Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2010: Difference between revisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
pr 1 |
promote 4 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Dickin Medal/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in skeleton/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/James E. Sullivan Award/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (residences)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in baseball/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in baseball/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kansas City Royals first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kansas City Royals first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
||
Revision as of 00:01, 16 March 2010
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I just love the subject matter. An insight into the soft head of The Rambling Man I guess. The list, as I found it, was incomplete, but contained some decent starting material. I have made the list comprehensive, added an infobox and an image (with alt text), checked for dabs, made a sortable table of all recipients and, wherever possible, provided reliable secondary sources for recipients. Per my typical preamble, I'll do whatever I can, whenever I can to assure the community the list is of featured quality. I humbly submit it to your good selves and thank you in advance for time spent reviewing, commenting and making it part of our finest work (hopefully)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
As I mentioned at WT:FLC, I can't wait to review this list, so I'll dive right in:
Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
A big old honkin' support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments (after (edit conflict))
|
- Woof Woof support —SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on a side note, Alsation was the official breed name in the UK for a couple of decades before reverting back to German Shepherd. So any citations given out during that period would have been listed specifically as an Alsatian. Could be worth a footnote (although information is available on the German Shepherd Page, but it would prevent any mix-up with the Alsatian Shepalute which is being renamed to American Alsatian. Miyagawa (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, okay. I'm not sure this is entirely the right forum for notifications about breed name changes, but if it alleviates possible confusion then I'm fine with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
—NMajdan•talk 20:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The dates in the table are in MDY format. Since this is a British subject shouldn't they be DMY? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough I think the US folks have more of an issue with this than us Brits, but either way, I've EngDated it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
It looks like I've created the articles for Sam, Apollo and Commando a long time ago, so I guess I could try to do a few more :) ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
It looks like you have the entries for Ricky and Brian mixed up (http://www.pdsa.org.uk/about-us/animal-bravery-awards/dickin-medal-dogs/).≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Good spot, switched round, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| ;Comments from Bencherlite
As I said earlier, I wondered whether the news of the latest award would prompt someone to work on this, so well done for spotting the potential and actually doing something about it! The following is in no particular order, I'm afraid, just reading through and putting down points as I think of them. Actually, I'm surprised to say that there's rather more that needs looking at (as opposed to "would be nice to have") for a list that has already had three supports(!)
|
- Minor (and many) as they may have been, I'm hoping I've addressed them all with my usual style and panache, including a minor hissy fit about animal nationality. Bring it on. And thanks for your lovely detailed review. Oh, and it was four supports, not three (you didn't look close enough...) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neatly done. I still think it's slightly odd for the infobox to say United Kingdom but the lead to be silent on country, but I can live with that (I'll just tell myself that the "UK" field represents the country of the awarding body, not anything else – hey, I've convinced myself!) I'm happy to be support no 5. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The infobox award template instructions state that the particular parameter in question needs me to "Insert the country of the presenter or where the award is presented", so that's not particularly useful, is it?! I'll opt for the former where the PDSA is a UK-based charity so therefore I'm right, which is of little surprise to me... !! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No comment... BencherliteTalk 18:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The infobox award template instructions state that the particular parameter in question needs me to "Insert the country of the presenter or where the award is presented", so that's not particularly useful, is it?! I'll opt for the former where the PDSA is a UK-based charity so therefore I'm right, which is of little surprise to me... !! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neatly done. I still think it's slightly odd for the infobox to say United Kingdom but the lead to be silent on country, but I can live with that (I'll just tell myself that the "UK" field represents the country of the awarding body, not anything else – hey, I've convinced myself!) I'm happy to be support no 5. BencherliteTalk 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back in August 2009, I performed a major expansion for this list. Before, it only displayed the medalist tables. I added a considerably sized and well sourced lead section, as well as free-licensed images valuable for the list, and a statistics section also present in similar featured lists. I wanted to nominate this list at that time, but with the Vancouver Olympics approaching, I thought about waiting until the 2010 Olympic skeleton events were concluded, so this list could enjoy 4 years of stability. I appreciate all critical input. Parutakupiu (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments This actually serves as a great model as I'm working on List of Olympic medalists in baseball in my sandbox which is similarly recent and with a similarly short history at the games. Looks quite good, just a few small things.
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Hyphen for "first ever" in second paragraph? And another in the third paragraph?- Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"gave Great Britain not only its sole medal at the Games but also its first individual gold medalist since 1980 and first individual female gold medalist since 1952." I never like these "not only ... but" types of sentences. They always feel overly wordy and can be done without that phrasing.- Rephrased. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italics for Bath Chronicle in reference 7.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After the resolution of the comments above and elsewhere, everything looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- An interesting tidbit use it if you'd like: Duff Gibson is the oldest Winter Olympic champion in history with his win in 2006. [3].
- Interesting fact! Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been some pretty old curling champions so I'm not sure if this is accurate. But Sports Reference is usually a pretty credible site. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting fact! Thanks. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be careful in reading the source, "oldest individual gold medalist". Curlers would be team medalists, no? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes good point, thanks for clarifying. H1nkles citius altius fortius 17:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This sentence in the lead, "His younger brother John Heaton finished as runner-up, having spent an extra second to complete a total of three runs..." is worded awkwardly. Consider rewording, "His younger brother John Heaton finished in second place by one second." - Suggestion.
- Second... second? That would sound weirder, lol. Rephrased the existing sentence. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha you're right when you actually read it my wording is dumb. Sorry about that. H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second... second? That would sound weirder, lol. Rephrased the existing sentence. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who won the bronze in 2006? Leaving this info out but talking about the fourth place sledder and a near-Canadian sweep is a bit unbalanced towards Canada.
- It's a curious fact, but I understand your point. Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once these issues are addressed (top issue about Gibson is of course a suggestion and its use will not affect my support) I will happily lend my support. User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, H1nkles! Parutakupiu (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support H1nkles citius altius fortius 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From 4,960 bytes to 26,284 bytes in under 48 hours, every athlete is now independently referenced, there are alt-texted images, no dabs, no breaches of MOS (as far as I can see), I've even tried to use USEng (but I could have fouled that up, feel free to correct me). I humbly submit this to the community. As always, thanks for your time and energy in reviewing this list (and all the others), and I'll do my best to address each and every concern as soon as I possibly can. Cheers folks! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Well done otherwise. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- "'the outstanding amateur athlete in the United States'" - is "the" really a necessary part of the quote here? Might just be me but it makes it seem over-emphasized, rather like "the outstanding amateur athlete". I might suggest a change to "an 'outstanding amateur athlete in the United States'".
- I guess. It's probably a matter of a taste, and the quotation is directly from the award website. I may leave it for the time being and see if anyone else has issues with it, if that's alright? For what it's worth, I think the emphasis is intentional... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly acceptable to me. I'll leave this comment uncapped so other reviewers are aware of it, but will consider it as ineffective toward my support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess. It's probably a matter of a taste, and the quotation is directly from the award website. I may leave it for the time being and see if anyone else has issues with it, if that's alright? For what it's worth, I think the emphasis is intentional... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 02:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
|
- Support - No major issues, well-written and interesting. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport –In the last sentence, I would move "only" to before "one occasion", the phrase it is intended to modify.- Completely correct, modified and much the better for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out WBNA in reference 71. Lacking this, at least correct the abbreviation (WNBA).- WBNSNBANSA? Of course... Fixde ni boht locastion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 68 needs a publisher (Los Angeles Times).Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It now has a "work". Many thanks Eagle-eyes.. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah, TRM, you devil! I can't find anything about which to quibble, and you know how I just hate that when it comes to your lists. Next time, I'll try to get here earlier and
wreckrewriteget my suggested improvements in first. So, through gritted teeth my friend, support. BencherliteTalk 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 16 March 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured castle, shrine, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. bamse (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I started to fix some of the issues (to be continued). bamse (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support my concerns (very patiently) addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I added a picture to the lead section as you suggested. There are not many pictures of national treasure residences available so I went with a historic painting which not only shows the style of the building (richly decorated walls) but also its use as a reception room. If you think it is too confusing (being a depiction of a historical event) as an intro picture for this list article, I could offer as alternatives: File:Nijojo-roka-tenjo2.jpg or File:Nijo Castle.jpg though the latter already appears in the treasure table. bamse (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Mm40 (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. I've reviewed a few of these lists in the past, and see none of the problems that I have previously encountered. The notes are comprehensive and useful, the lead is engaging, and by the time I reach the table I fully understand the situations with Nijō Castle and Akasaka Palace. A very informative piece of work. WFCforLife (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolve comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
Comments from Truco
Thanks for taking the time to review. I fixed some of the issues you mentioned and asked for clarification of some others. I'll check for incorrect periods in the remarks column now. bamse (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support--Truco 503 03:30, 14 March 2010 (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 19:44, 15 March 2010 [6].
After the Olympics and seeing the skeleton list below I decided to take up a little bit different kind of baseball list. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
I've been outstandingly generous and fixed your en-dashes! Check the history, buy the script, it's free you know!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nicely done, and dare I say (without descending into a well of sycophancy) this FLC, as with most of Stax's, has been a pleasure to review i.e. I just nitpick and be a typical Brit knowing nothing about baseball while my comments are treated with respect. All this is a good example of how FLC should work. Nice one. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Andrwsc
- Looks good, thanks for polishing off this list! I've added my name to the nomination since I added all the names to this list back in August 2006.
The only problem I see is with the sports-reference.com references, as they don't follow the format that SR.com request of us (see [7]). We created the {{cite sports-reference}} template to help with that. Also, it might be a good idea to use the official reports as references (at least for the four Games in which they are available). See references #33–36 of List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games for the 1992–2004 reports; I've already figured out all the correct {{cite book}} parameters but you'll need to find the correct page numbers. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The official reports are listed as a general reference. As large-PDFs that really just repeat information at the various other sources I figured better to use Sports Reference for the inline refs (so someone can easily and quickly see the information). I'll change the formatting to "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com" now. Didn't know that template existed! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you know what, I just saw that the template is for athlete bios only, since it hardcodes the "Biography and Olympic Results" part of the page name. But you can still use:
- The official reports are listed as a general reference. As large-PDFs that really just repeat information at the various other sources I figured better to use Sports Reference for the inline refs (so someone can easily and quickly see the information). I'll change the formatting to "Olympics at Sports-Reference.com" now. Didn't know that template existed! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite web
|author=Kubatko, Justin
|title=.....
|url=....
|work=Olympics at Sports-Reference.com
|publisher=Sports Reference LLC
|accessdate=.....}}
- — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, adding the author bit now. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Parutakupiu
Parutakupiu (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. User:Parutakupiu's review has tightened up the list and it is good in my opinion. User:H1nkles citius altius fortius 22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Found no problems with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (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 22:35, 13 March 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another installment! The images are coming, ready to jump back in (I'll renom that Dodgers list as suggested in a couple days). Staxringold talkcontribs 02:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my DYK check, I found reference 5 is dead, saying "Error: Bad Article URL". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link checker shows no bad links of any sort. However clicking it you're right, fixed now (I snipped too much off of the end to remove the KC Royals borders to make it a general MLB page). Staxringold talkcontribs 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk). Just out of curiosity, how are you picking which team to do next? Are you going from the bottom of the standings now?
Sorry for being so picky, the list is fine otherwise, and I'll support once everything is fixed. Mm40 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support—NMajdan•talk 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments ka-pow, great lead image!
|
- Another typical sorting issue under Safari - if I sort Name, then Pick in ascending order (I would expect the no first-round pick to come last here by the way), then Name order, then Pick (how did I think this up??) then I get Pick sorting "in ascending order" showing as 7, 4, 7, 7, 9, 2, 5, 5, 9, 3, 1, 9 ... which is waaay odd.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what I can do for you. Sortname is used and the single digits are all properly sorted. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an odd one, for sure. Us Safari users (and me in particular) are a real pain in the ass... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what can I do to wrap up this last issue? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it can be fixed right now. Can we leave it "exposed" for others to see, but since I seem to be the only "sort pedant" here, there's a good chance nothing will happen. I certainly won't oppose because of inadequate browser development, but it's a shame that I seem to be the only person who can break sorting on a regular basis! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"They club has had 13 compensatory picks...".Just to prove that TRM doesn't have the only sensitive system, on my Internet Explorer-using computer the bottom four photos are being cut off by the table. Can anyone replicate this one?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the typo, thanks for that. What do you mean cutoff? As in the table is on top of them? Let me try setting a width parameter. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was exactly what I meant, and the parameter fixed it nicely. I subsequently found J.P. Howell's name was missing a period, but took care of it myself. With no other complaints, I support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:44, 12 March 2010 [10].
- Nominator(s): MPJ -DK 06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fullfills all the criterias for FL, I've taken what I've learned from previous successful FL nominations. Re: Redlink - there is currently one red-link article which I intend to write ASAP, the rest of the names are unlinked because I could only find one fact on each of them and that's the fact that they won this title, otherwise nothing. I believe they're not notable enough to be linked. MPJ -DK 06:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And now Pak Choo is blue like the rest. MPJ -DK 13:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support--WillC 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Wrestlinglover's review |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I see no other issues.—NMajdan•talk 17:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:44, 12 March 2010 [11].
- Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so based exactly on the two previous featured lists (2008, 2007) here is the 2009 edition of IIHF World Championship rosters. Salavat (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - big list, quick run-through...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: No issues at all from me, nice list. Harrias (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"If a country selects fewer than the maximum allowed, they must choose the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament." Shouldn't this be in past tense?
- Well its outlining the rules in general to entry procedure. However im not sure on how this can be fixed as my knowlegde on tenses is pretty shocking, any suggestions? Salavat (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well keeping in mind my tense knowledge is poor hows this: "A country which has selected fewer then the maximum allowed must have chosen the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament"? Salavat (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do that and switch "has" to "had", and it works. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Salavat (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do that and switch "has" to "had", and it works. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well keeping in mind my tense knowledge is poor hows this: "A country which has selected fewer then the maximum allowed must have chosen the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament"? Salavat (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This switch may only happen once in the player's life." Move "only" to before "once", the word it's intended to modify.
- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and top foward by the IIHF directorate." Typo.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – My issues have been taken care of, and this meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
Well done with the list.—NMajdan•talk 16:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. All my issues have been resolved.—NMajdan•talk 02:47, 8 March 2010 (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 23:10, 12 March 2010 [13].
- Nominator(s): Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used Willow's List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein as a guide. This is my first constructed list and I started it half-heartedly over a year ago, to re-start it and finish it recently as an accompaniment to a suite of articles about the Everglades. Was fun to do. Please let me know what I can do to improve it. Thank you! Moni3 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
- Go right into discussing the invasive species. Most of the first paragraph should be cut; you don't need the details (river size, speed, borders) about the Everglades like that, just have a link.
- by
the year2000 - Colloquial name → Common name
- I didn't read all the species descriptions, but they look very good. I'll take a better look later.
Great job on this informative list so far! Reywas92Talk 21:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took out the year and changed colloquial to common, but I think there is value in including a brief description of the Everglades, mainly because it is still seen as a great stinking swamp impeding human progress instead of a massive river-fed network of ecosystems, and the urban areas are in the Everglades, not really just bordering them. --Moni3 (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should still start with some info about invasive species, then have a brief description. In a way, say that there are many invasive species, which is caused by being surrounded by urban areas, rathen than that the Everglades are this big but are surrounded by urban areas, and therefore have invasive species. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this article fully list all the invasive species in the region? I am asking because I want to make sure that this complies to the comprehensiveness criterion.—Chris!c/t 21:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it list every exotic species? No. Such a list could not exist on Wikipedia. I have not found a single list to cover all species considered invasive by a single agency or authority since 1994. I have listed species that have received mention by more than one reliable source. Some species, such as the Cuban Tree Frog are on one list but not on another. I do not expect this list to be finished at any point in the present or near future since this is an ongoing problem. --Moni3 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider putting {{dynamic list}} on there, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I meant to say.—Chris!c/t 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not know such a thing existed. Seems to be reasonable. Does it go at top or bottom? Or elsewhere? --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Top of "Plant species" section should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Done. --Moni3 (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Top of "Plant species" section should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not know such a thing existed. Seems to be reasonable. Does it go at top or bottom? Or elsewhere? --Moni3 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I meant to say.—Chris!c/t 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might consider putting {{dynamic list}} on there, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks basically good but some questions.
- Sorting: Please make the "Notes and references" columns unsortable. Also the usefulness of the sorting feature of "Origin / Year(s) introduced" as implemented now is questionable. You could make it (with hidden sort keys) sort such that locations from one continent are together after sorting. Or have it sort by year.
- Why don't you use the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council lists as reference for inclusion instead of having an incomplete list?
- It seems that you use words such as "exotic", "invasive" (and possibly others) synonymously. Isn't there a
- The mammal table has no years. Could you add at least a rough (century) date?
bamse (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Notes/References columns are now unsortable.
- Thanks.bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Century included for mammals
- Thanks bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I included species on these lists that were mentioned by at least two reliable sources with details about their effects on the Everglades ecosystems. The FEPPC is a more inclusive list with much less detail. The South Florida Water Management District includes more detail, naming and detailing the most aggressive species and their effects as a "priority list". Following the FEPPC list would leave most of the information blank. I followed inclusion criteria set by the South Florida Water Management District, author Thomas Lodge, and comments made by the editors and writers of Strangers in Paradise: Impact Management of Nonindigenous Species in Florida.
- I see. That makes sense. bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead discusses the difference between exotic and invasive. Are you asking for clarification? --Moni3 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Must have missed that. No clarification necessary. bamse (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above comments have been addressed. Before I can support, two quick questions: Is "catfishes" correct? Why are there sometimes two scientific names; are these two distinct species? bamse (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered if I would get that question... Fishes refers to different species of fish. Since two species are discussed, Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus and Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus, I used the plural species version of fish. They are similar species with similar effects that are, according to the sources, grouped together, almost interchangeable at least when referring to their invasive status in Florida. With the Paratachardina lobata lobata and Paratachardina pseudolobata, it is unclear if the species is going through a scientific recategorization or renaming. They names refer to the same species, but the sources are not clear on a transition in recategorization. The article for Paratachardina pseudolobata does not help for this. My best sources refer to Paratachardina lobata lobata, but the image refers to Paratachardina pseudolobata. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot of sense to group them together in this case. No reason to oppose and therefore support. (You might want to unify the phrases: " Imported by/through pet trade"). bamse (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did that, and thanks. Didn't even realize I was inconsistent. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Makes a lot of sense to group them together in this case. No reason to oppose and therefore support. (You might want to unify the phrases: " Imported by/through pet trade"). bamse (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered if I would get that question... Fishes refers to different species of fish. Since two species are discussed, Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus and Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus, I used the plural species version of fish. They are similar species with similar effects that are, according to the sources, grouped together, almost interchangeable at least when referring to their invasive status in Florida. With the Paratachardina lobata lobata and Paratachardina pseudolobata, it is unclear if the species is going through a scientific recategorization or renaming. They names refer to the same species, but the sources are not clear on a transition in recategorization. The article for Paratachardina pseudolobata does not help for this. My best sources refer to Paratachardina lobata lobata, but the image refers to Paratachardina pseudolobata. --Moni3 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The prose is generally good though there were some parts I stumbled over or thought might be improved. I lack the time tonight to point out specific examples but I may have a chance later, or you could ask one of our more literary editors to cast their eyes over it. Overall it seems fine. The lead sections are good and make me wonder if you had more material on the topic? Would shifting the article name to Invasive species in the Everglades give you the freedom to expand on the topic while maintaining a good size list within? I'd still be happy to regard it for a Featured List even if the prose dominated. Just a thought. I nearly opposed this on "comprehensive" when I compared its mere 28 entries to the long lists of exotic species in the external links. But this is just the Everglades, not all Florida, and this is just invasive exotics, not all exotics. I've checked some of the sources and the list does contain the priority invasive entries listed that I could find. I've made a suggestion on an alternative layout on the talk page. It can be done at the expense of sortability, which is of doubtful utility given the data and size of each list. I haven't checked the alt text. I was a bit surprised that some of the entries were redlinks, particularly Hydrilla verticilata which the description says is extremely common worldwide. Sorry this is a bit rushed. Colin°Talk 19:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Moni3 (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Interesting list; very well done. I could find only a few things to nitpick:
"Old world climbing fern blanketing a tree island" I had to read this in the image caption a couple times to understand what is being said. Perhaps a hyphen or two is necessary?Florida should be linked on its first appearance (right now it is mentioned in the first sentence but linked only in the second)."exotic species get more attention" Better verb than "get" would be nice ... maybe "attract"?Is it worth mentioning which category the species listed belong in?"The infestations are recent and long term effects in protected and threatened areas are currently under study." "currently" is a dated, vague word; if you had some kind of time frame you could specify ("as of <date>"), that would be good.Link for "Tamiami Trail"?Font size in the tables is inconsistent.I know you use an atypical page notation style, but some page ranges in the refs are preceded by "pp.", while others are preceded by "p." I was further confused because I saw pages such as "p. 9-3." Is that a range, or is there a page numbered "9-3"? Anyway, I trust you can sort this out.- Except for that little issue, citation formatting checks out and the sources are reliable and of high quality. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you rephrase this, I do not understand: Is it worth mentioning which category the species listed belong in? If this refers to the plant species being in Cateogry I or II, all in this list are in the Category I as explained in the last paragraph of prose in the Plants section, before the list.
- On rereading my comment, I don't know what I meant either. So I contented myself by fixing a typo in that section. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just checked the tables, which list font-size as 95% in all. I cannot see a size difference so I may need assistance here.
- There was only one instance where size was difference, so I fixed it myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources is Chapter 9: The Status of Nonindigenous Species in the South Florida Environment, and all page numbers read 9-x from this source. They are not ranges. I do tend to forget to do pp for ranges sometimes though. I spot checked the ref list to make sure I got all ranges with two p's. Let me know if I missed any.
- Looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think everything else has been changed, per your suggestions.
- Thanks for your comments and for reading the list! --Moni3 (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Image review by Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
|---|
Oppose on images.
I notice that you are the uploader of all these images. As the uploader (and having admin rights) these should be deleted along with any other non-commercial images you may have uploaded. Please be more careful in future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
I have not got time to fully review the list at the moment (so I cannot "support"). All I will say is that it appears good and I can declare that the images are fine. Best of luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truco
- General
- Alt text, contributors, and dab/external links check out fine.
- Fix the images noted in the review above^.
- Images seem to be resolved; two were relicensed and the rest were deleted. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- The overflow forms a very shallow river about 60 miles (97 km) wide and 100 miles (160 km) long that travels about half a mile a day. -- I think per day would fit better here.
- Fixed. At first glance nothing's wrong with the original, but upon further review I agree that the "a ... a" repetition grates. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FL's usually have an overall count or overview of the list stats-wise, ie. the amount of species overall, the amount of animals or plants, etc.
- Not as useful as in most FLs, since this list is incomplete and there are probably many other species that have yet to be identified in reliable sources. In any case, there are some overall count sentences, such as "As of 2010 1,392 additional non-native plant species have been identified and established themselves in South Florida." Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables
- Info like 'possibly introduced' is verified by the references correct? Because if not, it sounds WP:POV-ish.--Truco 503 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked a couple of the sources, and they do indeed verify the uncertainty. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, Dabomb, this appeared after I logged off last night. I'll do what I can to answer questions as they are presented, beyond what Dabomb has. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:33, 11 March 2010 [14].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-nominating a list that had it's last FLC closed due to lack of reviewers. PLEASE pipe in to try and get this bad boy wrapped up, it's already spent an entire past nomination getting cleaned up, I feel like it's pretty close to polished! Staxringold talkcontribs 06:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as I did last time round. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Resolved comments from KV5
I don't like the "selected... at outfielder" construction, but I'm not sure what to suggest as replacement prose; perhaps "in the outfield", piped to the position (example: Seven players were selected at shortstop and in the outfield).
Why didn't they get a compensation pick for Hochevar?
- Honestly don't know. I checked the 06 draft, and it's not like they got a pick but traded it.
And in 2005 the Orioles got a pick for failing to sign a supplemental pick so it's not that the rule didn't exist or didn't apply to supplemental round picks like Hochevar.Sidenote, I expanded on the 05 note to explain why they only had a supp. round pick and no main 1st round pick. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, figured it out. I'd misread that Orioles signing, the original guy (Townsend) who didn't sign was a true first rounder. As this article notes, only non-supplementary first rounders got you compensation. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly don't know. I checked the 06 draft, and it's not like they got a pick but traded it.
Other than that, looks good to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
|
Support Mm40 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Again, another good list. I'm looking forward to supporting. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – My comments were addressed at the first FLC, and a second look turned up no fresh concerns. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:33, 11 March 2010 [15].
- Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for featured list because the previous nom was not promoted because of a sourcing issue which has now been resolved and also due to a general lack of interest. however, hopefully will get more comments this time around! :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - As I said with the first FLC I have no outstanding issues with this article. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I can't see anything wrong with it. The references are so nicely detailed and set out. Just one thing though – ref 21 is in Dutch. Nice job. Savvi72 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- Support--Truco 503 03:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note I am archiving this as unsuccessful as there is insufficient consensus to promote after a month, and the nominator has not edited in more than two weeks, so there is a low chance that the unresolved issues will be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hey! i've been in hospital really ill for the past 2 weeks hence my absence :( Mister sparky (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes! Sorry to hear that. Since the bot has not run yet, I'll reinstate this FLC. Sorry about that. Will you be able to keep up with this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :O Thank you so much! and i'm much better now thanks :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes! Sorry to hear that. Since the bot has not run yet, I'll reinstate this FLC. Sorry about that. Will you be able to keep up with this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- hey! i've been in hospital really ill for the past 2 weeks hence my absence :( Mister sparky (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Bencherlite
Looks as though this is nearly there, after a long haul... I made a couple of minor edits, which I hope are OK. I don't know what a good discography FL looks like, I'm afraid (not my area) but I can't see any red flags preventing promotion from a presentational (as opposed to content) point of view. BencherliteTalk 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while I find the idea of a PCD DVD being an "Instructional exercise video" extraordinarily meritorious, it's beside the point when reviewing this list, and I think it's in a good state. Gets my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:34, 5 March 2010 [16].
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why I've ended up writing a list of theologians when I have no interest in theology, but it seemed like a good idea at the time (turned a red link blue, or something, I forget exactly which one). It also made a change from a list of Arabic scholars, when I have no interest in Arabic, and a list of librarians, when I have no interest in libraries (err)... Anyway, you get the picture – another WP:OXFORD list of academics, with absolutely no mention of cricket or baseball or similar. One image, with alt text; no dabs; no deadlinks. Bless you for reviewing, and may all your wiki-sins be forgiven as you do so. Incidentally, I have it on the very highest authority that reviewing this list is the spiritual equivalent of a pilgrimage to Rome. BencherliteTalk 21:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Goodraise 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – my "quick look" was followed by a more in-depth look just now, which has revealed no areas of concern. One or two questions I would have raised have been covered by your answers to TRM's comments or by the changes made in response to them. The gaps-between-tenures issue is not terribly important. All looks fine! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
|---|
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments I made a little trip to the other place last weekend. I enjoyed it, through gritted teeth....! Oh and take a first for including one of my alumni in this list...!
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my many, many, many utterly trivial utterances were swept away in moments. And the ones which didn't go my way are a matter of taste, and won't stop me supporting. Good work, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the only thing that I saw that needs to be corrected was "one of 12" - should be one of twelve or 1 of 12 - your pick. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, fixed. BencherliteTalk 15:54, 1 March 2010 (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 16:45, 5 March 2010 [17].
- Nominator(s): Neonblak talk - 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it merits promotion, however, if reviewers notice issues I missed, I will quickly fix 'em.Neonblak talk - 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
More later. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – Partial list of comments through most of the players:
|
| Resolved comments from WFCforLife |
|---|
Comments from WFCforLife
Overall a fascinating read, and very nicely illustrated. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. WFCforLife (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- Support ---Truco 503 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I read through the article, and did not see any further issues outside of what Truco noted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:56, 3 March 2010 [18].
- Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfils the Featured List criteria. There are currently no other featured lists for lists of domestic cricket club players to compare this against. Harrias (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Looks fine now. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support although the name of the list still bothers me a little... I'd like to hear what others have to say about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – List looks good to go as far as quality is concerned. As for the title, I'm having trouble finding a similar situation that could offer some precedent. It is unusual to have a seperate list distinct from the overall players' list. "List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more appearances" is the best alternate I can come up with off the top of my head, but I'm not sure that's an improvement. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that would be a more descriptive title. I'm not very sure regarding the abbreviation though; CCC is probably not as well known as FC, but adding "county cricket club" to the title would make it ridiculously long, and even more so if we use "100 or more appearances". So I'm in favour of keeping it CCC, though as TRM said it would be better if we had some input from someone who is not familiar with cricketing terms. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't be a problem with the abbreviation. There are several Category:National Basketball Association lists that use the abbreviated "NBA". Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was equally concerned that it was "by number of appearances" as the other list List of Somerset CCC players also notes the number of appearances by every single player... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only possible thought I had, and I'm not sure on opinions on it, was to make seperate lists for each format. Ie, List of Somerset County Cricket Club first-class players, another for List of Somerset County Cricket Club List A players, and another for List of Somerset County Cricket Club Twenty20 players, in a similar way we have Test, ODI and T20I lists for national teams. Obviously that would require completely reworking this article, and in terms of the players on the lists I foresee a large redundancy. However, it would mean that Twenty20 would have some stats, which did trouble me with this list, especially as there really isn't horizontal room to expand into for them! Thoughts? Harrias (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm here by invitation and not sure I have much useful to add. My problem with the title, which User:Harrias and I briefly discussed before, is that this is really "List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances in chronological order of first appearance", which is, er, unwieldy. If this did what it says in the title, it'd be ordered by the number of appearances, rather than chronologically and it'd have to specify "first-class" or "List A". Two tables within the one article ordered on this basis might be a way forward, and you could keep the present title. I have to say that I've yet to be convinced that T20 stats have any great meaning for anyone and I'd ignore them for the time being. At some stage in the future when there have been more T20 matches someone will emerge with a Duckworth-Lewis-style intervention that will allow a true measure of prowess which might be based for batsmen on a combination of runs scored/rate of scoring/context of match and, for bowlers, runs conceded/wickets taken/context of match. I'll happily wait till then. Johnlp (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with either CCC or County Cricket Club YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't mind the list, but if it's going to be named "by appearances" shouldn't the table be sorted by appearances? Staxringold talkcontribs 06:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but as is alluded to above, the name is through lack of alternatives rather than anything else. Almost all other lists of players is done by debut date, although a few do simply sort alphabetically. Given there is already a List of Somerset CCC players I couldn't use that. The only thing I did think this morning, although it would seem wrong, we could possibly move it to List of Somerset County Cricket Club players. Harrias (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this isn't going to be sorted by appearances why not be precise with the name and just move this to List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more appearances? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your suggestion this morning would be wrong and would trespass across List of Somerset CCC players which does what it says it does and is useful in its own right. User:Staxringold's (and my) point is that the title suggests the list is in order of number of appearances: if this isn't going to be the case, then "List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances" is possible. The sortable columns mean people can order them by number of appearances in either FC or LA cricket if they then want to. I've just had an edit clash with Staxringold saying something very similar! There's a consensus building here. Johnlp (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as a neutral party, I have to agree that "List of Somerset CCC players by number of appearances" (my emphasis) makes it sound that the the "by number of appearances" sounds as if it relates to the order in which the list is presented rather than the inclusion criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't like adding a prepositional phrase to the end of the article's name, you can use a parenthetical instead: List of Somerset CCC players (100 or more appearances). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I didn't think it was a good idea for a name, but it's always worth voicing the thought just in case! And yes, I've always agreed that the name is an issue, and a better name should be found. I don't want to order the list by appearances, due to the fact it lists both first-class and list a matches, which would it sort by. Sorting by debut date seems to me by far the most logical initial listing, and one that is mirrored in almost every other list of team's players. So I would be looking for another name. I would be happy with List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances, although any other snappier titles would be appreciated! Harrias (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved: List of Somerset CCC players with 100 or more first-class or List A appearances. I don't know whether I need to do anything with this nomination to reflect that? Harrias (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Never doubted you'd get there in the end! ;-) Johnlp (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:06, 3 March 2010 [19].
- Nominator(s): Anthony Hit me up... 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is fully cited, and matches the standard of List of Calgary Flames seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons. Anthony Hit me up... 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Image needs alt text, and the highlighting for the team achievements needs symbols in addition to shading - follow the example of List of New York Rangers seasons, though I don't think the dagger that denotes SC champions needs to be used three times per row. (And yes, I'm aware that the Flames list needs to be updated in this fashion as well - standards have since changed, alas). Resolute 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Well I updated the page to match the Rangers standard, including the 3x dagger... easy to change if need be. Everything else is fixed accordingly. Anthony Hit me up... 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, my issues fixed, article looks good. Resolute 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I updated the page to match the Rangers standard, including the 3x dagger... easy to change if need be. Everything else is fixed accordingly. Anthony Hit me up... 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nomader
- The first sentence lists "Newark, New Jersey, United States"-- only one of the three example lists you used, the Calgary Flames list, uses the country (because it's outside of the US), and it seems to be a bit extraneous to list United States here.
- None of the notes work properly in the graph, probably a coding problem.
- I think the dagger's a little bit overused... I don't think the NHL season won the Stanley Cup. I think the left-most column should be clear of any coloring or symbols.
Well done, the list looks good; I only glanced over the lead so someone should probably do a more thorough run-through. -- Nomader (Talk) 07:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed as per comments. Anthony Hit me up... 13:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: my concerns have been properly addressed and I see no glaring issues with the list. -- Nomader (Talk) 07:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments (from the editor who got the Rangers seasons list to FL) –
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support It's good to know that there were games played at neutral arenas. Good job!--Cheetah (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 2 March 2010 [20].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements. I realise I still have another list at WP:FLC, but as it has already gained three support !votes I think it will pass pretty soon. Anyhoo, please let me know what I need to tweak in this list to get it to FL status. Ta muchly! ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting premise for a list. Notability of this sub-list aside, let me start with this. What are the inclusion criteria for being a "footballer". Club level? Premiere League? Played in the World Cup? I'm sure members of The Who, for example, have played some football at some point. What differentiates them from Chelsea F.C.? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, obviously it isn't anyone who's ever played any football in their life, which would be the entire male population of the UK. It's professional footballers. Anyone whose "day job" is playing football, but who's doing some singing on the side. I think people generally understand that when you refer to "footballers", you are referring to people who do it for a living, not anyone who has a kick-about down the park in their spare time. Do you think the title needs changing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is fine, my example of The Who was a little extreme. But I'm just worried that at least some mention should be made of what the qualifications are. It's pretty fuzzy, at least to a Yank such as myself, where the club/amateur/fun play ends and the "professionals" begin. Staxringold talkcontribs 08:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have been through and added "professional" in three places, which hopefully helps. Or do you mean that I need to set out what a professional footballer actually is? Surely, even if one is not specifically familiar with the sport of association football, the concept of a "professional sportsman" is fairly self-explanatory? I mean, I know less than nothing about American football, but I can grasp the concept of the difference between a professional American football player and one who isn't.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding professional should do it. Staxringold talkcontribs 09:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- By the way, the lead sentence of "British professional football teams have released " confuses me a bit. Is this UK hit singles by any footballers, or UK hit singles by UK footballers? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's kinda both, as no non-UK team has ever scored a hit in the UK charts. I've reworded it, though, to something (hopefully) less confusing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Could find nothing to complain about when I read through it. If there was an FLC award for originality, this one definitely takes the cake. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Despite my hope that future generations will never be subjected to Hoddle and Waddle. But shouldn't Three Lions be in there? It was commissioned by the FA. WFCforLife (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's as may be, but it wasn't performed by footballers. The whole point of the list is that it compiles those hits on which actual footballers sang (hence the title). That terrible song by Embrace from the last Euros was commissioned by the FA, as was the equally bad Ant & Dec one in 2002 and probably more, but they were not performed by actual footballers so don't belong on the list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. WFCforLife (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- Support--Truco 503 04:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 2 March 2010 [21].
- Nominator(s): Chrisieboy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per the first nomination. I'm not in love with the lead but don't have a specific complaint. I would strike the "weak" if another reviewer helps to improve it. WFCforLife (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the lead has been substantially re-written since your original remarks. I think it is clear, consise English and that I have made every effort to address your comments. Chrisieboy (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asked to revisit this. It would be rude of me not to respond, but I don't see what more I can add. I support because I believe this meets the criteria. It's weak because I feel the lead, while adequate, is weak. If I felt I could contribute actionable suggestions to help improve the list I would do so, but writing is not my forté. WFCforLife (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it didn't get answered in the last FLC but why are the terms abbreviated in the top section? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 08:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought my previous answers covered this; essentially, it is an encyclopedia and they are commonly used. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible for you to give me a few examples? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of what exactly? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the abbreviations as you said "they are commonly used", so it shouldn't be hard to find examples. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Cav. Berlusconi. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but you'll have to provide links to these types of things, it does worry me of the Google Search of Cav. Gr. Croce considering the FLC is the first on the search and you say Commonly used, yet googling the other terms turns up no results for the abbreviated terms, I believe this could be very confusing for the reader. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't think this is a serious point and I fail to see how it can be confusing when it clearly states (in parenthesis) that it is an abbreviation. Are you suggesting the whole word is prefixed in writing to a recipient's name Mister (or Mr.) Afro? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're using Mr. as like a little poking fun type of thing then You can google it and see how commonly used it is, since thats your argument as to why the abbreviations are there in the first place, See Cav., Uff., Comm., Gr. Uff. and Cav. Gr. Croce and compare the difference. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point but these are very used in Italy, and in fact if you checked the italian google, the result is different. I would recommend keeping the abbreviations, as all languages do that.Mephiston999 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're using Mr. as like a little poking fun type of thing then You can google it and see how commonly used it is, since thats your argument as to why the abbreviations are there in the first place, See Cav., Uff., Comm., Gr. Uff. and Cav. Gr. Croce and compare the difference. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 02:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't think this is a serious point and I fail to see how it can be confusing when it clearly states (in parenthesis) that it is an abbreviation. Are you suggesting the whole word is prefixed in writing to a recipient's name Mister (or Mr.) Afro? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but you'll have to provide links to these types of things, it does worry me of the Google Search of Cav. Gr. Croce considering the FLC is the first on the search and you say Commonly used, yet googling the other terms turns up no results for the abbreviated terms, I believe this could be very confusing for the reader. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 21:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Cav. Berlusconi. Chrisieboy (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the abbreviations as you said "they are commonly used", so it shouldn't be hard to find examples. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of what exactly? Chrisieboy (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible for you to give me a few examples? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought my previous answers covered this; essentially, it is an encyclopedia and they are commonly used. Chrisieboy (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) I guess, though it could be explained in a way better fashion in the top. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on Afro, how can it be explained any more clearly than: Knight (Cavaliere abbreviated Cav.)? Chrisieboy (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well for one the official name for Officer in Italian is "Ufficiale" as stated, shouldn't it be explained that Officer is the English equivalent instead of making the Italian the more secondary term? I think explaining more what the equivalents are would be a good expansion, that way you can still abbreviate the terms. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 19:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned that this list is not adequately referenced. For instance, the Order of the Roman Eagle and the Order of Vittorio Veneto are not referenced. The footnotes, too, are not referenced at all.—Chris!c/t 21:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) The footnotes are primary sources, they do not need further referencing. Chrisieboy (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. Where did you get the idea that primary sources do not need referencing? According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources do need referencing in most cases. For example, note 4 says "Revived by Law No. 199 of 27 March 1952." But how can one know that this date is verified by simply reading this list? I am not an expert on sourcing, but this may warrant further discussion.—Chris!c/t 22:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims...", here they are "...used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Chrisieboy (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I am no expert on this, I will leave this for others to decide. This why I start this as a comment and not an oppose.—Chris!c/t 22:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims...", here they are "...used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." Chrisieboy (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all issues from the previous nomination have been adressed and i think the article now deserves promotion to FL status. Mephiston999 (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- Support--Truco 503 01:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "There are currently five orders of knighthood " – "currently" is a vague and WP:DATED word; unless the number of orders changes constantly, it is best to remove the word altogether. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also moved the article to List of Italian orders of knighthood per WP:LISTNAME—this page is more of an annotated list briefly describing each order rather than a full-fledged article that goes into great detail about each one, such as Characters of Kingdom Hearts. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment problems with terminology:
- national coat of arms - The national emblem of Italy (Italian: emblema della Repubblica italiana), although often referred to as a coat of arms (or stemma in Italian), it is technically an emblem as it was not designed to conform to traditional heraldic rules. Better is "national emblem".
- Fixed.
- Investiture - general term for the formal installation of an incumbent (heir, elect of nominee) in public office. I don't think that award of order of merit is public office.--Yopie (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Investiture is correct English usage. Chrisieboy (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 2 March 2010 [22].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...this is the fourth (and last) of a series of lists of works by John Douglas. The other three lists are all FLs and this list follows the same format. The lead is similar, apart from the last paragraph that is modified to apply to this list. The format of the list is precisely the same as that for List of houses and associated buildings by John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Hassocks
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
|---|
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that I couldn't do this on Friday as expected. Here are my comments (mostly minor stuff) on the table itself: TABLE
Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm pleased to be able to Support this nomination following today's changes. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 19:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a very nice piece of work... well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringoldtalkcontribs 18:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments I know some of these are styled from all these lists, but I think the points still apply, and perhaps should be applied to all of them.
|
Support (although there's one very minor issue below, that shouldn't hold up promotion). Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Sorry for being so picky, but I'll gladly support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Some notes have full stops while others don't; be consistent
- Sorry couldn't find them. Please specify.
- None of the references formatted with {{Citation}} have full stops. Mm40 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my misunderstanding; I thought you meant the Notes column, which I scoured and found no absentees. Now I realise it was the Notes under References; the full stops have been added.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to the last two reviewers and the trouble you've taken. I've just been away and have a few things to catch up with, but will try to answer the comments in the next few days. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have addressed the points made above, although not necessarily solved all the problems. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a lot of my portion of the review is in what Mm40 wrote in his review, I'll be glad to re-review once their comments are resolved. So I will revisit then to avoid conflict and repetition.Truco 503 02:11, 27 February 2010 (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 07:56, 2 March 2010 [23].
Big 12 head coach list #4. I think this list is now ready for promotion to FL.—NMajdan•talk 15:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure, I was not the original creator of this list. That honor goes to DUKyleXY. I took it over because it was so close to FL-quality and he had stopped working on it for about a month and a half. He has now joined in the FLC discussion.—NMajdan•talk 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 16:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
Comment - Although this article has the potential to be an FL, I do not feel that the list is sourced enough and if more are added then this page has the potential to become an FL. Other than that, all links are good and there are no technical problems with the page--Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Image looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(<) Okay, the majority of head coach FLs are not sortable, the college ones you work on are exceptions. List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches & List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches both have problems in sorting the Term column under Safari, while C% sorts differently on each - on the Sooners' list, the en-dash appears to be treated as a zero so sorts (in my mind) correctly, while the Cowboys C% sorts the en-dashes as if they are greater than .900 (the largest number in the column). This list sorts the en-dashes first, then .375, then .125 onwards... List of England Twenty20 International cricketers (while not football I know) displays examples of how I've previously sorted en-dashes, zeros, numbers and other data. It seems to work there, but as I say, using {{SortKey}} quite a bit. Once we've solved it here, I suggest you roll the changes into the other two FLs I've mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Fixed now for me on Mac OS X Safari. I thank you for your patience and diligence in following this to its conclusion. Hopefully you'll be good enough to roll out the modifications to the other current FLC and the two other college football coach FLs. My last point is that it's a shame Banker has no article, but it doesn't entirely detract from what is an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. I'll roll out the change to my other FLC and eventually by other FLs.—NMajdan•talk 16:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Held back originally because of TRM's Safari issue, which I was unable to check for myself since I use Internet Explorer. Now that he's satisfied, I see no reason this shouldn't be featured. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In the table the name entry for Earle Bruce has the reference before the dagger. In my opinion, it just looks out of place between the dagger and the name.
- The lead says the team has had 32 HCs but the table only shows 31.
Everything else looks great! Keep up the good work can't wait to see these all come together in the Featured Topic! NThomas (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both.—NMajdan•talk 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - NThomas (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I'll support once these issues are resolved. Mm40 (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2010 (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 07:56, 2 March 2010 [24].
- Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's next in the series of United States Military Academy alumni featured lists, working towards making it a featured topic like we did with United States Naval Academy alumni lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
:Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) not any more, it sat on FLC so long I'm out. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Some of the pictures need better alt text. Is there a reason why the General References are in every Reference column with the note template? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Gen Refs, it's simply that I've done other lists in this series like that and no one has objected and I had people look at this one before listing at FLC. I guess they could come out but I'd prefer to leave them in. As for ALT text, which ones? Saying "some" doesn't tell me which ones you think need tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the only problem I see with the General References is that you've added them as notes but they are used so much as notes its a wonder why they aren't in the <ref></ref>, and to me it almost makes them seem not so general because of this. The Alt Text might not be a problem but might be more just me. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 09:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Comment - ""Civil War Generals from West Point". University of Tennessee – Knoxville. 2003. Retrieved 2009-064-28." 064? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 17:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Gen Refs, it's simply that I've done other lists in this series like that and no one has objected and I had people look at this one before listing at FLC. I guess they could come out but I'd prefer to leave them in. As for ALT text, which ones? Saying "some" doesn't tell me which ones you think need tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
I haven't fully reviewed the notes, I'm busy cooking pork, but once these are dealt with, ping me and I'll finish the review! All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Interesting stuff, and I appreciate the high quality of sourcing.
|
Support I don't see any problems. Well done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs Named references "johnston" and "beverly" are defined twice. Civil War High Commands is used multiple times with different page numbers— you can leave it that way or merge and note the page numbers with {{rp}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the two refs. As for page numbers, I'd rather leave as is since most people don't like RP format. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, well cited, well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- Support -- meets FL standards, although I would still like to see an addition of more sections (ie. See also/external links).--Truco 503 00:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also? Have you looked at the extensive links in the templates? Serves the same purpose. External links? As you said, hardly required, not to mention the massive info avail in the extensive refs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very true, I apologize for the inconvenience.Truco 503 03:05, 2 March 2010 (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 07:56, 2 March 2010 [25].
- Nominator(s): Remember (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all the requirements. Remember (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Mm40 (talk) 14:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5
- Comments from KV5
"has gone two seasons without a head coach" - "has gone" would be better as has played
- Changed to went two seasons without a head coach - hope this is okay
- "Went two seasons" is informal; I still believe that has played would be better wording. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "has played". Remember (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Went two seasons" is informal; I still believe that has played would be better wording. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Norman Shepard's 1924 team is the only team that was retroactively awarded a national championship by the Helms Athletic Foundation." - two links to the same article in this sentence
- Removed first link
"to have won an Olympic Gold Medal for coaching basketball" - to win instead of "to have won", and I don't think that "Olympic Gold Medal" is a proper noun; this should likely be Olympic gold medal
- Revised
"Williams is the only coach to have both played and coached" - played for
- Revised
"Norman Shepard is the all-time leader in winning percentage having never lost a game" - comma after percentage
- Revised
- Superscript indicators in the table that are at cap height (daggers, clubs, etc.)
- I am not sure what correction you want me to make here.
- When there is an indicator in the table, like a dagger, a club, a heart, a spade, etc., you should superscript them, using either the HTML tags or the superscript button in the edit window's toolbar. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added superscript to these indicators. Remember (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When there is an indicator in the table, like a dagger, a club, a heart, a spade, etc., you should superscript them, using either the HTML tags or the superscript button in the edit window's toolbar. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove bold from all of the award names and such in the second part of the key.
- Done
Two coaches are labeled as #17.
- Whoops. Fixed
Instead of "N/A", replace with a centered em-dash.
- Done.
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They did help. Let me know anything else you see that I should fix. Remember (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will re-review the article later once others comment, but just a note that it's considered good form to allow reviewers to strike their own comments when they feel they are addressed, rather than striking them yourself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I didn't realize that was the convention. I will refrain from striking your comments. Any additional comments are welcome. Remember (talk) 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will re-review the article later once others comment, but just a note that it's considered good form to allow reviewers to strike their own comments when they feel they are addressed, rather than striking them yourself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The Tar Heels originally did not play within any athletic conference. In 1921, N..." the first sentence sits oddly on its own. Consider merging it with the following sentence to say, okay, they weren't in a conf to start with but they did join one in 1921...
- Revised to read "The Tar Heels originally did not play within any athletic conference, but joined the Southern Conference in 1921 when the conference was first established.[1] After playing in the Southern Conference for twenty-two years, North Carolina left the conference in 1953 to join the newly created ACC"
- " North Carolina joined the Southern Conference,[1] and in 1953, North Carolina left the Southern Conference" this reads very poorly to me, so reword it when you merge the sentences per my previous comment.
- Revised to read "The Tar Heels originally did not play within any athletic conference, but joined the Southern Conference in 1921 when the conference was first established.[1] After playing in the Southern Conference for twenty-two years, North Carolina left the conference in 1953 to join the newly created ACC"
- "after previous head"... perhaps "former" instead of "previous".
- Revised
- "The men's team has had 18 head coaches in its history and has played two seasons without a head coach." not sure the repetition of "head coach" makes this elegant.
- Anyone have a synonym for head coach?
- "without one"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised. Remember (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "without one"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "During those seasons, " goes without saying, doesn't it, that achievements of coaches will be "during those seasons"? Doesn't need to be said.
- Revised
- About four or five consecutive sentences with "is the only coach" or "are the only coaches" - makes the prose a little repetitive.
- I will think of ways to work on this.
- Okay I ahve revised it. Let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "men's" do you need to repeat that, considering the article title?
- Which men's are you referring to?
- You have "men's" in the article quite a bit, but not consistently. Since the list title says "men's", it's clear this is about the "men's" team. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a bunch of them. I think the remaining men's are necessary descriptors but let me know if you feel otherwise. Remember (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have "men's" in the article quite a bit, but not consistently. Since the list title says "men's", it's clear this is about the "men's" team. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's NABC?
- National Association of Basketball Coaches. Did you want me to add this to the key?
- Shouldn't use abbreviations without explaining them first. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
- Done. Remember (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't use abbreviations without explaining them first. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
- What's FIBA?
- International Basketball Federation. Did you want me to add this to the key?
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk)
16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Done. Remember (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for AP.
- Associated Press. Did you want me to add this to the key?
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Remember (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coaching Awards->Coaching awards.
- Done.
- # doesn't sort correctly.
- Fixed this. Remember (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither does NCs.
- Fixed this. At least, I think you wanted it to sort where the dashes are sorted as 0. Let me know if you want it sorted another way. Remember (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cells with en-dashes should sort below numbers.
- I am having trouble figuring out a way to accomplish this. Any suggestions? Remember (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have figured out a workaround for this. It is not elegant in the coding but it works (and I am not sure there is an elegant way to do this). Remember (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't recall all of MOS - should you be using spaced en-dashes?
- If you're talking about in the table where it references the number of national championships, those should actually be colons. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. (I think I did what you wanted).
- "No official coach [3]" remove space between coach and [3]
- Done
- "four olympic medals" shouldn't that be "Olympic"?
- Done
- Not sure you need Category:North Carolina Tar Heels basketball with the Category:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches. Is there a more general "List of basketball head coaches" or similar category you could use?
- There does not appear to be, but I may set up this general category. I will remove the North Carolina basketball category. Remember (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was out sick so that is why I took a while to get back to you. Will get to the rest of the comments when I can. Remember (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No rush, hope you feel better soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of your comments and suggested revisions. Is there anything further?Remember (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Don't you think it's a touch misleading to call their 1971 NIT win a national championship in the table? The NCAA Tournament winner would have been the national champion, not the Tar Heels. Or am I missing something?
- The NIT used to be very prestigious so I wanted to mention it. From the NIT article - "However, as late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA bid in protest of his team's placement in the Midwest Region, where his team would have to have played games further away from home than it would if it were in the Mideast Region. The team played the NIT instead, which they won. Such an action would be a violation of NCAA rules today, which prohibits the rejection of NCAA tournament bids."
- Any suggestions on how I should clarify this or does this explination suffice? Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "but joined the Southern Conference in 1921 when the conference was first established." To remove a redundancy in the writing, I suggest switching "the conference" to "it".
- Revised. Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The program has played 2,687 games in
a total of99 seasons..." The struck portion is some wordiness that can safely be removed without affecting the meaning.
- Revised. Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference 4 should have a space before the wikilink to the general refs, and ref 5 needs one after its wikilink.
- Revised.Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 22 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on resolving comments above. Remember (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Thanks for the review. I have made the changes. Anything else? Remember (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have one more comment on a second look: I'd recommend spelling out the publishers for references 2, 15 and 22, instead of just using initials. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anything else? Remember (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would ask to see the three redlinks created, but I know that's more a personal thing than anything actually wrong with the article. I do have one issue though: "Eleven coaches have won the conference regular season with the Tar Heels: Norman Shepard, Monk McDonald, Harlan Sanborn, George Shepard, Bill Lange, Ben Carnevale, McGuire, Smith, Matt Doherty, and Williams." That's ten coaches. Who's #11? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, I am planning on creating the redlinks pages (I have created almost all the other early coaching pages). As for the 11th Coach, it was Walter Skidmore. I've added to the text. Let me know if there is anything else. Remember (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support --Truco 503 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In regards to the {{Harvnb}} templates, I've fixed two of them, but the other three (13, 20, and 21) won't work because the reference doesn't have an author. Remove the Harvard referencing for those three and cite them normally.
Mm40 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Mm40 (talk)
- "North Carolina left
the conferencein 1953" removes redundancy
- Revised.
- "
which isnamed after previous" Also, it may flow better with "former" in place of "previous"
- Revised.
- Link "National Invitational Tournament" in the lead?
- Revised.
- What does "won the conference regular season" mean? Have the best overall regular season record? Best conference regular season record? Winners of the conference tournament?
- Won the conference regular season means they had the best overall regular season record. Revised
- It would be helpful is you provide a link the year Smith won the Olympics.
- Done.
- "the United States
in basketballwhile also"
- Revised
- Reference 6 (Smith's HOF biography) doesn't back up that Smith was the only coach to win the Olympics while coaching a college team
- It backs up that he was awarded a gold medal at the olympics, but it doesn't state that other north carolina coaches do not have a medal. I don't know if I can cite a source that says all the other North Carolina coaches did not win an olympic gold medal (even though they have not). I did not think I needed a source to state that specifically.
- Sorry for not being clearer. The article says "a feat that no other coach has replicated". I'm assuming this means that no other coaches for any school, not just NC. You should clarify as "a feat that no other Tarheels' coach has replicated". Mm40 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised
- Sorry for not being clearer. The article says "a feat that no other coach has replicated". I'm assuming this means that no other coaches for any school, not just NC. You should clarify as "a feat that no other Tarheels' coach has replicated". Mm40 (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It backs up that he was awarded a gold medal at the olympics, but it doesn't state that other north carolina coaches do not have a medal. I don't know if I can cite a source that says all the other North Carolina coaches did not win an olympic gold medal (even though they have not). I did not think I needed a source to state that specifically.
- "the
North Carolinamen's varsity" You already say "North Carolina" in the last sentence
- Revised
- "Brothers Norman
Shepardand George Shepard"
- revised.
- I think you can cut out "No coach has had an overall losing record at North Carolina." That's evident from the last sentence
- Yeah, but I like it. I will remove it if that is consensus but I would rather keep it in.
- Can the image captions next to the table be varied a bit? Maybe give interesting facts from their term. At least give the years they coached
- Revised.
- Please change the spades and clubs to other symbols; I can't tell the difference.
- Darn, I liked the theme I had going there. Revised.
- Consider centering the coaches' names
- I like it the way it is, but if the consensus is to change it, I will change it.
- You capitalize "Olympic gold medal" differently in the lead and key\
- Revised
- Remove the abbreviation "(FIBA)" as it's not used elsewhere in the article
- Revised
- You don't distinguish OL vs. CL and OW vs. CW in the key
- Good catch. Revised.
- I wouldn't call he NIT a national championship. Today, it's for the best of the teams that didn't make March Madness, so I wouldn't call them "National Champions"
- But at the time that Smith won, it was pretty prestigious. As I discussed above, the NIT used to be very prestigious. From the NIT article - "However, as late as 1970, Coach Al McGuire of Marquette, the 8th-ranked team in the final AP poll of the season, spurned an NCAA bid in protest of his team's placement in the Midwest Region, where his team would have to have played games further away from home than it would if it were in the Mideast Region. The team played the NIT instead, which they won. Such an action would be a violation of NCAA rules today, which prohibits the rejection of NCAA tournament bids." Any suggestions on how I should clarify this or does this explination suffice? Remember (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are some awards linked in the table?
- Because I thought that would be useful to the reader.
- You can remove commas in the "NCs" table
- Done.
- Consider adding a "Totals" bar at the bottom of the table. You can make it sort last (see here for an example)
- Done.
- In note 2, is there a link for the Patterson medal?
- Not a wikilink. Is that what you were looking for? Also, the actual award does not appear to have its own website discussing it; it is just mentioned in news articles.
- You can link St. Johns and McGuire is note three.
- Revised
- Link Big XII CCOTY in note 11
- Also, the Big 12 discourages the use of "XII". It should read: Big 12. Also, the conference inherited that quirk from the Big Eight which also discouraged the used of "8" instead of Eight. NThomas (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised
- The last general reference should have "pp.", not "p."
- Revised
- There should be an ndash (–) in ref 1's title. Also, the work isn't "Southern Conference", so just cut the
|work=parameter
- Revised
- Eliminate the
|work=parameter for refs, 2, 9, and 18. The work for ref 16 is "Maryland Athletics". Remove the|publisher=parameter from ref 5. The publisher for ref 8 is "CNN Sports Illustrated"
- Done
- None of the {{Harvnb}} references (refs 3, 4, 12, and 13) work
- Does anyone know how to fix this? I thought I was doing it right, but I guess I was not.
- Is that a quote in reference 4? It's not in quotations marks. Mm40 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a quote. I have revised the text anyway.
Thanks for the review. I am still busy in real life, but I will get to these when I can. Remember (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slowly working through all the suggestions. Remember (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of the resolution of these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still slowly working through them all since I am slammed at work. When I nominated the article, I had a lot more time and was more responsive. I will try to clean up the rest soon. Remember (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I have gone through all of the comments and I think I have addressed them all. Let me know what else I need to do. Remember (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still slowly working through them all since I am slammed at work. When I nominated the article, I had a lot more time and was more responsive. I will try to clean up the rest soon. Remember (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the status of the resolution of these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slowly working through all the suggestions. Remember (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the harvard cites and cited them normally. I think this is what you wanted. Let me know if there is anything else I should do. Remember (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hidden category: