Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2013: Difference between revisions
pr5 |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) +1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kings Island attractions/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Indian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film/archive1}} |
Latest revision as of 19:50, 30 June 2013
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 19:50, 30 June 2013 [1].
- Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria--Dom497 (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Shudde talk 02:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Additionally:
- Shudde talk 09:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- There is a space between the full stop and superscript; I'm happy to Support under the good faith assumption that this minor error will be fixed. - Shudde talk 09:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment -
Almost every sentence in the Soak City paragraph starts with "In 199X..." This makes the section difficult to read, and could use some variation to increase sentence fluency. That's the only comment I have. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks like it's all fixed! Great. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by DivaKnockouts
|
- That looks and sounds better. Support. — DivaKnockouts 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): SoapFan12 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series for featured list because I believe that this meets the criteria. Also, I previously nominated Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series and it became an FL. Therefore, I have made the same requirements as I did for the other article and I strongly believe that it should become an FL. Thank you.
- Support I don't see any immediate issues that need to be addressed. Article is in very good shape.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] Overall, I have fixed and corrected everything. Thank you :) SoapFan12 22:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Arre 11:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Arre 9 Here are a few concerns I have:
Arre 06:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arre 06:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arre 14:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arre 11:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Fixes and done. Thanks! :) SoapFan12 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After this is fixed I'll support :) Arre 11:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support now, great work.
Arre 11:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for everything! Thanks for the support! SoapFan12 12:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Good job, Soap. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! This means a lot that you took time by giving these comments. I'm so grateful! :) SoapFan12 13:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
;Comments:
|
- Support: Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! It means a lot! SoapFan12 12:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed this here because I've been working on this list for quite some period of time. Prior to this the list under went a peer review with stated suggestions being implemented. Look forward to your comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
- Refs. 10 and 11 are broken. Please find reliable replacements.
- Surge_Elec (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments
|
- Support on prose and images. Very nice indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Submissions: "one of he directed himself." Needs "which" after "of". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Thanks —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets the criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is, in my (not-so-humble) opinion, a fascinating subject covering European politics and conflict from the beginning of the fourteenth century to the end of the eighteenth. Gibraltar is a tiny piece of rock on the south coast of Spain, but its proximity to North Africa and its position at the entrance to the Mediterranean have given it an importance in world history quite disproportionate to its size. This was great fun to write, and I'd like to think it's up to FL standard. As ever, constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement are very welcome. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt (addressed) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
NOTE: Please respond below these comments, and not interspersed in them, thank you.
Thank you for your efforts on this quality improvement project to a list page on Wikipedia, — Cirt (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without any attempts at all to address or even try to address points 1, 4, 5, and 6, I don't think this page is quite yet ready for Featured quality status. It's quite almost there, actually, but those recommendations would really help, in my humble opinion. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
would be ready for Featured quality, at that point in time. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. It appears that the Background and List sections formatting I'd recommended will be retained as stable. Thanks very much for keeping these recommendations, and for your contributions to Wikipedia towards this quality improvement project. — Cirt (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is obviously a quality article, but I'd argue that it goes beyond the realm of "list article" and is more appropriately a full article. Have you considered moving it to Sieges of Gibraltar and aiming for a "featured article" rather than "featured list"? --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ, it's your call, if you'd like to stick here, then you're welcome to do so and then I'll review the list but if you're FAC-bound, do let us know so we can archive the nomination (and wish you all the luck in the world over in "the other place"!). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would fare well at FAC. It was written to list a series of events, so I think this is the appropriate venue for it. It perhaps contains more prose than most lists, but it is fundamentally a list I think. I'd be happy to hear any comments you have, TRM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's welcome here at FLC, most definitely. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would fare well at FAC. It was written to list a series of events, so I think this is the appropriate venue for it. It perhaps contains more prose than most lists, but it is fundamentally a list I think. I'd be happy to hear any comments you have, TRM. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HJ, it's your call, if you'd like to stick here, then you're welcome to do so and then I'll review the list but if you're FAC-bound, do let us know so we can archive the nomination (and wish you all the luck in the world over in "the other place"!). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I commented on the A-class nomination for this list, and think that the FL criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments nice work.
- "Despite its small size," not sure you need "small", it's self-evident.
- You're right; gone.
- "began later in the eighth century. The campaign eventually took 800 years to force the Moors back across the Strait, and did not reach the Bay of Gibraltar until the fourteenth century" forgive my maths but this doesn't seem to add up to me...
- It reached the bay in the early fourteenth century (leading to the first siege), but the campaign wasn't concluded for nearly another 200 years.
- Is it worth linking Castilian people? Or something you deem more appropriate?
- I can't see any harm in it.
- "fell out with each other" perhaps this is expanded upon later, but I'm not sure if this is fully explanatory.
- I'm reluctant to go into more detail there for fear of duplicating (rather than summarising) the table, unless you think it's necessary?
- "walls.[34][33]" could we have refs in numerical order?
- Of course, done.
- "of the Reconquesta, decided" earlier, it was the Reconquista.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is, since it's a Spanish word. Fixed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Finlayson's name is misspelled in reference 50.Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Like Nick-D, I was a reviewer of the MILHIST A-class nomination for this list, and consider that it meets the FL criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Solid list, I've had my eye on it since DYK. Somewhat more prose than usual, but no problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets the criteria, so why not? Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please fix the typo I noted two weeks ago? I don't want to promote something with an outstanding glitch like that, and I'm sure TRM doesn't either.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have recently completely updated and improved the article by adding reliable references, a new lead and tables. Earthh (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
*In the lead eleven → 11 (WP:MOS)
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
What happened to this?--Earthh (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You need more reviews/supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Glad to offer my thoughts. I've also performed some minor changes to the lead prose.
Still, great work. Will be happy to support when my comments are addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 10:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support, as my comments have been addressed. Great job. Holiday56 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – About.com (ref 1) is not a reliable source. You'll have to find another source for this information; since it is citing some basic information about the band, it shouldn't be that hard to locate one.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added an Allmusic source.--Earthh (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this list on and off for a few months, and think I finally have it in shape for a FLC run. I've based the general format off of the other featured governors lists, but, as always, formatting lists is not my strongest skill. Thanks in advance for your comments, Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments
- Restrict the colour to a band like in the Alaska list.
- Not sure the point of "Other offices held" in this and similar articles. This should be a simple list of a state's governors, why complicate it with a list of everything else the governors have done in their life? Of course, if a governor went on to serve as President or something very senior in the federal cabinet, you could mention it as a note or in the lead, but another table is overkill.
- Living former governors: similarly, you could just add a § symbol against each living governor in the main table and add a note explaining so.—indopug (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (I haven't worked on this article [yet] but I made the other featured governor articles) I've been wondering about these tables. My personal rules - which are perhaps arbitrary - has been to include: Congressional offices; High executive (President, VP, Cabinet); Governorships; District Court Judge or higher; Ambassadorships; the previous entries for both the USA and CSA; and major foreign posts, like president of another country. Some states have an extraordinarily long list of people who fit into this; just see New York, with, among others: six VPs, 2 Chief Justices, 4 Presidents, and 7 top cabinet secretaries. This was originally expressed as a simple list, I wanted to change it into something more formal. However, I agree: It's a little beyond the scope.
- As for the living governors list... this too seems extraneous. If you want to see who the living governors are, click a few links; no state has more than a handful. It's not really vital information that needs to be shared, and it raises the maintenance costs of the article.
- If it's the will of the FLC voters, I'll go through all my previous featured governor lists and prune these out, or convert to text where logical. And this one could serve as the new template, with work. --Golbez (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have yet to have it explained to me why a band of color is better than a full cell of color. As I've said before, I won't revert if someone else goes through and makes the change, but as far as I know, the current format is not counter to WP:ACCESS or anything other guideline. I think the "other offices held" is quite interesting, and would be much less handy in notes, and very unwieldy in the lead. Expressing the number of House and Senate seats held in prose, rather than as part of the list, would help cut down the size. Would that help? I've removed the living governors section, and instead included the information in a couple of new sentences in the lead. That seems easier for people using screenreaders, etc. then having even more symbols/columns in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly wouldn't suggest it being in footnotes, as that's not the point of the table. It's a list of governors, not a list of people who have been governor; it's a subtle distinction. --Golbez (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have yet to have it explained to me why a band of color is better than a full cell of color. As I've said before, I won't revert if someone else goes through and makes the change, but as far as I know, the current format is not counter to WP:ACCESS or anything other guideline. I think the "other offices held" is quite interesting, and would be much less handy in notes, and very unwieldy in the lead. Expressing the number of House and Senate seats held in prose, rather than as part of the list, would help cut down the size. Would that help? I've removed the living governors section, and instead included the information in a couple of new sentences in the lead. That seems easier for people using screenreaders, etc. then having even more symbols/columns in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Colour—in the current format the colours overwhelm the table and affects the list's appearance (5a). Remember, the point of the colours is only to give a quick indication of affiliation; you don't need a colourful table for that.—indopug (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I don't see the color as overwhelming - to me the color draws the eye across the table and makes the flow a bit better. If other reviewers disagree, though, I'll go ahead and change it. What are you thoughts on my suggestion above (in the comment on 31 March 2013) on condensing the "other offices held" table? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Background color on table cells is an accessibility issue. Blue-on-red and blue-on-blue are both very difficult to read. (On a less important note, it's just gaudy.) —Designate (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see why we need to list things like house, senate, ambassadorships etc... Successful politicians (which state governors obviously are) usually hold a number of positions in their lives. As for the lead, I meant doing something like "X went on to serve as President of the United States, while Y became Vice President"; just as a shoutout to a couple of people who got the highest jobs among the lot.
- Living people in the lead—this is a little too detailed (with the brackets, date ranges and birth dates). I'd change it to "As of January 2013, four former governors were alive, the oldest being William Milliken (born 1922). The others are James Blanchard, John Engler and Jennifer Granholm. The most recent governor to die was George W. Romney, in 1995."—indopug (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to transfer the list over to the color scheme preferred by all above, but unfortunately failed. I can't figure out how to get the formatting to work with row and column scopes, and none of the other governors lists have row and column scopes to allow me to shamelessly copy :) If any of the formatting gurus here could do a row as an example, I would be quite grateful. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Golbez has figured out the formatting (thank you!!!) and so the colors are now switched over. I've removed the governorship dates from the living governors in the lead, but left the birthdates, as these are useful and not found elsewhere in the article. I've converted House and Senate appointments to prose, which leaves us with several governors who also held ambassadorships, Supreme Court positions, etc. As is shown by the fact that there are only a few, this is not something that most governors do, and I think it's interesting information and useful to readers. Can we maybe get a compromise position here, since quite a bit of what you have suggested has been implemented? Dana boomer (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I attempted to transfer the list over to the color scheme preferred by all above, but unfortunately failed. I can't figure out how to get the formatting to work with row and column scopes, and none of the other governors lists have row and column scopes to allow me to shamelessly copy :) If any of the formatting gurus here could do a row as an example, I would be quite grateful. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I don't see the color as overwhelming - to me the color draws the eye across the table and makes the flow a bit better. If other reviewers disagree, though, I'll go ahead and change it. What are you thoughts on my suggestion above (in the comment on 31 March 2013) on condensing the "other offices held" table? Dana boomer (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Colour—in the current format the colours overwhelm the table and affects the list's appearance (5a). Remember, the point of the colours is only to give a quick indication of affiliation; you don't need a colourful table for that.—indopug (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment Why are the "Notes" and "Source" columns sortable? Does that provide some useful functionality that I am not aware of? Cheers, Rejectwater (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (sorry for how long it's taken to get here by the way...)
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support - Reads very smoothly and looks very sharp. Appears to be quite well-referenced, and in my mind meets all of the criteria. Well done! Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support, Red Phoenix! Dana boomer (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Meets all the criteria, in my opinion, and I can find nothing else to nitpick. Say yes to Michigan. Rejectwater (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think everyone above me has gotten everything sorted out; lets kick this thing out the door. --PresN 18:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another discography! I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. I look forward to any comments that can help make this a Featured List. Thank you – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great formatting and meticulously sourced. — Cirt (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looked through the entire list and couldn't find anything needing improvement. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
I've nominated this list for featured list status because I've put a lot of effort into it twice now and I believe it meets the FL criteria (or can meet it easily with some helpful feedback from those reviewing this nomination). Five years ago, I managed to make this a featured list here on Wikipedia. Then, I stopped editing for a long time and while I was away, it was delisted because references went down and some of the reliability standards had changed. This time, I used references deemed reliable by WP:VG/S in order to put together this list and I've rewritten a significant portion of the lead, as well as restyled it a bit to better illustrate which games on this list utilize the Sega Mega-CD as well as the 32X. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments - 1) There's a few rows where you link Sega in the developer but not the publisher, and a few where you link in both- be consistent. 2) Any more identifying information on the Man!ac Magazine source? ISSN, page numbers? 3) Normally I'd prefer if JP/NA/PAL were separate columns that could be sorted individually, but with 40 releases I think it's okay here not to. 4) You didn't link Allgame in ref 22. 5) Consider archiving your references with webcitation.org or we.archive.org - while it's unlikely that Allgame or IGN will vanish or remove content, if either did so the list would become unreferenced. --PresN 22:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, not sure how I missed the Sega links and the missing Allgame link, but those are now fixed. I'll consider archiving the sources, but with 50 refs or so, that'll be a little tedious and take some time (but it would be nice to keep this at FL status forever). As for the Man!ac source... unfortunately, no I don't have any more information. It turns out that Man!ac (now M! Games, a German publication) doesn't archive their old issues on their website, so I can't seem to find any page numbers. I will do what I can, of course, but at the bare minimum having the article title, issue, and publication ought to suffice if nothing else. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments –
- In reference 5, since the publisher is a magazine, it should be italicized.
- Also, I don't think the comma in May, 1995 should be there unless it is presented that way in the magazine itself.
- What makes RetroCollect (ref 40) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I think you about gave me a heart attack there... I'll explain, it's rather humorous. RetroCollect, I really can't vouch for its reliability and only used it because I couldn't find its info anywhere else, since the 32X CD version of Surgical Strike was exclusive to Brazil. Didn't think I would, either. Fortunately, and probably even better still, I found a great reliable source for Surgical Strike's 32X CD version, and one I'll likely use in the future now. I was able to find information from ConsoleCity.com, which is a site belonging to UGO Networks, considered reliable per WP:VG/S. Also, the two citations I had to other RetroCollect pages were not needed, as Allgame and IGN do an otherwise adequate job of covering the games, so I removed those as well. I think we can safely put this to bed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe this article meets the FL criteria, and so it deserves to become a featured list. Good work Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having redeveloped this article based on previous featured episode lists, I believe it may now meet the FL criteria. Any comments that will help improve the list are welcome. Holiday56 (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LeaningSupport - Prose looks and reads very well, and the lists are all in great condition. However, several of the citations have double parentesis going on (Ex. ""Title" of This"), when it should be single mark followed by parenthesis (Ex. "'Title' of This"). Also, the image/season navigator at the top left of the page are oddly cluttered. These however, are the only "blemishes" I could find on an otherwise great list.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Checked the references section for any instances of extra quotation marks, and couldn't find any—unless I happened to miss one, I think that's cleared up.
As for the season navigator, I'd like to know where you'd propose placing it—under the image, perhaps?Otherwise, thanks for the support; your comments are appreciated. Holiday56 (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Removed the season navigator per below comments, as it doesn't seem necessary with the presence of the season overview section. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be crazy! Full support now.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the season navigator per below comments, as it doesn't seem necessary with the presence of the season overview section. Holiday56 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked the references section for any instances of extra quotation marks, and couldn't find any—unless I happened to miss one, I think that's cleared up.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support, with comments
- "106 episodes of the series have been broadcast..." sentence starts with a bare number. Preferably should be rewritten to include the number in the middle of the sentence somewhere.
- Rewritten. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Hi-Five Ghost" the correct (or most accepted) spelling of the character's name?
- It's the spelling used in the credits and written out in several episodes of the series. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Table caption on the series overview table seems redundant, as do the ones on the season episode tables.
- The table captions are present for easier accessibility. I've seen them used in several other featured episode lists. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazon refs don't need the url parameter if asin is filled in.
- Fixed references. Holiday56 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paper Luigi T • C 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support JJ98 (Talk) 02:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment – Reference 49 doesn't have a publisher (TV by the Numbers. Zap2it). Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Holiday56 (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]
- Nominator(s): CRwikiCA talk 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion it meets the criteria and is of similar quality as other already featured lists of places. Note I have made significant improvements upgrading it from this to what it is now. CRwikiCA talk 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Were you going to place any dates on founding in the list and/or the name origins?Coal town guy (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Founding dates do generally not exist. Only for some merged municipalities there would be an actual date, most municipalities would have at most a rough estimation of when the spot was settled. Because the field would have different meanings for different municipalities I don't think it would be good to include it. Although the origin of the name of the town is interesting, I do not personally see it as important as other items that could be added. One of the other columns that I often see is maps, which I could add. I hadn't done it because loading ~500 images might be much, but if that would not be a problem for Wikipedia users, I would be happy to add those. CRwikiCA talk 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, a map image may be helpful, in fact, I would advise it. Taker a look at the Featured lists for some US Counties , and they do have a table structure which would allow you to use a map, with the sole purpose of showing a pinpooint location. I kmow it does sound US centric to suggest, but I was only looking at your statement about maps. Its been a few years since I have been to the NetherlandsCoal town guy (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the maps, as you can see someone had already made nice graphical maps which were easy to include. It does add a nice touch to the tables. CRwikiCA talk 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well done. The only gap I see is maybe a few words about special municipalities, what they in comparison to a "regular" one. Addditionally, the intro paragraph, EXCELLENT. However, I would strongly suggest getting some refs as to the type of government in the Netherlands, maybe a quote from its constitution. My Dutch is rather piss poor BUT I could look for a German version. I had to do so for the FL candidate I had promoted (quote local constitution), learned alot in that process for certain. My roommate was from the Netherlands and was possibly my best German teacher I had. His American English has also vastly improved, thanks to our mutual desire to sound better when we spoke. He forbade me to learn any Dutch though....Coal town guy (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and constructive critism, it is the first time I am sending an article through a process like this. If I were to interpret your advice I would say to reference the relevant law texts as well in the parts were only the English-language Dutch government sites are referenced. Would this be what you mean? Most laws are available to read online, so it should be possible to find the relevant passages. Writing these articles does indeed teach you a lot, especially when you research a topic a bit. CRwikiCA talk 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To the point of quoting your specific constitution, yes, you are correct. IF you are able, not required, try to foind a book via google books that would have some interpretation of said document. BOTH are fine, but my experience has shown me that there is a sort of preferance for books if possibleCoal town guy (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some additional references to the constitution, the municipalities act and a book on municipal law. This should add some more context to the municipal status section. Do you have any other comments about the List-article? CRwikiCA talk 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, get some refs on the terms of office ( 4 years) and the functions of the municipalities. Its starting to look very nice. Also, ANY Etymology?? Additionally, you will needs refs on any and all population stats.Coal town guy (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The population stats are referenced in the column headers where applicable. Only the population density for the special municipalities is not referenced, because I could not find a source, so they are computed from the other two. Should I refer to a note that states that? The four year term is actually the constitutional reference and the translation in English and 3 additional languages is available on the linked official government website. A sentence (or two) about the etymology of the name gemeente is a good idea, I also realize that the term gemeente only occurs in the lead and not in the main text section. Thanks for you critical eye. CRwikiCA talk 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- EXCELLENT. Make a notation about the population, when possible. As to the government web site, that can be very good as when you ref the cite 100% certain to note the author of the web site as well as the last time it was updated. OR, try to find a pdf of it. As to special municipalities, try to add some more flesh to that, and by all means, yes, state the population stats are difficult, Try a local library, online population stats etc etc before saying, cant find it. FORGOT to ask, did this article get a peer review?Coal town guy (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Link for Constitution dated 2008, in English. Hey there this should be it. It provides the user a link to download the Netherlands Constitution in English. Its dated 2008, and is on the Netherlands Government web site.Coal town guy (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I included the English language link to the constitution reference. To answer your question, the article was not peer reviewed. Population stats can be difficult, although a lot of the Dutch stats are available online, one of the issues with the stats for the special municipalities is that the responsibility for those shifted when those were instated. Exactly what kind of additional information about the special municipalities would you like to see added? A lot of the government websites do not actually specify an author and in some cases not even an update date, but I will go through them and see what I can add for each reference. CRwikiCA talk 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I like the list as is, BUT, since I have gone through the FL list procedure before I am trying to anticipate what others will want as well. As to special municipalities, the best thing might be to say what makes them special per the Constitution. I will contact a fwew other editors to see what their feedback would be as well. The list you have is ambitious, and with a bit more fleshing to the municipalities, is a good one, certainly educationalCoal town guy (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The constitution does not describe the special municipalities, I checked the text to confirm this. They were instituted with the cited Act in 2010, which regulates their function, role and other things mentioned in the article. Because they are not enshrined in the constitution, their legal status might be a bit different, but I do not know to which detail the legal technicalities should be discussed in the article. CRwikiCA talk 19:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the note for the population density and added notes with the dates for some of the other data as well, because the last update of the sources does not always correspond with the date of the actual data. CRwikiCA talk 19:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately it does not seem like other people have taken an interest in reviewing this candidacy. CRwikiCA talk 13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the note for the population density and added notes with the dates for some of the other data as well, because the last update of the sources does not always correspond with the date of the actual data. CRwikiCA talk 19:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The constitution does not describe the special municipalities, I checked the text to confirm this. They were instituted with the cited Act in 2010, which regulates their function, role and other things mentioned in the article. Because they are not enshrined in the constitution, their legal status might be a bit different, but I do not know to which detail the legal technicalities should be discussed in the article. CRwikiCA talk 19:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I like the list as is, BUT, since I have gone through the FL list procedure before I am trying to anticipate what others will want as well. As to special municipalities, the best thing might be to say what makes them special per the Constitution. I will contact a fwew other editors to see what their feedback would be as well. The list you have is ambitious, and with a bit more fleshing to the municipalities, is a good one, certainly educationalCoal town guy (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I included the English language link to the constitution reference. To answer your question, the article was not peer reviewed. Population stats can be difficult, although a lot of the Dutch stats are available online, one of the issues with the stats for the special municipalities is that the responsibility for those shifted when those were instated. Exactly what kind of additional information about the special municipalities would you like to see added? A lot of the government websites do not actually specify an author and in some cases not even an update date, but I will go through them and see what I can add for each reference. CRwikiCA talk 18:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Link for Constitution dated 2008, in English. Hey there this should be it. It provides the user a link to download the Netherlands Constitution in English. Its dated 2008, and is on the Netherlands Government web site.Coal town guy (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- EXCELLENT. Make a notation about the population, when possible. As to the government web site, that can be very good as when you ref the cite 100% certain to note the author of the web site as well as the last time it was updated. OR, try to find a pdf of it. As to special municipalities, try to add some more flesh to that, and by all means, yes, state the population stats are difficult, Try a local library, online population stats etc etc before saying, cant find it. FORGOT to ask, did this article get a peer review?Coal town guy (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The population stats are referenced in the column headers where applicable. Only the population density for the special municipalities is not referenced, because I could not find a source, so they are computed from the other two. Should I refer to a note that states that? The four year term is actually the constitutional reference and the translation in English and 3 additional languages is available on the linked official government website. A sentence (or two) about the etymology of the name gemeente is a good idea, I also realize that the term gemeente only occurs in the lead and not in the main text section. Thanks for you critical eye. CRwikiCA talk 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, get some refs on the terms of office ( 4 years) and the functions of the municipalities. Its starting to look very nice. Also, ANY Etymology?? Additionally, you will needs refs on any and all population stats.Coal town guy (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some additional references to the constitution, the municipalities act and a book on municipal law. This should add some more context to the municipal status section. Do you have any other comments about the List-article? CRwikiCA talk 16:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To the point of quoting your specific constitution, yes, you are correct. IF you are able, not required, try to foind a book via google books that would have some interpretation of said document. BOTH are fine, but my experience has shown me that there is a sort of preferance for books if possibleCoal town guy (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and constructive critism, it is the first time I am sending an article through a process like this. If I were to interpret your advice I would say to reference the relevant law texts as well in the parts were only the English-language Dutch government sites are referenced. Would this be what you mean? Most laws are available to read online, so it should be possible to find the relevant passages. Writing these articles does indeed teach you a lot, especially when you research a topic a bit. CRwikiCA talk 14:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well done. The only gap I see is maybe a few words about special municipalities, what they in comparison to a "regular" one. Addditionally, the intro paragraph, EXCELLENT. However, I would strongly suggest getting some refs as to the type of government in the Netherlands, maybe a quote from its constitution. My Dutch is rather piss poor BUT I could look for a German version. I had to do so for the FL candidate I had promoted (quote local constitution), learned alot in that process for certain. My roommate was from the Netherlands and was possibly my best German teacher I had. His American English has also vastly improved, thanks to our mutual desire to sound better when we spoke. He forbade me to learn any Dutch though....Coal town guy (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the maps, as you can see someone had already made nice graphical maps which were easy to include. It does add a nice touch to the tables. CRwikiCA talk 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, a map image may be helpful, in fact, I would advise it. Taker a look at the Featured lists for some US Counties , and they do have a table structure which would allow you to use a map, with the sole purpose of showing a pinpooint location. I kmow it does sound US centric to suggest, but I was only looking at your statement about maps. Its been a few years since I have been to the NetherlandsCoal town guy (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG Support. I believe this is an excellent list, there are some issues which others must comment on. BUT, I want to the first to say, you did a hell of a lot of work on this, good for you in at least making better data for this encyclopedia. I would suggest that you get to the Netherlands Portal and drum up some folks to lookCoal town guy (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Founding dates do generally not exist. Only for some merged municipalities there would be an actual date, most municipalities would have at most a rough estimation of when the spot was settled. Because the field would have different meanings for different municipalities I don't think it would be good to include it. Although the origin of the name of the town is interesting, I do not personally see it as important as other items that could be added. One of the other columns that I often see is maps, which I could add. I hadn't done it because loading ~500 images might be much, but if that would not be a problem for Wikipedia users, I would be happy to add those. CRwikiCA talk 15:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support This would make a fine featured list. Easy navigation with the sortable table and maps of the locations at the side.
Resolved comments from Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 21:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Other than that, it looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The table currently doesn't meet MOS:DTT – adding !scope=row| before the name of the each municipality would fix that.
- The rows are all preceded by
! scope="row" style="background-color:transparent"|
. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- My mistake! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows are all preceded by
- Municipalities beginning with either "De" or "Den" are inititally sorted under their second word, but, when sorted by name, they jump up to D. Using something like Template:Sort or Template:Sortname would correct this.
- This is a good point, one of the questions is what is desirable. Sorting by the name part of it is the Dutch way of sorting, by the first letter overall is the English way. I think the English method might be preferable for users once they start sorting, but I can change it if you disagree. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing, say,
[[De Bilt]]
with something like{{Sortname|De|Bilt}}
would keep the names in the same place when they sort. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I implemented the sortname for these cases. CRwikiCA talk 14:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing, say,
- This is a good point, one of the questions is what is desirable. Sorting by the name part of it is the Dutch way of sorting, by the first letter overall is the English way. I think the English method might be preferable for users once they start sorting, but I can change it if you disagree. CRwikiCA talk 21:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This list looks incredible! Really interesting to read, great work! Some things I would have said have been pointed out above. — AARON • TALK 13:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because we feel it meets the FL criteria, save for any correctable issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
* Refs → Websites likes BaseballHallofFame.ca and MLB.com shouldn't be in italics (WP:ITAL)
|
- Support Ok. If they have been accepted in other baseball FLC's then I don't see the problem. Other than that it is an excellent list. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*a major league record of 84 consecutive save opportunities converted from 2002–2004 - What is "converted" here?
|
- Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I know it's ready. This is the third instalment in my mission to take on the Citra Awards (patently ignoring the yet to be created List of actors of the Dutch East Indies and related projects...) and it's turned out fairly nice. I hope you enjoy looking it over as much as I enjoyed writing it. Key redlinks, particularly Sukarno M. Noor, Zainal Abidin and Tio Pakusadewo, are projects for the upcoming weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...
That should get you started. It's pretty good, but I see some room for touchup. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Looks good. Taking into account your comments on the images; I agree on pushing the fair use bit if it's already on four articles. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 21:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. Not that it is in four articles, but it would be in four articles if we were to use FU images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
|
- Support for featured list status. Albacore (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets all 6 FLC – great work. It would also be advisable to apply the above change retroactively to all the other Citra FLs. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]
- Nominator(s): PresN 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, switching back again from obscure scifi award lists to obscure video game lists. Having learned my lesson from my recent FLC that crossed the obscurity line, this list, though it does include numerous Japanese-only games, does include a few million-copy sellers. The Mystery Dungeon series is a set of roguelikes broken into roughly five groups and generally involving non-original characters, but is unified by their gameplay elements (and names) into a distinct set. The tables are taken from previous FLs and meet ACCESS requirements, and I think everything should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Transformed from a stub piece from a stubby article, it has been carefully and incrementally built up into a referenced, polished list. Great work! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
* Add Ziff Davis Media as the publisher for all IGN refs
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support, good to go now! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
- Support - References have been fixed, which was my major concern for this article. The lead is a little short and could use some fleshing out, but I would say it's adequate as it is for an FL. Nicely done. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [15].[reply]
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 02:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Well written and referenced. I believe the user's above have addressed any problems that I would have pointed out. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you both! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Nice work. Only a few comments below: if you disagree with the last two it's not a problem: the first is the only one that needs sorting.
Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. My very minor points all cleared up and I'm more than happy to support this: good work! - SchroCat (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't find anything wrong here, great work. Very nicely done. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — AARON • TALK 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I've spent a long time inputting all the songs that Emeli Sandé has written. I believe it demonstrates how she not only writes material for herself, but also for others as a featured artist and for other artists in general. It shows how Emeli Sandé is a true singer-songwriter and she has written just as many songs for others as she has herself. I believe it meets the criteria, and I have drawn upon ideas and constructive criticisms from previous FLCs of mine in order to create this list. Hopefully on tweaks will be needed to be made to the list :-) lol — AARON • TALK 17:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks great! Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wow thank you :) — AARON • TALK 20:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, on the basis that according to to BMI Repertoire, Sandé has written at least 94 songs here. Just this week it was revealed Sandé has written "Side Effects of You", the title song from Fantasia Burrino's fifth album here. This article is in no way complete or comprehensive. Its just a list of songs that have made artist's albums and credit Sandé as a writer. Whilst I think there probably rational for the article, FLs are supposed to represent the best and most complete of articles. Promoting this to FL would detract from the whole point/purpose of FLs - to be the best of the list-type articles. (Sorry Aaron!) — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 14:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for her on BMI and it returned nothing. So I don't know what you did to find those, because I didn't know about them. — AARON • TALK 14:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BMI Repertoire uses the standard surname chronological order. Hence if you search SANDE EMELI under songwriter it pulls up all those results. It feels wrong to promote a list to FL on the basis its about an artist's songwriting contributions, yet the only songs included are ones already released and the material from the introduction seems re-hashed from other articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, but I put the acute accent above the e. — AARON • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started inputting the BMI songs. — AARON • TALK 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just be careful because databases such as BMI, ASCAP, etc. also list songs that were written but never recorded or officially released. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really sure what to do with this one, it's called "I M NOT IN A RUSH BUT I HAVEN" but it doesn't look like a complete title. — AARON • TALK 10:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Underneath-it-All, this is a List of songs written by Emeli Sandé, so it doesn't really matter if she recorded them or not. — AARON • TALK 23:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really sure what to do with this one, it's called "I M NOT IN A RUSH BUT I HAVEN" but it doesn't look like a complete title. — AARON • TALK 10:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just be careful because databases such as BMI, ASCAP, etc. also list songs that were written but never recorded or officially released. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started inputting the BMI songs. — AARON • TALK 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, but I put the acute accent above the e. — AARON • TALK 17:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I was just putting it out there. I still support the list's nomination. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, thanks. — AARON • TALK 23:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BMI Repertoire uses the standard surname chronological order. Hence if you search SANDE EMELI under songwriter it pulls up all those results. It feels wrong to promote a list to FL on the basis its about an artist's songwriting contributions, yet the only songs included are ones already released and the material from the introduction seems re-hashed from other articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not usually a commenter on candidates, but just pointing out that this page is currently an orphan with no content pages linking to it. I'm not 100% but it would seem to me that this isn't a good thing, may I suggest the Emeli Sandé template as a start? --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an Emelie Sande template. — AARON • TALK 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware, but it does not link to the list you are trying to promote at all. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — AARON • TALK 13:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware, but it does not link to the list you are trying to promote at all. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an Emelie Sande template. — AARON • TALK 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Hmm, tricky one... Obviously it's unfortunate that half the rows have N/A and Unknown cells – it makes the list look really incomplete. Made a couple of changes here – please revert if you disagree with them.
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Couldn't find a flaw. Regards Robin (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 22:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I usually don't make comments or have anything to do with this kind of stuff but I checked this and saw that there were no flaws. Easy4me (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Couldn't find anything wrong with this one and it looks good enough for a support. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 13:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WikiRedactor: The list looks good to me, I just have a couple suggestions/questions:
- On Note 1, was the accent on her last name intentionally left off?
- Added accent. — AARON • TALK 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we need personality rights tags on all these pics. (Emeli's has it, though, so that's not an issue.)
- What's that? Lol. — AARON • TALK
- Haha, I just learned about this the other day. Apparently these tags are put on pictures in Commons that are of people. WikiRedactor (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What's that? Lol. — AARON • TALK
Nonetheless, I support the nomination. Good work! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks perfectly good to me – can't see anything that would stop this from being promoted. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 21:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 02:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cad, bounder, rotter and an absolute shower! Terry-Thomas was one of the most popular and best-known comedians in post-war Britain. A broad and rich career on stage, television and radio, he exported his portrayal of the silly-ass Englishman from British films such as Private's Progress, Carlton-Browne of the F.O. and I'm All Right Jack to Hollywood, where he depicted an upper-class English twit in a number of films, including It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World and How to Murder Your Wife. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main T-T page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers—SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC) & CassiantoTalk 09:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Another solid list. Perhaps you could simply write ENSA, with a link to the organisation? I usually write Lekra, and not Lembaga Kebudajaan Rakjat, for example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks indeed for your comments and support - both are most welcome and appreciated. Good plan on the ENSA pipe, which I've now done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I must remember to watchlist articles. Sorry, I missed your comments Crisco. All the changes look great and I thank you for your support. -- CassiantoTalk 15:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Many thanks TRM: as always, your eagle eye is very much appreciated! Let me know if I've missed anything or cocked anything else up. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, looks comprehensive, solid sources, there doesn't seem to be anything here to trip up its FL promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments, Betty; they are very much appreciated, as always! - SchroCat (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Space is needed before Technical Hitch in the lead.
- Good spot: now done. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text would be nice for the photos.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wish is my command! Alts now added throughout (and one swap done on the final image - it was a weak one previously).
- Many thanks for your comments Giants - much appreciated as always. - SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise Giants. Thanks for taking a look and for your support. --CassiantoTalk 17:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks good to me. I have made some edits here; please revert if you don't like the changes.
Ah yes, now done. I think I caught them all. -- CassiantoTalk 08:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, it looks pretty good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Only one final issue: My Wildest Dreams needs to be below 1-2-3 Click in the Television table. Otherwise, great work! Might be about time that these particular lists get their own subsection on the WP:FL page, although I can't think what the title of that subsection would be... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As always, many thanks for your time; the Wildest Dreams move has now been done too. I like the thought of a new section: I'm working on a similar piece for David Niven's work at the moment, and have a few others I'd like to bring in over time. "Career histories" as a title, perhaps?
Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment - "By the 1980s, the disease had got progressively worse and effectively ended his career by the mid-1980s." I realize I happen to use American English myself, but even in British English, isn't the phrase "had got" something to avoid? I think this should be reworded, otherwise this list has my support. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Looks good! Very well written. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant, thanks for your support! -- CassiantoTalk 00:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- Fantastic news: many thanks to everyone who took the time to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoed from me. A superb result, thanks to all involved! -- CassiantoTalk 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I've been creating dozens of player articles to get the redlink count down (down to about 12 five now, so we're getting there) and staring at the list itself for weeks trying to spot all the deliberate mistakes, and it'd be a dreadful waste of time if I didn't nominate it. This is part one of the Lincoln City F.C. complete player list project (part two might well follow, not convinced part three ever will) split at 100+ appearances as per standard procedure with English football clubs with many hundreds of former players. All constructive criticism gratefully received... Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Is a page number possible for ref 3? It's to a specific fact, so a cite to the whole book isn't precise enough in this case.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Added. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Goalkeeper David Felgate is the only man in this appearance range to have been capped by his country while a Lincoln City player" - at this point you haven't actually said what the appearance range is, so this is confusing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, thanks for noticing. Re-arranged. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can the flag for Lee Frecklington be changed to match the one for Peter Gain? I'm not sure how or when, but some flags have a blue border depending on which template is used. Rather annoying. Most seem to have been corrected now atleast. Walls of Jericho (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure they're different? They do use different templates: Gain uses {{fbu}} for the automatic U21 wording, while Frecklington uses {{flagicon}} with manually added wording. But I've just tried putting the flagicon one next to the fbu and magnifying them up to enormous, and they both seem to have a border and (to me) look exactly the same. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's bizarre. When I magnified my screen the blue border for Frecklington changed to grey, like the rest. When I put it back to normal it was blue again. It must be something at my end, either the screen or the browser. Sorry for the inconvenience. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure they're different? They do use different templates: Gain uses {{fbu}} for the automatic U21 wording, while Frecklington uses {{flagicon}} with manually added wording. But I've just tried putting the flagicon one next to the fbu and magnifying them up to enormous, and they both seem to have a border and (to me) look exactly the same. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent work as usual. Walls of Jericho (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]
- Nominator(s): AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list on behalf of SoapFan12 (talk · contribs), I will let them expand on the reasoning. AIRcorn (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:Support
- For an article of this length the introduction seems a bit short. Perhaps add information about the most awarded actresses or its broadcast history?
- Ref 1 is a dead link. Please find another reliable source.
- Ref 2 → Please add the author (Connie Passalacqua) to the reference.
- Using IMDb as a reference is debatable. I really don't see it as a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb).
- Is there a publisher for Soapcentral.com? How reliable is it?
- Ref 50 → Yahoo! Voices redirects to Associated Content. Add Yahoo, Inc. as the publisher.
- Ref 60 → OnTheRedCarpet redirects to On The Red Carpet.
- Ref 68 needs publisher information.
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to recall Associated Content not being a reliable source. You should check WP:RSN to see if this is still true. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed all inline references to IMDb, soapcentral and Yahoo/Associated Content, replacing with what I believe are reliable sources. I also expanded the lead a little bit and added some Commons photos throughout. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I agree with above comments, however, looks like they have been responded to and addressed adequately enough. — Cirt (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All the major issues have been addressed. Although, in the "Multiple Wins/Nominations" sections, we link to the actresses' articles, even though they've already been linked to in the main table. Is this necessary? I think linking once is enough, and seems like a WP:REPEATLINK to me.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you for reviewing the article. SoapFan12 00:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone please add a legend box to this article? I think it's needed, more professional. Apart from this, Support
. Arre 04:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comments Shouldn't somewhere we link to to daytime drama, to specify what is meant by drama series? Also there is a lot of ref repetition is the lead paragraphs. The 2007 nominees could also use an additional reference.Caringtype1 (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. With the exceptions of the lead paragraph part. I don't see why having lots of ref repetition in the leads is a problem. Thank you! SoapFan12 11:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs really only need to be used once, at the end of the sentence(s).Caringtype1 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and fix everything. Thank you so much! This will mean a lot to me if it could pass for an FL. SoapFan12 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this former featured list, as I believe that all the issues pointed out at the FLCR are solved. Tomcat (7) 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meticulous referencing, good formatting. Also, SCIENCE! — Cirt (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
First "the" in "by the December 15 of the nominating year..." should be removed.Nik Szymanek photo needs alt text.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done.--Tomcat (7) 09:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the Szymanek alt text, could the "bracelt" typo be fixed as well, please?Giants2008 (Talk) 17:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as the contents of the "field" column are left-aligned, could the title be too? That's the only thing I can see right now........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the headers are always centered and I am not sure how to change the alignment.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion it looks really silly. Is there really nothing that can be done to change the alignment of the header? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Tomcat (7) 19:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of the Latin Grammy WikiProject and I will working on all the articles included in the "winners" section as I usually do with the lists, but I think this one could be reviewed in its current form, I will be watching closely your comments. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This list is comparable to other Grammy-related lists that have been promoted to FL status. In terms of format and style, I would support the promotion of this list, assuming all other concerns by other reviewers are also addressed. I made a few minor edits to the list, and also created a stub for Brazilian Dreams. Though not required, you might consider starting articles in order to eliminate other red links. (Just a thought, not a request.) Great job! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the input and your support AB. I am working on every article in order to eliminate the red links, I currently have Brazilian Dreams on my sandbox and recently did both albums by Gonzalo Rubalcaba. I think the articles will be done at the end of this nomination. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Well formatted and referenced. As stated above the list is comparable to other Grammy and Latin Grammy-related lists. No major visible problems. — DivaKnockouts 18:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Indeed, good work. — ΛΧΣ21 02:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from Crisco 1492
Afro-Caribbean and Pan-American = Relevant links?
- fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the passive voice?
- Could you be more specific? Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your earlier version had a lot more use of the passive voice than normal for English. This looks better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited, be sure to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images. Very nice! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it contains the major works produced by a provincial but important architectural practice in Lancaster, England, between 1845 and 1866, the period of time that it was known as Sharpe and Paley. The practice had been founded in 1835 and continued until 1946. This list provides a comprehensive account of its output during this period in its history. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Accessibility: All of the images have sensible alt text. The main table has its row and column headers identified and marked up with proper scopes, so the table is as accessible as we can make it for different screen readers. The key table only has headers marked up, but is so small that it should not cause anyone a problem.
- The colours used in the key all have contrast ratios greater than 12 against black text, so exceed WCAG AAA standards and the colours are not used to convey information unavailable by other means. My only quibble is that the key uses the words "Grade II*" for example, while the corresponding entry in the main table uses just "II*" - I'd have used "II*" in the key for consistency, particularly as a screen reader could read the word "Grade" from the column header in the key table. But that is really nit-picking as Peter I. Vardy has obviously put a lot of effort into meeting our accessibility standards. Well done!
- The subject is well beyond my expertise, but the list is attractive, the lead is engaging and grammatically very tidy, and the content is copiously and accurately referenced (a nod to Malleus' fine work there). From all that I see, this is an example of our finest content and I have no hesitation in offering my Support. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That pile of references in the lead should be migrated to the proper place in the table, with excess examples trimmed. Otherwise this looks good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Still a little worried that the number of examples in the lead is excessive, but I don't think it's something to oppose over. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (perhaps you could ask User:Goodraise to have a look at this as he/she seems to be an excellent reviewer of this type of list?)
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Image review: No apparent copyright problems. Goodraise 07:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (Does flattery always get you what you want, TRM?)
Looks good so far. (Items not yet reviewed:
A few more things:
It's been an unusually pleasant experience reviewing this article! Looking forward to supporting. Goodraise 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few more things. (I'm surprised I forgot to check for them. I guess I'm out of practice.)
I'm sorry that my comments always keep trickling. I just can't help myself. Goodraise 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited. Goodraise 01:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyedit, Eric. Looks good! Just one (hopefully) last question (directed at whoever can answer it): "Paley was ... carrying out independent commissions from at least 1849." Excuse my ignorance, but on what were those commissions not dependent? Did you perhaps mean that Paley carried out commissions independently? Goodraise 04:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Goodraise 07:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now my minor quibbles and Goodraise's splendid review comments have been addressed. Nice work all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Ref 15 needs a pp. for the page range, instead of the current p. Same for refs 25 and 85.Giants2008 (Talk) 20:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. Eric Corbett 20:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, EC. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Chihciboy (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets the FL criteria and is similar with the standard found on the Fiona Apple and Adele list of recordings. I'll do my best to address your concerns/reviews. Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aaron |
---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
I have issues with the lead, especially with the second paragraph, but for the moment I'm commenting on the formatting of references.
— AARON • TALK 17:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks good at the moment, but there are still some things that need changing. I have made a few edits here. These are my comments:
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tantalisingly close, as far as I can see, I just have a few more comments:
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Just had another look over, and there are no other major issues that I can see. Like I've already said, some might say that the lead is a little too long, but this isn't too much of an issue for me. I also think that neither of the two colons in the third paragraph are needed (replace the second one with a comma). Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Chihciboy (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Comments nothing really to say, it's a good list, but "became notable hits" not sure what that means. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "hits". Chihciboy (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I believe that all the issues have been covered above. Looks good to me...although the lead is a bit long. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The list deserves the star. Regards — Robin (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is well referenced and complete. It is my first list of songs, so I look forward to any comments or feedback to help it reached FL status. Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, it does indeed look quite complete and very well referenced. — Cirt (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aaron |
---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
|
- Support — AARON • TALK 15:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks good to me, I just have a few remarks:
Other than that, it all looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: List of UK Official Download Chart number-one singles from the 2000s. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a lot better; I've got a few more remarks:
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support I've had another look over this list, and it meets the criteria by my reckoning. I just have a few final comments:
- "Better Luck" is still named "Better Luck Next Time" in the lead.
- "songs recorded prior to the release of the band's debut album" -> "songs recorded by the band prior to the release of their debut album" reads better to me.
- Stick an "All songs credited to Scissor Sisters, except where noted." note at the top of section.
Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and thank you very much! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment couldn't find anything obviously amiss here, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks to be in excellent shape. Well referenced, and appears to meet all of the criteria. Well done! Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A timeline is a peculiar type of list article. This one is on the Manhattan Project. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Impeccably referenced, highly educational, quite encyclopedic and a valuable resource for this site. — Cirt (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't read all the way through, but I already noticed some typos. I fixed them. Please proofread to make sure it is typo-free. Other than that the list looks good.—Chris!c/t 00:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT As a fan of the Manhattan Project, I was happy to see how much work went into this. I don't think a few typos should hold it back, and I'll gladly see if I can fix a few of them. Excellent work.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments really nice piece of work, and incredibly interesting.
Otherwise a great (and tragic) read. Thank you for your work and the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Godot13 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - A very well written, well referenced, and education timeline. Just a few comments/points for consistency: Noting that you tend to only link on the first use of a term or reference…
Again, well done. -- Godot13 (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Well written, educational, very nice work.--Godot13 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- September 23, 1942: Something looks like it's missing before ref 36. It's not just a period, but judging by the sentence as a whole some key words are not there.
- Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- May 21, 1946: "Slotin lifted the upper hemisphere with his left hand and dropped it onto the floor, so preventing a more serious accident." This feels like it would read better without the "so", but that may just be me.
- It seemed too long for a timeline to me, so I cut it back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (Talk) 20:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suport great article, although it would be nice to have a few more costs/payments inserted. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.