emphasize the rarity of a catcher stealing 20 bases which is why I wrote it that way. If you still think it needs to be changed, I can do it, but I just wanted that to be clear. KV5(Talk • Phils)02:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Major League leader", in the environment of these lists, is the leader throughout all of Major League Baseball in Silver Slugger wins; the position name is provided for clarity. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to make it clearer; the other lists have passed in this format. I thought that "Major League leader" was pretty clear to begin with. KV5(Talk • Phils)16:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the first, that leaves it vague as to whether it references by league or throughout all of MLB. How about "Winner of the most Silver Sluggers in Major League Baseball as a catcher"? To the second, the lead already outlines all players who have won the award multiple times; it seems to be overkill and article clutter to write it again when the sortability function shows it with a single click. KV5(Talk • Phils)16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is OK, as long as I can understand it. For the second, isn't putting "Major League leader at catcher" an overkill too? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it could be seen that way; however, I feel it to be an essential element to denote visually in the list. Creating an entire other list to say something that's already said serves no purpose in my mind. I'm not creating another list to denote who the leader is, just noting it, because it's an important fact. KV5(Talk • Phils)19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware that it's a copy. All of the lists of Silver Slugger winners start this ways; four have already been promoted in this format. It's boilerplate text used to explain the award. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with KV5 here. The first paragraph establishes context; since these lists are about the same award, there is nothing wrong with the repetition. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
There are many Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, England. -- (1)Do not bold and link a subject (2)FLs intro sentences do not start as "This is a ___" (or any variation) (3)many is WP:WEASEL
At a glance, the lead needs to be copyedited as some of the prose does not read well.
The table should be in a separate section from the lead
The lead should summarize the list itself more
:*The table should not be compressed, some of the font is too small to read.
Thank you for your comments, I will work on the prose in the lede but I am unsure as the guidance you are using for the comments about the table - I based this on List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester which is already a featured list & includes the same headings & sort functions as this list, as well as having items 1 & 2 from the lede mentioned above.— Rodtalk16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, okay you can follow that format as well. However, the lead should be set up like it is in that list, there should be separate sections for the table, so just attempt to complete what I haven't striked out.--Truco16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed some more of your comments but having problems with the sort by date column as "c." and "early" or "late" much up numerical sorting NB this is the same on both the FLs Runcorn & Greater Manchester lists mentioned above.— Rodtalk17:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User {{sort}}, {{sort|#|content}} Replace # with the numerical order and content with the entry data. So you can make late century come "01" [first] or "03" [third].--Truco18:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'd not come across that template before - now applied to dates. Is there anything else you feel is still outstanding to do?— Rodtalk21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
Lead
There are 35 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset. -- Do not bold this, this is not the title of the list. In addition, this should go somewhere where you talk about the buildings themselves not the second intro sentence
This leaves nothing bold - I thought this was requirement?
Connect the first two sentences with the paragraphs that follows.
Done
North Somerset makes upcovers part of the ceremonial county of Somerset(add comma here) but it is administered independently of the non-metropolitan county. -- I don't really understand what "administered independently" means, elaborate? (or do you mean in the non-metropolitan county?)
I've tried to improve this
Its administrative headquarters are in the town hall in Weston-super-Mare. --> Its administrative headquarters are located in the +town hall of Weston-super-Mare.
Done
It includes areas that were once part of Somerset before the creation of Avon in 1974. -- what is It referring to?
It = N. Somerset - hopefully clarified
In North Somerset there are a range of listed buildings including the Clifton Suspension Bridge which joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier which was built in the 1860s, collapsed in 1970 and rebuilt in 1986. --> North Somerset features a range of listed buildings, including the Clifton Suspension Bridge that joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier. (no need for that part as it isn't specifically important to this list)
Removed
The manor houses include Clevedon Court which dates from the 14th century and from the 15th century Ashton Court and Nailsea Court. -- Of the listed buildings, manor houses include Clevedon Court, which dates from the 14th century, and from the 15th century, Ashton Court and Nailsea Court. -- Also, by date you mean the date of their creation right?
Done - date of construction
There are also religious structures with the largest number are anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras, with many being included in the Somerset towers, a collection of distinctive, mostly spireless Gothic church towers listed at List of towers in Somerset. --> There are also numerous religious structures located in the (county?), with the largest number being anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras. Some of the churches are included in the Somerset towers, a collection of distinctive, mostly spireless Gothic church towers. For further information, see Listed at List of towers in Somerset.
Done I think
Several of the entries relate to more than one listed structure where these have been group together as part of the same geographical location or where ancillary structures, such as the walls and gate in front of a building, are listed separately. --> Several of the entries relate to more than one listed structure, such as being grouped together as a part of the same geographical location. Otherwise, ancillary structures, such as the walls and gate in front of a building, are listed separately.
I've changed this as in this list only the Woodspring Priory has multiple listings for the same site (may be more of an issue with other lists to come)
List
Shouldn't entries like c1300 and 1317 sort before Late 13th Century?
(edit conflict)Oppose Personally, I don't see great problems in the lede except with the number; the buildings listed are 35, but you treated 6 as a single listed building, and while it was correct to lump the six entries in a single article on the priory, it is doubtful that in a list that should present the listed buildings as English Heritage views them, and avoid to leave the issue to the original research of the wikipedian. Also, I must observe that in List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester the entries from English Heritage are all listed seperately.
Another source of serious objection is to me the presence in the tables of the "architect" voice: what sense does such an entry make when only two buildings have their architect known? I personally feel that this classification should be thrashed as useless, and replaced with something else: maybe, like in the featured List of listed buildings in Runcorn, it could present an image for each listed building named, and maybe, like also is present in the Runcorn list as well as every single one of the hundred listings of NRHPs.
I hope none of these of my suggestions have came out too harsh, or that I may be have seemed rude in some way; if I have let me offer my excuses to the editors of this article, whose great work on this article I by no means misunderstand or miss to appreciate.--Aldux (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. As we have discussed elsewhere.. "on listing "closely related" Grade I listed buildings separately, English Heritage is not consistent. To give a couple of examples from List of Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset...Lansdown Crescent, Bath which has 20 buildings has a single IoE entry whereas Widcombe Manor House a single building with attached walls, balustrading, gates and fountain has 4 separate entries. It would seem ridiculous to me to list each of these separately & would make that list massive. These issues are not unique to BANES in List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip you will also see examples of where I've groped them together... would you like Vicars' Close, Wells to have six entries in the list because of the (arbitrary) way English Heritage has divided it up for listing?" I'll change the total number in the lede as there are more entries on the register than items in the list - but I can't see any logic in adding a wall attached to a building as a separate article or list item from the building itself. We do not have (appropriately free/licenced) images of all the buildings - therefore I was selecting some illustrative images as the Greater Manchester list has done. I agree about the architects column & will remove this.— Rodtalk07:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adressing to of my main reasons of concern (the number of listed buildings in the lede and the architects column). Regarding the issue of adding images to the tables, I suspected that one of the reasons for not adding the image column was that there may be several blank spaces, and this could damage the article aesthetically, so I get your point fully. As for the issue of the six entries on a single complex, as I said previously, it's not as I don't understand: this entry for example on the west wall and just that is really dumb, in my honest opinion [13]; all the same, I have an uneasy feeling about lumping them together in a list that should reflect English Heritage - and so yes, if I was making the list I would treat them separately. But I understand that my view in regard is not a good reason to not consider this worthy of being a featured list, so I retire my opposition.--Aldux (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The table should be in normal font size. You refer to List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester, which also has its tables in a small font. That list was promoted some 15 months ago, when less notice was taken of accessibility considerations, and for it to retain its featured status perhaps its tables should also be rendered in normal font size. A relevant guideline would be WP:MOS#Formatting issues, which says "Formatting issues such as font size, blank space and color are issues for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be specified in articles except in special cases."Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"North Somerset makes up part of"-->North Somerset constitutes part of
"There are 35 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, they include the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier"-->There are 35 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, including the Clifton Suspension Bridge, which joins North Somerset to Bristol and Clevedon Pier
"which was built in the 14th century"
"There are also numerous religious structures located in Somerset"
"For further information, see those listed at List of towers in Somerset." Couldn't this be moved to the See also section?
"The entry for Woodspring Priory relates to more than one listed structure, these have been grouped together as they are a part of the same geographical location."-->The entry for Woodspring Priory refers to more than one listed structure; these have been grouped together becauses they are part of the same geographical location.
Response - thanks for your comments. I've changed the text in the lede as suggested. I've tried to remove colours from the column headers - but not sure if I've succeeded. I could add brief descriptions for each building from the lede section of each article, however I have seen it argued that users can follow the link for further information and additional information just clutters up the table - I followed List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester and List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol (both FLs) which don't include descriptions.— Rodtalk08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the list is incomplete. Apparently, according to a report published by English Heritage in 2006 concerning the general state of the heritage in the South West region, there are, or at least were as of April 2006, 37 Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, and not 35. Unfortunately, the report only provides numbers and not names, so I don't have any idea what are these two buildings (sorry if I'm being fastidious, I know you're starting to hate me - but all I really want is to see a great article, so please tolerate me just a little more ;-)). Ciao, Aldux (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Thanks for the comment (& why should I hate you for constructive comments to improve the article). You have sent me back to sources trying to find the discrepancy. I know Clevedon Pier has been upgrade since Images of England & that is included. The Heritage Gateway seems to have a problem - it still recognises Avon (county) (which was abolished years ago) as including North Somerset - but returns 0 hits as the listed building data puts N Somerset in the county of Somerset. I suspect there may be some A grade which are not found on searches of Grade I but may have been counted in the report you cite. North Somerset Unitary Authority doesn't publish the list in the area they are responsible for so I'm having a few problems but will continue searching.— Rodtalk09:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response You are correct. A helpful heritage office from North Somerset Council emailed a list of the 37 buildings within their remit which are on the register as Grade I. Unfortunately Images of England lists Parish Church of St Andrew in Clevedon as Grade A & Tyntesfield as Grade II*, as they have both been made Grade I since 2001, however I've now included them in the list.— Rodtalk12:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, the list is now complete. For this and for having adressed several problems raised I now support this article for achieving featured status. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of overlinking. It's unlikely that someone would want to know what a "church" is based on this article, so I'd unlink church in the lead. Consider unlinking England too.
In my opinion, the last paragraph of the lead should be converted into a note.
Is it really useful to be able to sort on Grid Ref?
Response - thanks for the comments. I've removed the 2 wikilinks to church & England, stopped sorting by grid ref & removed the last para of the lede re Woodspring Priory as there was already a note explaining that it included other structures.— Rodtalk11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see a "Athlete medal leaders" list added, similar to one of all of the other medalist FLs have? There is a list here and since there are length concerns, just include the top 7 (all with 4 or more medals or 3 or more golds).
Nah, the other page is just short because nobody has bothered to expand it. Also, that page just has a quick list of winning nations whereas this one has all individuals. -- Scorpion042201:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A men's basketball tournament has been held every Summer Olympics (starting in 1936); a basketball tournament was also held at the 1904 Summer Olympics as a demonstration sport. -- (1)Add at before Summer Olympics (2)I don't see the necessity of the parenthesis
After a protest of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, the United States boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics.[1] The Soviet Union then led the 1984 Summer Olympics boycott after citing security concerns in the United States.[2] In 1992, the National Basketball Association (NBA) allowed its players to participate after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) decided to allow professional athletes to compete in the Olympics. -- IDK but these don't really tie in together, how do the first to affect this list or basketball at the Olympics? Also, you need to transition into the final sentence (given here) in order for it to flow better
I have no idea what you are talking about. I won't revert any of your copy-editing if you do kindly copy-edit this article. I did though add a sentence to explain more about the boycotts. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith03:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five Americans have won three gold—Edwards, Leslie, Sheryl Swoopes, Dawn Staley, and Katie Smith—and nineteen not including the previous mentioned have also won three medals. -- (1)How about ordering the names alpha. order? (2)comma before not and after mentioned
The prose meets WP:FL?; however, I still see some issues as noted by Scorpion below about the alphabetizing. Hopefully thats all the table formatting issues.--Truco02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Lisa Leslie is the all-time leader for the most consecutive gold medal wins in basketball with 4." (image caption), change to "Lisa Leslie has won the most consecutive gold medals in basketball, with four." This should have a reference too.
I think KV5 meant like the whole Olympics, not just basketball. There is already a reference for NBA players to compete for the Olympics. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith02:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly what I was looking for. It's actually the article I found when I went searching too. It mentions the IOC allowing professional athletes to compete in a variety of sports, and even mentions basketball specifically. You could also use this book.KV5(Talk • Phils)11:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the two images at the top of the review; I think it would help the article to have at least one of them included.
I really don't know what to write for the caption for the LeBron James one. I still stand by the fact that the first one just looks like an amateur photo (though taken by a professional o.O) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith23:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested caption: "Lebron James (USA, in white) attempts a shot against China's Yao Ming at the 2008 Olympics. The United States won the gold medal." KV5(Talk • Phils)01:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I re-formatted the size of the lead image slightly to give it a little more definition. Still looks fine on 1024x768. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Both the boycotts affected basketball at the Olympics". Also, the Soviets and Americans being "dominant" needs a reference or some stats to back it up.
Done first. The stats are on the last paragraph. Do you want me to put some stats on where the sentence is?
Two Soviet Union links in the lead, and the American link could be moved to the first paragraph.
Yet another comment: Every cell should have the winners listed in alphabetical order. There are several with seemingly random player orders. For example, all three columns in the men's 1972 row. -- Scorpion042202:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying about that. I just really want to fix the whole table up (should have done that before nominating, I know. I was just excited o.O), but everything in my real life is just too much. I really do hope to do it around this weekend. Cheers, -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith03:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A men's basketball tournament has been held at every Summer Olympics since 1936; a basketball tournament was also held at the 1904 Summer Olympics as a demonstration sport." Reorganize this sentence to follow chronological order: "A men's basketball tournament was first held at the 1904 Summer Olympics as a demonstration; it has been held at every Summer Olympics since 1936."
"Both boycotts affected basketball at the Olympics, as both had dominant basketball teams at the time." The given sources don't support this statement.
"basketball with four gold and"-->basketball, with four gold and
"The United States dominated both the men's and women's tournaments, winning a medal in every Olympiad except the 1980 Summer Olympics." Can we have a less POV phrase than "dominated", perhaps "have been successful in"?
I copied the lead from List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey (as I'm sure Scorpion0422 already knows), and I also don't know what to replace the word with. Suggestion?
Hmm, that's strange. In your toolbox on the left side of the interface, there should be a tab that says "Find redirects". It's strange that it is not there. If it still doesn't work for you, I will fix some of them. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure. With the hockey list, I usually went with their real name, rather than nicknames (ie. Harold Simpson rather than Bullet Joe Simpson). Just go with their most common name, as long as the link goes to the correct page, it should be fine. Speaking of which, there are a number of redirects. If you add User:Splarka/fetchredirects.js to your monobook, you can find them a lot easier (it should show up in the toolbox and it will highlight the redirects). -- Scorpion042215:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the current criteria. Please note that although this is currently a good article, I have reformatted it to become a featured list. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion07:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible (for Article History purposes) to have this as a GA and FL at the same time? I think you should get this delisted first. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too sure about this, so I just nominated the article. I have inquired for this article to be delisted at GA, so hopefully there is no issue here (at FLC). Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion13:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The third season comprised of 20 episodes and concluded its initial airing on May 22, 2007.
The season continues the story of Veronica Mars (Kristen Bell), now a freshman studying at Hearst College,while continuing to moonlight as a private investigator under the wing of her detective father.
The third season received generally positive critical opinions,; however, at least one reviewer expressed disappointment with the series finale, mainly because it did not provide closure for the storylines and characters.
Cast and characters
Fan reaction to the character was generally negative, after Veronica witnessed Jackie talking to a friend while dating Wallace. -- you should clarify that the reaction was negative after that episode or storyline
Thomas blamed the character's reception on his error in judgment; he had hoped fans would question whether it was Jackie or Veronica in the wrong, however the audience automatically assumed that it was Jackie. -- the final however should be formatted as ; however,
There should be a link to Parker Lee in this section.
Release
The first two season of Veronica Mars aired on UPN, however in 2006, CBS Corporation decided to merge UPN and Warner Bros. into The CW. -- link to CW
In addition to all the aired episodes, DVD extras included "Pitching Season 4", an interview with Rob Thomas discussing a new direction for the series that picks up years later, with Veronica as a rookie FBI agent; "Going Undercover with Rob Thomas"; webisode gallery with cast interviews and various set tours; unaired scenes with introductions by Rob Thomas; and a gag reel. -- this needs to be formatted better
Beginning with the eleventh episode, ratings dropped to a consistent viewership of a mid-2 million per episode,[28] and the final episode before the hiatus was watched by 2.66 million viewers.
When the series returned from its hiatus, viewers had decreased to 2.35 million,[30] and the finale two episodes garnered only 1.78 and 2.15 million viewers, respectively.
Awards
The third season was nominated for two awards.: Kristen Bell was nominated for the Saturn Award for Best Actress on Television,[33] and the series was nominated for the Writers Guild of America Award for On-Air Promotion (Radio or Television).
Episodes
In-late March, Thomas stated that although the film was not green-lighted by the studio, the possibility was still there. Thomas revealed that the film would take place prior to Veronica's graduation, and feature Wallace, Logan, Mac and Weevil.
the latest victim of the Hearst serial rapist, a storyline begun in a second season episode - I had to read this twice to understand, so maybe say "... rapist in a storyline begun..."
The third season received generally positive critical opinions - receiving a "review" makes more sense than receiving an opinion
Veronica's ex-boyfriend and Lilly's brother Duncan Kane - Lilly has not yet been introduced, so it doesn't make much sense to introduce Duncan as her brother
fan interest dominating the Logan-Veronica relationship - a word synonymous with "support" would work better than "dominating"
Parker is Mac's extroverted roommate at Hearst College and "everything that [she] is not" - who said this? Just add "according to [somebody]" at the end
The quote "played with perfect, sneering entitlement by Ryan Hansen" isn't really a review of the third season if the character's gone - perhaps just say that the reviewer missed the character
gone from punky to-dare we say-preppy - should use emdashes, not hyphens
head shaved--Veronica had missed - should use emdash
Veronica and Tim set out to prove Professor Landry is innocent - "prove Professor Landry's innocence"
Why aren't any of the writers or directors linked?
"now a freshman studying at Hearst College, continuing to moonlight as a private investigator under the wing of her detective father" Too much "continue". How about "now a freshman studying at Hearst College who moonlights [has been moonlighting?] as a private investigator under the wing of her detective father"
"a second season episode"-->a second-season episode
"same episode the identity"-->same episode that the identity
"Logan-Veronica-Duncan love triangle "-->Logan–Veronica–Duncan love triangle
"The first two season of Veronica Mars aired on UPN, however" Semicolon, not comma.
"the critics are behind it and our research has consistently shown that Gilmore shared more audience commonality with Veronica than with any other show from UPN, except Top Model." Quotation marks inside period.
"newly-created" No hyphen after -ly adverbs.
"The third season premiere saw an increase from the 2.42 million American viewers who viewed the second season finale to 3.36 million viewers."-->The third season premiere was 3.36 million, an increase from the 2.42 million American viewers who viewed the second season finale.
"Keith McDuffee of TV Squad deemed the season as "disappointing""
"most affected by the tone change, robbed of his darker aspects and changed "-->most affected by the tone change; he was robbed of his darker aspects and changed
"When asked if the FBI concept could happen" What do you mean by "happen"?
"prior to"-->before (multiple occurrences)
"In order to"
"boyfriend, however she"-->boyfriend; however, she
"unaware Piz wanted"-->unaware that Piz wanted
"had ever been found"
"Keith and Veronica are hired to find the missing grand-daughter of the founder of Hearst College, whose swing vote could spell the end of fraternities and sororities at Hearst." Whom is "whose" referring to, the grand-daughter or the founder?
"Logan offers Veronica a choice, with neither option good for their relationship."-->Logan offers Veronica a choice, but neither option is beneficial for their relationship.
"A classmate asks Veronica to locate the woman he loves; she turns out to be a hooker."-->A classmate asks Veronica to locate the woman he loves; she is later revealed to be a hooker.
"which took place at around 2:20am."-->which occurred at around 2:20 am. (use non-breaking space after "2:20")
"eleven year old girl"-->eleven-year-old girl
"Veronica is arrested under the assumption that she aided him. "-->Veronica is arrested for allegedly being his accomplice.
"room the night of the Dean's murder"-->room the on night of the Dean's murder
Despite the ref's title, it is only used to cite that the site's writer ranked the season on his end of year best-list. A review isn't controversial information, so I'm thinking it should be allowed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion08:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have mentioned this FLC in a post here. Please note that my proposed change would not affect the status of this FLC in any way (or the status of any current FLs that are former GAs). -- Scorpion042220:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship (Campeonato Mundial Completo de CMLL in Spanish) is a singles professional wrestling championship promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre and has been in existence since 1991. -- (1)Possibly pipelink singles to Professional wrestling match types#Variations of singles matches or another relevant link that explains singles (2)Comma before and
Unlike other heavyweight titles such as the WWE Championship or the IWGP Heavyweight Championship, it is not the main championship in the promotion due to the fact that CMLL has greater focus on the lower weightlevels due to the fact that there are more workers in the lower levels. -- (1)Repetition of due to the fact, use another term (2)Space between weight and levels
The title was the first title created after Empresa Mexicana de la Lucha Libre changed it's name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre in the early 1990s.-->The title was the first to be created after Empresa Mexicana de la Lucha Libre changed it's name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre in the early 1990s.
Because the championship is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport. -- I'm going out on a limb here, but this is needed in every article, if you check the Over the Edge (1999) article, the ref [18] can source this.
As the Championship is designated as a heavyweight title, the Championship can only officially be competed for by wrestlers weighing at least 105 kg (230 lb). - I don't recall what resulted from the other list, why couldn't you source this again?
I accidentally stumbled on this the other day researching the Comision and found the Spanish language source, I also added it to the Mex heavy title, I now have the FULL rules of the comission (very handy).MPJ-DK (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is not strictly adhered to as several champions have been under the weight limit including the current champion Último Guerrero. -- comma before including
The rule is not strictly adhered to as several champions have been under the weight limit including the current champion Último Guerrero. -- (1)Comma before who (2)dash between 16 and man
The Championship has been vacated twice, both times when the champion left CMLL for another wrestling promotion. -- how about The Championship has been vacated twice, both instances were when the champion left CMLL for another promotion. [oh yeah you don't need to state wrestling again]
Only one man has held the Championship three times, Universo 2000 and only one other man has ever held the title more than once, Rayo de Jalisco, Jr. -- comma after 2000
Honestly? I didn't think so, it was commented on in the Mex Heavy review but I'm thinking of finding a better way than both color and symbol. I'll look at the rest of the comments but so far yes spot on I've got some editing to do. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally put a symbol there to made the cell wider but with the addition of a lable line to the box it works out better, I should have added that line anyway. I also fixed a sorting problem in that table as both the "time in days" for the current champion and "2,555" sorted oddly before, hidden text can do wonders for sorting. I think that's everything, thank you so much. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Except for this handful of items, it's a very nice list overall.
"it is not the main championship in the promotion due to the fact that...". Replace "due to the fact that" with "because" to make this part less wordy.
"As the Championship is designated as a heavyweight title, the Championship...". Change second use of "the Championship" to "it" to avoid redundant wording.
Support - My issues are all resolved. There were apparently some things I didn't catch, but those are now done as well, and I'm comfortable that this is FL-level. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"CMLL has greater focus on the lower weight levels since there are more workers in the lower levels. "-->CMLL has emphasized the lower weight levels since there are more workers in the lower levels.
"but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. "-->but is instead, the result is determined by the bookers of a wrestling promotion.
"Only one man has held the Championship three times, Universo 2000, and only one other man has ever held the title more than once, Rayo de Jalisco, Jr."-->One man has held the Championship three times, Universo 2000, and one other man has held the title multiple times, Rayo de Jalisco, Jr.
The color in the second table needs a symbol (e.g. * ^ #) to accompany the color per WP:ACCESS.
I see, it was mentioned in a different review that the symbol was not needed, good to see a definite answer to that, I have added it and I will remember WP:ACCESS. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some winners linked and others not linked?
They don't have articles right now and well I guess I didn't want redlinks, but that'd be inconsistent and I added them. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to address some of these issues in other lists too if necessary (mainly the table and linking issues).
Change: One man has held the Championship three times, Universo 2000, and one other man has held the title multiple times, Rayo de Jalisco, Jr. - Universo 2000 holds the record for most reigns, with three. Much simpler and no need to state that Jr also held it multiple times if he is not tied or anything along that nature.--WillC15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change: The current champion Último Guerrero is the 15th overall champion and the 12th person to hold the title - The current champion is Último Guerrero, who is the 15th overall champion and the 12th person to hold the title. Sounds better IMO.--WillC15:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially since there are only 3 redlinks and they're likely to get articles, they're definitly notable enough and I personally plan on writing all three with time unless someone beats me to it. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you sure you can't find the date for when Sean Morley vacated the championship? It seems like a big gap, especially where the combined length table is concerned. -- Scorpion042220:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I've found so far indicates a more specific date I'm afraid. It's also not that big a gap, he held it approximately 5 months, 150 days or so putting him in the low end of "combined length" if there was a definite date. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an approximate number actually would not be original research because it would be guess work based on existing sources. Why not add him to number 10 in the table with no specified number of days, then add a note that says he vacated the title some time in September, so his reign could be between 136 and 165 days? -- Scorpion042217:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges is working on making complete, high-quality lists of federal judges appointed by various presidents. We would like to make some or all of these featured lists eventually, and the beginning seems like a good place to start, so here are the appointees of America's first president. This has been through peer review here, and we got lots of good suggestions, which we implemented. Is it ready for featured status yet? If not, what more is needed? All the best, – Quadell(talk)12:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"All information on the names, terms of service, and details of appointment of federal judges is derived from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public-domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center." - please turn this into a general reference instead of just saying all info came from here
Notes like "Recess appointment; formally nominated on October 31, 1791, confirmed by the United States Senate on November 7, 1791, and received commission on November 7, 1791." need reference
Regarding division of references and footnotes, I don't see how this is possible unless there is a format other than <ref></ref> with which to set them off.
Regarding the request for references for the material in the notes, that is part of the "information on the names, terms of service, and details of appointment" from the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. bd2412T21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Yes, templates aren't mandatory but they can put the refs in proper format. The link you provided above shows exactly what I meant. Also a few more comments:
Ref 3 is missing publisher and assess date
Notes should be sourced individually using <ref></ref> b/c it can help readers clearly see where that info come from—Chris!ct18:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the very last note with the {{Ref}} format, to see how it looks. Is this the sort of change that would satisfy your concerns? If so, I'll go ahead and make the same change to the rest of the entries. – Quadell(talk)23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoah... I just found out about <ref group=note>. Where ya been all my life?! I'll convert to that format when I get a minute. The article now uses this format, which is much easier to maintain. – Quadell(talk)12:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, nice. I'll wait for someone else to come by and review the prose, as I am not the one to ask for that, but personally, I think it looks fine. NuclearWarfare(Talk)18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I renamed the list to begin "List of" per list naming conventions, and added s after "George Washington" to correct the grammar. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"President George Washington appointed 38 United States federal judges during his presidency." I'd establish the context—that this has to do with the US—earlier: "United States President George Washington appointed 38 federal judges during his presidency."
"received his commission just 12 days before"
"Since there were no sitting"-->Because there were no sitting
There are problems with a few of those suggestions:
Other countries have federal judges, so we really should specify that Washington appointed "United States federal judges" (no other country has had a President George Washington).
Regarding the abbreviations in the table, they are standard forms for identifying those courts. I propose either linking the "Court" header to an article to be created listing the various abbreviations, or dropping a footnote from that header to a note containing such a link with a short explanation (or both).
Switched to a different image of Rutledge (although we might also use John Jay, who was the first Chief Justice). I believe this is the source of the original Rutledge image. bd2412T02:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This list looks great! After all of the above I have no further comments. I hope to see John Adams here soon and eventually Obama! Reywas92Talk01:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page(or you) told me to include "one successful elevation of a sitting Justice to Chief Justice". That part in the lead needs to be tweaked a little.--Crzycheetah06:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I sort the "Seat" column, I'd like to see the "Rutledge, Johnson, then Paterson" order, as that is the correct order of "Seat 4". I know there's a way to do that.
I think you're saying you want it sorted by Seat and then by date. To do this, first click the arrow next to "Began active service", and then click the arrow next to "Seat". I could change the code to make it always sort by seat-then-date when you click seat, but then it would be impossible to sort by seat-then-name, and I think it's better to leave options for people. – Quadell(talk)11:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note #5, "Paterson was initially nominated...withdrawn by the President" needs a citation
I'm looking into this. 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Cited. Paterson was withdrawn because he had been in the Senate when the pay was set for the judges, and there was some constitutional concern under the Ineligibility Clause that he could not serve until the end of the Senate session in which he served. bd2412T21:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current notes 12, 14, 16, and 17 need citations. All these subdivisions need to be checked.
You have a point, but I'm in a tough spot here. [obsolete discussion withdrawn]
Aha! Nevermind, I found the {{#tag:ref|stuff|group=notes}} syntax. Not exactly intuitive, but it works. This is now fixed. – Quadell(talk)18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Note #16, it is stated that Peters was assigned to the Eastern district. My question is who was assigned to the Western district.
Why did you force image sizes? I don't think it's appropriate per MOS:IMAGES. The difference between 200px and 180px is not that big, and if we don't force it, it will let others use their own default size.--Crzycheetah05:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band also arrived for the first time on the Billboard 200 at number 145. -- You should make it clear that this is American
Done.
The first part, titled Framing Armageddon (2007), reached the top 30 on the German, and Swedish Sverigetopplistan charts. -- Remove the final comma
Removed.
It should be made clear as to what the official names of each charts are, like the German charts
Done.
The following year, was released the second part The Crucible of Man, which reached the top 40 on the Austrian, Finnish, German, and Swiss charts. -- was released the second part?
Reworded.
The lead should also state the overall count in their discography like the infobox does
Done.
Maxi singles
Overture of the Wicked was released in the United States as an extended play; it peaked at number 14 on the Top Heatseekers, and number 43 on the Top Independent Albums -- does this belong here?
Yes.
What does Maxi mean?
I imagine that you did not have the curiosity to search what it is. (see maxi single)
If you are going to a link a few publishers you may as well link all the ones that have links or remove the links in all.--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a quality list, but wouldn't adding the album covers into their respecitve boxes add more life to the list? The covers, I believe, all fall under fair use.Neonblaktalk - 06:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not especially useful to a discography, and would violate NFCC#3a. How would adding fair use images to a discography add significant meaning that could not be conveyed in a discography? The covers should be added to the main articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"spent five years playing live locally while under going numerous line-up changes."-->spent five years playing live locally and went through several line-up changes.
Done.
"Released in 1998, Something Wicked This Way Comes charted on two German speaking countries, reaching the number 19 in Germany and 50 in Austria." Is the "German speaking" phrase necessary? Why not "Released in 1998, Something Wicked This Way Comes charted reached number 19 in Germany and number 50 in Austria."
"This latter disc would be released "--> This latter disc was released
Done.
"The band also arrived for the first time on the American Billboard 200 at number 145."-->For the first time, the band charted on the American Billboard 200, at number 145. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the country charts, "Swedish charts portal. swedishcharts.com. " is redundant. Remove the "charts portal" from all the country chart refs.Dabomb87 (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a citation to the note for Dark Genesis in the box sets section? Also, is there any kind of note you could add for Slave to the Dark (just to make it look more uniform)?
This stuff was removed, see my comment below; I already wrote in the lead section.
I was interested by the fact that they only have three singles. Is there any reason for this? Could it possibly be mentioned in the page somewhere?
I found nothing special in these singles; just were released and charted.
The lead didn't say when Barlow returned or why he left. That's just an example. This list looks goo but it could be improved. Just give me one day at least to work on it. Cannibaloki did a great job, but it's missing some stuff, I won't go into details now. Just please give me at least a day to work on the list. Rockk3r Spit it Out!06:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Cannibaloki reverted all of my edits. In that case, there's no more opposition from my side. You can do whaterver you think it's best with this list. I wnated to improve it, "but there's no need." Rockk3r Spit it Out!04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I can, no I'm joking. I'm nominating it to improve the list title histories of TNA. So far I've worked on List of TNA X Division Champions and now I'm moving onto TNA's tag title history. All comments are accepted and will be fixed as soon as I find out about them. I copied off of List of TNA X Division Champions so it has the same format.WillC04:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MPJ-DK
Comment: The sorting by name columns in all three lists aren't sorting correctly, some by first name, some by last name but not consistent. Also are championship teams with names normally listed the other way around with "Team name"Individual A and Individual B) or am I just getting geriatric?? MPJ-DK (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well one example is Adam Jones - sorts by Adam, not by Jones and Samoa Joe sorts like his last name is "Joe". I checked the two WWE tag pages which said the opposite but I don't see the harm in either. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The TNA World Tag Team Championship is a professional wrestling championship contested for in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's (TNA) Tag Team Division. -- do not capitalize Tag Team Division its not proper.
TNA then created the TNA World Heavyweight and World Tag Team Championships, which were unveiled on TNA's online podcast TNA Today on the May 15 and May 17, 2007 editions. -- TNA then really doesn't transition well, how about As a result, TNA created...
On the respective editions, the championships were awarded to the then-champions by Jeremy Borash and TNA's primary authority figure Jim Cornette. -- Clarify that these then-champions were the holders of the NWA belts
The championship was officially presented to the public and awarded to the first official champions on May 17 to the last NWA World Tag Team Champions under TNA banner, Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon). -- this is basically stating the same thing as the previous sentence, needs fixing
Reigns that were won on episodes of TNA's primary television program, TNA Impact!, aired on television two to nine days from the date the match was taped. (1)Since we know the name of the company, no need to have the acronym in the Impact link (2)Pipe link tape to broadcast delay
The inaugural champions were Team 3D (Brother Ray and Brother Devon), who were awarded the championship by being the last NWA World Tag Team Champions under TNA banner. --Add the before TNA Banner
Styles and Tomko won the championship under the name of Christian's Coalition, but left the alliance during their reign. -- I don't think you really need to state this in the lead, this would fit best in the notes
This was a tag team match with Joe teaming with then-TNA World Heavyweight Champion Kurt Angle, in which the person to get the fall would win that person's championship; Joe's TNA X Division Championship and Angle's TNA World Heavyweight Championship were also on the line. -- so what did Joe win?
This was an "All or Nothing" match, in which Joe's TNA X Divison and World Tag Team Championships were on the line as well as Angle's TNA World Heavyweight and IWGP Third Belt Championships. -- comma before as well
Sting won a Four Way match, which also involved Christian Cage, A.J. Styles, and Samoa Joe on August 27, which aired on the August 30 episode of TNA Impact!, to become Angle's partner. -- its irrelevant to state who it was, its too much PLOT
This was a tag team match with Joe teaming with then-TNA World Heavyweight Champion Kurt Angle, in which the person to get the fall would win that person's championship; -- no need for the then-
Sorry to be a dick but the PW Torch reference needs to have TDH Communications Inc as the publisher and PW Torch as the work--Truco14:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. Excellent job, and I'm pretty sure any further comments will be addressed.--Truco21:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Team 3D being the first champion is repeated in the second paragraph.
Yeah, to show the championship history. The first paragraph is more an introduction to how the title came to be, while the second is about the champions and statistics.--WillC23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the real names of the Beer Money Inc. team need to be repeated a second time?
Something is weird in the formatting of the combined reigns by team table. The first two entries have part of the team name cut off. I suspect that the notes are doing it, but am not sure for certain. There was an FAC a while back where I found a similar issue, but no one could figure out how to fix it. Maybe you'll have better luck.
Done. If the article that was at FAC had a ref note next too the sections that were cutting into each other, it was the ref note. Just make a space between the names and the ref note and that should fix it.--WillC23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I support, I want to ask about the YouTube links. Are they part of an official TNA channel? If they aren't, that would cause copyright concerns. If they are official, there's no problem. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It an official TNA Youtube channel. If you would like, I will give you a link from their official site, showing claim to the account?--WillC00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The site is only reliable for results, but the way it is used as a redirect to the TNA Today video introducing the TNA World Heavyweight and World Tag Team Championships. If you want I can always use Cite Video and link directly to the video?--WillC02:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Been a reliable wrestling newsletter for many years and has very experienced journalist that have multiple interviews with high profile wrestlers and results dating back to 2003. That is as much as I know at the moment.--WillC02:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, in my opinion, it meets the FL criteria. The lead gives a quick overview of the whole article (from main albums to singles, videos, compilations etc.). Rockk3r Spit it Out!20:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In 1979, after playing in some local groups, he joined hard rock band, Samson, where he gained some fame - overuse of the word "some".
In July 1991 was released Dive! Dive! Live!, a live video recorded from a concert in Los Angeles, California, on August 1990. - This sentence is incomplete, unless I'm missing something.
In 2006 was released the compilation DVD, Anthology, which contained three live performances, all the music videos, and over an hour of extras. - Same with above.
Released as a double-disc set. The first CD was recorded live in the studio, and the second one at the Marquee Club[23] The album peaked at #96 in the UK. - Punctuation is missing here.
Also, consistency within the accessdates should be checked; for example, some are in the "YYYY-MM-DD" format, while others use the "DD-month-YYYY" format. –Juliancolton | Talk20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1979, after playing in some local groups, he joined hard rock band, Samson, where he rose to fame; but departed two years later to become Iron Maiden's lead vocalist. -- Remove the comma before Samson
Despite reaching the top 30 in many countries, the album was "somewhat of a disappointment", which failed to "come up with anything truly groundbreaking", except for "Tears of the Dragon"—released as single, along with "Shoot All the Clowns". -- add a before single
Tribe of Gypsies departed to continue with their work and Dickinson tracked down a new band, with whom was released the double-disc live performance, Alive in Studio A. -- no need for the was
In 1996 was released the third album, Skunkworks, which marked a "highly approved stylistic shift." -- comma after 1996, and the beginning needs rewording because it makes no sense
From a concert in Spain, were recorded both, an EP and a live video,—released only in Japan—under the name Skunkworks Live. -- this also makes no sense
The next year was released a semi-concept album on alchemy, The Chemical Wedding, described as a "modern metal aesthetic". -- the next year was released make no sense
In late 2001, was released a "best of…" album, which included rarities and two new songs, "Broken"—released as single—and "Silver Wings". -- ___(what?) was released?
On May 23, 2005, Dickinson released his first in seven years, Tyranny of Souls—which included the single "Abduction". -- his first (what?)
Live/compilation/video albums/box sets
The notes are not complete sentences, and as a result do not warrant full stops
Singles
Does the general ref verify those singles that did not chart?
"but departed two years later"-->he departed two years later
"followed by a subsequent series of top-ten high-impact releases"-->and was followed by a subsequent series of top-ten high-impact releases what does "high-impact" mean here?
"contributed on a song for a film soundtrack" "contributed" is not the right word here, maybe "collaborated"?
"the album was "somewhat of a disappointment", which failed to "come up with anything truly groundbreaking"," Can we have biograhical attribution for the quotes?
""Tears of the Dragon"—released as a single, along"-->"Tears of the Dragon", which was released as a single, along
"tracked down a new band, with whom released"-->tracked down a new band, with whom he released what was the name of the new band?
The band consisted of Alex Dickson (guitar), Chris Dale (bass), and Alessandro Elena (drums), but the didn't have a name. The sentence is supposed to say he found new members. Can that be said in a different way? If so, please tell me how. Rockk3r Spit it Out!04:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second in long series of lists on the US Military Academy alumni. Relax guys, it'll be awhile before I submit the next one ;-) The "hat toss" photo is an exception here as I did not include it. It did not seem right to put a graduation photo in a list of non grads. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor points, really. You might like to think about the following (remembering that the tendency in sortable FLs is to relink on multiple occasions rather than just once):
Barrow - can you link "US Senator from Louisiana" to one or more articles?
Barrow - either "from 1816 to 1818" or "1816–1818", but the two shouldn't be mixed; suggest "(1816–1818)" as that's the style used below
Fannin - anything to link re Texas War for Independence?
Fannin - "due to academics": not sure what this means
Question Before on linking publishers in refs I was told to link all or not all, just be consistent, and I am. I haven't been linking them. If we do link them, do we link only first occurrence of pub ZYX or all occurences of ZYX? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can just tweak the Zeilin phrase "discharged due to academics" which I'm afraid I don't understand (it might be a US / British English divide), then I'll support. BencherliteTalk07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Leary-DEA.jpg – We have no proof that the image was actually uploaded by a DEA employee.
I see no difference in that and me uploading a file and claiming I took it. It's on an official DEA/DOJ site and that is enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's accurate. WHy is it that when two refs are accurate one is better than another? Chg'd to a ESPN ref.
Accuracy doesn't guarantee reliability, it is the reputation for and methods of fact checking that make a certain ref reliable. Also, the information being sourced matter; some of the notes and such are for living people. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first ever List of players FLC (and I'm in no hurry to do any more). A few notes:
This morning I split the List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada off from this page (previous combined version). I was somewhat divided on it, and it is somewhathippocritical coming from me considering the current criteria discussion, but I brought the issue up at WT:HOCKEY and there was a lot of support. I'm kind of split on the issue, because having it all in one page is useful since both are for the same sport at the Olympics. However, the two are different disciplines with completely different rosters and no interlap. The List of Toronto Maple Leafs players doesn't include a list of Toronto Marlies players (in fact, I think you could make a better case for combining those two than these two). Because it's two seperate events the text really reflected that and jumped back and forth between them (especially in the the lead, you can tell that the summary of the women's event was just thrown in) and having seperate pages allows both to have the proper attention they deserve.
Images: Likely not to be an issue, but there is recentism in the images although there's not much that can be done about that. My choosing order was images of players in Team Canada uniforms, then gold medalists, then medalists, then players from pre-2002 teams, then 2006 non-medalists. So if any more become available, the images of the '06 players would be first to go.
In 1962, Canada implemented a national team program, led by Father David Bauer. -- Father? Is that proper?
Well, it is his common name.
The Soviet Union began competing in 1956 and became a dominant team. -- its a bit POV-ish to say they were dominant without backing it up with credentials.
I don't think it's POV (if winning 7 gold medals in 9 tournaments doesn't make you dominant, I don't know what does) and in order to back it up I would have to add more explanation which would go off-topic.
Many of the Canada's top players were professional, so the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association (CAHA) pushed for the ability to use professional and amateur players.
Done.
The NHL decided not to allow all players to participate in 1988, 1992 or 1994, but an agreement was reached in 1995 to allow NHL players couldto play in the Olympics starting with the 1998 Games in Nagano, Japan.
Done.
The Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame has inducted three individuals and four gold medal winning teams: the 1920 Winnipeg Falcons, 1948 RCAF Flyers, 1952 Edmonton Mercurys and the 2002 team. -- you mean The Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame has inducted three individuals and four gold medal winning teams: the 1920 Winnipeg Falcons, 1948 RCAF Flyers, and 1952 and 2002 Edmonton Mercurys?
No, the Edmonton Mercurys were just the 1952 team. The 2002 team was a national team. I'll see what I can do.
A group of around 45 players will be invited to an orientation camp in August 2009 (although players not invited can also be named to the team) and the final roster will be announced in December. -- IDK, but I like the word about better than around, but that's just me.
Fixed.
Reserve goaltenders
Martin Brodeur and Curtis Joseph did not play in any games at the 1998 Winter Olympics but did start games at later tournaments -- Comma needed before but
Done.
Tables in general
The notes should not be sortable.
I disagree, it's useful if you want to sort by which members are Hall of Fame inductees or who the team captains and flag bearers were.
I also question the sortability of some columns which have cells that have more than one entry.--Best, ₮RUCӨ21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unfortunate glitch, but it only affects a few entries. Being able to sort by the year they competed and medal type is very useful. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion042222:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike that idea, it seems like an unnecessary disambiguation for an unlikely dearch term and the hatnote isn't particularily obtrusive. -- Scorpion042215:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"...and added to the Winter Olympic Games ..." so it was in Summer and Winter games after this?
No, just winter. fixed.
"Between 1920 and 1952, Canada won six gold medals.." how many Olympics did this constitute? I imagine the 2nd World War caused at least one if not two Olympiads to be cancelled. So much so that this is a serious period of dominance for Canada that isn't really emphasised here, and it should be.
Fixed. Switched it to "Between 1920 and 1952, seven Olympic ice hockey tournemtns were held and Canada won six gold medals and a silver in 1936"
Confused as to why the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association would push for professionals to be used if they were an amateur organisation.
The CAHA was in charge of Olympic and World Championship hockey teams and they wanted to use the best players.
"The NHL decided not to allow all players to participate in ..." - why?
I didn't add it because I didn't want to trail too far off subject. I have now added "because doing so would force the league to halt play during the Olympics"
Medal sorting - hmm. Typically one Olympic Gold is better than a gazillion Silvers, one Silver better than a trazillion Bronze. Don't you think your table should sort the way most international representation of Olympics medal tables sort? Or is it the US approach (in Beijing) where a nation has more Golds but a "home nation" has a bigger total, it sorts in their favour?
Wait, what are you referring to? When I click sort, the blank spaces go to the top, then the gold, then the silver, then the bronze. (or are you referring to the cells with two medals? I went in chronological order with those)
So, if I click sort on medals, the up arrow starts with blank cells, then 1 gold...2 silver...2 silver 1 gold...2 silver 2 silver...2 silver 1 gold...3 bronze....3 bronze 2 silver...3 bronze... and the other way round (with the arrow pointing down) I get 3 bronze....3 bronze 2 silver....3 bronze....2 silver 1 gold....2 silver...2 silver 2 silver...2 silver 1 gold...1 gold... blank cells. So, first off it's not "opposite" sorting, and secondly it seems all a little out of kilter to me... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've gone through and fixed the sorting. It now goes multi-medalists then gold, silver, bronze, blanks. I even fixed it so that the medal types will automatically sort in chronological order. -- Scorpion042223:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few of your players link to an article about players who have featured in the NHL only once. Isn't this a little misleading if they don't have their own article?
Yes, but the links have to go somewhere.
Yes but you have a number of red links for those guys without articles. Why confuse readers with links to another list when they don't have articles there either? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd make them red links. They must be inherently notable to make the list so make them red links and someone will create a stub. 23:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
They should probably be redlinked in all cases otherwise it seems like they have an article. If the really are notable then they should have an individual article. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Couldn't ask for a bigger list. Only found a few things during a reading of the list:
"Between 1920 and 1952, seven Olympic ice hockey tournemtns were held...". Typo.
Fixed.
The part about the Soviet Union feels thrown in, without anything to do with the Canadians. Perhaps it should be tweaked to show the impact of the Soviet teams on Canada's performance.
See the above bit for why it was added. I'll try to relate it more.
"and six into the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame." Remove "the" to improve grammar.
"The men's tournament was introduced at the 1920 Summer Olympics, and permanently added to the Winter Olympic Games in 1924." You mention that it was introduced in the Summer Olympics and added to the Winter Games. However, you don't say anything about whether it was continued at the Summer Games. Perhaps "and transferred to the Winter Olympic Games"
Well, you have to remember that this is just a quick introduction, so it doesn't need to be completely in depth.
"were not allowed to play" I think "compete" is a better work here.
Done.
"ability to use professional" I don't think "use" is the correct word here, maybe "send out"?
I'm not the best person to ask, but I think use is the correct word as this is a team sport so one would use players on a team rather than send out players on a team.
"starting with 1988"-->, starting with the 1988 Games (and delink the current linked occurence of the 1988 Games)
In 1988 there were both Summer and Winter Olympics, so it would be just 1988. I fixed it to "starting in 1988"
As the USAFA is much younger than the Naval Academy, this is the only USAFA alum list, but just wait til I get to West Point ;-) FYI, the Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academies don't have enough known notable alum to make a list, so I just put those in their academy articles in list format. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IDK about some of the acronym use such as the DNI, when the site calls itself under "Defense and the National Interest"--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've been thinking about splitting out the Astronauts to their own list as has been done for the Annapolis and West Point, but am unsure because of the new FLC requirements that are about to be implemented. Thoughts? -MBK00402:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that one is shaky, it has a US tag when it looks like it was a state photo, so I replaced with one of Kent Lambert that is on commons and has an OTRS ticket. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed with info box added. It is on an Oman Embassy web site and the Dept of State site. I used the State Dept link. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It seems like the suggestions from previous FLC's have been integrated here, and thus I cannot find any errors but one. Its not clarified as to who was the first winner of the award in the lead.--Best, ₮RUCӨ00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One minor comment that applies to all of the lists. I was going to bring this up when I reviewed one of these lists, but I never got round to doing so. I'm away from tomorrow so if I don't say this now i'll probably forget forever. It might be a pain to fix but, in the references, the websites are not works and should not be italicised. This got brought up at an FAC nom of mine recently and I was advised to remove the work field completely if it was just a website, because the websites are obvious from the url and shouldn't be italicised. Good luck with the rest of the topic, at the rate you've been going it will be finished by the time I get back! Rambo'sRevenge(ER)21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did this get changed? We've been using websites as works for quite some time now. If there's going to be a change, then there needs to be a discussion on it between FA and FL reviewers. KV5(Talk • Phils)18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Italics should only be used for printed publications, such as reference 15 (Sports Illustrated). As an FAC reviewer, I can confirm that has been the case since I began reviewing. There's a good chance that FLC has gotten this wrong all along, and I've never liked using italics in my own work. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a chance that FAC could be wrong. From WP:CITE:
Citations for world wide web articles (for reliable sources such as the Australian War Memorial) typically include:
the name of the author or authors,
the title of the article in quotes,
the name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to Website's "about page"),
date of publication,
page number(s) (if applicable),
the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication),[dubious – discuss]
an optional short quote (used rarely, if the source is likely to be challenged)
The name of the website in the URL is rarely visible because of the |title= parameter, so the name of the website is necessary. Indeed, it's also necessary for the Baseball-Reference site, because the publisher and work are different. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the name of the website" is what calls for a publisher. It doesn't say anywhere that a work field has to be filled out as well. Of course, it does come in handy in some situations, and I wouldn't oppose over it, but I'm not a fan of putting a lot of extra info in the cite templates myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only times that they are disambiguated here is when the website name/work is different from the publisher. For example, Sports Illustrated and Louisville Slugger not disambiguated, but Baseball-Reference/Sports Reference LLC and Brewers.MLB.com/Major League Baseball are. Just so happens that a lot are from B-R. KV5(Talk • Phils)21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
Comments -
"Rodriguez leads American League and major league shortstops in most offensive statistical categories during his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons". leads→led.
There's a tense issue with the construction of this sentence: "Rodriguez leads...during his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons". The whole sentence needs re-working, now that I look at it more closely. Why don't you borrow some wording from one of your other lists in this topic? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check it out. I don't want to borrow wording because I don't want to be repetitive. I will see what I can do and will get back to you here. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better wording? "Rodriguez' offensive statistics lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons" KV5(Talk • Phils)00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try moving "in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons" to before "statistics lead". I think that would be the best you could do, grammar-wise. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. "Rodriguez' offensive in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons statistics lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories" isn't a sentence. Did you mean "Rodriguez' offensive statistics in his seven Silver Slugger-winning seasons lead American League and major league shortstops in most categories"?
"Rodriguez also leads National Leaguers in this category, having hit 40 or more home runs in six of his seven seasons winning at shortstop." Since when has A-Rod been in the NL?
He hasn't. As with the previous sentence, his AL records far surpass the National League records (several times), which bears mentioning. KV5(Talk • Phils)18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the same format for all lists. Originally, I used three images per league but it doesn't work with all the lists, so I'm maintaining two images per league plus a lead image for all of the lists in the topic. (edit) The exception will probably be the outfield list, because the rationale behind what I'm doing is showing the two most recent winners, but the outfield doesn't have "2" recent winners, they have three or six. KV5(Talk • Phils)18:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In contrast, all seven of Rodriguez' Silver Slugger seasons resulted in RBI totals over 100 (ranging from 111 in 1999 to 142 in 2002)" I don't like the use of "resulted" here, it's not as precise as it could be. Maybe, "In contrast, Rodriguez collected RBI totals over 100 (ranging from 111 in 1999 to 142 in 2002) in all seven of his Silver Slugger-winning seasons". In fact, you could take this further remove "seven" from here, since you already mentioned that he won seven as a shortstop before, but that is up to you.
"Hanley Ramirez is the NL's most recent Silver Slugger winner." There is nothing wrong with this image caption, but phrasing it like this would mean that you would have to update it later. Why not simply mention that he won it in 2008?
Nothing amiss with me. The correct spelling of the city's name is Montréal, even if the English spelling doesn't use the accented e (it's technically not an English letter, so it's not used in the English spelling). The redirect works, so I suppose it's just personal preference that the city's name be displayed as it's actually spelled. KV5(Talk • Phils)22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another spin-off from List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford (which, with over 500 names before I started splitting the list into sections, had got too big to handle). As usual, it contains all the names in these fields from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Dictionary of Welsh Biography, obituaries in The Times and people who had articles here anyway. BencherliteTalk10:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About 100 undergraduates enter the college each year and there are about 130 graduate students at the College at any one time. -- The last part of the sentence after and is unclear to me, needs rewording
Mathematicians to have studied at Jesus College include Nigel Hitchin (Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford since 1997), the Canadian Jonathan Borwein and Jim Mauldon (who taught at Oxford before moving to the United States to teach at Amherst College, Massachusetts). -- Canadian should be plural
No it shouldn't, as Mauldon wasn't Canadian (it needed a comma, didn't it?!); reworded for clarity to "the Canadian Jonathan Borwein (who was a Rhodes Scholar), and Jim Mauldon (who taught...". BencherliteTalk01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
David E. Evans is Professor of Mathematics at Cardiff University, and H. W. Lloyd Tanner was Professor of Mathematics and Astronomy at one of its predecessor institutions, the University College of South Wales and Monmouthshire. -- Is it proper not to have the before Professor of ____?
Other physicists who are Old Members of the college include Michael Woolfson (a former Professor of Physics at the University of York) and Edward Hinds (whose work on ultra-cold matter won him the Rumford Medal of the Royal Society in 2008). -- Why is Old Members capitalized?
The lead should state a bit more, as to who were the first and most recent alumni of the college under these fields, and as to which field has produced more graduates. Maybe the first part is overkill, but the last part about which field has produced the most is substantial IMO.
Disagree, I'm afraid. I can't say who the first or most recent notable alumni in each field was, because the list can never be guaranteed to be complete (which is not the same thing as being comprehensive). Nor can I say which field has produced the most graduates, since this would be pure guesswork on my part; the college sources don't say how many have graduated overall in any particular subject. In fact, such figures would be misleading in that, for many years, there was no division of BA subjects and even when Natural Science was introduced, this initially covered all the sciences rather than there being separate degrees such as BA (Physics), BA (Chemistry), BA (Biology) - that only happened later. (And, yes, Oxford historically has awarded BAs for science degrees, with the BSc being a now-defunct postgraduate degree, but that's more off-topic!) BencherliteTalk01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Key
after name -- is unnecessary since that's only where they are used
I don't know but the question mark entries when sorted under the G column should sort at the top and bottom of the lists.
That's deliberate: on each of the lists (some already featured) in this series, you will see this: "? – Year unknown; an approximate year is used for table-sorting purposes." It helps with the utility of the list. User:The Rambling Man and I had a discussion about this last week; see this related FLC. BencherliteTalk01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since some of the acronyms aren't spelled out in the articles, they need to be spelled out here, like the WBO. Also, why is this in italics? As are others.--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look just above the references, you'll see a list of works used, including "Welsh Biography Online. The Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion of London and the National Library of Wales. 2007. http://wbo.llgc.org.uk/en/index.html. Cited in references as: WBO". WBO is in italics in every reference because it is the work that is being cited and the "work=" parameter in {{cite web}} and similar templates is automatically italicised. The issue of spelling the abbreviations out in full was raised at this related FLC by User:Dabomb87, and my explanation seems to have satisfied him as the point was not pursued further! BencherliteTalk01:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are stating you can't do it becase the list is incomplete? If not, you can just count how many there are in each category, its not OR.--Best, ₮RUCӨ02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest you read WP:FL? again? The list doesn't have to be complete, since alumni lists can never be complete (except in narrow cases such as e.g. a list of astronauts to attend a military academy), as it is impossible to prove the negative that no notable person has been left out. Instead, the list has to be comprehensive - see #3: "Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items". I therefore demonstrate comprehensiveness by saying that all of the major items are here, by pointing (once again) to the exhaustion of the following sources for suitable names:
I cannot think of any more sources where I might reasonably be expected to find additional notable people to add to this list, so it is a comprehensive list, in my view, of alumni in this field from over 400 years of the college's existence. Please reconsider your view. Regards, BencherliteTalk02:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that the incompleteness of the article was an issue. Its not, yes I know the FL criteria, and I know that incompleteness is not a issues; where did you get that from in my comment? All I'm saying is that in the lead it should be noted that which field (from known alumni [which is the list]) has produced the most alumni, which is what is in the table. Its fine though.--Best, ₮RUCӨ20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err... "So you are stating you can't do it becase the list is incomplete?" made me think that completeness was an issue! Glad to hear that it's not. Personally, I don't think that saying in the lead "The list contains eight physicists and six chemists" (etc) adds to the reader's understanding of the list, but if the consensus is that it would help, I will do so. I've added a paragraph about the college science labs (1907–47), which might also be of interest - unfortunately the article doesn't go quite as far as saying "that's why the college produced so many leading scientists in this period... Thanks, BencherliteTalk21:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mathematicians to have studied at Jesus College" Stronger wording: "Mathematicians who have studied at Jesus College"
"at Amherst College, Massachusetts" The comma makes seems as if this were a city-state phrase, try "at Amherst College in Massachusetts"
"first publication cross-referencing"-->first publication to cross-reference
"went on to design the world's first wearable hearing aid"-->designed the world's first wearable hearing aid
"The laboratories led to scientific research and tuition (particularly in chemistry) becoming an important part of the college's academic life." The noun + gerund (-ing) construction is ungrammatical, see these exercises on how to address this issue.
"led to 17 students joining " Another example of the awkward noun + -ing. You can fix this by making the noun a possesive: "led to 17 students' joining "
"The laboratories became unnecessary when the university began to provide centralised facilities for students; they were closed in 1947." Ambiguous, what was closed, the labs or the facilities? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Music had been available as a specialist subject..." what does that mean? Sounds like something out of Mastermind to me...
How about "Music had been taught as a specialist subject, rather than being part of the BA course, before these changes"? BencherliteTalk
Re: David E. Evans, his dash messes up the sorting on M here.
Ahh, no. His M date is 1972, as the note says, so I've put that as a hidden sortable date; it then sorts at the bottom, in chronological order. BencherliteTalk
"The first Junior Research..." only one to start with "The..."
Sentence fragment structure inverted to avoid this. BencherliteTalk
You have no images of the medical practitioners. This makes the table expand across to fill the page. Looks odd to me.
Added photos from Commons of relevant buildings to the three sections without photos of people. BencherliteTalk
Mixtures of ?, DNG and numbers also messes up sorting on "Biologists and other scientists" table.
Added a hidden sortable date for Lhuyd so his DNG is in chronological order at the top; the other "?"s are correctly at the bottom, chronologically. BencherliteTalk
"BSc (gas kinetics research)" was that the official name of his degree?
Don't forget that the BSc (no longer awarded) was a postgrad degree, not a first degree. The key to the table does say that the subject studied is included where known; I've removed the word "research", however, as superfluous. BencherliteTalk
ahh, The Rambling Man, my light blue nemesis, I've been expecting you... Thank you for your review. Hope my changes are in the right directions. As a free gift, have Derek Long, the latest addition to the list: I noticed that the piece in the Jesus College Record about the science labs that I used for the third para of the lead was written by an Emeritus Prof, who turned out to be worth an article of his own. BencherliteTalk07:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that this list of rapid transit stations in Oslo, Norway, has reached the criteria for FL. If not, I will be more than happy to address any concerns. Arsenikk(talk)10:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My first impressions are good, however I do have a few concerns:
Stations Avløs, Gjettum, Gjønnes etc. have no icon. The articles for the 3 I mentioned say they are on line 6, so shouldn't they have a or something.
I like the icons, and the template provides alt-text so there isn't an WP:Accessibility issue. However currently the column is unsortable, whereas if you used numbers instead it would be sortable. So at the moment that makes them decorative. This can be fixed though by using <span style="display:none">...</span>, see below for an example of how it works.
I'm not sure it is right to compare 2002 and 2007 data in the same table, as any data could easily be mis-interpreted; however I'm prepared to wait and see what others think.
Thank you for your good feedback. I have made the service numbers sortable, gone over for spelling again, and tried to better explain 'grade'. The reason some stations are missing numbers, is that they are temporarily closed for renovation, and therefore not served by any trains until 2011 to 2014. I find it misleading to include numbers on stations currently not served, but if others feel otherwise, I have no problem with including numbers on those stations too. The distances are missing for the Holmenkoll- and Ring Line due to lack of sources. The transport authority has an excellent page for all the other stations, but not for those two lines. Extensive search in other places (including books) has failed to find distance information. As for the dating of ridership, the three stations with 2007-numbers did not exist in 2002, and later ridership numbers have not been published for the other stations. Arsenikk(talk)14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be away for a fortnight from this weekend, so I'm afraid I won't be around at the end of this review to cap & support it if it reaches my requirements. Also I'm not going to cap/support prematurely because I still have some concerns. I think the grade could still be explained better. For example, what does "built-in" mean, (i.e. what is it built into) and can you provide more details about how that differs from a station that is "at-grade" or "underground". Additionally I don't think the entries "Åsjordet" and "Ø***" should be at the bottom of the table, as I believe we treat them as "A" and "O", and adjust the sorting accordingly using {{sort}}. If you want to keep right aligning the numbers, the distance should be right aligned too (for the reasons you stated below). I'd be tempted to add the icons for the "temporary" closed stations, but I suppose it depends how long "temporary" actually is. I have struck my major concern (which was that icons are not just decorative), and will assume you or other reviewers will catch any typos. This may need a full image review, but the sample I looked at were all okay. Apologies I'm not around to see this review through, but I'm happy the FL directors will disregard any comments of mine they deem irrelevent when it comes to decision time. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)17:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have sorted them out. I will double check it tomorrow when I am not so tired (it is past midnight for me now). Again, thanks for the review and enjoy your break. Arsenikk(talk)22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was you could use {{nts}} instead of adding <span style="display:none">...</span> to reduce the size of the page. But since they serve the same purpose, it is not necessary to make that change.—Chris!ct23:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that. But I was just pointing out that I requested he add some <span style="display:none">...</span>s earlier in the FLC, and replacing them with {{nts}} wouldn't work because they were placed before template icons, and not numbers. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – just some quick observations from a rail enthusiast :)
Unfortunately in my browser, the table appears below the pictures, creating a large area of whitespace. I suppose the intention is for them to appear in a strip down the right-hand side of the table, like in List of railway stations in Merseyside? Struck comment. I checked my browser settings, and the screen resolution was much lower than it should have been. A modest increase makes the pics display perfectly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the station Egne hjem, is "hjem" meant to have a lower-case "H"? The article title does, but its first line shows "Egne Hjem" and a Google search returns more results with a capital letter. (For Carl Berners plass and Valkyrie plass stations, the articles and Norwegian internet sources consistently use lower-case, so that's fine).
The final sentence of the lead looks a little awkward.
Suggest "the number of average boarding passengers in 2001 and 2002" → "the average daily number of boarding passengers in 2001 and 2002" (just to make it clear that the figures in the table are daily values; especially because on British railway station articles/lists, annual figures are used, and people who are used to those lists might be expecting annual figures here).
If it doesn't make the prose too awkward, it might be useful to add a few words on why the distances are measured from Stortinget.
Høyenhall's usage figure is formatted incorrectly.
Thank you for the comments. Concerning the images, I honestly do not know how to handle it. All other station-list FLs use them as such, but users with sufficiently low resolution and the image size set too high will undoubtedly have the problem you have described. Concerning capitalization: In Norwegian, only the first word of a proper noun fragment is capitalized, unless it is a place or person name. Therefore, stations such as Egne hjem (own homes), Huseby skole (Huseby School), Ullevål stadion (Ullevål Stadium) and Carl Berners plass (Carl Berner's Square, where Carl Berner is the name of a person) are all not capitalized, except for the first word, in Norwegian. While I would normally capitalize such names in English, I feel being true to the actual station names is important. If you take a look at the schedule (which is a bit difficult now that the station is closed, but "fortunetly", Ruter has not yet updates its tram and rail maps), Egne hjem is not capitalized. I agree that many sources (incorrectly) capitalize Egne hjem. Just because many other people are wrong, does not make it a good idea for us to be wrong too, when the official sources are unambigous. I have copyedited the Egne hjem article to reflect this. Otherwise, I have acted upon your feedback. Arsenikk(talk)22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The system is municipally-owned by Kollektivtransportproduksjon,[1] and operated by the subsidiary Oslo T-banedrift on contract with Ruter. -- wouldn't it be in contract?
IDK, but to me the lead lacks, can a bit more be given to summarize the list? The most usage, distance, etc.
Table
All content needs to be aligned either to the right or the left, not both.
I find a key needy to explain what each service means IMO.
References
The publisher to "Oslo-banedrift" needs to come in ref 3 not 5, or you need to link them all or remove the links.--Best, ₮RUCӨ02:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I have acted upon everything except the alignment, where I would like to ask the advice of more experienced listmakers: It seems to me that readability is enhanced for dates and usage due to the right-alignment. However, station and line names are better left-aligned. Would it be possible to allow the latter two (station and line) to be left-aligned, and then the rest (date, usage, distance and grade) since 'service' functions as a visual seperator? I would have though this had given optimal readability. However, if others disagree, I will be more than happy to left-align everything. Arsenikk(talk)15:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't see the lead expanded any further. In addition, I also don't see the explanation of the services. I don't see how its enhanced, its a bit distracting actually.--Best, ₮RUCӨ20:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, this edit added the following text, which addresses four of the five points: "The most used station is Jernbanetorget, that connects to Oslo Central Station. It is closely followed by Majorstuen, a main transfer station between lines west of the city center and to several lines of the Oslo Tramway, and Nationaltheatret, that is shared with the mainline Drammen Line and located in the heart of the city center. All three are on the Common Tunnel. The least used station is Lillevann, that serves the recreational area Nordmarka. (...) Located 17.3 kilometers (10.7 mi) from the city center, Kolsås is the furthest away. The system is served by eight lines that operate as branched from the Common Tunnel—a shared section that runs 4.8 kilometers (3.0 mi) through the city center. In additional, the Ring Line operates in a loop to areas north of the city center. There are six train services, numbered 1 through 6, that operate to one branch at each end of the city, or to the Ring Line." Arsenikk(talk)20:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay I see, I apologize. But what does service mean in this context? That's what I don't understand, is it just like the name of the lines of trains?--Best, ₮RUCӨ21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Service' simply means the number on the trains. For historical reasons, each branch of the system is named (unlike most metros, where the through line has its name). Therefor there is both a line name and a line number—that are not the same. The numbers on the train change perhaps each twenty years, the last one being in 2006 with the opening of the Ring Line). I just did a copyedit, and will look at the prose again in tomorrow when I am more awake. Hopefully I can find a eloquent way of stating it now that you have pinpointed what is unclear. Arsenikk(talk)22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have elaborated more to try to explain the difference between line and service. Please tell me if it is not accurate enoughs. I realize that Oslo has a different naming and numbering approach than many other cities, where a number covers multiple lines, and a line may be served by several numbers. Arsenikk(talk)19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Oslo T-bane is the rapid transit serving Oslo" "serving"-->that serves
You link two Norwegian cities in the first sentence, no need to link Norway, too.
"municipally-owned" -ly adverbs should not have hyphens.
"that connects with Oslo Central Station" "that"-->which
"that is located in the heart of the city center"-->which is in the heart of the city center
"has direct transfer to trains " "has"-->provides (stronger verb)
"most used" and "least used" should be hyphenated when used as adjectives.
"The system is served by eight lines that operate as branched from the Common Tunnel" What do you mean by "as branched"?
"In additional" Delete this phrase.
"in a loop to areas north of the city center" "to"-->in
"There are six train services, numbered 1 through 6, that each operate from one branch "-->Six train services, numbered 1 through 6, each operate from one branch
"that opened as a "-->which opened as a (you make this mistake throughout the text, read up on which vs. that.
"The Røa Line followed as a branch in 1912"-->The Røa Line was the next to open as a branch, in 1912
"after the conversion of the 1957 Lambertseter Line to metro standard. " What is "metro standard"?
"all trains terminated at Stortinget"
"and has since then been the basis for the kilometer markers. "-->which has since then been the basis for the kilometer markers.
"that connects the eastern and western "-->which connects the eastern and western
"Further details are available in the articles on each station." Really not necessary, self-references like this are not very professional anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments—I have acted accordingly. I especially appreciated you pointing out the systemaic error I made, since I was not aware that this even was an issue. I presume that your comments about the "branched" was referring to the typo (it is now "branches") and not to you commenting that the word "branch" not being understood by readers. Arsenikk(talk)19:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"which connects with Oslo Central Station" What does "connects with" mean here. Are the two stations physically joined, or does one provdie a transfer to another?
"that operates to its end." Not understanding what "end" means. Maybe "terminus"?
"In 1993, for the first time, trains could run through the city between the two networks in the Common Tunnel" - there's no need for a tense change here, so I would change to "trains ran through the city", etc.
Under normal circumstances, I would suggest superscripting the daggers and other non-asterisks, but with this setup and the choice of colors they are surprisingly unobtrusive, so that can be passed over.
There are several date ranges using en-dashes, which is correct; however, I think that I would rather have seen them after the initial dates rather than before the final dates in the cells. I was confused when I first saw it. I don't know if this issue was addressed earlier in the nomination or not; if it was and consensus was reached for the current format, I will withdraw this comment.
Thanks for the comments. I have changed the tense. As for the placement of the endahses, I would normally have agreed. The reason for this choice is to try to aid the reader by right-aligning the dates; since the years are under each other, the readers is helped to quickly read the years and avoid the date. I would presume most reads want to know what year a station opened, and only a few want to know the exact date. By placing the endahses at the end of the first row, this whole alignment business is void, and the row would perhaps look better left-aligned. This would again upsett the delcate balance of the rows right of the service icons being right-aligned and those left of the service icons being left-aligned. That is why I did as I did—you are of course free to be of a different opinion. Arsenikk(talk)20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that Gene Kelly is an important figure in film history and a good filmography list should reflect his contribution to cinema. With the help and advise of others, I have contructed the list of Mr. Kelly's films in chronological order and annotated the list with significant information and also provided what i believe to be a good introductory section. I have also cited my sources for the information presented. I have submitted this list for peer reviews and, after some improvements had been made to the list as suggested from my peers, I was informed that the list should be considered ready to be submitted as a featured list candidate. Jimknut (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reread and am impressed by the improvement within FLC. I still support under the revised FLC criteria. My only quibble is a WP:ACCESS issue - the cream colored background for musicals is not something a blind person would pick up on. Could there be a symbol added, perhaps an asterisk after the film title, which would identify either the musicals, or if it would be easier, the non-musicals? Ruhrfisch><>°°12:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WT:ACCESS is the best place to ask, but I think as long as you use image alt text, it would be okay, because screenreaders will be able to read the alt text; nevertheless, isn't there a text-based symbol that can be used, just to be sure that there won't be any problems? Matthewedwards : Chat 02:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gene Kelly (1912–1996) was an award-winning American motion picture actor, dancer, singer, director, and choreographer. -- Remove the bold from his name per WP:LEDE
Done.
Kelly was graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1933 with a degree in economics. -- Remove the was
Around the same time he was running a dancing school with his brother Fred. -- not the proper way to start off this sentence, either merge it with a comma or semi colon or reword it completely
I removed the sentence completely. It might be an significant point in Kelly's biography, but I now believe its not needed in an introduction to his filmography.
He made his Broadway debut as a chorus boy in the play Leave It to Me! (1938), starring William Gaxton, Victor Moore, and Sophie Tucker. -- (1)What is a chorus boy? A member of the chorus? (2)The people who starred in the film is not relevant to this list as this is about Kelly not the film or the other stars.
I changed this to read "small role" instead of "chorus boy" and also removed the names of the other actors. (By the way, it's a play, not a film).
After playing supporting roles in Two for the Show and The Time of Your Life he went on to create the title role in Rodgers and Hart's Pal Joey (1940). -- Add a comma before he went on
Done.
Then, after staging the dances for Best Foot Foward (1941),[3] Kelly made his Hollywood film debut opposite Judy Garland in Me and My Gal (1942). -- Opposite? You mean as?
Changed to: "Kelly made his Hollywood film debut in For Me and My Gal (1942), co-starring Judy Garland." (I'll leave in Garland's name, as she was significant to Kelly's career.)
From there Kelly went on to work as an actor, dancer and, subsequently, choreographer in a series of musical films that presented, among other innovations, experimenting with a combination of dance and animation (Anchors Aweigh and Invitation to the Dance) and special effects (including the "Alter Ego" number from Cover Girl[5] and the split-screen dance number from It's Always Fair Weather).[6] -- (1)Comma after there (2)The comma should be before and not after it, it should be , and subsequently a choreographer in as series...(3)The and before animation should be a comma, add a comma after the (Invitation to the Dance) parenthesis
This request I found confusing. I have reworded this sentence slightly so that it (hopefully) reads better.
Table
Uncredited as choreographer -- add a before choreographer (this applies to both instances)
I have removed some information, including some footnotes, that I felt was not needed. I believe, then, that what is left should give the article a better, more "streamlined" feel.
References
What makes Ref 7 reliable and what is the publisher?
All instances of refs to this source need the publisher.
Ref 18 needs to be properly formatted
This ref has been taken out. All the awards listed here (Academy Awards, Golden Globe, etc.) are now referenced to the web sites for those awards.
I believe that the mention of the awards/nominations should be removed. Ideally, the actor should have his own awards and nominations list. Consider if a certain film he was in had him receive numerous nominations/wins; it would not work to list all of them. Also, by only choosing specific ones, it's not NPOV as its indicating one award is better than another. I'd recommend creating that list and removing the notes for the various films. By the way, I previously fixed the dabs for you, so don't worry about those. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The awards have been removed from the list, although I left in some infomration in the introduction. I hope this is better. I could create a awards page for Gene Kelly but, at present time, my sources are largely the IMDb and some Kelly fan sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimknut (talk • contribs) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Kelly was graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1933 with a degree in economics." Is this relevant to the list's topic? After reading the lead, I don't see how the degree was related to his contributions to stage and film.
The line has been removed.
"After playing supporting roles in Two for the Show..." Two for the Show links to an album, make sure to fix this dab. Same goes for Pal Joey in the next sentence, and Invitation to the Dance a few sentences later. Also go through the tables and make sure that the links go to the correct pages.
All links have been corrected and should work now.
"From there, Kelly went on to work as an actor, dancer and subsequently, choreographer in a series of musical films that presented, among other innovations, experimenting with combinations of dance and animation (Anchors Aweigh and Invitation to the Dance) and dance scenes involving special effects (including the "Alter Ego" number from Cover Girl[5] and the split-screen dance number from It's Always Fair Weather)." I believe this sentence could be split into two, it's kind of hard to follow.
This is now in two sentences and also reworded a bit.
In the table, perhaps a wikilink should be added for Choreographer.
The statement in the introduction that "He was noted for his musical films that displayed his creative choreography which often fused tap and jazz" is in contrast with the opening statement in the main article which states "His many innovations transformed the Hollywood musical film, and he is credited with almost singlehandedly making the ballet form commercially acceptable to film audiences". The main article relies on the scholarship of Billman, and later on, Delamater, Hirschhorn and Thomas to justify this, yet the filmography cites an online source. This inconsistency is jarring. The statement about him fusing jazz and tap is a generic one which could be applied to almost any film dancer from 1929-1960 and says little or nothing about his original contributions to this film genre.D7240 (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the Billman, Delamater, and Hirschorn material at present time. If you can add these sources and reword the intro that would be helpful. I'm not sure whether or not the exact wording from the main article would be considered plagiarism, as this is a "satellite" site and no one is getting credit for the writing.
The exact wording would be fine or anything consistent with it. Writing credits aren't an issue in Wikipedia as nobody owns any article. What's important is consistency between the articles.D7240 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information on his education and stage career is irrelevant to his film career, and in any case, far more detailed and better sourced information is contained in the main article on Kelly.
Just a general note, leads of FLs are encouraged to go beyond the list and provide context on the subject, albeit not in unnecessary detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the info about his stage career could be removed, but it can just as well remain as his stage work provided a foundation to his film career.
The information on Kelly's film career is also inadequately covered/summarised and would be better off left out altogether. Again, there is a wealth of properly sourced detail in the main article.
Once again I'll welcome any upgrading.
The filmography should clearly distinguish musical films from the mainly run-of-the-mill B-movies Kelly was obliged to do early on in his career.
We can present the the musicals with one colored background (I suggest a light yellow or cream color as that won't be too harsh on the eyes) while the non-musicals have a white or "blank" background. Does anyone second this. ("Run-of-the-mill"? Isn't that a matter of opinion?)
That's fine. I suppose run-of the mill is an opinion, but then the term B-movie is generally a term of disparagement as most were nothing more than program fillers for the main features in the olden days.D7240 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The choreography credits are completely unsatisfactory. The main article's original filmography specified precisely where Kelly acted either as sole or co-choreographer, and without exception he acted as choreographer in every dance musical in which he performed, although in many cases he was not officially credited. He also contributed choreography for other dancers to many of the musical films in which he directed or produced. See Billman's Film Choreographers and Dance Directors for confirmation, or I'll be happy to supply info.
A suggestion for further enhancement would be to list the names of dance routines performed by Kelly in each of the films - after all, this is what most Kelly afficionados will be interested in. It would be great to be able to see at a glance, for example, where to find Kelly's famous dance with a newspaper, or his one with roller skates.
That's fine with me. Anyone else care to "weigh in" on this?
I don't like the use of "award-winning" in the opening sentence. It gives a positive spin on his work.
Removed.
Please don't link common terms such as United States. I'd also argue against "actor", "dancer" and "singer", but I'd understand if you wanted to keep them.
Link to United States removed. The others I'll keep.
"choreography which often"-->choreography, which often
Fixed.
"He began his acting career the theatre" Missing word.
Fixed.
"co-starring Judy Garland."-->co-starring with Judy Garland.
Changed, although I think the original wording was fine.
"From there, Kelly went on to work as an actor, dancer and subsequently, choreographer in a series of musical films."-->Afterward, Kelly worked as an actor, dancer and subsequently, choreographer, in a series of musical films.
Fixed.
"In these films his choreographic"-->In these films, his choreographic
Fixed.
"and also dance scenes involving special effects "-->and dance scenes that involved special effects
Fixed.
Can you redlink the unlinked films? The chance that the articles may be created one day outweigh the tiny effects on visual appeal.
It's all I can find for now. This film is not covered in the Thomas book since the film came after the book. Can anyone find a better source?
To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. In short, if you can't prove that the above is reliable, the source may need to be removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assure me that IMDb is only being used in conjunction with other sources.
Only an external link to the IMDb's main page on Kelly is featured. (But what's up with the animosity toward the IMDb? Has Wikipedia drawn a lot of heat for using them as a source?)
The columns are the same width – or at least they're showing up that way on my computer screen. The trouble is that "choreographer" is a longer word than "director" and "actor" so it takes up more width on the page. I tried hyphenating it but that looks tacky and it's difficult to hyperlink that way. Any suggestons? Jimknut (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think a full stop is required in the image caption, not a complete sentence.
Full stop removed.
The first paragraph of the lead read (I'm sorry to say) like fancruft. While it's cited to Billman's book, it strikes me as a heavily one-sided review of Kelly's achievements, and written in overtly glowing terms. Anyway we can say (sort of) what is already said but without rose-tinted spectacles?
This has been reworded. It now reads "He is probably best known today for his performances in musicals, notably An American in Paris (1951) and Singin' in the Rain (1952)."
"notably the "Alter Ego" " - notable according to whom, and why notable? And I would move [3] and [4] to the other side of the period in that sentence.
Changed to "including the "Alter Ego" " - refs have been moved
"..was also successful..." in what sense? Box office? It's not clear to me I'm afraid.
Changed to "appeared in".
What makes The Gene Scene site a reliable source? How is it used in this list?
This ref has been removed.
Four red links, shame we can't get even stubs for these?
I was asked to put these in, so I did. It's possible that these films will get articles later on. After all, Wikipedia is constantly a work in progress, isn't it?
I've also added in the titles of Kelly's musical numbers and put the musicals against a colored background as per a request above. Jimknut (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the dab and most of the redirects (I didn't fix those that had no reason to be fixed). In addition, I fixed the logical punctuation issues; the commas are not part of song titles and should be outside the quotation marks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the critera for promotion. But, if the review process shows that it needs improvements, I will ensure that it that they are completed with haste. Neonblaktalk - 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the comments I noticed on first perusal last evening have been fixed; good work! Just a few items left.
Lead
done*"With the disolution of the Players' League" - dissolution
done*"Although the team's on-field captain King Kelly returned" - you've mentioned his full name already, so you can remove "King"
done"When the 1891 season completed" - change completed to either "was completed" or "ended"
Tables
done*If an item doesn't appear bold in the table, then it shouldn't appear bold in the key.
done*"Had a pitching record of 18-13 in last season in the majors, he died of pneumonia during the off-season." - win/loss records should use en-dashes, like year ranges.
done*"The future Hall of Fame pitcher had a 27-12 record for the 1890 Reds, the second to last season of his career." - same
done*Statistic names don't need to be capitalized (At bats, Home runs, etc.).
done*Write out statistic names using percentage (on-base percentage, slugging percentage); don't pipelink.
done*"led the Players' league in RBIs 1890" - this happens a couple of times, it should either be in 1890, or the year should be in parentheses.
References
done*Websites are works, not publishers. The publisher for retrosheet.org is Retrosheet, Inc., and the publisher for Baseball-Reference.com is Sports Reference LLC.'
Ok, great suggestions, quickly fixed many of the items you mentioned, will work on the sortability issue, and the two questioned resources, later on today.Neonblaktalk - 14:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that any of these have actually been completed in the article's history. Also, per the main WP:FLC page, we don't use graphics in reviews anymore. KV5(Talk • Phils)15:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to see sortability, at least for the first four columns. I would sort the positions column by their fielding position number (1, pitcher; 2, catcher; etc.), and the seasons in numerical order, etc.
I tried a few ways, couldn't get it right. I don't see any other FL that sort position in that manner to use as an example. I am going to assume that is not crucial for passing this list. If you know how, feel free to update, thanks.Neonblaktalk - 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
projectballpark.org (also a work, needs a publisher)
thedeadballera.org (also a work, needs a publisher)
To avoid a long discussion about these two sources, I eliminated the cause of death from Cinder O'Brien to rid the article of the reference need, and I used already established sources for the ballpark information.Neonblaktalk - 21:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check through your "notes" column now. With some of the changes that have been made, there are now some complete sentences that don't end in a full stop/period. Some reviewers may ask that they all become complete sentences; I don't mind a mix as long as fragments stay fragments (no punctuation) and sentences become sentences.
If/when sortability is completed, you would need to remove "in alphabetical order" from the last sentence of the lead (honestly, that sentence can be removed entirely, since the title tells you what it is).
"Played sparingly for both the Reds and the Louisville Colonels in 1891, his last season in the majors." - looks like this is the only fragment left (John Irwin's entry).
In references, there is a double period on Retrosheet, Inc. I'm guessing you used a citation generator. No problem, but the double period should be removed.
With the baseball-reference.com refs (Sports Reference LLC), both work and publisher are required because the Sports Reference publisher is responsible for a number of websites. Add |work=baseball-reference.com to those references.
I might make the lead image larger; it's not doing much good at such a small size. MOS allows it, so I might suggest 225px?
Thank you for all these suggestions. I wanted it to be as thorough as it can be, because I think this would be the first all-time roster list to get promoted, so I wanted this to be a template, so-to-speak, for future feature lists involving all-time rosters. I incorporated all the changes you just mentioned, and I upped the size of the photo to 325px, seems to fit pretty good at that size.Neonblaktalk - 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does the numbers column in the table serve? It seems superfluous. I recommend removing it and having the player's name as the first column.
Were the players that also managed the team "player-managers" (they played and managed the team at the same time). If so, you'll want to change the terminology and link.
The two items in the "literary notes" section should be moved to the "references" section under this heading: ;General. Similarly, the other refs should go under: ;Specific. (Include the semicolens.)
Comment -- I will review this list once the above comments are fixed to avoid conflicting reviews, please notify me when that is done (if I don't come back to this list in time). Please, also avoid using {{done}} templates, they are discouraged, see the main page.--Best, ₮RUCӨ20:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Reds were a Major League Baseball franchise that played in the Players' League (PL) in 1890, and then played one season in the American Association (AA) in 1891.
When the 1891 season ended, the American Association folded as well, leaving just the National League as the sole major league, and the Reds were bought out by the surviving National League clubs. -- Per MOS:ABBR, you need to be consistent with the use of acronyms, so you need to use the acronym here.
Actually, replacing all league names has hurt the prose considerably. I would suggest expanding league names in the lead back to full names and leaving the abbreviations in the table, since the requirement is consistent usage. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of players
The highlight should only be on the name of the player, not the entire row.
All entries need to be linked, that includes the positions (since this is a sortable table)
Notes
He played in two games for the 1890 Reds season, which was the last season of his 15 year career. --> He played two games in the 1890 Reds' season, which was the last season of his 15 year career.
He was the starting second baseman in 1890, and was the first Australian born person to play in the majors. -- (1)Unlink Australian per WP:OVERLINK (2)majors is jargony IMO, use major league instead
In 1891, he led the American Association in home runs, and tied for lead in RBIs with teammate Hugh Duffy. -- (1)add the before lead (2)RBI needs to be properly spelled out as runs batted in? (RBI)
He played in just six games during his only season in the majors. -- games played should either be linked earlier or not at all
He played in just one game during his only season in the majors. -- Is majors a proper term to refer to the major league?
Kelly was at the tail end of his Hall of Fame playing career when he became player-manager the 1890 Reds, and then later of the Cincinnati Kelly's Killers. -- (1)Add a before player-manager (2)Add of before the 1890 Reds
He started in left field for both teams. In 1890, he led the Players' league in RBIs. -- what do you mean both teams?
In 1891, he tied with teammate Duke Farrell for the American Association lead in RBIs. -- RBIs should be linked earlier
He had a pitching record of 9–15 for the Reds in 1890, his last full season in majors. -- add the before majors
O'Brien he had a pitching record of 18–13 in his final season. It was his last season in the majors becausebefore he died during the off-season.
Some of these notes should only relate during their time with the Reds between 1890-1891, not what happens in the future.
Be consistent with linking in the notes, either link all instances or don't link at all, like games played
Seek a copyedit of the notes.
Images
Remove 1, the images run over to the next section.
Thank you for doing a thorough review of the list. After incorporating you suggestions, it does appear to be tighter. However, I do have a couple of comments. 1. My monitor is just a normal flat screen monitor (not a wide-screen), so the photos on the right actually run short of the table's end by five players. I had thought of adding another image to make it flush, but I left it alone. 2. Your gonna have to explain what you mean when you talk about checker box/checker tool. Other than that, I think I have addressed all of your concerns, if I missed something, please let me know.Neonblaktalk - 04:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ask another person to give an input on the image because on mines (widescreen) it does that. Do you see the toolbox at the right on this page? The first link generates the disambiguation links of the article, you need to go to each one and disambiguate them to specific articles.--Best, ₮RUCӨ23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comments - First, the disambiguation link means that an article, in this case Tommy Dowd, leads to a dab page instead of the one meant to be linked. This can be checked by using the dab checker on the top right of the FAC page. Here are my other comments upon seeing this list.
Most importantly, we need to prove that all of these images were published prior to 1923. I don't mean created, because that isn't the standard. A couple of the photos are from the Library of Congress, but it would be better to link to pages with those specific images on them. None of the others indicate when they were published.
"who won the the AA championship". Double word needs to be fixed. Also, the references are out of order in this sentence. Not the biggest issue in the world, but you might as well deal with it while there.
On the positive side, I really like the idea of having notes for each player. One issue with grammar, from Matt Kilroy: "his last full season in major leagues." The word "the" is missing.
Thank you for the explanation on the disamb. tool box, I had actually figured it out today at work, but the computer was so slow that I gave up trying to fix the one link. I will look into the photo issue shortly. Looks like I can kill two birds with one stone, just eliminate the photos that do not comply with the publishing standard. Thank you for your comments about the notes, I knew it was a risk, but I thought it fit well in the scope that the list is about the players, might as well throw a tid bit about each of them, make it interesting for the reader.Neonblaktalk - 00:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just dropped all the photos, including the team photo in the lead, because I could not find a suitable reference indicating exactly when they were published. The closest was Clark Griffith, his was a cropping of a photo taken by the Chicago Daily News in 1902. In the description is states that it may have been printed in the paper. The Dan Brouthers photo was a cropping of the original. So, I have made the changes you have pointed out, if there is room on the right of players to add another one, let me know.Neonblaktalk - 02:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets the criteria after these, and other, fixes. Disclosure: I made some copy-edit changes to the notes to help this along. As for the content fork concern below, I feel that the main article isn't the right place for an all-time roster. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FLC talk asked reviewers to evaluate lists against the new criteria here. I'm sticking with my support because my viewpoint hasn't changed regarding this list. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - What makes this list notable? It seems like a content fork to me. It is fairly short space-wise; can it not be merged with the Boston Reds article, which much shorter than this article? NuclearWarfare(Talk)19:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:WIAFL is the current standard to meet, not any of the above items pointed out. A major league team, and major league players are all notable; other FLs are either shorter or not significantly longer, i.e. List of Boston Red Sox captains; nor do I think it matters whether it is longer than a related article.Neonblaktalk - 21:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Reds were an instant success, not only on the field, but also in the public's opinion"-->The Reds were an instant success on the field and in the public's opinion
"they also played in a larger, more comfortable and modern ballpark"
"The PL lasted just one season, which left most of the teams without a league."-->The PL ended (better word could be used though) after one season, leaving most of its teams without a league.
"With the dissolution of the PL" "With"-->After
"former clubs, via the reserve clause." Comma not needed.
"Reds were able to stay intact"-->Reds stayed intact
"leaving just the NL"
"Although he went hitless in seven at bats in 1891, he went on to play seven more seasons from 1895 through 1902." A bit too much detail.
"played in just six games"
"He played a total of six games during his only season"
"in just one game"
A key is needed for the actual positions.
"which was the last season of his 15 year career."-->the last season of his 15-year career.
"Australian born person "-->Australian-born person
Thank you for the review, especially in an area that is definately a weak spot for me. I made all the changes that you recomended.Neonblaktalk - 22:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I did the same thing to someone else. It was completed, but I hadn't hit enter yet. I will see if I can make the title of the key just one box, not split like the rest of the key.Neonblaktalk - 23:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Criterion 1. I was looking forward to reading this one, but quickly found some questionable prose. There are more simple mistakes than I would expect in our best work, at least for now. In addition to fixing these, please consider finding to find someone in the NBA project to read through this carefully.
Would it be possible to have pictures of drafted players to the right of the tables? That would be a nice touch.
I'm having a problem with the Notable undrafted players section. Is this meant to give the undrafted players who played in the NBA? If so, perhaps the section should be re-named accordingly. I'm sure there were plenty of undrafted college players who have Wikipedia articles; why wouldn't they be considered notable?
In a way, I think that section is out of scope of this article. I mean, this is about the draft and the players drafted. You say yourself the other players were excluded from the draft, so why should they be in the article? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I have this section is b/c the other NBA draft FLs have it. I can removed if it is decided that it is out of scope.—Chris!ct19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and other first-time eligible players, such as players from non-North American leagues." There is a redundancy with "players", seeing as there are two uses here and three in the entire sentence. How about changing the last part to "such as those from non-North American leagues."?
"The draft was broadcast on ESPN at 7:00 PM (EDT)." This is only in the U.S.
"The NBA announced that 91 players, including 69 players from U.S. colleges and institutions and 22 international players, have filed as early entry candidates for the 2008 NBA Draft." "have filed"? The draft was nine months ago.
"The Bulls winning of the lottery..." Apostrophe for Bulls, please. Also, would a result in the lottery technically be considered an upset?
Two NBA Draft Lottery links.
Also duplicate links for the Chicago Bulls, Miami Heat, and Minnesota Timberwolves.
"It marked the first time in draft history that three freshmen were taken with the first three picks." Remove the first "three".
"With five players taken in the draft, the Kansas...". Grammar error after the comma.
One note from the changes above: now that it says University of Kansas, "the" can be put back. It was different when I reviewed it. I struck the oppose above due to the good work that has been done in the last work; here are a few more issues that I want to bring up before I support.
"Another record was also set, with ten freshmen being drafted in the first round and twelve in total." In addition to the struck word, the part after the comma is a noun plus -ing sentence structure that needs fixing.
"22 are forward". Last word should be plural.
A few notes from the school column: Memphis Tigers basketball redirects to the men's program, which is what you want linked for Derrick Rose's column. Rider Broncs could replace the generic Rider University link.
The note in the Team column for D. J. White should be moved next to the team name to match the other similar notes.
Undrafted players: "The following lists players who went unndrafted...". Typo.
Done all except for the D. J. White one. I am not sure if that is a good idea. The note is about Seattle SuperSonics. Moving it next to Detroit Pistons might confuse reader.—Chris!ct00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another record was set with ten freshmen being drafted in the first round and twelve in total. --> Another record was also set, with ten freshmen being drafted in the first round and twelve in total.
In a three-team trade, Portland acquired the draft rights to 25th pick Nicolas Batum from Houston; Houston acquired the draft rights to 28th pick Donté Greene, a second-round selection in 2009 from Memphis and 33rd pick Joey Dorsey from Portland; and Memphis acquired the draft rights to 27th pick Darrell Arthur from Portland. -- the semi colons should be commas
In a three-team trade, Chicago acquired the rights to 36th pick Ömer Aşık from Portland; Portland acquired a second-round pick in 2009 from Denver and two future second-round picks from Chicago; and Denver acquired the draft rights to 39th pick Sonny Weems from Chicago. -- Same thing here
San Antonio acquired the draft rights to 48th pick Malik Hairston, a second-round pick in 2009 and cash considerations from Phoenix in exchange for the draft rights to 45th pick Goran Dragić. -- Comma after 2009
In general the article meets WP:WIAFL standards, but I would like to see the outcome of the undrafted players before giving my final decision. I will check back, if I don't you may notify me for the result. --Best, ₮RUCӨ20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The draft was broadcast on ESPN at 7:00 PM EDT in the United States.". a- This has no ref; b- this excludes international broadcasts; c- this interrupts the flow.
"According to the NBA, 91 players, including 69 players from U.S. colleges and 22 international players, filed as early entry candidates for the 2008 NBA Draft." Maybe there is some way to explain this more clearly? I mean, most people wouldn't know why being an "early entry candidate" is so important. Or, for that matter, what it is.
To be fair, a majority of the prose wasn't written by me. I just saw this list looked pretty good and decided to bring it here after fixing it up. And, I am not sure why the original writer didn't clarify at the first place.—Chris!ct17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another record was set, with ten freshmen drafted in the first round and twelve in total. Try maybe: "Another record was set when ten freshmen were drafted..."
"This was also the Seattle SuperSonics' last official team draft. In July, the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as the Oklahoma City Thunder. The Thunder's first official team draft will not come until 2009." Could this, by chance, go into a footnote? It seems it would fit better there.
Why do you need to say the birth years of the international players? Also, I don't think Mike Taylor is an international player, yet you do the same for him.
When you say "...trade involving X Player", I'm pretty sure there are several players involved in most of those deals, but you only mention one. Was your choice just arbitrary?
Well...OK, I actually didn't ask you to put in every player, I just asked you how you chose a particular player. But since it's done, it needs to be reworded. For example: On January 26, 2006, Minnesota received a second-round draft pick from Miami in a trade involving Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey via Boston in a trade involving Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, and Dwayne Jones. Better worded, it would be: "On January 26, 2006, Minnesota received a second-round draft pick, Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, and James Posey from Boston for Ricky Davis, Marcus Banks, Mark Blount, Justin Reed, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Olowokandi, and Dwayne Jones." I think that would be better. As it is, it's not clear who is coming from which team. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 00:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noble Story that the undrafted picks don't need to be listed here; they can be mentioned in the main article about the 2008 season.
"players and other first-time eligible players, including those from non-North American leagues." Clarify if these "non-North American leagues" are professional or not.
"including 69 players from U.S. colleges and 22 international players"
"early entry candidates"-->early-entry candidates
"second biggest upset in NBA Draft Lottery history behind the Orlando Magic winning in 1993 with just a 1.5% chance."-->second-largest upset in NBA Draft Lottery history behind the Orlando Magic, who won it in 1993 with just a 1.5% chance.
"The Miami Heat and the Minnesota Timberwolves obtained second and third picks respectively." Add "the" after "obtained".
"It marked the first time in draft history that freshmen were taken with the first three picks." Move this to the beginning of the second paragraph and change to "For the first time in draft history the first three draft picks were all freshmen."
"Another record was set when ten freshmen were drafted in the first round and twelve in total." So what was the record? The ten first-round freshmen or the twelve total freshmen?
"Out of the players drafted, 29 are forwards, 19 are guards, and 12 are centers." Links to the positions, please?
"This was also the Seattle SuperSonics' last official team draft."-->The 2008 Draft was the Seattle SuperSonics' last official team draft.
"In July, the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma as the Oklahoma City Thunder. "-->In July, the franchise relocated to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and was renamed to the Oklahoma City Thunder.
Since you've already mentioned that the first three were freshmen, remove the redundant ", a freshman" part after each name in that second paragraph. It will become "...Rose from the U of Memphis".
A note should be added next to the third and fifth picks. As a reader, I just read that Minnesota traded that pick to Memphis, but I need details! Make it easy to navigate, please!
Same thing with the 11th and 13th picks.
The 15th pick needs a note to click on, as well. Plus, I suggest removing the "as part of the XX trade" part when you add that clickable note because it's kinda unfair to the third pick along with others.
^Same thing with the 17th pick.
I need more details about the 20th pick.
What Jason Kidd trade gave the Nets the 21st pick?
There are many trades that need more notes if you need me to continue listing them, just ask.
"Franchise would relocate to become..." - huh? Sounds weird
Under Traded picks whenever you mention the "second-round draft pick", can you add what pick exactly they received.
No need to oppose b/c most of these are pretty easy to fix. :) I have done several trades and will probably finished them tomorrow.—Chris!ct06:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why exactly are you not removing the "as part of the XX trade" part? I think it's too much info for the table. It's no deal-breaker, of course. I am just wondering.--Crzycheetah05:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the criteria, etc. I waited until one of my lists cleared out of the queue and gave a little time before nominating this list, but I think it's ready. It's article 4 toward my proposed WP:FT (see bottom of this page for details) and I will address all concerns as always. KV5(Talk • Phils)21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Among third basemen, Wade Boggs has won the most Silver Slugger Awards, with eight wins between the rival New York Yankees (two) and Boston Red Sox (six). -- Remove the the
Grammatically speaking, there is nothing wrong with that the. It is the article for both New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same comment that I stated in the second base FLC, fix the formatting of your acronym use.
Schmidt won the first five NL Silver Slugger Awards at third base from 1980, when he led the Philadelphia Phillies to the World Series, to 1984[5] before his streak was broken by Tim Wallach. -- When was it broken?
Look in the list. It encourages the reader to move forward. It's also a matter of math for the reader; not every fact needs to be explicated, or there'd be no need for a list. KV5(Talk • Phils)23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be obnoxious with all your responses. How is it a matter of math when the reader doesn't even know when it was broken?--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My response was not intended to be obnoxious, but if you found it to be so, I apologize. As to the comment, it is explicit in the lead that Schmidt won five consecutive awards from 1980 to 1984. Since he did not win 6 consecutive awards, it can certainly be inferred that Wallach won in 1985. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rodriguez batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season as well;[7] the NL record is held by Castilla (144 RBI in 1998). -- This acronym was not spelled out before this.
Clarify the most recent winners from both leagues.
See my comment at the second base FLC. The table makes this clear, as do the images, for that matter, and the lead is certainly long enough. KV5(Talk • Phils)23:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I give. Where would you suggest the addition? End of the first paragraph? I'd like to keep it the same since I'm following the same format for all of these winners' lists. KV5(Talk • Phils)22:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It usually goes at the end of the paragraphs, but in this context, I guess you can do that or find somewhere where it is suitable. If this bothers you, I'm guessing it won't hurt the list not to have it since you did a great job explaining the rest.--Best, ₮RUCӨ22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done for all lists of winners by position that are completed so far, and they are covered by the general reference. Do you think I need to add a whole paragraph of most recent winners to the main article of the topic or is it OK the way it is? KV5(Talk • Phils)23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. In response to the main article, that would be overkill to do so, I think just having the winners from each league will suffice.--Best, ₮RUCӨ23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The award consists of a three-foot (91 cm) tall silver bat trophy with the engraved names of each of the winners from the league. - "Consists of" → "is". Also, "three-foot" should be "3-ft".
Two National League third baseman have also won three Silver Sluggers. Matt Williams won the award in 1990, 1993, and 1994,[8] when he was on pace to tie Roger Maris' home run record of 61 before the players' strike - Try to be consistent with the format of numbers (three, 61).
Could you please elaborate? MOSNUM says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." –Juliancolton | Talk23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are four semi-colons in the final paragraph of the lead, which leaves the prose rather choppy. Most of them could simply be broken into two sentences.
I changed two of them, the ones that I felt could have stood the change. The other three still need to be there with the way it's written. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Among third basemen, Wade Boggs has won the most Silver Slugger Awards, with eight wins between the rival New York Yankees (two) and Boston Red Sox (six)." This is unclear, the use of "with" as a connector (which is clumsy anyway) obscures the logic of the sentence. It's not clear whether "rival" applies to the Yankees or the rivaling teams in general. You might need to split up these sentences.
"but has ten wins in his career as he accumulated seven wins as a shortstop with the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers." "but" is used incorrectly here, leading to a false contrast. Use "and" instead. Also, the "as ... as" repetition is annoying. Perhaps break things up with a semicolon: "and has ten wins in his career; he accumulated seven wins as a shortstop with the Seattle Mariners and Texas Rangers."
The second idea doesn't contradict the first; it just provides additional information. The fact that he has three Silver Sluggers with the AL does not contradict the fact that he won ten total. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Rodriguez holds the Major League record" Another false contrast.
Again, I don't see how it's a false contrast. This one is supposed to be a contrast. The National League record is mentioned first; the "however" is meant to clarify that a higher total has been achieved. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rodriguez batted in 156 runs during the 2007 season as well" Why "as well"? Was there someone else who batted in 156 runs?
No, but the "as well" is in reference to the previous sentence: He hit 54 home runs, and batted in 156 runs as well, if you care to think of it that way. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you explained it, it kind of makes sense, but I still don't see why it's necessary; it is also confusing through its ambiguity. I understand your feelings about keeping a certain amount of modifiers and transitional phrases in prose, but forcing them in there, as in here, doesn't help.
Comments - Looking good, just like the others in the series. Just a few picky things before I support:
I find it odd that the Yankees are listed before the Red Sox for Wade Boggs, considering that he spent much more time with the Sox (and this is coming from a Yankees fan). Only time the Sox should ever be ahead of the Yanks. :-)
I don't know why I put it that way, I find it odd too because there's no justification for it. I'll change it though it's really no difference. For the record, I don't like either team. At all. Done. KV5(Talk • Phils)01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Miguel Cabrera holds the National League record for a third baseman, with .336." This could give the year he posted the top average.
Other albums with extended chart runs include Jack Johnson's fifth studio album, Sleep Through the Static, and Metallica's ninth studio album, Death Magnetic, each spent three straight weeks on the chart. -- the final comma should be a semi-colon
I think its fine because if the sentence goes this way, "Other albums with extended chart runs include Jack Johnson's fifth studio album and Metallica's ninth studio album, each spent three straight weeks on the chart", the clause is dependent therefore a semicolon is not necessary. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its my mistake. I thought of spending rather than spent. So the clause "each spent ..." is independent therefore a semicolon is grammatical. And the fact that there are lots of comma, it will help. Sorry. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The MTV source should have the publisher as MTV Networks and the work from MTV. This also need to be linked.
Sandy said when the work and publisher are closely 'related', like this case, better remove the publisher. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't necessarily right from my view. MTV Networks is the publisher, so thats how it should be not just MTV. So its vise-versa.--Best, ₮RUCӨ03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I learned from you dear. And what I like with albums chart is that there are lots of sites publishing figures, ranking, etc. --Efe (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"longest-running album" sounds like the album is of the longest duration. Maybe "had the longest run" is better?
That is clarified by the supporting phrase "is the longest-running album among the releases that have reached peak position in 2008". --Efe (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that you have a lot of white space in the side, I think you can add a few of pictures of artists. Eg: Metallica, for consecutive weeks at the top, or Radiohead, for most vinyl records sold.
Hmm. That's a general comment. Any changes to a single list must reflect to all pages. I think we can discuss this at the project page, I suggest. --Efe (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julian changed it from are to is. I don't know exactly what's the right term. But since we have used "are" on previous FLCs, I'll change it. --Efe (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"tying with veterans Mariah Carey and Whitney Houston." "tying"-->tied.
Shouldn't the artist for Juno and other soundtracks be "Various artists"? Soundtrack could possibly be part of the album name, like "Juno soundtrack". indopug (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. With the almost pass of the first season, and having formatted this list after that one, there should be few problems. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
"Veronica Mars (Kristen Bell) it her mission to discover why the bus crashed" - makes it?
Spell out PCH on first occasion, assuming it is an abbr. for Pacific Coast Highway or something.
I know it is explained in the first season but you may need to explain "09ers" again here.
You explain this in the ==Episodes== section but have already used it twice in the ==Cast and crew== section. It should be expained on the first occurance. Rambo'sRevenge(ER)09:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How come these pages always have the episodes listed last? To me, it never made sense to have reception for a topic that you have no context for. It just seems that you should read about what happens in the season before you read about whether someone liked it. It's kind of the same principle behind why film articles don't put the plot section last Other than that, it seems to match the other recent FLs for season articles that have come out. Got my support. BIGNOLE (Contact me)04:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. The order of the episodes vs. prose is following the norm., although I can totally see where you're coming from. I guess this allows the prose to be more obvious/dominant, as the plot is kinda summed up in the lead. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion05:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring) is accused of killing a Pacific Coast Highway biker gang member after drunkenly picking a fight with Eli "Weevil" Navarro (Francis Capra) and the PCHers. -- The acronym should be formatted as Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), so its later use can make more sense.
"09ers" Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen) and Cassidy "Beaver" Casablancas (Kyle Gallner) deal with a gold-digging stepmother, Kendall Casablancas (Charisma Carpenter), with whom they are left when their father flees the country while under investigation for real estate fraud. -- (1)I would give a link to someplace that explains gold-digging (yes I know what it means, but others might not) (2)add with before when their father
Why isn't PCH linked here, but its linked in the Cast section?
Release
Eric Goldman of IGN wrote the season was "entertaining start to finish", with "great" returning characters and a "wonderful array of guest stars". -- Add that before the season was
Goldman was displeased with the lack of extras, and criticized the crew for the lack of commentaries. -- Since this is in a new section (distribution), you should make it aware that this is IGN's Goldman.
Network Ten broadcast the second season in Australia on Fridays at 10.35pm. -- Is it necessary to list the timeslot when the other mentions of broadcasting don't have that?
Awards: Kristen Bell won the Saturn Award for Best Television Actress,[30] and was nominated for the Satellite Award for Actress in a Series, Drama,[31] and the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actress: Drama/Action Adventure. -- Reword to Kristen Bell won the Saturn Award for Best Television Actress,[30] was nominated for the Satellite Award for Actress in a Series and Drama,[31] and the Teen Choice Award for Choice TV Actress: Drama/Action Adventure.
Episodes
I would seek a copyedit of these notes, as this is difficult to review for reviewers.
References
The General references are improperly formatted, they should be cited in a cite web template like they are in in this FL.
Some refs are linked more than once, others are not, like the ABC publisher. If you link others more than once, all need to be linked more than once.--Best, ₮RUCӨ22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the comments. :) I have tweaked all issues, but I haven't inquired for a copyeditor because the summaries were all copied from the "List of episodes" page, which itself is a FL. Thanks again, Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion06:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"while Jennifer Gwartz, Danielle Stokdyk "-->and Jennifer Gwartz, Danielle Stokdyk
"Dunn, who portrayed Duncan Kane, " Repetition of "portrayed".
"Logan-Veronica relationship" See WP:DASH, it should be "Logan–Veronica relationship".
"whom he though kept the season "humming along"" "whom"-->who, see Whom#Subject whom as my reasoning.
"performance Emmy-worthy" I'd appreciate a quote on this.
"numerous critics found issue with the complexity"-->numerous critics were frustrated by the complexity
"was displeased with the lack of extras, and criticized the crew for the lack of commentaries." Could you do away with the "lack ... lack" repetition?
"When a number of athletes including Wallace and Meg fail their drug tests"-->When several athletes—including Wallace and Meg—fail their drug tests
"the coach of the team"-->the team's coach
"finds out that"-->discovers that
"and does some investigating of his own to impress her" Very vague.
"She decides to go public with the information" Be a little more precise in the phrasing here. Does she post the information somewhere?
"after a witness comes forward" And... (what do they say)?
"Weevil tells Logan he no longer believes" Insert "that" after "Logan".
"of the bridge witness Dr. Griffith" What does "bridge witness" mean here? Be careful of vague back references.
"and reveals that he has a gambling problem. " Could this be simplified to "and reveals thatis a gambling addict."?
"Veronica is hired to discover who is mugging pizza boys and who is blackmailing gay students at Neptune High." Needs rephrasing to remove close repetition of "who is".
"Keith uses this information to force Sheriff Lamb" Could this be considered blackmailing?
"Hearst College" needs a section link, not just a redirect to the main locations article.
"It is Graduation Day for Veronica and her classmates, but Sheriff Lamb intends to make things difficult for Weevil." Not seeing the contradiction here, which is implied by "but". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"private-eye sideline job and tough persona" Is there something a little more formal and encyclopedic than this? I have no idea as to what a "sideline job" is.
"and is being blackmailed by Sheriff Lamb" For what?
Not done (yet)
"deal with a gold-digging stepmother" The Wiktionary link is appreciated, but this is still too colloquial.
Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable. Is there some FAQs or About Us page on the website that might provide clues to their reliability for fact checking? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
six of which were regulars in the first season - "six of whom"
"09ers" Dick Casablancas (Ryan Hansen)... - don't need quotation marks as term has been established above
Thomas, who said he - "said that he"
Brian Raftery of Entertainment Weekly praised the ingenious cast - this doesn't necessary imply that he believed the cast to be ingenious; it just says matter-of-factly that the cast is ingenious, so could do with a reword to clarify that this was the reviewer's opinion
maintaining Veronica's trademark wit and cleverness."[9] - full-stop/period should be outside quotation mark as it's not a full sentence
I am nominating this for featured list because I, before my username change as Hpfan9374, have significantly contributed to the list and believe it meets all attributes of the featured list criteria. The discography follows the same format as my previous discographies for past Australian Idol contestants, Ricki-Lee Coulter discography and Joel Turner discography. Please note that Paulini Curuenavuli has only charted in Australia, except for her debut single, "Angel Eyes" which also charted in New Zealand. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. This list has previously undergone feature list candidacy, however failed because the music video director's name(s) was not found in reliable sources. They are not on the internet, I have searched it for hours just trying to find the music video director's name(s). They are not on the liner notes to the singles or any of her subsequent releases. In the last candidacy, I contacted Paulini's management and even after they contacted Paulini directly, they were unable to provide me with the music video director's name(s). Unless, consensus has changed, a previous precedent made in the featured list candidacy of Paul Kelly discography stands that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating that the "Director name for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence that introduces the subject, Paulini. If you believe the lead still needs to be expanded, please suggest what needs to be included. I await your response. Thanks for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have since expanded the article further by acknowledging Paulini's membership with the Young Divas. If any more needs to be included or if you feel the lead needs to be expanded further, please state them and I will address them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I agree that the lead should be expanded with some more general information.
I have added a sentence that introduces the subject, Paulini. If you believe the lead still needs to be expanded, please suggest what needs to be included. I await your response. Thanks for your comments.
I have since expanded the article further by acknowledging Paulini's membership with the Young Divas. If any more needs to be included or if you feel the lead needs to be expanded further, please state them and I will address them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of December 2008, Paulini is working on her third studio album. - Is it possible to find a more recent report?
I have searched the internet and have already exhausted most online resources about Paulini, and could not find a more recent news article or report that references that she is working on her third studio album.
The link to the references section in the infobox is rather odd, though I'm not sure if that's standard.
The "References" field in the Artist Discography infobox states "yes". This is standard for artist discographies, see FLs of the same subject.
Thankyou very much for your comments. If you have any further concerns, please state them and I will address them as soon as possible. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable chart positions should not be mentioned in Lead - leave for table(s).
Replace and peaked at number thirty-four in New Zealand with and peaked into the Top 40 in New Zealand. Use a specific Australian Charts Portal ref for "Angel Eyes" number one (it covers NZ appearance).
Replace despite peaking at number seventy-two. with or peak in the Top 50. You can use more generic Australian Charts Portal (Ref #8) to verify it did not appear.
Disambiguate predecessor in The album failed to achieve the commercial success of its predecessor, despite peaking at number seventy-two. The predecessor could be the EP just mentioned in previous sentence. Also fix chart peak in line with previous comment. Hence, try The album failed to achieve the commercial success of her first album and did not peak in the Top 50. Ref #8 can go here too.
Check refs:
Ref#1: Use work=[[The Age]]|publisher=[[Fairfax Media]] inside ref.
Ref#2: Use work=[[The Courier-Mail]]|publisher=[[News Corporation]] inside ref.
Ref#3: Use original source at allmusic as written by Matthew Chisling. For chart peak, see note above.
Ref#4: Add in |last=Blackman|first=Guy and change work=The Age|publisher=Fairfax Media in ref.
Ref#5: Something weird is happening with the Sony link, I ended up at bandit.fm and had to do a search to find bandit.fm - xidol - Paulini. I couldn’t see the article you're citing: you might have to check this and use the redirected link to search for a direct connection.
Ref#16 I'm assuming you're using this ref for verifying the list of Australian Idols on the album not its chart position. Hence change title=Rise Up #1 to more accurate title=Cast Album released next week and change date=2003-10-20 to date=2003-10-19.
Ref#17 OK.
Ref#18 Tells me its directed by TWiN, don't see names Jonathan and Josh Baker. What gives?
Only problem, not major at all. The videos were directed by TWiN, who are a video director duo whose members are Jonathan and Josh Baker. What would you suggest doing? I've changed it to TWiN now, but if you have a concern regarding that, just tell me.
Whew! That was fun. I'm pretty sure I've addressed all your concerns. Paulini's membership with the Young Divas has now been acknowledged. All non-notable chart positions have been removed from the lead and re-referenced and re-worded, as per your request. Changed the "predecessor" sentence to your suggested phrasing. I have edited the reference to include all of your suggestions. See my query about the directors of the "Rough Day" and "So Over You" music videos. About Sony BMG's website changes, I have changed the references to some of them, but to reference the director of the "I Believe" music video, I have added a footnote that informs the reader how to access the information, in a similiar way as some footnotes in Eminem discography. Thankyou very much for your comments as they not only help to improve this article, but many others, as it expands my WikiKnowledge. Alex Douglas (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this not be merged back into the main article? The number of tables is short enough that merging this info would not make the main article overwhelming. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discography contains nineteen releases. It warrants a stand-alone list and general consesus has it that a discography generally must have atleast ten releases in order to acheive featured-list status. I don't think it would be right to deprive this discography from attaining the aforementioned status, merely because it 'could' fit in the article as an embedded list. Thanks for your comments. Alex Douglas (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Curuenavuli came to prominence, after placing fourth on the first season of Australian Idol in 2003." 1)Comma not necessary; 2) "came"-->rose
Fixed.
Can you mention which record labels she has released her albums on?
Added "on Sony BMG" to sentences about the release of her albums.
"peaked into the Top 40"-->reached the Top 40
Fixed wording.
"failed to receive certification, or peak in the Top 50." Comma not needed.
Removed comma.
"number twenty-six"-->number 26
Changed.
Note 3 should be part of ref 21, not a footnote. Format as follows:<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.bandit.fm/xidol/paulini |title=Paulini |accessdate=2009-04-02 |work=xidol |publisher=bandit.fm |date=2006-08-17 |accessdate=2009-04-02}} To retrieve the director's name for the "I Believe" music video, select the news item "Paulini Still Believes: Check Out Her Gorgeous New Video + Exclusive Pics".</ref> Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the "australian-charts.com. " and similar New Zealand charts refs, adding the website name and "Australian charts portal. " is redundant. Remove one of them.
Agreed. I have removed the redundant "Australian charts portal."
Fixed, removed pop-up also. Thankyou for your comments, the list is looking better and better each day. I'll be sure to make note of your comments when I create another discography. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that "instore" is essential for the caption.
Agreed, "instore" does seem a bit redundant.
Numbers in the infobox don't match info in the list... 5 or 6 singles? 2 or 5 other appearances?
Fixed to correct numbers.
"..commonly known as Paulini is an Australian..." seems to be missing a comma after Paulini...
Added comma.
"...came to prominence, after placing fourth..." seems to have an unnecessary comma...
Removed the comma and changed the wording of "came" to "rose" as per the request of Dabomb87.
"...peaked into the Top 40 in New Zealand..." sorry? can we be precise here?
Changed to "reached at number 34".
Overuse of "peak" I feel. Not "peaking" in the top 40 could also be written "did not achieve Top 40 status", "did not make it into the Top 40"... whatever, but the prose is hardly engaging I'm afraid, due to the repetitions.
I think you referring to here is "Superwoman" and "Amazing Grace: Songs for Christmas" outside of the "Top 50"? I have changed some occurances of "peak" or "peaked" to "reach" and "reached". I have changed the wording of "Superwoman" and "Amazing Grace: Songs for Christmas" to your suggested wording.
I prefer references in numerical order. So, not [6][5], but [5][6].
Whoops. I've fixed that up now.
"twenty-six", why not just 26?
Fixed.
I would make her co-founding of a girl band a third paragraph in the lead as it is distinct from her solo stuff.
Alright, created a third paragraph, acknowledging her releases with the Young Divas. I've expanded it aswell, to include the group's second album; hopefully it's not too long and not too short. Also, I have added the 'otheruses' template to the discography, similiar to Eminem discography as this will ensure that the scope and inclusion criteria is defined.
[nb 3] refers to a link that you haven't got to yet. If you can't cite this any other way then I suggest you put the note into the citation so it's clear in one place what you need to do to see the information you require.
Fixed note 3 so as to satisfy Dabomb87. I believe I've fixed it now, but if you still have a concern with it, please tell me.
And I am also concerned about the sources that Dabomb87 has noted.
This website is Sony BMG's new website, it is the only online resource that references the music video director of Paulini's "I Believe" music video. The Sanity link has been corrected.
Thankyou for your comments. I hope my edits have addressed your concerns. If you have any further concerns, please state them and I'd be glad to address them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support but you must fix...
Music Videos doesn't tie up between infobox and list.
I have changed the number of music videos from the infobox to "5" under the Music videos field, so as to reflect the true content of the list. Thankyou very much for your support and continued comments and suggestions, I will be sure to read over your comments again before putting another discography through featured list candidacy. Alex Douglas (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments References still need a bit of work. There's a couple of "Australian charts portal"s; Allmusic is a website and shouldn't be italicised, and the date format is a mix between the Commonwealth dd mm yyyy and the ISO yyyy-mm-dd. Ideally they should be the same format as in the main body of the article. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the single occurence of the phrase "Australian charts portal" from the references. Allmusic is a website, however it should be placed under the "work" field of the cite web template as it is the item's larger work (the website the webpage is found on). The default format of this field is italicised, I don't believe this can be changed. If you still have a concern about this, please suggest how this template should be used when referencing the Allmusic website or raise it on the discussion page for the cite web template, as I have used this template in the same way as a multitude of other featured lists on the same subject do. I have changed formatted the entirity of the reference's dates into the Commonwealth standard, as this is the same format used in the main body of the list. I hope you are satisfied with my recent edits, in regard to addressing your concerns, if you have any further comments, suggestions, issues, problems or queries with this list please state them so I can get to them as soon as possible. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another Royal Society related FLC, seems FLable. I checked with the Royal Society about the years with no rationale, they told me that it is indeed correct that some have no rationales (the sources agree, but I just wanted to be sure). To present a conflict of interest where none exists, I am required at this point to say that I am a participant in this year's WikiCup. — neuro(talk)(review)00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give examples of things to include? We've covered everything normally covered; the reason that it is shorter than normal is that there are no massive quotes in the lead (which is precisely the thing which makes this Royal Society award so different from the others). Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has occurred four times to date - in 2004 to Martin Rees, in 2006 to Richard Fortey, in 2007 to Jim Al-Khalili, and most recently in 2008 to John D. Barrow. -- the dash should be a em dash, without spaces
Publications (newspapers, magazines and journals) should be italicized. You can do this by changing publisher= to work= in the citation templates.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my browser (Safari), the Name column appears too narrow so most recipient's surnames are on the line after their first name. Consider expanding that column by about 25%.
I think abbreviations such as COPUS ought to be linked or explained. You have no linking in the rationales, and that makes the rationales themselves difficult to understand from a non-expert perspective. We need to appeal to all readers here, not just scientists.
Weak support. I think we may have an issue with lists that have verbatim notes/criteria/whatever which include with abbreviations and techspeak and are perhaps unapproachable to a regular reader. However, the list meets the new criteria so hurrah. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bane of my Wiki-existence, this list is back at FLC for now the fourth time. Sorry if it looks a little bare-bones without pictures, but the list is already a whopping 109kb without them. The list is consistent with all of the other lists of NHL players and features every player to ever don the Hawks uniform. There's a few redlinks, but its certainly not overbearing. Teemu08 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that there is too much I can do about this. If you take a look at all of the other player lists, it is a very comparable lead. ([38][39][40][41][42][43] etc.). A few of these articles have some information on players who are, for example, members of the hall of fame, but that information is redundant to other articles on the Blackhawks. If you have something in mind by which to expand the lead, I would gladly incorporate it. I've never had a problem getting in a featured list with 2+ paragraphs before, however. Also note that another user has added some more information to the lead which may make it more satisfactory. Teemu08 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, FL is becoming more and more prose-demanding these day. But I think you have expand it considerably and the 2 paragraphs look fine, so I change to weak oppose.—Chris!ct00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the layout. At first, you group the Goaltenders in one table and then group all other positions into another. Why not have five sections about players of each of the five positions?
Goaltenders and skaters have completely different statistics and therefore couldn't be in the same table. Additionally, as you may find, some players played multiple positions. Teemu08 (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Color should by accompanied by symbols
I've bolded lines with players who have played this year. The Stanley Cup winners should already be distinguishable based on the year listed in the "Stanley Cup Winner" column. Teemu08 (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well based on my experience writing and reviewing FLs, color should be accompanied by symbols per WP:ACCESS. Take a look at recentlypromotedFLs. I am not sure if boldface will suffice but I will ask other reviewers' inputs on that.—Chris!ct04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards asked me to revisit this FLC due to recent criteria change and I still think it fulfills the criteria, so I stand by my support.—Chris!ct05:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Much better than when I first saw it, the table and references check out up to standards, as does the lead. However, I would like to see the lead expanded a bit more, I just think its too short IMO.--Best, ₮RUCӨ20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - For an idea of how to expand the lead, one good example is Nashville Sounds all-time roster, which states what players have won important awards. This might be a good way to squeeze out a third paragraph. The lead needs references for facts not covered in the list itself. Also, I'm unsure of the reliability of Hockey Goalies.org. I've seen that site questioned at FAC before. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WIAFA: "(a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". Player awards are not mentioned anywhere in the subsequent text and therefore would be irrelevant in the lead. For what its worth, I plan on spinning off award winners into their own article once I'm done with this one since there's so many. Teemu08 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking to expand on what's in the list to improve the lead, here are some ideas: number of players by nationality (not all, just the most prominent outside of Canada, which is obviously number 1), how many players have won the Stanley Cup with the team, etc. Have any jersey numbers been retired? If so, that could be added.
At this point, the lead is probably long enough. It was more of a concern earlier on in the nomination. Thanks, though. Teemu08 (talk)
"Seasons" comment in the key should be in a footnote.
I know images would make the article large, but for a list like this, you have to have at least a lead image, if not one or two. A few isn't going to make a huge difference in size but will do a heck of a lot for Cr.6.
"at least one match for the franchise, either in the NHL regular season or in the playoffs." Are you sure it should be "match" instead of "game"? I think this article should be using American English.
"who were known as the Black Hawks from their inception until 1986"
"who was the team's goaltender for their first Stanley Cup win in 1934"
For consistency, the blue rows should also have a symbol.
Image caption: "He is the franchise leader in goals with 604." Comma after "goals".
General references should usually be placed above the inline citations.
The site has a bibliography which reliable sources and they have a strict policy of only accepting official documents to add stats etc. This source has been deemed reliable for many previously featured articles. -Djsasso (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed. Hockeygoalies also cites their sources [44] and has been deemed reliable for other featured lists. EDIT: upon further review, I'm just going to delete it. While it was a big time-saver, the information there is redundant to the other sources. Teemu08 (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hockeygoalies is still being used as an inline citation. Also, you've mixed {{citation}} with the {{cite web/news/journal etc.}} templates; these should not be mixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that current and former captains should be denoted as such, as it is important information to know. This renders List of Chicago Blackhawks captains unnecessary, which is in line with the stricter content forking guidelines of the new FL criteria, which is about to be instituted. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean simply by colour coding, or by the addition of an extra column? I'm still not entirely sure if the captain's list is considered content forking because of length concerns and a list of captains does have independant notability (although maybe it's just because I'm a hockey fan). I included the List of Vancouver Canucks captains in my audit because it is reasonably short and the players list is 63,602, so a merge might be realistic whereas the Blackhawks are a much older team. These sports lists are tricky ones to judge though. Unlike the musician awards list, there is at least a standard where every team has these lists and they aren't just arbitrarily split off. -- Scorpion042216:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Captains are players, yes? Would it be possible to add footnotes to the player list, saying "player was team captain from X season to Y season"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the new criteria has passed, I'll merge the captains into this article. It will take a little time though, so cut me a little slack on this one. Teemu08 (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Looks much better than when it first came here. In addition to denotations for captains and Hall of Famers, I'd like to see a couple of other things done.
"when the team won their second championship in 1938." For correct tenses, change "their" to "its".
In the next-to-last sentence of the lead, there's a space before the reference.
Picky, but why are the reference dates using international formatting in an article on an American subject?
I'd like to see references 4 through 6, which aren't purely citations, moved to a new Notes section; the current Notes section could then be changed to References. The primary benefit would be an improvement in the formatting of reference 6.
There was apparently some confusion with the first comment. We still have "The Blackhawks...have won the Stanley Cup three times in its (their) 83-year history" and "the team's goaltender for their (its) first Stanley Cup win in 1934." I know it's difficult to understand tenses sometimes, but it's important for our readers. Just remember to match a singular with a singular, and vise versa, and everything will be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think I am definitely confused about the tensing. I am under the impression that American English treats plural proper nouns as if they were plural nouns (this issue comes up a lot with American v. English musical groups). I am not sure I understand why the tensing in the lead in reference the Hawks would be anything but plural. Teemu08 (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Would still like to see Hall of Famers denoted in some way, but I think it meets the standards as is. Nice work on such a long list. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a comprehensive list of all places of worship in Crawley, a medium-sized town and borough in Southern England. I have tried to keep the use of churches' own websites to a minimum (and in any case to verify uncontroversial info only). The three missing pictures will be taken soon! This is intended to be a precursor to a nom of a similar but much larger and more ambitious list, so all feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The borough of Crawley, in West Sussex, England, has many churches, chapels and other places of worship. - many is unclear, just put the exact number if possible
Matthewedwards asked me to revisit this FLC due to recent criteria change and I still think it fulfills the criteria, so I stand by my support.—Chris!ct05:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of its 44.96 km2 (17.36 sq mi) area is covered by the New town of Crawley, which was planned in the 1940s and built during the next four decades. -- next should be following
The New town development consisted of self-contained neighbourhoods, each of which had at least one Anglican church. -- is New supposed to be capitalized?
→"Purpose-built" is meant in the sense of "with a dedicated purpose", as opposed to the current Hindu temple which was not built specifically for that use. I can remove it if that is preferred, as it doesn't really add a great deal to the sentence.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→I thought the order of the article looked better that way: Lead, historical development, demographics, then the most important part (the main list); then the last two paragraphs giving what is effectively supplementary information. It doesn't seem logical to discuss communities with no church of their own before coming on to the main list. Likewise with the airport chapels. I will move them above the list if that is preferred for style reasons, though.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support definitely a good article, at this points, honestly, I'm sorry I can't suggest much to modify, as it's already pretty OK. Not necessary, but maybe wouldn't have been a bad idea, would have been a distinct column with the years of construction; but I understand this would have depleyed the notes tomuch in some cases.--Aldux (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Terms should only be linked on their first occurence, and only those that are uncommon to the reader and that help understanding. For example, I don't think World War II should be linked. "Convent" should only be linked on its first appearance. Same with "Listed building", under its various pipe links (link it twice, once to Grade 1 and once to Grade II*).
→Some of the places of worship aren't (Christian) churches. "List of places of worship..." would be an alternative, but as the majority are Christian churches of various descriptions, I felt that "Churches and places of worship" covered the whole topic well. I am willing to rename to "List of places of worship..." if it is felt appropriate.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)09:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crawley article suggests people had moved in by 1949, but your lead suggests no work was done until the 1950s.. or am I missing anything? (probably!)
→ Probably needs rewording, because the meaning I intended was that building started in the late 1940s (after the master plan was finalised) and continued until the 1980s, when Crawley assumed its present 13-neighbourhood form. Having said that, only a few streets (literally) from the master plan had been completed by 1949! Essentially, I didn't mean "the following four decades" in its strictest sense. I don't want to make that sentence/passage too convoluted, so advice on rewording would be welcome.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cite the neoconformism but not the town area (which you provide very accurately!). I would like to see the source for that information.
There's a mix of "This church is..." and "The church was built.." kind of thing in the Notes column. I'd prefer a single style of building description throughout.
→ Hmmm ... I think that would only work properly if the notes were very short (one sentence or so). It would look very monotonous; and the descriptions for some of the churches would not really fit into that sort of structure (e.g. for Crawley Baptist Church, a chronological description seems to work best). If a standardised form is considered better for the general reader, though, I'm willing to adapt the text accordingly.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)18:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Planning permission was refused in November 2008 but was granted again in January 2009." granted again? Had it previously been granted before being refused then?
The table is sortable, so perhaps you ought to relink things you've linked once, like "grade X-listed" as once resorted, no guarantee exists that the first instance of such will be the linked one.
Hope these help. Feel free to shout at me if you wish to discuss them further. Since you may be about to embark on an heroic mission of more, similar lists, we should work hard to get this one perfected. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your detailed comments and observations. As you correctly guessed, I hope to produce more of this type of list, and this one will be the prototype; indeed, the next gargantuan one is nearing a FLC-ready stage, and I can think of three more districts/boroughs that I am ready to "cover". This one does need to establish some robust conventions, therefore. Regarding a lead image, here are some possibilities; I am open to any, and would appreciate your views and those of others.
One thumbnail image of St John the Baptist's Church (the parish church of Crawley).
One thumbnail image of St Nicholas (the oldest and most architecturally important).
Two or more thumbnails.
A map showing Crawley within West Sussex and/or within England.
WeakSupport - sorry for not getting back to you, real life has been pounding my skull lately. So, I think you've done really well to address my concerns, the only outstanding issue (which I can't oppose for, since it's not one of the criteria) is a lead image. I would be happy to see an image that isn't necessarily repeated, nor a pair etc, but perhaps just a really nice image of one of the subjects of the list. I understand that people may perhaps complain that it would give undue weight to one of the places of worship, but it would certainly make the list much much more attractive to a passing reader if there was something other than text for the first screen's worth. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ Many thanks for your comments. Going through my pics again, I found a nice one showing a different view of St Nicholas' Church. As it is the oldest and arguably most architecturally important in the Borough, it seems like a reasonable choice, so I have uploaded and added.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)10:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For both mosques, do you have any info on their use as an "Islamic center", similar to the info in "Christ the Lord"? Are the mosques Sunni or Shia? Are there any other official associations with specific Muslim denominations?
→ Unfortunately there is remarkably little info about the centres, either online or in reports/books etc. I have managed to confirm the traditions, though (both Sunni). I have searched thoroughly but have found no more Muslim associations within Crawley. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "A Baptist church plant was established" correct grammar? Should it be "A Baptist congregation was initially planted..."? I'm not familiar enough with the term to know for sure.
I would think "planting" and "establishing" were synonyms, so that a planting wouldn't be established. But nomenclatures don't always make sense. :) – Quadell(talk)22:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "the village had been rendered uninhabitable by the expansion of Gatwick Airport" needs a source.
→ Added one from one of Goldsmith's books. Although its title suggests a rather picture-heavy book, it does have decently comprehensive and well-researched text. I do have other sources if this is not considered robust enough, though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, you should slim the notes for "St Francis & St Anthony's" down to "Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel built this church on a town-centre site in 1959. It is currently being renovated, and is in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton's Crawley Parish, consisting of six churches in Crawley and a convent chapel in Copthorne." The rest, I think, should go into a new stub on the church itself.
→ Reduced to four lines (I kept the Capuchin Friars snippit). Actually, I have literally just found out that the church was very recently awarded Grade II listed status, so as part of my drive to write articles for as many of Crawley's listed buildings as possible I will need to do a full article :) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the notes for "St Michael and All Angels" could also be slimmed down.
The notes about "St Richard of Chichester" seem to mostly be about the church it replaced, right? That's not relevant. Just have one sentence on what it replaced, not 4 1/2, and expand info on "St Richard of Chichester" itself.
In Siri Guru Singh Sabha Gurdwara, the phrase "considered inadequate" needs to be sourced. Also, that first sentence needs to be reworded, as in "The Sikh community of Crawley meet in a low, single-storey structure, built in 1982. 200–250 worshippers regularly attend from a wide area, since the temple serves Sikhs across a 25-mile (40 km) radius, and ___ has raised concerns that the meeting place is inadequate." Or something.
→ Reworked (thanks for the suggestion; that prose looks cleaner). I removed the word "inadequate", which featured in the planning app but was not ascribed to anybody in particular.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)21:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was the development committee? Who appointed it, and who was on it? These questions probably don't need to be answered in this article, but there should be a link to an article that answers them. Information such as "25% of the price" probably belongs in that article instead.
Suggestion: I think a pie chart of the religious affiliations would be helpful.
→ Can do, but I'm worried that it would either overlap the next section header and play havoc with the table or would be too small to read. (Assuming it is put in the religious affiliations section.)Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of "Communities with no dedicated building" brings up an issue: several listed "places of worship" are also community centers, and so are not really buildings "used solely for religious purposes". Is there a better way to word the distinction between places on the list and places not on the list?
→ Not exactly; the two mosques are primarily places of worship, although they seem to host some general community/non-worship-related activities as well (so they are specifically religious, rather than secular, buildings); and the Broadfield situation is a separate church within a community centre complex. I have added a bit in the lead (the reference to "secular buildings") which I hope makes the distinction clearer.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should be a summary of the rest of the article, but it mentions things not contained elsewhere: For instance, it describes the New Towns Act and gives dates and details that should really be in the "Development" section. It talks about Ifield being a center for non-conformism, which should probably be in the "Religious affiliation" section. Basically, everything in the lead needs to be elsewhere in the article, and every section of the article (communities with no building, airport, etc.) needs to be at least mentioned in the lead. It could use a sentence about the "religious affiliation" (demographics), e.g. "Crawley has places of worship for several religions. Although majority Christian, Crawley has larger Muslim and Hindu populations than England as a whole." Or something. As a more minor point, I find the second sentence of the lead to be bulky and unclear.
→ I have rewritten the lead and second para (now renamed to fit the content better) and moved some bits around. I think all concerns have been covered. In doing this, the clunky second sentence problem was eliminated as well.Hassocks5489 (tickets please!)11:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the problems I mentioned in the lead have been fixed. But since it was so thoroughly redone, I'll need to look over it carefully, to make sure it's perfect, when I'm more awake. All other problems with the list have been resolved. – Quadell(talk)15:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last nomination, it has been copyedited. References to the ANN encyclopedia, which was recently declared non-reliable, have been replaced. Everything else was checked and re-checked, just to make sure. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to go through all the episode summaries, my only comments are:
"The next three episodes are called "Shutsugeki! Zenii Kaizoku Dan" (出撃!ゼニィ海賊団?, lit. "Sortie! Zenii Pirates")", not true is it? I thought the episodes have individual names (as indicated in the table) and the 3-episode arc is called this.
Why do you use "webcitation.org" for so many references where the original page still works fine. It just seems a rather round about way of doing things.
It refers to: "Luffy, Zoro, and Usopp are sent to gather the fruit while Nami and Sanji survey the island. Chopper is left to guard the ship." -- Goodraise (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He enjoys himself" So is he generally enjoying guarding the ship or does he do something that leads to his enjoyment?
He imagines being captain and giving orders, but the scene is only a few seconds long and I don't think it needs to be mentioned—at least not to adequately summarize the episode. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"them obscure items" What do you mean by "obscure"? Hard to see, or unknown?
It was meant to mean "difficult to understand", but I just re-examined those items and it turns out they aren't (except for me and Luffy). How about "He offers them a variety of items, including a pile of paper that he tries to sell to Nami."? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of words come to mind that could replace it ("outstanding", "excellent", ...) but "first-class" is as far as I can tell the most fitting one. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that it describes the soup as being of high quality. In that case I'll have to clarify that it is not the soup as such, but its quality, that has the effect on him. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I confess I had forgotten about this, I'll try to return tomorrow or Tuesday, so don't archive this nomination just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"At the day's end, as they are about to leave" Please clarify in the text who "they" are.
"Zoro eventually realizes it, but by the time he convinces the others to leave, Nami already lost the Straw Hats' ship in a game of chess." Please clarify in the text what "it" is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't stress yourself. It's ultimately my fault for nominating sub-standard lists. I promise to do better in the future. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sanji has a violent encounter with a tax collector, wearing an electric battle suit." So who is wearing the battle suit, Sanji or the tax collector? Suggest "Sanji has a violent encounter with a tax collector, who is wearing an electric battle suit."
"eventually was locked up in the brig of the wreck of a navy ship" Who locked him up?
"When Lapanui hears Whetton's name, he loses his trust." His trust of whom?
*Oppose - this is the first time I have seen this list so my comments will be from the perspective of a prospective new reader. Apologies if I repeat something already mentioned.
For me, knowing zero about "One Piece", I would appreciate an introduction into what this whole thing is about. Your introduction makes the assumption that I know what about to read.
When you say English airdate, do you mean English language airdate? Not "airdate in England"? Not clear.
Yes, it means "English language airdate". It should be clearer when seen in combination with the second paragraph. Does it really need further explanation? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By far the biggest issue for me is the onus on the reader to know what this list is about before reading it. I think the lead needs some work to help me understand what this is all about. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, it's been five or six months since I reviewed an anime list. However, I'm happy to let the theme music slide, but the EP# needs a note, the English airdate is ambiguous, and leads should still really not be over the top for moderate sized lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added a note and changed "English airdate" to "US airdate". However, if you're saying that the lead is too long, not in terms of paragraphs, but in terms of words, then I have no idea how to fix this. No piece of information present there seems expendable. What could I remove without impairing comprehensiveness? -- Goodraise (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because it has fulfilled all FL criterias and is in my opinion FL quality. It has the required FL prose length and is well referenced from reliable sources. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split:The list has been split to List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille. Having a list of awards in an article is usually not that good. It takes more space than the article itself and should therefore be split to a list by itself. An article should generaly have more prose than lists and a list should have more list content than prose I think. I therefore went on and split the list to a standalone list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page history shows that you just recently created this list, and it is copied verbatim from List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films). It almost seems as if you were splitting and creating a new article just for the purpose of easily getting it featured. Why not work on simply doing that for the large main list?
I'm not sure, Ratatouille didn't have the success as WALL-E, and I tend to agree in a way that this could fit better in the article's section.--₮RUCӨ22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ratatouille was a huge success, maybe not as much as WALL-E, but certainly enough to have an awards page. The list is still incomplete. I will address it tomorrow because it's now 1:00 am. Please look into List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E so I can know what it takes for a list to become featured. I need to know what the problems are so I would fix them in the future without repeated reviews. Thank you, --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically the table format and the type of info in the lead section. Its incomplete? You shouldn't nominate an article for FLC if its incomplete.--₮RUCӨ20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is now complete. I thought it was complete when I nominated it, but when I saw all the awards that a film can receive, I found some that Ratatouille received. What do you mean with the table format? Should I make sections for the most important awards and list the rest on an "Other awards" section? And I will expand the prose, but please explain what's wrong with it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the table had a column year, but was unexpectedly removed, so hold off on that. So for now, just the lead comment should be addressed before I can fully review.--₮RUCӨ23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) There are quite a few basic proofreading errors, such as forgetting to italicize films and simple grammar issues. In the future, please find someone to quickly look through lists before nominating for FLC.
Does "rat" really need to be linked. I would be very surprised if readers did not know what they were.
"dreams to become a chef"-->dreams of becoming a chef
"The film is also on the 2007 top ten lists"
"of multiple critics including"-->of multiple critics, including
Ratatouille was released to both critical acclaim and box office success, opening in 3,940 theaters domestically and debuting at #1 with $47 million,[1] grossing further $206,445,654 in North America and a total of $624,445,654 worldwide -- add to before $206,445,654
It was nominated for five Academy Awards, including Original Score, Achievement in Sound Editing, Achievement in Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay and Animated Feature Film, winning the last one. -- last one should be latter
Comment Same question I asked in the WALL-E FLC, is there a reason why the table has invisible borders? I tried it as a wikitable and I think it looks more organized and easier to read. By the way, there is an image of Brad Bird with his Oscar, why isn't it used here? -- Scorpion042215:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the formatting of the page which was screwed up by the image (I uploaded a cropped version, made it smaller, and added {{-}}). Is there a reason why I am being ignored every time I ask about the table format? -- Scorpion042215:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you fixed the border thing. Anyway, I don't know what you mean by invisible borders. Could you give me an example of uninvisible borders. The new formatting poses a problem because when you expand the infobox it moves the whole list down. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it called invisible borders? It's not invisible in my browser, on the contrary it has thick borders. I changed it anyway. Thank you for this nice explanation--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I see what's going on here. I use IE and sometimes it doesn't let me see special border formats. So I could not see any borders between the rows and columns of the table. -- Scorpion042216:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies. I have created several similar awards lists that have reached FL status, so I am aware of the expectations and I hope this one can join the others. Thanks! --Another Believer(Talk)03:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? That's a shame. I have seen Rock on the Net used on many of the featured awards lists, and I did not have trouble using the site for the other awards lists I created. However, I appreciate the feedback, and I will start looking for alternative references. Thanks! --Another Believer(Talk)18:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your feedback. Actually, I would like to get some additional feedback on this issue. I am aware of what method other articles use, but I wanted to see if this template would be accepted. For a chart with 32 nominations, I think the Ref. column allows the reader to be directed to a specific entry's source, as opposed to simply having to guess which reference at the end of the paragraph pertains to a particular entry. If other reviewers wish to see the Refs at the end of the paragraph, I can certainly fix that ASAP. I just thought it made the article look more organized, and it was easier for the reader.--Another Believer(Talk)22:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I review, I would like to say that I agree with this new format because having like 32 refs at the end of a paragraph is just overkill.--₮RUCӨ02:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this list is more justified than most of the current awards list FLs, but I think it might not hurt to hold off on promoting this one until after the current criteria dispute is resolved. -- Scorpion042215:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because WALL-E is a great movie with a multitude of Awards that deserves a great page. The list was split from a longer List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) list and was tweaked to conform to the FL criterias. This is my first FL nomination and I hope for it to be a success. Any comments or criticism are encouraged and I'm awaiting your suggestions. Concerning the right to post the nomination: I am the biggest contributor to the original list it was split from and the list before that and have therefore the right to post the nomination. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
Lead
Eventhough Walt Disney Pictures pushed for an Academy Award for Best Picture nomination,[6] it was not nominated, provoking controversy about the Academy deliberately restricting WALL-E to the Best Animated Feature category,[7] American film critic Peter Travers commented that "If there was ever a time where an animated feature deserved to be nominated for best picture it's Wall-E." -- (1)Eventhough is not a dictionary word (from what I researched) (2)The comma after to the Best Animated Feature category should be either a period or semi-colon
Done
The feature has won Best Picture from the Boston Society of Film Critics,[9] the Chicago Film Critics Association,[10] the Central Ohio Film Critics awards,[11] the Online Film Critics Society,[12] and most notably the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, becoming the first animated feature to win the award. -- to win the award should be "to win that award"
Done
References
IMDB is not reliable per WP:RS to verify the awards, even generally.
Done moved it to external links
Ref 25 has an error with the publisher (if I'm not mistaking)
Done changed to the Boston Society of Film Critics official website
Note: I moved this page whilst standardising page names Category:Lists of awards by award winner, and more specifically Category:Lists of awards by film. I wasn't aware this was an FLC at the time, but I have moved this page so the article talk page finds it, and changed the header of this and updated the transclusion at FLC. I'm not sure if this is the right procedure but it seems to all work. Someone might want to check it though. Sorry if I caused any inconvenience. Rambo's Revenge(talk)17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support After a lot of improvements [55] the list is undoubtedly of FL quality. Please tell me any suggestions cause if this gets FL I will bring at least 6 more FLs till the end of the month. I just need to know how much is missing for an FL and asses the fixes needed to bring a list to FL. Thank you so much for the previous review and I'm awaiting your next review.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"grossing $23.1 million on its opening day, and $63 million during its opening weekend in 3,992 theaters, ranking #1 at the box office." Make this a separate sentence "The film grossed $23.1 million...
Non-breaking spaces are needed between dollar amounts and "million", such as $23.1 million.
"The feature further grossed "-->In total, the feature grossed
" WALL-E was highly acclaimed with an approval rating of 96% on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes."--> WALL-E was well received, with an approval rating of 96% on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.
"The film was nominated for several awards" Comma after here.
"WALL-E wasn't successful at earning any Annie Award losing all to Kung Fu Panda." No contractions first of all; second, this can be rephrased for clarity: "WALL-E did not win any Annie Awards losing all of them to Kung Fu Panda."
"nd most notably the Los Angeles Film Critics Association" Why "most notably"?
"The Time Magazine"-->Time (notice that I disambiguated the link)
"directors achievement"-->directors' achievement
"huge audience eventhough"-->large audience even though
"The Character of WALL-E" Why is "Character" capitalized?
"on Empire's online poll of the 100 greatest movie characters, conducted in 2008."-->on Empire's 2008 online poll of the 100 greatest movie characters.
Comment — Is it possible to make this a sortable list? I was confused about the ordering (I thought it was chronological at first), because most lists are organized by the first column. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's possible. It has to have no rowspans which would ruin its visual style because sortable lists only supports lists with no rowspans. If there was a script to move columns? It would help a lot so I can move the columns next to the awards column.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- In the nominations table, it counts 25 total nominations, however, the reader would instantly think that the wins are included (because winning also means it was nominated!). I think the red square should include the 25 lost nominations and the 31 won. Raaggio22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where would it be? It can't be the first column because the table isn't arranged after year but after award. Should I put it in the middle or where and should I put the exact date of the award?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere because its awkward not telling the reader when the film gain any of the awards. It also doesn't matter if it is the first column, it just shows which year the award was given.--Best, ₮RUCӨ15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes the Central Ohio Film Critics Association and British Academy Children's Awards notable enough for inclusion. I think awards should only be included if that award or the corresponding guild/critics association qualify for a wikipedia page. I know comprehensiveness is desired, but there are a lot of very minor awards given out and why should they be noted above others? -- Scorpion042215:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The British Academy Children's Awards was meant to show its reception among children. It's under the arm of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts and was started in 1969. You can see the section in th British Academy of Film and Television Arts article which explains its notability. The Central Ohio awards has pages of its ceremonies on Wikipedia but not about the association itself. You can see the link on the date category. When I improved the list I was merely aiming at including the most awards mentioned in Wikipedia. It was meant to be as comprehensive as possible. If there was some objections on an award or some awards missing I would remove or add them accordingly. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Due to the current Featured List criteria dispute, I'm hesitant to promote any awards lists. I believe this one is more justified by many of the current FLs, but I think a case for merger could be made. As such, I will hold off on closing it until we decide what to do. This is the same for the Ratatouille list. -- Scorpion042216:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with this FLC, I just thought that I should avoid promoting awards lists and other similar lists until we figure out what is going on. -- Scorpion042218:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I uploaded an image for the list. I got the image from flickr after "negotiations" with Victor Navone. Hope it boosts a little and complies with the new guideline. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was passed almost a year ago, which is when the criteria wasn't as strict. Right now, the lead in this article (and the other) one really doesn't say much, it needs more of a summary of its acquisitions. Not just 3 of them.--₮RUCӨ15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juniper was founded by Pradeep Sindhu,[2][3] Dennis Ferguson, and Bjorn Liencres in February 1996. -- (1)No need for the names to be in italics (2)What's verifying the other people?
[TC] : Removed italics, added more references to the other founders also. [/TC]
The company was subsequently reincorporated in Delaware on March 1998 in and went public on the 25th of June, 1999. -- (1)Remove the in before and went (2)Comma before and (3)Per MOS:DATE, the date should be formatted as 25 June, 1999 or June 25, 1999.
[TC]: Fixed [/TC]
NetScreen had acquired Neoteris prior to this acquisition.Unisphere, before the Juniper acquisition, was initially comprised of three other key networking equipment manufacturers such as Redstone Communications, Argon Networks, Castle Networks. -- (1)space between the period (2)The such as should be replaced with a colon
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Siemens had bought Castle Networks, for $300 million in 1999, and then combined it with two other acquisitions to form the Unisphere Networks. -- remove the comma
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
The names of the companies should not be in italics
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
The lead needs more transitions from each acquistion to the other, right now its really boring to read.
[TC] : Fixed. Removed wilikink to US. Rest due to the template {{USA}} : United States [/TC]
Do not link items that have been already linked once, like computer networking
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Juniper has acquired over 11 companies till date. -- till date is wrong grammar, and what you are trying to say is WP:WEASEL talk, give an exact time period (date)
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Juniper has officially released the financial details for most of these mergers and acquisitions. -- this list has no mergers
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Acquisitions
The business column should not sort because there are more than one entries in some cells.
[TC] : How to disallow sort on a particular column? [[/TC]
References
Ref # 3 is missing a publisher
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Ref # 4 is inaccurately formatted, the language field should not have what it currently haves and its missing a publisher
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
What makes masshightech.com reliable?
[TC]: Fixed. Replaced with alternate references [/TC]
This publisher is also inconsistently formatted.
[TC] : Fixed [/TC]
Some refs have publishers of Juniper inconsistently formatted, it should be Juniper Networks or Juniper Networks, Inc.
[TC] : Fixed. All to 'Juniper Networks' [/TC]
Many refs actually are missing publishers and are inconsistently formatted.
Fixed most of the suggestions. How do I disallow sort on a particular column only ? Can you help me for "The lead needs more transitions from each acquistion to the other, right now its really boring to read." This is my first FLC. Thanks a lot for the kind review -- TinuCherian - 12:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comments
Lead
Unisphere, before the Juniper acquisition, was initially comprised of three other key networking equipment manufacturers : Redstone Communications, Argon Networks, Castle Networks. -- the semi-colon should not have a space before it
[TC] : done
Juniper made most number of its acquisitions in 2005. -- add the before "most number"
[TC] : done
Juniper has acquired over 11 companies till November 2005. -- best stated as Since November 2005, Juniper has acquired over 11 companies.
[TC] : done. "Since November 1999" ?
Table
To make a particular column unsortable, use the same coding that made the ref column unsortable !class="unsortable"|
[TC] : done
Juniper Networks, Inc. M&A Summary
The section header needs to be renamed to Juniper Networks, Inc. acquisitions summary
[TC] : done
"Juniper Networks, Inc. has made 11 acquisitions while it did not take stake in any companies. Juniper has made 1 divestitures till date." -- (1)Reword the first sentence to Juniper Networks, Inc. has made 11 acquisitions, though it has not taken stake in any companies.
I'm sorry, but the since this list mentions the Juniper Networks as Juniper Networks, Inc. (it needs to be as such in the references)
[TC] : done. Changed all corresponding references publisher to "Juniper Networks, Inc."
Ref # 7|The work is from Google, while the publisher is Juniper Networks, Inc.
[TC] : The work is an orginal press release by Juniper. The URL is changed ( or content removed/archived ?). This content is just a cache by the Search engine operator Google.
Ref # 10|No need for the URL of the NYT publisher
[TC] : done.
Ref # 13|Properly format the publisher, it should not be in all lower case
[TC] : done.
Ref # 15|is still missing a publisher
[TC] : done.
Ref # 18|capitalize news
[TC] : done.
Ref # 20|is missing a publisher
[TC] : done.
What makes network world reliable? In addition, the publisher should not be in all lower case
[TC] : Network World is reliable and a popular magazine.
What makes securitypronews.com reliable? In addition, the publisher should be the name of the company who runs the site not the URL
[TC] : done. Looks reliable. Saw many articles in WP referenced to this website. should always publisher to be the holding company or the owner ? Even The San Francisco Chronicle/sfgate.com is owned by Hearst Communications Inc. . It is better to leave as the popular name in some cases.
What makes ITwire reliable? In addition, the publisher should be the name of the company who runs the site not the URL
[TC] : Looks reliable.Reference is uncontroversial. btw saw many articles in WP referenced to this website.
What makes xchange mag reliable? In addition, the publisher should be the name of the company who runs the site not the URL
Now there is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, either remove the links or add links to all publishers that have articles on WP. In addition, there is still an overlink of US dollars in the lead, and why is acquisition linked so late in the prose and not earlier?--₮RUCӨ23:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[TC] : done.Wikilinks to publishers that have WP articles are added. Only one wikilink to Juniper references to avoid over linking.
"founded in 1996 and with head quarters in Sunnyvale, California." Make this a separate sentence. Are you sure that "head quarters" is two words?
[TC] : done.
"Juniper did not acquire a company for the first three years of its existence, but in November 1999, Juniper acquired Layer Five, an Intellectual property design firm." I suggest splitting the sentence again. By using "but" as a connector, you've created a false contrast.
[TC] : done.
"The company's largest acquisition is the purchase of NetScreen Technologies for US$ 4 billion." Trim redundancy: "The company's US$4 billion acquisition of NetScreen Technologies is its largest purchase.
[TC] : done.
"prior to "-->before (multiple occurences)
[TC] : done.
"The majority of companies acquired by Juniper are based in the United States. Juniper made the most number of its acquisitions in 2005."-->Most of the companies acquired by Juniper are based in the United States. Juniper made the majority of its acquisitions in 2005.
[TC] : done.
"US based"-->US-based
[TC] : done.
"Since November 1999, Juniper has acquired over 11 companies" Missing period at the end.
Is there a free image of the company, maybe of its headquarters?
[TC] : done. Found an image at the commons .
This is unusual, but I would say that the lead is actually underlinked. Add links to some of the companies. Also, maybe some technical words, such as "intellectual property" and "networking equipment".
[TC] : done. I tried best to not to overlink.
The "US$" should not be separated from the actual dollar amount. Example: "US$ 19 million"-->US$19 million
[TC] : done.
"though"-->although
[TC] : done.
Some publications (newspapers, magazines, journals) in the references still need to be italicized, for example, Forbes.
[TC] : done.
Follow up
What makes the following sources reliable? We need to know about their reputation for fact checking. Even if they were used in previous FLs, remember that standards have risen. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
Comment The Juniper Networks contains a similar (albeit unformatted) list, so I'm wondering why the table can't just be re-added to that one. I'm bringing this up because there is a discussion at WT:WIAFL about changing the criteria so that unnecessary splits can't become FLs. I don't want to promote any lists that could end up at FLRC in a few months. (I'll leave the closing of this one to Matthewedwards though). -- Scorpion042221:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria especially since I used a current FL (List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts)) as a template. Just like the Naval Academy lists, this list is one of many sublists that will eventually be part of a Featured Topic. I am appreciative of Rlevse's assistance with this list and taking care of the majority of the issues with the format which were identified in the FLC for the Naval Academy astronauts. -MBK00416:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
Comments from Bencherlite
For the record, there are no ambiguous links or broken weblinks at this time.
Images:
Don't force the image size per MOS:IMAGES; I realise that this might mean you have to move them around and lose e.g. the hat toss photo (no great loss?)
The hat toss photo is the one thing that stays consistent across all of these lists. To loose it would be to throw away the consistent format that is used throughout these lists. As to the image sizing, let me see what impact that will have before implementing. -MBK00421:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a hard/inflexible rule, it only says "as a rule" and many featured items have fixed image width. It's also under 300 as suggested. Plus as MBK004 mentioned, it provides consistency with the other lists in this topic, several of which are already featured. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "congressional appointment system"? Can you explain it? Or would explaining it show that this information isn't needed for the lead of this list? (And yes I know it's mentioned in the Naval Academy list without explanation!)
that is explained in the main articles on the academies and in my opinion that is the proper place for it and would be out of scope for an alumni list. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cadets do not become astronauts on graduation, rather those who enter aviation and space-related fields have the opportunity to be selected for astronaut training by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (new para) This list is drawn from graduates of the Military Academy who became astronauts." How about ending the first paragraph a sentence earlier, and starting the second paragraph "Eighteen graduates of the Military Academy were later selected for astronaut training by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)."
The second paragraph of the lead repeats the year that the academy opened, so remove this; if you want to keep the information about the first class year, move that to the first paragraph (although it's not vital information).
As for the third paragraph of the lead, if we need it (which I'm undecided about), then perhaps wikilink the main alumni list to "other notable graduates".
I think we need it to keep a standard format throughout all of these lists, many of which are already FLs. As to the wikilink, I have been looking for a place to link to that instead of just the navbox at the bottom. -MBK00421:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because lists are long and it makes it far easier on the reader to get to that section vice having to scroll. I use it all the time in all these lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References (not all checked):
We have a mixture of USMA references using either e.g. "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy". It would be better to be consistent on whether you're mentioning USMA and whether in full or in abbreviation.
I dislike "2009-03-23" style dates in references, but I can't remember what this week's rule is about dates and date-formatting and the rule would probably change again in another five minutes, but someone else may have a better clue than me what the FLC preference is.
That type of style was just fine in the FLC for the Naval Academy alumni which have all passed FLC within this past month. -MBK00421:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not liking a valid date format is not a valid objection, also as MBK004 pointed out, other FLs use this format, and recent ones at that. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "it's not been an issue in the past" doesn't mean it can't be raised. And date formats in references have been raised in FLCs in the past (e.g. in one of my nominations, Colin said "ISO date formats ... should really be discouraged as that's what logged out readers see" (October 2008)). I was raising it as an issue for discussion (not saying I objected on an "I don't like it" basis), preferably by reference to WP guidance rather than arguments based on it not being raised in other recent FLs. However, having done some more looking around, I draw your attention to this current FAC where SandyGeorgia says "ISO dates are used incorrectly throughout the citations" and this current FAC, where another reviewer said "You have a few accessdates that are in ISO format". So, if it's picked up at FAC, why shouldn't it be picked up at FLC? BencherliteTalk10:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not at fac and it's better for the topic to be consistent. If the FLC promoters cared about this it would have been mentioned long ago and it's not proper to change the rules in midstream. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, such date formatting is not discouraged by the MoS. It hasn't been an issue in previous lists, and as noted above, we should strive for consistency. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not by any means, but I still fail to see any guideline or policy which prohibits the use of YYYY-MM-DD date formatting. Just because somebody raised a concern at FAC doesn't mean it's a legitimate issue. –JuliancoltonTalk·Review20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. I will reply interspersed as I get to them. I have a few rather busy days coming up with school so apologies in advance if things are not dealt with quickly. -MBK00420:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's tough when the list is so exclusive, but I'd suggest trying to expand the second paragraph — you don't mention Buzz Aldrin, you don't mention Edward H. White, and I think they ought to be mentioned.
Ref 5 just leads to the front cover, so which particular page are you relying on?
Well, the problem is that I look at the TOC and see courses in geography, English, law, foreign languages, history etc as well as science and engineering, so the bare reference doesn't support the text that "The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields". Same problem with the other reference. BencherliteTalk20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until:
(a) "The curriculum emphasizes the sciences and engineering fields" is either removed or properly sourced;
(b) My suggestion about expanding para 2 of the lead is either accepted or rejected;
(c) the dates in references are no longer in ISO format.
There is no excuse for standards being lower at FLC than FAC on a minor issue such as date presentation. As noted above, other FLCs have had this issue raised in the past so it's not "changing the rules in midstream" to raise this here. I don't care if other similar lists got past without this being raised; they should be changed as well.BencherliteTalk20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re oppose: A) it is sourced, your first post was right, you're being excessively picky, B) being overly picky again, C) I've asked the list mods about this and see Julian's comment above. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(a) No, "emphasizes" is original research as the links show courses in many more fields; (b) shame you didn't address the comment earlier; I still think a lead that doesn't even mention Buzz Aldrin is deficient; (c) noted, and see mine. BencherliteTalk20:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where in written policy, not Sandy's opinion, does it say yyyy-mm-dd is prohibited (cx Julian's post too)? It is not OR, it's in the ref. For Buzz, I'll let the FLC nominator decide that one. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previous oppose is striken; support since the remaining matters that were outstanding from my comments are, on reflection, too trivial to deny this list promotion and are matters on which opinion could legitimately differ without either side being "wrong" (I hope). I take account also of my isolation on these matters after thorough reviews by more experienced eyes. Good work, MBK004 and Rlevse, and apologies if the tone of my contribution to this discussion was not always what it should have been. BencherliteTalk00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the 18 graduates who have become astronauts, other notable graduates include 2 American Presidents, 4 additional heads of state, and 74 Medal of Honor recipients,[6] 70 Rhodes Scholars,[7] and 3 Heisman Trophy winners. -- Remove the and before 74 Medal of Honor recipients
Why is Astronaut capitalised in the article title?
Geez H Christ. You guys really need to settle on one set of rules for lists. The answer is the other list in this series (USNA Astros, etc are all capitalilzed for a reason I forget and no one objected. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed this comment first time round. We don't have "rules" but we agree to a consensus on formats. However, whether or not other stuff exists, it doesn't make it right. Could anyone answer my question, why is Astronaut capitalised? Is it a proper noun? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, can't this title be improved? It's hellishly clunky right now. Perhaps, "List of [USMA] astronaut alumni"?
Precisely my point, list reviewers don't agree on format. It is not clunky. You're the one claiming IDONTLIKEIT. Everyone else liked the other lists with this format. See {{USNALists}}, four of them are cureently FLs. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Geez H Christ and You guys really need to settle on one set of rules for lists again. It matches all the other lists in the topic and it would be just strange to break the pattern. If we used USMA someone would surely bitch about not knowing what it meant. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no no , I don't need to settle on rules with anyone, let alone Jesus. I wanted to know why (1) astronaut is capitalised and (2) why the list can't have a more useful and elegant name. I'm not suggesting you use USMA, I couldn't be bothered to expand it. I want to know why you had "(Astronauts)" in the title. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you look at List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) you'll see it's part of a topic of 5 lists with only one more to go to have all FLs. (Astronauts) is there as putting all notable alum in one list is way unmanageble and Dabomb suggesting making sublists. And yes, you do need to settle on consistency in list reviews--that is part of consensus and you should know that, even the list mods will tell you that, that FL reviews are highly inconsistent. We're trying make the USNA and USMA lists featured topics and that requires a high degree of consistency. All the sublists have the first letters capitalized. Having (Sublist) shows it's sublist of a main list, not a standalone list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also I can see a number of issues with the list to which you pointed me. Perhaps you should revisit these lists. For instance, the singular of alumni is alumnus. The plural version appears to be incorrectly used in the list to which you directed me. It would be worthwhile checking the other lists before attempting a Featured Topic as I would be very reticent to support the promotion of a group of lists which exemplify incorrect grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The first alumni to graduate and go on to become an astronaut..." presumably you're in the singular here, so the "..first alumnus..." would appear more appropriate.
Same with "the most recent alumni...", I seem to remember it being first declension plural (so, singular alumnus, plural alumni...) back when I was reading Latin in the early 80s...
"In addition to the 18 graduates ..." this is a little bit non sequitur as the previous sentence talks about 25 alumni without specifying who actually had become astronauts.
I don't follow. All of the alums are graduates of West Point. Whether they served in the US Army or Air Force isn't the point, it is that they graduated from the USMA. -MBK00422:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the hostility directed my way for asking a very, very simple question, i.e. why is Astronaut capitalised? (it is not a proper noun, even our own article doesn't capitalise it, check it out), I offer Julian my sincerest best on his efforts to deal with my concerns. As for "I don't like it", well, no, I think Wikipedia should not incorrectly capitalise nouns. Very straight forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for expecting some level of consistency in list reviews. I obviously chose the wrong part of the project to work on this Spring. As for Latin grammar, I don't speak it, few do. Feel free to fix them. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you did if you can't take simple, constructive crticism. And as for Latin, it's a simple case of understanding how to use the words you put in the lists. Alumnus=1, alumni=more than one. Sorry if this wasn't brought up before. I've been absent for five months, I promise if I hadn't been away I'd have told you sooner. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not being merely simple, you're basically saying everything done while you're gone is inadequate. And yes, the reviews are inconsistent, very much so. Even regular reviewers here don't agree on stuff and that is a problem indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Not at all. I'm saying that it seems odd to me that Astronaut is captialised. It isn't. Simple. Fixing it will take two seconds. Fixing the other lists will take five. Get over it. Regular reviewers here are absolutely entitled to disgaree with me. But as yet no-one has said why Astronaut is a proper noun. Wikipedia has many problems. Understanding why people wish to capitalise non-proper nouns is one of them. Pity, once more, that you had to resort to blaspheming at me. My first contribution in five months is to give a detailed review of a FLC and I get your "issues". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rlevse, could you tone it down a bit? TRM is a veteran featured list contributor, whether it be writing, reviewing or keeping the process going. I would expect a bit more respect toward him, a fellow bureaucrat at that. I agree with the move; the capitalization issue never even struck me, just another reason why TRM is especially respected around here—his attention to detail. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a general rant directed at no one: us volunteer reviewers are not robots; we are humans too and are subject to inconsistency and changing our mind. If we miss something the first time, we can't help it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disgusted with the bickering between two 'crats that has ensued over this FLC which I initiated. While I am grateful for Rlevse's assistance while I am overwhelmed with school work, this bickering has to stop. -MBK00423:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the name, I'd prefer the Academy's name to be spelled out; yes, it's more clunky but it is definitely not something commonly known. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my part of the transgressions. The issues are deeper than A/a astronauts. I have removed all USNA/USMA list and their associated FLC pages from my watchlist. You won't be bothered by me again. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By all means please do. This is my first FLC and I got showered in last-minute assignments by professors almost immediately after starting this FLC. I should be back up to full ability by Saturday (USA). -MBK00402:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in, if I may, the answer is "yes", according to the references cited in Alumnus: dictionaries refer to an alumnus as someone who attended the institution regardless of graduation, so the phrase is correct. BencherliteTalk23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, butting in, one of my resolved suggestions was that the mixture of "publisher=Office of Admissions [no mention of USMA]", "publisher=Office of the Dean, USMA" or "publisher=United States Military Academy" should be made consistent (I expressed no preference as to which); they were changed to "USMA", which was fine by me. BencherliteTalk23:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that they were made consistent, but I would like the abbreviations spelled out in the publishers on the first appearance at least. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has nominated an Olympic medal table in a while, so I decided to give it a shot. It has fundamental similarities to other similar FLs, but I've made changes to the introduction, among other things. This has been through one of the shortest peer reviews in FLC history, which I cut short when Scorpion0422 indicated that he thought it was ready. As always, I appreciate the community's feedback and will be around to respond to it. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph in the Medal table section seems rather redundant, as the chart itself is fairly self-explanatory.
There are some who think that the table should be sorted by total number of medals won. I borrowed this format from 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, where this was repeatedly debated. I'm sure the intention behind that paragraph is to avoid possible disputes.
I think the parentheses in the first sentence should be removed.
I turned them into commas.
The Athletes from 24 countries... sentence is too long and sounds a little awkward to me.
I made it a little shorter and eliminated the semi-colon to improve readability.
It says that a star(*) denotes a host nation, but I don't see it.
That's because I forgot to include it until now. :-)
Sports Reference LLC is the company that owns the Sports-Reference website, isn't it? So, Sports-Reference should be the publisher and Sports Reference LLC the work.
This one is going to be controversial among many FLC participants, since they have pushed for this system. If I had my way, I wouldn't use a work column at all there, as I don't consider it vital to note the difference between Sports-Reference and Sports Reference LLC. That's what reviewers want, however, so I've gone along with it until now. I'd like to see what others think about this one.
If the information is sourced from the actual sports-reference.com website, then having work and publisher is unneeded (Sports Reference LLC will suffice). However, if it comes from a subpage (baseball-reference.com, pro-football-reference.com, etc.), then both are necessary. I recently had a discussion with Truco about this on the FLC for Silver Slugger Award regarding Major League Baseball's website; you can read his capped comments there for more info. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After some pondering, I changed it to just give Sports Reference LLC. Since the site is just sports-reference.com, I really don't think anything else is necessary, though I am open to debate on the issue. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since for some refs The Washington Post is the publisher, why is it in italics?
Because it's a printed publication, and printed publications should always be in italics. FAC reviewing has ingrained that in me.
I'm repeating myself, but thanks for the quick review. I'm interested in the Sports-Reference issue since that has always bugged me a bit. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. According to the site, the name of the subsite is "Olympics at SR [Sports Reference]" and the publisher is Sports Reference LLC.--Best, ₮RUCӨ02:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty-four nations earned medals at the Games, and 15 won at least one gold medal. -- From the format of the lead, Twenty-four should be in numeral form
Denmark won its first medal at the Winter Olympics,[2] while Bulgaria and the Czech Republic won their first Winter Games gold medals. -- I'm guessing you mean they won its first Olympic medal?
Changed it to "Denmark won its first Winter Olympics medal".
Medal table
In snowboarding, Canadian Ross Rebagliati briefly had his gold medal in the men's Giant Slalom stripped after testing positive for marijuana. -- Add something like , though he was stripped after..--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean I should try to merge the two sentences into one? I don't think "In snowboarding, though he was stripped after testing positive for marijuana" provides the best flow possible. Any other work you think I could work it? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "To sort this table by nation, total medal count, or any other column, click on the icon next to the column title." necessary?—Chris!ct02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm assuming this was placed there because of debates on how to order medal lists. I decided to remove the note because anyone familiar with Wikipedia lists should know what the sort tab does. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of 2,176 athletes" "A total of" is redundant. Be careful not to start sentences with numerals; you may have to rephrase.
Not starting the sentence with a number was the only reason I left that there. It now reads "At the Games, 2,176 athletes...".
"Twenty-four nations earned medals at the Games, and 15 won at least one gold medal." "15"-->fifteen to keep comparable quantities written out the same.
Got it.
"none won medals"-->none of these won medals
Did seem fragmented before. I added countries to your fix.
This must be a new feature of the template, and it makes sense considering how many AP stories are used as references. The three AP stories here now use the template. Giants2008 (17-14) 14:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria, etc. Article 3 in the forthcoming featured topic (see bottom of this page) on Silver Sluggers. All concerns to be addressed by me. Cheers. KV5(Talk • Phils)00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Looks quite nice and very similar to the first basemen list. I only have a few complaints:
Comma after "who played his entire career with the Houston Astros".
The year Cano set the batting average record is wrong in the lead.
"who won the award in the inaugural 1980 season". Move "inaugural" to before "award" so it doesn't sound like 1980 was the first MLB season.
You spelled out the acronyms of the American League (AL) and National League (NL) in the lead, thus this either needs to be AL or NL through the other mentions of the Leagues, or remove the acronyms if you aren't gonna use it.
Um, you use some instances of the abbreviations and per MOS:ABBRIf used, acronyms should be used consistently throughout the article.--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that acronyms always be used after first usage. The requirement is that usage is consistent, which it is. The acronyms are always used in the captions and never used in the prose. That's consistent. If I've missed one somewhere, please be kind enough to point it out to me. KV5(Talk • Phils)11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a written rule, but over 95% of all FLs have this information, you have all of that but the recent ones, I don't see it as a big deal to add it.--Best, ₮RUCӨ22:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but here we have a compound modifier. In the larger context, ("3 foot (91 cm) tall silver bat trophy"), "3 foot [...] tall" is a multi-word adjective for the trophy, so a hyphen should be used: "a 3-foot-tall (91 cm) silver bat trophy". If you don't like that, perhaps a total rephrase, perhaps " a silver bat trophy that is 3 feet tall (91 cm)". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7th and penultimate list in my SPoTY topic. I wasn't originally sure how to structure this list, but I think I reached a good format, and the other set of eyes I got to look at it agreed. WikiCup entry, thanks in advance for all comments. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)18:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this page is supposed to summarize the topic and just having a simple list really does not do that. You can re-format it any way you like, I just thought that more information should be given. -- Scorpion042218:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the years a number of additional awards have been introduced and, as of 2008[update], there are seven other awards which are presented. // The comma should come before the and -Done
In 1999, three new awards were introduced; the Helen Rollason Award, the Coach Award, and the Newcomer Award which was renamed Young Sports Personality of the Year in 2001. // (1)The semi-colon should be a colon (2) Comma before which -Done
In addition to the yearly awards, some other awards have been sporadically in the past. // Add awarded or presented before sporadically -Done
Special Achievement Awards have been presented on four occasions; twice to jockey Lester Piggott in 1984 and 1994,[4] once to disabled marathon runner Dennis Moore in 1981, and once to comedian David Walliams in 2006. // The semi-colon should be a colon -Done
Sebastian Coe who picked up a Special Gold Award in 2005 for his work in obtaining the 2012 Olympics. // Remove who -Done
Five awards have only been presented once; the Manager of the Year Award in 1969, the Special Team Award in 1986, the Good Sport Awards in 1990, the International Team Award in 1983, and the Sports Personality of the Century Award on 1999. // The semi-colon should be a colon -Done (I'll learn!)
Defunct awards
In 1986, an award was presented to the British 4 x 400m squad of Derek Redmond, Kriss Akabusi, Brian Whittle, Roger Black, Todd Bennett, and Phil Brown, who won gold in the at the European Championships. // Remove the at -Fixed (but not how you suggested)
Aitken-Walker and co-driver Thörner crashed off a cliff into a lake in Portugal when competing in the women's World Rally Championship—despite this they went on to win the championship that year. // Comma after this -Done
In the lead up to anniversary show on 14 December 2003, a series of five half-hour special programmes, entitled Simply The Best – Sports Personality, were shown. // Instead of shown how about broadcast? -Done
Lead. I wouldn't link "sporadically" to wiktionary. It's a plain English word, not a technical term. If you really think people won't understand it, maybe replace "sporadically in the past" with "from time to time". -Done
I know it's difficult to avoid repetition in this sort of list article, but the lead contains thirteen occurrences of "award" in the bluelinks plus another ten in the ordinary prose.
Why do some of the awards have the word "Award" as part of the article name and some not? probably what I'm asking is, is it the BBC's inconsistency or Wikipedia's?
Years would look better centred, as they are in the later tables. -Done
Descriptions, I would argue, shouldn't have full stops (periods) at the end, because they're sentence fragments, not complete sentences (the same as we do with image captions) -Done
Unsung hero award is for a volunteer, not (necessarily) a sportsperson. According to the link at the top of the column it's for someone who "has given their time and talents for free to enable others to participate in sport". -Done
I'd prefer to word Piggott's achievement "a record-breaking 28th British classic win", (classic uncapitalised) and then wikilink "British classic" to British Classic Races. -Done
Sports Personality of the Century. One-off should be hyphenated, and Pelé should have an accent. -Done
Special Gold Award. The first sentence is a touch repetitive... -Done
50th Anniversary awards. "In the lead up to the anniversary show" -Done
Golden Sports Personality of the Year. Perhaps mention that the eventual shortlist included two from the most recent decade and no-one from the first decade of the award, which isn't necessarily obvious just from the list of names. -Done
Team of the Decades. If it's Sir Bobby Robson, it should be Sir Bobby Charlton as well (Charlton received his knighthood years before Robson). -Done, no Sir for either.
References. Seems very odd putting work=BBC Press Office in the cite-web. I'd have thought publisher=BBC would be enough, or else use {{cite press release}}.
Indeed. Your copyediting of the lead section has much improved it. One thing in the tables, where you've added a column for the flag and country name: (on my browser/screen at least) the column is very narrow, only wide enough for the flag, so that the country code wraps to a second line, which makes it look messy. Don't know if it's to do with the way you've tried to fix the column widths, or what. If it doesn't look like that for you, I could do a screenshot. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Sebastian Coe picked up a Special Gold Award in 2005 for his work in obtaining the 2012 Olympics." Might want to say that Coe was working on behalf of Britain. It currently reads like the Olympics are his property. -Reworded
"and the Sports Personality of the Century Award on 1999." Why "on" instead of "in"? -Fixed typo.
The Sports Personality of the Year link in the second paragraph is a duplicate. -Unlinked
A link to the 1966 FIFA World Cup would be nice in the last sentence. -Done
Special Achievement Award: Capitalize Classic in "British classic"? And did you decide not to do sorting for this table?
Re Classic/classic, I've just had a quick look at literate (broadsheet) English sources and the capitalisation seems to be optional. Years ago it wouldn't have had a capital, today it often does. Do what you prefer, in that case :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special Gold Award: Remove comma after Sebastian Coe. -Done
Golden Sports Personality of the Year: "winner Redgrave and footballer David Beckham." Is "winner" meant to be rower? -Fixed
Team of the Decades: Comma after Bobby Charlton. -Done
"awards ceremony which takes place annually"-->awards ceremony that takes place annually
"it originally consisted of just one titular award."
"Over the years a number of additional awards have been introduced, and as of 2008, there are seven others which are presented."-->Several new awards have been introduced, and as of 2008, seven awards are presented.
"which was renamed Young Sports Personality of the Year " Add "to" after "renamed".
"In addition to these, some other awards have been presented sporadically in the past."
"Five awards have only been presented once"
"1966 FIFA World Cup-winning football team were chosen" "were"-->was, we are referring to a single entity here so BritEng doesn't count here.
"Lester Piggott won an award in 1984 to recognise his achievements to date. These included winning the St. Leger Stakes on Commanche Run that year, which gave Piggott a record-breaking 28th British classic win."-->Lester Piggott won an award in 1984 for his achievements, including winning the St. Leger Stakes on Commanche Run that year, Piggott's record-breaking 28th British classic win.
"than the other contenders of George Best, Pelé, Donald Bradman, Jack Nicklaus, and Jesse Owens put together."-->than the combined total of George Best, Pelé, Donald Bradman, Jack Nicklaus, and Jesse Owens.
"who went on to win the award"-->who won the award
I have done everything you suggested, except the last point which I wish to discuss first. I am happy to add the "award names" to the paragraphs, but feel I should point out something first. I have watched many a (boring) hour of Sports Personality to help make this list, and many of the defunct award names are currently not stated for a reason. For example, when the "International Team Award" was presented it was not given such an explicit name in the show. These awards were generally described as "we have a special award tonight to recognise" and the like. I think that many of the award were names were given after the event and have just been invented by the Beeb as a way of categorising these extra awards[66]. That said though, the BBC has given them these names (regardless of whether it was after the event) and if you still want me too I would be happy to add them in. Just let me know. As always thanks for the review. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have added the names to the prose sections but won't be able to do anything like your suggestion of footnotes because I have no idea when the names were actually given. That 2007 press release is the only documentation I know of listing those awards. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)01:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that for the Defunct and 50th Anniversary awards, you should put the prose first before the list just since the prose usually comes before the list.
The other awards already have their own (FL) pages where they are adequately described. I am not keen on the excessive repeating of some material within a topic. The idea for putting them in a table like that came from Scorpion (and this). Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)17:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He and then-teammate Shaquille O'Neal led the Lakers to three consecutive NBA championships from 2000 to 2002. -- We'll see what results from a discussion on the capitalization of "Champion(ship)"
After O'Neal's departure following the 2003–04 season, Bryant became the cornerstone of the Lakers franchise. -- Clarify what departure is meant here. From the NBA or his former team
Comments - I like the idea behind the improvements to this list. The career achievements lists are generally in rough shape and could use a good model. Here are my thoughts:
Bryant's official website is sourcing a few of the records. Can't a better source be found than this? If not, maybe those records aren't notable enough to be included here.-Done
The Youtube link is the official NBA one, correct?-Yes
"Drafted 13th overall by the Charlotte Hornets in the 1996 NBA Draft". Draft is repetitive here. How about "Selected 13th overall by the Charlotte Hornets in the 1996 NBA Draft"? -Done
The NBA.com link in the infobox doesn't work.-Fixed
"the second highest number of points scored in a single game in NBA history, second only to Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point performance." Change "second only to" to "behind only". That change will prevent "second" from being a redundancy. Also consider a hyphen for "second highest".-Done
"winning three All-Star MVP Awards in 2002, 2007, and 2009." Reads like he won three awards each year. I recommend dropping "three". Also, is it worth mentioning in the lead that the 2009 award was shared with Shaq?-Done
NBA awards and accomplishments: There are two citations that need to be moved outside parentheses; both are in the regular-season leader area.-Done
NBA records: "Kobe Bryant shares two NBA records". Then why are more than two items listed?-Fixed
Here and in the next section, I don't think Kobe's first name needs to be repeated.-Done
"Became one of the only three players to reach the milestone under the age of 30." This change would get rid of a little wordiness.-Done
Los Angeles Lakers franchise records: Several instances of references being out of numerical order, such as [41][37]. Also, the references for the four straight 50-point games don't need to be repeated in the photo, since the statistic is cited in the text.-Done
Others: "The Aces defeated Erie Cathedral Prep 48–43 to take home the gold." Could a more encyclopedic phrase than "take home the gold" be used, please?-DoneGiants2008 (17-14) 01:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) Overall, really nice job. Just a few things that need addressing.
"Kobe Bryant is an American shooting guard who plays " Delink "American".
"Bryant became the cornerstone of the Lakers franchise. " Personally, I don't dispute this, but is there a source for this statement?
"career high"-->career-high
of points scored in a single game in NBA history"
"winning All-Star MVP Awards in 2002, 2007, and 2009 with O'Neal." What does "with O'Neal" mean here?
"he has had five 60-point games, 24 50-point games, and 96 40-point games."-->he has had five 60-point games, twenty-four 50-point games, and ninety-six 40-point games.
The color needs accompanying symbols.
Per MOS:BOLD, bold should not be used as a symbol; use italics instead.
In the key, I think you should explain that "at" signifies that Bryant's team played against that team on the road and "versus" signifies that his team played against that team at home. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the "career statistics" table, would it be possible to note the years in which he led the league in a certain statistic? For example, if he led the league in free throw% in 06/07, could that cell be bolded or something? -- Scorpion042217:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why have we got a 1.1 when we don't have a 1.2? Similarly with 3.1? It always strikes me as odd to have one subheading like that... - Fixed
Last para has "times" five times (!)... Can we spice it up a bit with some more engaging prose? Perhaps "occasions" could be used? - Fixed
Back to the headings thing, you could make Regular season and Playoffs the same level as Career-highs couldn't you? - Fixed
I think the career row should be non-sortable (but it is my opinion). I can't remember the code required to keep it at the bottom, but if we think it's worth it, I'll go on the hunt. - Seem to be a good idea, but I don't know the code either
Can I just confirm that he didn't ever play for the Charlotte Hornets? It may be worth clarifying that in the lead in case people go looking for his career achievements with them... - Based on his career stats, he never played for the Hornets. Should I use note or just add it to the lead?
Shouldn't Game started and Game played be Games ... in each case? - Fixed
Since the career highs table isn't sortable, you could include both cases of his free-throws made and both cases of free-throws attempt(ed??). - What do you mean?
Section headings once more - you could make 3.1 currently held and 3.2 previously held... - Fixed
There's an odd mixture of (As of March 2009) and (present) used to denote, well, today in the records list... I would attempt to be consistent. - The reason I use as of for several records is b/c they change all the time.
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. Been wanting to make it an FL for a while now since it is the only current TNA Championship that has enough champions to become an FL. It is reliably sourced to best I can. I can't find reliable sources for the weekly PPVs at the moment but if WrestleView.com will allow me to get to their results, which for some reason they've made off limits while they re-design their site, I'll add those into the list. I'll answer any questions rather quickly to speed this along; not a fan of long reviews. This is my first FL nomination just to state.WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)03:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to state that there is a problem going on right now with the title. The character Suicide, is rumored to be played by two people: Christopher Daniels and Frankie Kazarian. Reports state that Kazarian is injured and being replaced by Daniels. Though Suicide won the title this week, and we don't know who was in the match, since there is no reliable that states that Daniels was Suicide that night. The reports he took over the gimmick are around two months old. So, a few ips might edit the article based on rumors that he was the character on Sunday. If it is wanted I'll get the article protected.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)08:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The championship was created and debuted on June 19, 2002 at TNA's second weekly pay-per-view event (PPV), which officially aired on June 26, 2002. -- (1)The (PPV) belongs after pay-per-view not after event (2)It should be clarified that June 19 was the date of the taping
The first paragraph lacks. It should state more about the history of the title, see other championship FLs (mostly the recently promoted ones)
That is all the history of the title. The only thing else that is major to the history is when the WWA International Crusierweight Championship was unified with it, but that doesn't change any champions. Nothing really big has happened to the belt over the years.
There has to be more history. How did it come about (like right after the company was established)? You could also note the unification.--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well in TNA Year One, it is stated that the idea came along on the first day of weekly ppvs. During a Six Man Tag Team match, they got the idea that an x division would be great, the only problem is, that is the same day the first champion was crowned. Numerous sources, reliable and not, state it was taped on the 19th. So that I'm not sure about. Other than that, nothing too serious. Just a few vacant reigns and a unification is it. This title was seen as a pure title from 2002 to 2007. After that TNA lost focus. I'll mention the unification, that is covered by Solie.org.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reigns that were won on episodes of TNA's primary television program, TNA Impact!, aired on television two to nine days from the date the match was taped. -- If you don't take my suggestion above about the clarifying of June 19, then broadcast delay should be pipelinked to "tape" in this sentence or in the other one. This also needs a source
I don't have a source they are delayed. It has always been common knowledge they are taped so no one gives a source. I copied the lead mostly from List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions.
Reigns that were won on weekly PPV events aired either during a live broadcast or aired on taped delay up to 7 days apart. -- Did they really air live? In addition, this needs a source
No source, just stating the tape delay since the second weekly PPV was delayed. In addition the live boarddcast were part of the deal with TNA started the weekly PPVs. That they were supposed to be live boardcast each week. Sometimes they were taped. I could source this with TNA's Year One DVD release from 08, when they talk about the deal. I don't have the exact sentence though or the DVD. I only saw it once.
The inaugural champion was A.J. Styles, who is currently recognized by TNA to have become the champion after defeating Low Ki (Brandon Silvestry), Jerry Lynn, and Psicosis in a Four-Way Double Elimination match on the second weekly PPV. -- (1)No need for the real name in lists
Styles currently holds the record for most reigns at six, as recognized by TNA. -- if its recognized by TNA, no need to state it, if it were vise-versa, then that would be different
The longest reign as of March 2009 is 182 days, which was set by Christopher Daniels (Daniel Covell) during his first of four reigns as champion. -- no need for the real name
Most of the notes are not complete sentences and thus do not need full stops. Either reword them into complete sentences or reformat them with semicolons instead
Regarding sources, common sense isn't as applicable to content like such. How would Bill Gates know that TNA was taped live w/o a source?--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry dude, I got nothing. No source that states they are taped up to a certain number of days, or one that says they are taped at all. Just a bunch of spoilers. It is even harder to find results for weekly PPVs, so the same is out of the question there as well. If I put a fact tag next to them, would that be okay?--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)01:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the DVD for what? If you are talking about the thought of making an X division I can, though I'm not sure it is true since they are saying they got the idea on June 19, but that means the belt was already created. For this sentence, there is nothing to source with the DVD.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In May 2003 before the professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling All-Stars closed its doors, then-champion, Chris Sabin, defeated WWA International Cruiserweight Champion Jerry Lynn, Frankie Kazarian and Johnny Swinger in a Four Corners championship unification match to unify the TNA X Division Championship with the WWA International Cruiserweight Championship. -- (1)Closed its doors is not encyclopedic, ceased operation or went out of business (2)Remove the the before professional wrestling (3)State whether the unification had an effect on this title reign.
Finished the first, the second, and questioning the third. Nothing happened to the title. It wasn't renamed, it didn't have a big effect on it. So, I'm not sure that should be stated. Because then I would just be saying, "which had for further repercussions" (a rough draft). After the title was unified the WWA died. Though I have no source for that claim since they weren't an american promotion.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)22:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The championship was created and debuted on June 19, 2002, the taping of TNA's second weekly pay-per-view (PPV) event, which officially aired on June 26, 2002. -- No need for the officially--Best, ₮RUCӨ22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I sourced one, the TNA X Title is a no brainer, and I could use a picture of the old NWA X Belt as the article picture to show that it was called the NWA-TNA X Division Championship, if that is okay. I thought I got the notes section finished. They are all complete sentences.--WillC---(What the F*** have you done lately???!!)01:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defeated The Amazing Red to win the vacant championship. is not a complete sentence, request a copyedit of the notes. Also the image caption The TNA X Division Championship's design from 2002 to 2007 while he was named the NWA-TNA X Division Championship and the TNA X Division Championship. -- he was named?--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm done, everything is sourced and finished. To the best I know how to for a list article that is. Anything you want fixed just tell me, I hope to change that oppose to a support very soon.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!)08:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comments
Lead
In June 2002 when TNA began operations, the company executives signed a contractual agreement with the National Wrestling Alliance (NWA) that allowed them control of the NWA World Heavyweight and NWA World Tag Team Championships. -- because both titles both have the NWA acronym, the first title should only have the acronym
TNA followed by changing their name to NWA-TNA, making them an official territory of the NWA in the process. -- (1)followed? Not the best word choice (2)place a [subsidiary] right after territory
When the X Division Championship was created, before the match to crown the inagual champion began, ring announcer Jeremy Borash referred to it as the NWA X Championship. -- (1)No need for the first part, start sentence with Before (2)Typo on inaugural
After this match, the title was renamed the NWA-TNA X Division Championship, being correct with the new name of the promotion and to the design of the championship, with NWA-TNA being on the center plate of the physical belt. -- correct -->corrected
In May 2007, the NWA ended their five year partnership with TNA; regaining control of the NWA World Heavyweight and NWA World Tag Team Championships in the process. -- same thing I said about the other the acronym above
TNA followed by creating the TNA World Heavyweight and TNA World Tag Team Championships, which were debuted on their online podcast TNA Today on May 15 and May 17, 2007. -- (1)followed? poor word choice (2)Same comment about the acronyms applies here (3)debuted -->unveiled
They also re-designed the TNA X Division Championship, removing the NWA-TNA from its plate; even though the title had been referred to as the TNA X Division Championship since late 2004. -- (1)Source? (2)removing the NWA-TNA what from its plate? (3)the semi colon should be a comma
Be consistent with the naming of the title, it should be X Division Championship throughout, except for places where it shouldn't
In May 2003 before professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling All-Stars ceased operation, then-champion Chris Sabin defeated WWA International Cruiserweight Champion Jerry Lynn, Frankie Kazarian and Johnny Swinger in a Four Corners championship unification match to unify the TNA X Division Championship with the WWA International Cruiserweight Championship. -- Now that you added more to the prose, this statement seems out of place, I would reformat the lead to maybe have the history in the first paragraph and squeeze this in somewhere appropriate. Consider splitting it into 2 paragraphs if you take my suggestion
Okay, now the paragraphs are too big. I recommend splitting them up into 3 or four paragraphs that are evenly split.--Best, ₮RUCӨ00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list has come a long way since I first review, as you can see ;). I can't support yet because I am very used to this list now and I also expand these types of lists, so by supporting first I feel it maybe COI. I will support once another reviewer gives it an okay, I hope you understand.--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"After this match, the title was renamed the NWA-TNA X Division Championship, being corrected with the new name of the promotion and to the design of the championship, with the NWA-TNA logo being on the center plate of the physical belt." Very clumsy. This sentence should be split up.
"with different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines or were awarded the title due to scripted circumstances. "-->different wrestlers were involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines, or were awarded the title due to scripted circumstances.
"who is currently recognized by TNA to have become the champion after defeating "-->who became recognized by TNA to have become the champion after defeating
Well this article was slipt a long time ago, plus the TNA X Division Championship article is a future project of mine. I'm working on it in a subpage at the moment. I plan to make a Good or Featured Topic out of all TNA's Championships.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!)23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As long as the main article is going to be made more substantial, I have no problem with this remaining separate. It's a long list to want to merge into a decent-sized article. With that resolved, I came here for a regular review, but quickly found myself having trouble with the writing. I'll be happy to strike the oppose at the very least when these are done, but for now I must oppose. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The championship was created and debuted on June 19, 2002, the taping of TNA's second weekly pay-per-view event". Add "during" after 2002.
"In May 2003, before professional wrestling promotion World Wrestling All-Stars forecloser". Add an apostrophe to Stars and please fix that unsightly error at the end. How did everyone here miss that?
Change semi-colon after "the design of the championship" to a comma. Also, "with it having" is a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a subtle prose glitch. To learn about how to fix it, please see this guide.
"Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches; different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines, or were awarded the title due to scripted circumstances." Reads poorly. I recommend "Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches between different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots and storylines, or by scripted circumstances."
"The inaugural champion was A.J. Styles, who became recognized by TNA to have become the champion...". Needlessly wordy. Try "The inaugural champion was A. J. Styles (notice the space), who TNA recognized as their title-holder...".
Support - Looks much better now. One more thing I wanted to ask about was the initials of A. J. Styles' first name. The usual naming convention on Wikipedia is to have a space between the two initials, and I was wondering if Styles' name should be like that throughout the list. Not something I'd hold up support over, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen his name spelled with an extra space. I've only seen it with the standard English of no spaces between initials or no periods (i.e. his name is always either "A.J. Styles" or "AJ Styles", never "A. J. Styles"). TJSpyke22:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and please ignore/forgive me for anything I may point out that has been discussed in this extensive FLC, I'm looking at the list with fresh(ish) eyes...
I'd prefer the belt img to be bigger and move the Bashir image into the next section.
What does the + mean on the current reign? It would be worth having a "Correct as of date" at the top of the table so the exact number of days reign is correct per the date statement.
I thought I had a note for that. Anyway one is added now. As for your correct as of date statement, sorry but you've lost me. I don't know how but I'm drawing a blank of what you are saying.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!)18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when you have 14 days in there, it must have been 14 days on a specific date, like 31 March, so I'd write Statistics correct as of 31 March, 2009. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what good that would do, the reign is being determined by a template that counts the days, so it is correct. But I'll add what you asked for.--WillC16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, didn't know you had a template doing that work. Fair enough, apologies, remove the "correct..." sentence and keep your neat template. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Suicide link points to a video game character, not a human being.
It is because two people are said to be playing the character and we don't know exactly who won the title under the gimmick. Seeing as the character was no wrestler's idea, it was the company's to take the gimmick from their video game to their tv show, the reign technically belongs to the character. We just decided to link to the character instead. More information is at the top of this page.--WillC---Joe's gonna kill you!!!)18:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like that particularly. It still appears to me that the character is purely fictional, but what we need to say is that he is a real person, perhaps played by multiple people. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that two different people play the character in the article, but I'm not sure who won the title at Destination X though.--WillC16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who were awarded the Medal of Honor. It is hopefully the last in a set of five lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The lead looks fine, but I was going through the notes and I noticed many errors (some I have fixed) but I recommend seeking a copyedit of the notes. In addition, are some of these notes actual quotes from the sources because using "courage" without quotes is WP:POV, if it is a quote, please use quotation marks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ02:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image caption: "David McCampbell in his fighter plane, probably an F6F Hellcat" I wouldn't take risks on OR on the "probably" statement. Is there an expert who can verify that?
Dabomb87 asked me to do an image review on this (probably so he doesn't look like the bad guy). So here we go:
Firstly a note about the images from http://www.history.navy.mil. Images from that site are PD if the image can be verified as being from there. Currently many of these images have a dead source pointing directly to the (no longer existing) "image". However by searching the site many (all?) of these can probably be verified:
For example:
File:Frank Jack Fletcher-g14193.jpg. The source is dead so cannot verify PD. But it could replacing it by thiswould verify PD. I haven't made this change so it can be left as an illustrative example. (I will mark similar cases to this below as #)
File:Catlin AW.jpg, sources are dead links so cannot verify it is PD (i.e. US Marine Corps is the author).
Found Arlington Cemetery page where it is marked "USMC photo". Because a site is taken down doesn't remove it's PD status. Update image page and also left old links intact. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Butch O'Hare.jpg, nothing given to verify the claim that this is a "work of the United States Federal Government" and therefore PD
This is a Naval Historical Center photo from National archives, added web link showing that. Also note, all NHC material is PD, proof here where it says clearly their material is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Library of Congress Bain photo and is properly tagged as such. Bain photos are all PD. No issues with this one. I added another URL though. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I did not ask Rambo to ask it because I didn't want to be the "bad guy", but because I am no good at these type of things. Please don't take it as me trying to hide things or have others take the blame for my actions. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I meant no slander on Dabomb87's name, I was making a joke that didn't come across very well. I just meant that at times a lot of people hate image reviews (me included). I am quite happy taking the blame for this, as I did the review voluntarily – anything in it is my fault and no-one elses. Rambo'sRevenge(How am I doing?)21:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
General rant directed at no one: This is directed at a general situation, not at any person. I've also seen this trend at other Featured Candidate pages. Why do we have to reverify an image's PD status because of something like links changing? If it was PD, it's always PD. It does not lose that legal status because some website dropped off the net and User:JoeBlow can't find it anymore. But as it is, there is a trend to say "I can't find it, so you have to prove it even though we all know it was PD". Here I'm talking cases like it was sourced to a known PD site or even just trusting the uploader didn't invent a URL, but no, we say "the guy could have been faking a URL, so prove it again, to me". This is all unnecessary and avoidable by using a method that is used on Commons where trusted users verify a flickr image's status for Commons; it's called Flickr review. We could have "PD review", where trusted users verify a PD status and tag the image with a template. That way, two years later when User:JaneBlow posts a FLC/FAC, etc, you, me, and others don't waste our time reinventing the wheel. Not to mention a known PD image can't be used anymore because a URL changed or whatever. Do we do this with images from books? Not yet, but we probably will...Do we say "I don't own that book and it's not in my local library so you have to prove it's PD from 1900 by sending me the book", nope we don't yet, but that's basically what we do with images. Obviously, I'm not talking cases such as when the uploader didn't source the image at all. Food for thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...with the mission of educating..." I'm not a big fan of this kind of business speak. If it's a quotation then fine and it can go in quotes, otherwise I'd prefer a less jargony start (personal opinion mind you...)
"The Class of 1881 was the first class to provide officers to the Marine Corps. A few are given the option of..." reads a little bit funny to me, the first sentence talks of an historic class, then the following sentence talks about current procedure. Just doesn't quite sequence right to me...
Maybe make the 1881 sentence a run-on from the previous sentence, "...with the Class of 1881 being first to provide..." Then start the next sentence with "Graduates of the Academy are given the option..." The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly fit "Class year" in the Year column? I'd forgotten the note that explained Class year by the time I got round to wondering how a guy could get awarded a WWI MOH in 1906... (my own fault but something worth thinking about?)...
I think it makes the column less ambiguous once you're away from the key, so I'd suggest adding Class back in. What was the rationale behind its removal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've used MOH but not put it as (MOH) behind "Medal of Honor" in the lead. Uber picky but we should but abbreviations in parentheses before we use them.
Claud A Jones doesn't really need Medal of Honor to be linked in his notability column.
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel that it meets the FL criteria, and in hopes of a future FT of the former titles. Yes I know the lead is a tag long, but that hasn't been a problem at FLC before. This is the first of this type of list at FLC, so I don't know what to expect. Happy reviewing ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraphs are not consistent, try to merge into two dense, or three that are proportional. While editing, hide temporarily the image (using <!-- Comment -->) and see how the paragraphs are divided. Cannibaloki03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they all are about different topics. The first is mostly about the early history of the company and the first titles. The second is about the titles that were lent to other promotions, while the last is about titles that were retired as a result of the acquisition of WCW. Which is why they maybe disproportional.--Best, ₮RUCӨ01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like the other sources, this information is from the Wrestling Title Histories by Royal Duncan and Gary Will book, which Solie.org publishes on their site. This has been done with other FLs as well.--Best, ₮RUCӨ16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why when I placed Wrestling Title Histories by Royal Duncan and Gary Will as the work in the ref, it would be redundant to cite the book for the exact carbon-copy of information.--Best, ₮RUCӨ00:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of the wrestling title book you actually also have a source to say that this is as accurate a list as you're going to get, they did a LOT of research and if they don't mentione another WWWF/WWF/WWE title then there isn't one or it was too short lived to even matter. A problem a lot of "list of fomer" lists suffer from, excellent. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1963, CWC was renamed as the WWWF and ended their partnership with the NWA". Change "their" to "its" so the tense remains consistent in the article. Also, I'd just end the sentence here instead of using a semi-colon; I find it odd to have two semi-colons in a sentence.
"Before it became WWE, the company was also known as the World Wide Wrestling Federation (WWWF) (1963–1979)[2] and the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) (1979–2002).[3]" seems a little out of place and somewhat unnecessary since you go on, in good chronological order to explain the various name transitions. Currently though, we head up to 2002 and then back to 1953...
While the lead is informative, it's really, really heavy on acronyms which makes for challenging reading. I know there's probably nothing much that can be done - anyone any ideas, or is it just me?
The thing is, the WWE has had titles which were under different acronyms (WWWF/WWF/WWE/WCW), and its hard to distinguish these since they are part of a complicated history.--Best, ₮RUCӨ20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would "inaugural champions" be more eloquent than "first" champions?
I think it would because saying 'which first champions Mark Lewin' sounds awkward while 'which inaugural champions Mark Lewin' sounds better IMO.--Best, ₮RUCӨ20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After working on this list, I now believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and after recently getting Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography passed, I moved on to Clint Eastwood. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, he has spent more than 50 years on screen. -- on screen? That's very broad and unclear as to what you mean
He has appeared in over sixty films including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. -- Comma before including
This list includes appearances in various episodes of fictional shows, while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and the like. -- the like is oddly wordy, how about and other related media?
Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. This is much better than the Arnold list that came here the first time.--Best, ₮RUCӨ03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk·contribs) I reviewed this list pre-FLC, so these are minor things.
In the lead, "Gran Torino" links to a car article.
"while excluding appearances as himself on talk shows, interview shows, ceremonies, and other related media."-->and excludes appearances as himself...Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction states: "After beginning his acting career primarily with small uncredited film roles and television appearances, his career has spanned more than 50 years in both television and film productions. He has appeared in over sixty films, including Hang 'Em High, Escape from Alcatraz, The Bridges of Madison County, and Gran Torino. Eastwood also appeared in several television series, most notably Rawhide." I think this would be better if this introduction was reworded so that Rawhide is mentioned before the film titles are, thereby putting the listings in a chronological order. It should also be stated that Eastwood starred in this series for its entire eight-season run and that it provided him with the foundation for his later film success.
If I remember correctly, Eastwood made an unbilled cameo appearance in the film Casper (1995). If he did, then this should be added to the filmography. Eastwood also directed episodes of the TV series Amazing Stories (1985) and The Blues (2003). These should be added to the TV section. Perhaps two "Yes" columns could be added for actor and director in this section.
You might consider hyperlinking the years for the filmography and TV listings. Examples: {{fy|2009}} or [[2009 in film|2009]]; {{ytv|2009}} or [[2009 in television|2009]].
The notes section of the filmography could include information about awards that Eastwood won or was nominated for. Just having "uncredited" for a handful of films seems barren and makes this column seem rather superfluous. I also don't think it's necessary to have "—" for the cells with no information.
Filmographies don't cover the awards. Usually there is a separate list for awards/nominations won by an actor/director. That will likely be created down the line. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you suggestions, I appreciate it. According to the Man with No Name: "You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with FLCs and those who review. You review." --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second look:
"His role in the eight-season series led to his leading role in A Fistful of Dollars and its two sequels." — The other two films are not really sequels. Perhaps it would be better to state "... leading roles in A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly."
"Eastwood started directing in the 1970s, and in the 1980s, began producing many of his films." — I think it would be better if you state the exact year and film that he made his directing and producing debuts.
If you can, list the character he played in the episode of The West Point Story (provided you can find the information, which might be tough considering that's its not currently a well-known series).
I've looked for this on numerous sites already and haven't been able to find anything. I'm sure if the show is ever put on DVD we'll eventually get the answer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although perhaps not necessary, you might want to list the titles of the TV episodes that he appeared in or directed, rather than just the series title (with the obvious exception of the Rawhide episodes — a listing for them warrants an entire page of its on). Possibly you can do it this way:
For Rawhide you could put "Series regular — 217 episodes", or something similar. You may also consider this link: [http://epguides.com/Rawhide/ List of ''Rawhide'' episodes]
Random musing The one set of columns is named "credited as", but some rows also say "uncredited". Isn't that a contradiction?
It still lists his roles in the films, and although they seem to contradict, I can't think of a better way to list it. I adjusted the column so it doesn't include credited as for the role. Instead of "credited as" should it be "involved as"? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to add a table that has his top 10 highest grossing films or even just mention his highest grossing films as an actor and director in the lead?
In previous FLCs about filmographies, it was discouraged to include highest grossing films as the box office may be the result of other factors not necessarily the actor's role in the film. The citation about his total box office can be visited by the readers to learn more about his top-grossing films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should remove "Academy Award-winning " from the opening sentence. Generally, we're supposed to avoid such phrases due to POV concerns.
Speaking of the Oscars, would it be possible to note which films he received Oscars and nominations for (or any other major award)? -- Scorpion042216:56, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Filmographies are not supposed to cover awards, in the future, an awards and nominations page for Eastwood will likely be created. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned in general some of the types of awards he had won. I'm going to try and develop a list over the next few days so that I can perhaps mention how many. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"...film ... and television... " + "...television and film..." in one sentence reads poorly.
Any reason why the roles you've stated as "notable" are more "notable" than any of the other roles? Or is it just your opinion?
I just mentioned some of the roles in his filmography (had seen this in other filmographies). The majority of those were well-received by critics are performed well at the box office. Do you think that they should be removed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just chose some of the roles not already mentioned in the lead already. I can add/remove some or all if you think there is a better alternative. Or I could just remove notable? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rawhide needs an en-dash, not a hyphen for its separator.
The first occurrence was as the author (since I don't see a single author listed) and the second was for publisher. I removed the first occurrence. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not a fan of the green-shaded cells at all. Readers can discern the "Yes" without the need for color. Also, I am not sure about the "year in film" links. In an individual film article, linking to that film's release year is relevant. This is a filmography where these links are less useful; they feel too one-step-removed from the topic to be relevant here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This FLC has been hilarious. When I change one thing, another editor wants to see it done differently. I think you guys are messing with my mind! :) I've removed the year in film. For the green boxes, I did a short study (through e-mails/phone calls/standing outside of a grocery store with a clipboard), and I think Clint Eastwood fans enjoy reading more when they see green yeses. No (indicating my sarcasm), I had used the green-shaded cells to agree with the previous FLs that use it (such as Spike Lee filmography). I know we had that discussion a few months back about the green/red for awards/nominations but I wasn't sure if we were speaking for filmographies. I'll change it if there is consensus to do so, as all of the above editors haven't disagreed with it. I don't care too much either way, but I would probably recommend that WP:FILMS determine the best way to handle these types of tables so we can revise previous FLs and future nominations. Thanks for taking a look, I appreciate it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87, what is the accompanying text for the green-shaded cells? If a cell says "Yes", then does color need to be injected? Nehrams2020, I was reflecting on this layout, and I was wondering why "Yes" cells were being used at all. When I first came to the article, I scrolled down through the list, but I had to go back up a couple of times to identify which columns were which. I imagine that this is grounded partially in precedent, but would it not be easier to identify the extent of his involvement in one cell beside each title? For example, "Actor" for Escape from Alcatraz, and "Director, producer, actor, and musical contribution" for Gran Torino. ("Musical contribution" can be something else, obviously.) It may use less of the table, but readers will identify his involvement with each film immediately. Just food for thought until we have a broader discussion about filmographies. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 12:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but I think as it is currently labeled is the best method. I think it would be redundant to keep mentioning each role for each film especially since he contributes in so many capacities. Would it be easier to read by also adding the same role heading to the bottom of the table (or halfway through) as well? I didn't have any problems with the headings, but then again, I added them so that may be why. In my opinion, this format works, and since the table isn't especially long, any scrolling wouldn't be too much of an issue. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Oppose -- Due to the lack of prose, the formatting from a glance looks fine, but the lead lacks.--Best, ₮RUCӨ02:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my comments are the same as pointed out by Dabomb below, except the following
The medal has been repeatedly awarded to multiple individuals in the same year; in 1877 it was awarded to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[3] in 1882 to Dmitri Mendeleev and Julius Lothar Meyer "For their discovery of the periodic relations of the atomic weights",[3] in 1883 to Marcellin Berthelot and Julius Thomsen "For their researches in thermo-chemistry",[3] in 1893 to Jacobus Henricus van 't Hoff and Joseph Achille Le Bel "In recognition of their introduction of the theory of asymmetric carbon, and its use in explaining the constitution of optically active carbon compounds",[3] in 1903 to Pierre Curie and Marie Curie "For their researches on radium"[4] and in 1963 to John Cornforth and George Joseph Popjak "In recognition of their distinguished joint work on the elucidation of the biosynthetic pathway to polyisoprenoids and steroids". -- the semi colon should be a colon
The lead needs to summarize the list more, as in who was the first recipient, the most recent, and how many overall, etc.
It does: "*The medal was first awarded in 1877 to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis",[1] and has since been awarded 131 times.[1] .... The medal was most recently awarded to James Fraser Stoddart "For his contributions in molecular technology".[1]" Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name column should not be sortable because some cells have more than one entry, and when sorted, it isn't representative of everything sorted.--Best, ₮RUCӨ00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask that this is put on hold whilst I get Ironholds to write a lead? He wrote all of the other ones and did a really good job, but it seems that whilst I thought that I had done all right I in fact did not. — neuro(talk)06:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this and the two below, I know it is a quote; that is why I put the lower case f/i in brackets. You still have to follow the rules of logical capitalization. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, my apologies; I assumed you were simply indicating the thing that had to be changed. So you mean it should be displayed as "[f]or..." on the article? Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, all the quotes are attributed by the "general" references at the bottom. The references in the notes section are there as third-party verification that X won the medal in Y year. Ironholds (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments a lovely piece of work. Let's see if I can come up with anything...
May seem odd but why is it [f]or in most cases? What did the actual citation say instead of just "... for"? More my curiosity than anything else. The only thing that alerted me to it was the caption in the lead image(s) doesn't have the [f]...
Just as we have WP:PUNC for logical punctuation, we ought to be using logical capitalization too. Besides, it's plain clunky to have a random capital "For" in the middle of a sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that worried about the [f]'s in the middle of prose, just the [f]'s and [i]'s etc in the table. No need for them as far as I can tell, just use capital letters. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...it has never missed a year..." seems mildly anthropomorphic to me. Is there a better way of stating that it has been awarded every year since its inception?
"... to James Fraser Stoddart "For his ..." - capital F here seems to be unusual compared to the other f's... There are a couple more capital F's in the lead... and a capital I... can we be consistent with the citations from lead to table etc?
"first awarded in 1877 to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis"" vs "in 1877 it was awarded to Robert Wilhelm Bunsen and Gustav Robert Kirchhoff "for their researches & discoveries in spectrum analysis"" in the lead. Quite repetitive...
I see you have refrained from linking anything vaguely scientific. It's good consistency, but is it helpful to readers? For instance, I'd quite like to know what a "polyisoprenoid" is...
Robert Robertson links to a fella who died 43 years before his Davy Medal was awarded. Can you just check that the links go to the right scientists?
With regard to the [f]or's etc in the prose, WP:MOS#Quotation marks (Other matters section) says that "if an entire sentence is quoted in such a way that it becomes a grammatical part of the larger sentence, the first letter loses its capitalization". Also, the one in the opening sentence of the lead isn't even capitalised in the source, so there's absolutely no reason to parenthesise the f.
I didn't make myself clear (it was late :-), although I think the example in the MOS section mentioned does. When a capitalised item is quoted such that it becomes grammatically part of the larger sentence, as those quotes beginning [f]or in the lead section are, it just loses its capital, it doesn't gain square brackets. Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:QUOTE (Minimal change section), you probably ought to mark the Royal Society's typos with {{sic}}. Such as Parsons 2003 (electochemistry should be electrochemistry: see [74] for confirmation); Bartlett 2002 (flourine → fluorine); Pauling 1947 (theor → their). There may well be more, but it's late and my eyes are failing
References currently ##10 and 12 cite works by Marion Clyde Day, one dated 1884, the other 1969. That's either remarkable longevity or there's something wrong somewhere.
I'm impressed by all the books and journals you've cited. Did you access the versions made of dead trees, or online versions? Struway2 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another time, it might be helpful to the reader if you were to add a url for Google Books ones; just linking to the start page for the book (the http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xxx bit), it wouldn't be sensible to link right into the search results. Though I wouldn't expect you to go back and find them all again for this list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few of the cite templates have fields with the parameter name present but no content, e.g. Cleve 1894 cite book |last= |first= |coauthors= |year=1895 |title=Nature |page=137 |publisher=Nature Publishing Group |isbn= Another time, it might be better to just omit unused fields.
Hm, that shouldn't have occurred (except for the one in the lead, I didn't run the script on that). As far as I can tell that is it, the script isn't picking up anything, and I can't find a problem with the script. Also, your method for finding ISBNs must be superior to mine - what do you use? — neuro(talk)(review)23:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this bit back out of the capped stuff, seeing as there are still plenty of cite templates with empty fields, and a bot has just been adding more... Struway2 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think it must have been late for you, as well, or too early in the morning... This just removed all the |year= parameters, but left the years; have a look at the references section in your last version :-) Don't worry, (I think) I've fixed them. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Over the Edge (1999) (FAC), because its from Discovery. The second one: when I use this source its for titles from the past which the info is published in a book. If ROH publishes a list for the reigns, this is unnecessary.--Truco 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
or something.
.jpg){kind=link}
icon next to the column title." necessary?—Chris! ct 02:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
