Next from the Laureus family, small and neat, the Sport for Good award. As always, your comments, suggestions and support are all welcomed, and I will do whatever it takes to address them in a timely fashion. Cheers all! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In Gerry Storey's row, should "the" in The Troubles be lowercase? I know that's how it is with band names but I don't know if it's the same for locations.
Add that United States and Kenya won have won it three times and India and Great Britain have won the award the twice
I've added the US and Kenya, but opted against India and GB as it feels a little contrived, especially as these individuals/organisations aren't really "representing" those countries in the same sense that the other Laureus sports awards are. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always Ian, for both your tidy-up and your comments here. I believe I've addressed these issues, but please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see adjusted. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – All of the sources are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no problems. Spot-checks of refs 10 and 20 also come up clean. I'm comfortable calling this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another aviation list (my current thing) but quite a small one this one. Yes, I know I have other FLCs running, they all have at least three supports and a couple are waiting for closure, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from BeatlesLedTV
After a read through, I think you got a pretty solid list here. It reads well and the table is great. The only thing I noticed was center the "no event" text from 2011–2013. Other than that I got nothing.
"...in which competitors have to navigate a challenging obstacle course in the fastest time." - doesn't really make sense. (I know you 'inherited' this prose). Something more like 'in which entrants compete to navigate a challenging....'?
"...and are broadcast, both live and taped, in many nations.and are broadcast, both live and taped, in many nations." - RB website talks of 'live and highlights', no mention 'taped' (replayed?) and also says can view via the website and rb.tv, apps etc.
"The inaugural series in 2003, which consisted of two races, one in Austria and one in Hungary,[4] was won by the Hungarian pilot Péter Besenyei, with the German Klaus Schrodt coming second in Hungary, followed by the American Kirby Chambliss." - doesn't mention that Besenyei won both races or is it meant to say Schrodt second (without the in Hungary bit)?
"...divide the field into classes, namely the "Master Class" and the "Challenger Class" in which young pilots competed." - needs Oxford comma after Master Class?
"...having died in a helicopter accident before the end of the championship. - maybe add 'unrelated' before helicopter and/or 'year' after championship?
2004 - is it possible to tweak the third place cell to enable names and nationalities to sort? (Actually, Germany sorts correctly but that's just serendipitous.)
The publisher of ref 17 should probably be spelled out, as I'm not sure how many people are going to know what FAI stands for off the top of their heads (I didn't).
Well it's linked for that purpose and is most commonly known as FAI, just like UEFA is most commonly known as UEFA and not "Union of European Football Associations", NASA instead of "North American Space Administration" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I must briefly comment about the author of ref 12. I was set to complain about linking the author Robin Leach to the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous Robin Leach, only to find out that they actually were one and the same. Who knew?
Make sure all dashes are the same. If you look closely the dashes in the candidate of column are longer than the rest. Make sure they're all en dashes or em dashes per MOS:DASH. Choose one or the other.
I'm new to FLC, but I'm fairly well versed with Indian politics, and I think this list does a very decent job of conveying the relevant information. Somebody less familiar with the topic should check the prose bits to make sure they make sense to folks who don't know the topic.
I said this when I took a look at this before the FLC: the Janata Party and the BJP should not share a color (certainly not the BJP's official color). They were distinct parties, with distinct ideologies. Prominent members of the latter just happened to be members of the former during its brief period of ascendancy. Either just say "other parties" or, preferably, split them into two colors.
Bit uncertain about the grammar of "Although the president is vested such powers by the Constitution of India", but that's a vague discomfort only, something for a more knowledgable person to check.
Looks good. You've got a tiny sliver of white space because of the percentages in the pie chart not adding to 100. I'm willing to support now, though. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the prose in the lead where many sentences starts with 'The President' which can be replaced by 'they' in some instances. The fourth one has been fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much needs to be addressed for this to be supported at this time.
What does "first citizen" mean?Clarified
"The post of President is known in Hindi..." this sentence is unreferenced.Removed
"... introduction of the post in 1950. The post was established ..." repetitive, could merge.Done
"death of Zakir Husain, who died in office" somewhat tautological, perhaps "in 1969 after Zakir Husain died in office"?Done
Inconsistent capitalisation of "president" throughout the lead.Done, as far as possible manually
" as an independent candidate" this is oddly introduced before you talk (in the next para) about the political affiliations, suggest it's noted in one place.Done
"They may remain... " reads odd here, I would make a new para, or move this to the first para which basically introduces the whole concept of President.Done
"constitution of India" our article capitalises the C of constitution.Done
Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.Done
"the only person to be elected as an independent candidate." yet 47% of candidates were independent... did they only become independent after being elected?Removed
Two decimal places seems excessively accurate here.Adjusted
You can't use just colours to denote something, it's a failure of MOS:COLOR.Done
Birth–Death doesn't need that capitalisation.Done
The rowscopes should really be on the names of the presidents, not the number.Done
Where you don't have an image of the individual, place a {{center|–}}.Done
Candidate of [9] - would this be better as "Affiliation[9]"? Either way, lose the space.Done
"holding office for 12 years as the only president to serve two terms in office.[10][11][5] " refs in numerical order, but more importantly, I though each term was limited to five years?Removed unsourced statement, Done
"vice chancellor" is usually hyphenated.Done
" received Bharat Ratna award" missing "the" ... and link the award.Done
"He was the first President from South India." no ref.Done
As the table is sortable, everything you've linked should be linked on every occasion.Done manually
You could denote those who have died in office with a {{dagger}}.Done + some more of footnotes
You could add another column for the duration of their tenure, especially as you note the "shortest" duration in the notes.
Not done. Out of 17, 12 presidents will have 5 years, only 5 others will have varied number of years
Is it "Acting President" or "acting president"?Done manually
"He resigned in a few months" after instead of in.
"president during Emergency" again, missing a "The" here.
Mysore state should be Mysore State to avoid piping to a redirect.
"Muhammad Hidayatullah" or "Mohammad Hidayatullah"?All Done
Punjab, India, not Punjab (India).
Not done .Denotes Punjab state of India (Not of Pakistan)
"He has also" as he is dead, this should be "He also".
Our article does not use a capital G for Governor of Rajasthan.
Same for Bihar.
Member of parliament links to a generic page, you could be more specific, on that page there exists three links to India-specific articles.
What's BJP and RSS?
Timeline could be coloured per political party and "acting" could be a symbol (e.g. *) after the acting president's names instead of the way you currently have it.
Our article hyphenates "Vice-President".
All done
Consistent date formats in the references.
Consistent and long ISBNs please.
Both Not Done, Please clarify what you want, I didn't find any thing wrong with them
You link Hindustan Times but none of the other works. Be consistent.Done
@The Rambling Man:-The timeline part of the page has gone askew (behaving oddly in the legend portion ) after implementing your recommendation. -To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]] 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)I have corrected the problem after tinkering the Wikisyntax -On a more important note, I have done some edits in accordance to your recommendations and would like you to do a status update (Of your comment or any subsequent new problems )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S:From what I know at DYK, you probably have the scripts to carry out your last two recommendations(Which I could not locate despite trawling through your monbook.js). Please do it for me(Despite you being the reviewer who asked it to be done)-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR [[User:Force Radical]]10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I may be unavailable to make any major changes to the article for this ensuing week due to heavy meat-space workload, that being said I will certainly keep track of changes to this nomination and be rest assured that I will respond to any improvements/suggestions (informing if I will have enough time to make those changes) within 96 hours. Thanks — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs)04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – Found a couple issues to look at, but it shouldn't be too much work.
References 5 and 15 come from print publications, so the publishers should be italicized in each. Other than that point, the references are well-formatted, and they all appear to be reliable.
The link-checker shows no dead links.
Spot-checks of refs 10, 29, and 36 showed one issue: ref 10 doesn't support the 25 July date at all. In reality, it looks like the election took place earlier than the 25th, which was when his term started. That sentence should be fixed.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list that caps this project, which documents the twenty protected cruisers built for Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these ships saw action during the Italo-Turkish War of 1912, and some were active during World War I. I finished writing the list over a year ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at the beginning of the year. I finally have time to take on an FL review, so here we are. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"along with the subsequent Etna class, for which Giovanni Bausan provided the basis—represented the Regia Marina's brief experimentation with the Jeune École doctrine." You may want to define the Jeune École doctrine here; a footnote could be used if you think it would be hard to fit into the paragraph.
It's explained in the lead, and the sentences before that touch on it again.
" She participated in the conquest of Eritrea in 1887–1888 as the flagship of the Italian squadron during the campaign" What squadron was this?
Don't know if it had a specific name.
"where she sank or destroyed seven Ottoman gunboats, destroying Ottoman naval strength in the area." What definition are we using for "naval strength" here? Were those 7 gunboats all the ships in the area? Most of them? Or did it just force the Ottoman ships that remained to pull back or not operate?
That was more or less all they had in the Red Sea - the only major Ottoman unit in the area was the cruiser Peyk-i Şevket, but she had been interned in Suez.
"During World War I, she was assigned to the Second Fleet, based in Brindisi, but she did not see action." Is it known why this is?
She was 20 years old by that point, and the fact that both sides adopted the fleet in being strategy didn't help either.
In §References, all sources are listed using cs1 templates. Except for four of them. Why is that? Shouldn't they all be one style?
On a whim, I clicked the oclc link from the first one:
Annual Report of the Navy Department. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1902. OCLC 2480810.
That link sends the reader to the associated WorldCat page where one finds a link to a google preview. The citation says 1902; WorldCat doesn't state a year; google preview shows a preview of the Report from 1921. Perhaps a better citation might be:
{{cite book |title=Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902 |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |date=1902 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=1up;seq=10 |page=4}}
I moved your post out of my post (it was a single post, not a series of separately signed posts).
{{cite journal}} has a specific meaning in cs1. From its documentation page (first sentence): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." Annual Reports of the Navy Department is none of those. Rather, it is a report, or in this case, given its length, a book. As an 'annual' it is a 'periodical' because a new issue is/was published yearly but this does not make it a scientific or academic journal.
Fair enough, though it's general practice to reply to points directly below them (see the section above, for instance). In any event, the Annual Reports are closer to a journal than a book (Worldcat, for example, classifies it as a ""Journal / Magazine / Newspaper"), and I don't know that {{cite book}} is appropriate for them. And certainly not for the Journal of the RUSI or Appleton's. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have written elsewhere that WorldCat is not a well curated site; it depends on individual librarians across the world to add stuff to it so, in a sense, WorldCat is as well curated as Wikipedia. I would suggest that the journal / magazine / newspaper classification at WorldCat for Annual Reports ... is a result of that low quality curation. The real benefit of WorldCat is the ability it provides readers to locate a physical copy of the source item – but only if we can provide an accurate oclc identifier. Beyond that, the WorldCat metadata are suspect. If we cannot exactly identify the source's ture oclc, and the evidence shows that in these cases we cannot, then we should not be including an oclc to represent the 'journal'; which, for Annual Reports.. is a designation I dispute. I If in a citation at en.wiki we include an oclc that isn't specific, we have not aided the reader's search for the source we used so we should not be providing an oclc or any other identifier that doesn't specifically match the source.
{{cite journal |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=1up;seq=688 |title=Notices of Books |journal=Journal of the Royal United Service Institution |volume=XLVII |issue=303 |page=624 |date=May 1903}}
"Notices of Books". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLVII (303): 624. May 1903.
{{cite encyclopedia |last=Huntington |first=Frank |title=Brazil |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/99/mode/1up |encyclopedia=Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896 |volume=XXXVI |location=New York |publisher=D Appleton and Company |date=1897}}
Huntington, Frank (1897). "Brazil". Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896. Vol. XXXVI. New York: D Appleton and Company.
The Worldcat link isn't for a specific volume, it's for the journal. As far as I'm aware, the expectation at FAC/FLC is that a reference should have one of the standardized identification numbers (whether that's an ISBN, an ISSN, an OCLC, etc). Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is that documented anywhere? There are a lot of Annual Reports of the Navy Department – emphasis on 'Annual' – see this list. If an oclc identifier is required and so is provided in the citation, it should, in my opinion, be an identifier for the specific source stated in the rest of the citation; in this example case, that oclc number is OCLC5164555. Providing an oclc that misidentifies the source fails to live up to the 'our best work' rubric.
Is what documented anywhere? The expectation OCLCs/ISBNs/etc. at FLC/FAC? Not that I'm aware of, but I've done 60+ of these, and that's the experience I've had. As for Worldcat, when you look at the entry for the Journal of the RUSI, you don't get OCLCs for individual editions, you just get the journal. Same with Appleton's. The OCLC for the Annual Report is to the generic Worldcat page, not to a specific edition. I have no idea how you got the preview link for the 1902 edition (I can't find it by simply searching for the title, even copying the title from that OCLC number), or why that's a separate OCLC number, but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the expectation. It seems to me that if editors haven't seen fit to codify such an explicit requirement then the requirement doesn't exist. ...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.
For OCLC5164555 find the 'Find in a library' link in the left panel at the Annual Reports url. Even though that particular oclc does link to a google books facsimile, WorldCat being what it is, I would not include an oclc in this source's citation.
Navy and Army Illustrated is listed in §References but not referred to from §Notes. Also, Cernuschi & O'Hara are listed in §Notes but do not have a matching citation in §References.
Have replaced the references with the versions you put above, and added Cernuschi & O'Hara - good catch. This is the footnote for Navy and Army Illustrated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite magazine |editor-last=Robinson |editor-first=Charles N. |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069276362;view=2up;seq=532 |title=The Venezuela Blockade |magazine=Navy and Army Illustrated |date=10 January 1903 |volume=XV |issue=310}}
Robinson, Charles N., ed. (10 January 1903). "The Venezuela Blockade". Navy and Army Illustrated. Vol. XV, no. 310.
{{cite magazine |last=Kunz |first=George Frederick |date=October 1909 |title=The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PqUVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317 |journal=The Popular Science Monthly |publisher=The Science Press |location=New York |volume=LXXV |issue=4 |pages=313–337}}
Kunz, George Frederick (October 1909). "The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909". The Popular Science Monthly. Vol. LXXV, no. 4. New York: The Science Press. pp. 313–337.
{{cite book |last=May |first=W. A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot |chapter=The Battle of Chemulpho |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iWmKygAACAAJ&pg=PA140 |location=London |publisher=The Westminster Press |date=1904}}
May, W. A. (1904). "The Battle of Chemulpho". The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot. London: The Westminster Press.
{{cite book |last=Reeve |first=A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008439873;view=2up;seq=10 |year=1904 |publisher=The Westminster Press |location=London}}
Giovanni Bausan: Should the last mention of the ship's name in this section be italicized?
Campania class: "The last pair of protected cruisers built by the Italian Navy was intended for colonial service, and were based on experience from Calabria." In describing the pair of cruisers, we have "was" and "were" in this sentence, which mixes tenses. I would use "were" for both, but in any case they should be made consistent.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Who does not know "The King of Cool"? Steve McQueen was probably one of the most badass personalities to have ever walked this Earth. He enjoyed a success like no other actor could have. From making it on the small screen to becoming the highest paid actor in the world, he's seen it all. His body of work encompasses 20-odd films. He was in the industry for 27 years. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"McQueen played an uncredited role as Fidel" --> He played an uncredited role of Fidel.
I'm just concerned with the lead's size. Try trimming it down a bit.
I think the prose could still do with smartening up before this is promoted. It's a bit repetitive in places. Also given that he was supposed to have been the highest paid actor at one point, it's not clear how he would have gone bankrupt for Le Mans unless he was producing it and putting up most of the funding. I'll try to look more into this later.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Blofeld: Now that you mention it, McQueen's production company, Solar productions, was a shareholder in Le Mans. After the film's lacklustre performance, he was, in his biographer Terrill's words, "slapped with a $2 million back tax from IRS". Plus the filming and post-production work was extraneous. He had to fold up his company to get the money to pay the IRS tax. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will be focusing my review on the lead so my comments are completely focused on prose and will not address anything relating to source use or reliability:
In this phrase (McQueen's screen persona was that of portraying cool, reticent anti-hero roles), I would add a link for anti-hero.
I would change this part (played an uncredited role of Fidel) to (played the uncredited role Fidel).
The following two sentences seem to repeat the same information (n 1960, McQueen achieved stardom when he co-starred alongside Yul Brynner in Sturges' western, The Magnificent Seven. Based on Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, it helped McQueen establish himself as a star in Hollywood). Both sentences repeat that the film established McQueen as a star and you can edit this information down. The only real new information in the second sentence is that the film was based on Seven Samurai.
I would spell out the acronym POW on its first use.
I would change this following phrase (a shot of Hilts riding a motorcycle jumps a series of barbed-wire fences) to (a shot of Hilts riding a motorcycle and jumping a series of barbed-wire fences). The current sentence construction is not correctly formed.
Please clarify the year in which Love with the Proper Stranger was released.
For this sentence (The film was a critical and commercial disappointment, rendering him almost bankrupt.), I would make it clear how the film’s poor critical and commercial performance led him to become bankrupt.
Great work with this list. Once my comments are completed, then I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day and wonderful job with all of your recent FLCs. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"After appearing in an uncredited role in the crime drama Girl on the Run (1953), McQueen made his film debut in 1956 with Somebody Up There Likes Me" – This doesn't make sense. He could he have made his film debut AFTER appearing in an earlier film?
" After a series of unsuccessful films for the next two years, McQueen teamed up with Sturges again in the war drama, The Great Escape (1963), where he played Virgil Hilts, a World War II prisoner of war who along with fellow Allied POWs, make an escape from a high security prisoner of war camp. It emerged as one of the highest grossing films of the year, winning McQueen the award for Best Actor at the Moscow International Film Festival for his role of Hilts." – You've already told us that he played Hilts so there's no reason to tell us again.
The names of the films sort correctly but the names of McQueen's roles and directors do not.
@Jimknut: I have sorted the directors and roles by last name (except for those role that have single names). Do have a look at the article and let me know if there is anything that needs to be rectified. Thanks. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Televison
Alfred Hitchcock Presents is listed twice, which is fine since McQueen appeared in two different episodes. Why, then, don't you do the same for Westinghouse Studio One and Trackdown?
If you're going to link the "Man From the South" episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents then link it to the "Television apaptations" section of that article.
I have removed note b but I feel note d is necessary so as to distinguish the dual roles from the single role characters he played. Readers who might be unfamiliar with McQueen's work (unlikely IMO, but you never know) might get the feeling that it is a single character having two or more different names.
This comment seems contradictory to your previous one "Alfred Hitchcock Presents is listed twice, which is fine since McQueen appeared in two different episodes. Why, then, don't you do the same for Westinghouse Studio One and Trackdown?" because if I have resolved this comment, then there is no need for notes c and e to be present. Hence I have removed them. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid07:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
Ref 2: " "The Case For Steve Mcqueen, Icon" – McQueen is misspelled
"In 1958, he appeared in the science fiction film The Blob, which was incidentally his first film as a lead actor" – The "which was incidentally" part seems superfluous. Couldn't you just say "his first film as a lead actor"?
For the notes column of the filmography you could mention that in The Blob McQueen was billed as "Steven" rather than "Steve". The film, of course, is readily available on DVD and blu-ray so you could either as your source of information. I leave it up to you. Jimknut (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just one concern, really: TV.com is actually a user-generated database, which WP:UGC warns editors generally not to use as a source. Please change 'em with a reliable, high-quality source. Otherwise, great list. Slightlymad06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you can't support his appearance in The West Point Story with a source? I really think McQueen appeared in that show. It's just a shame, it could impact the "comprehensive" criteria of this list. Is it not chronicled on any of those books in bibliography? Slightlymad13:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – The sources all appear to be reliable enough, and the link-checker shows no problems. There are a couple of small formatting issues I see. First, the second link in ref 2 has "LIFE" in improper all caps. Second, refs 46 and 56 are from print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Spot-checks of refs 41, 59, and 67 show one minor verifiability issue: ref 67 shows that episode title as being "Human Interest Story", not "The Human Interest Story". Our episode list on the show goes with the TV Guide title, for what it's worth. Overall, this list is a few small tweaks away from passing the source review.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
The infobox image needs ALT text.
For this part (who has been working undercover for the FBI as a CIA recruit to uncover a rogue faction of the CIA called the AIC), I would avoid repetition of the “CIA”. I do not believe that the “of the CIA” is necessary and I think you can remove it without losing meaning or context.
In this part (Parrish must confront a terrorist-instigated hostage crisis at the G-20 summit in), I would add a link for “G-20”.
For this part (before moving to Mondays at 10:00 pm after its mid-season break), do you think it would be beneficial to link “mid-season break” to the article hiatus (television)?
For this part (The second season was well-received by critics), I would link “critics” to television criticism?
In the “Overview” section, FBI needs to be linked in the first sentence. In the same section, I would link G-20 as I suggested for the lead.
Since you do not appear to be using the Oxford comma in this article, for this part (the President of the United States, the First Lady, and several other world leaders), the comma after “Lady” should be removed.
In the same section, write out “New York City” in full in the link to “New York” as New York and New York City are two separate things.
Something about this sentence (The real aim of the group is to get to the surveillance drives the world leaders brought with them before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages, does) reads awkwardly. I would rephrase it to the following (The group’s real agenda is to get the surveillance drives from the world leaders before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages).
For the “Overview” section, you refer to Alex and Ryan by their first names, but you reference Roarke by his last name. I would suggest choosing one or the the other to stay consistent. Since you appear to use the first name for most of the characters, you use “Henry” instead of “Roarke”.
I am a little confused (While walking in New York City, Alex becomes suspicious of mysterious white vans) by this part. In what context is she suspicious of these vans?
I would unlink the G20 link in the “Kudove” episode summary as it would linked in the above section per my suggestion.
For the “Mi6” link in the “Kmforget” episode summary, I think that the i needs to be capitalized to read as “MI6”.
For this part (Raina is actually Nimah, who is working with CLF; the real Raina is tied up), could you provide context to where the real Raina is tied up?
For the “Cleopatra” episode summary, is there any reason why the guest star for the “Hannah Wyland” character is brought up while guest stars from other episodes are not addressed?
It's because this episode revolves around her way too much as opposed to the rest. Important details and the motive is linked to her. That's why.Krish | Talk22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not find that a strong enough reason to put the actor in the episode summary when none of the other actors are mentioned in the episode summaries. If the reader is interested in finding out who plays the "Hannah Wyland" character, they could easily look at the "Cast" section. It appears that the actress' name has already been removed either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide ALT text for the Chopra image in the “Production” section. (I am not really sure if the image is necessary as the section does not directly talk about Chopra in-depth and you can already see Chopra in the infobox image, but I will not press this. Just wanted to raise this to your attention).
In the first sentence of the “Development” subsection, I would add a link for the first season (i.e. mid-way through the first season).
In the second paragraph of the same subsection, you begin three sentences with “Safran”. I think you can replace one or two of these instances with “He” as the pronoun would be understood through context.
I am not sure why FBI and CIA are both linked and spelled out in this subsection when they both are already linked (i.e. the contrasting working ethics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, saying). Looking at this sentence, I would suggest spelling out FBI and CIA in full on its first instance with the acronym after it in parenthesis.
I would combining the ‘Filming” and “Casting” subsection as I do not see a real reason to put a short paragraph as its own subsection.
For this part (involving the current real-life political scenario), I would clarify what is meant by “the current real-life political scenario” as it may be confusing to those reading the in the future. Are the critics referencing anything in particular?
Is there any reason for the TBD parts in the “Ratings” chart? How is it different from N/A?
Great work with the list. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing. I will have to watch this show one of these days lol. Anyway, I will support this for promotion (on the basis of prose) once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overview: Don't capitalize "Weeks" in "Two Weeks after the hostage crisis ends".
Episode 25 summary: Grammar fix needed in "drops the her body into the building".
"disuises himself to meet Will Olsen" has a typo in the first word.
Episode 28 summary: Remove the hyphen from "possibly-inaccurate data".
Episode 34 summary: Leon's name is missing the fancy character here. Same goes for future summaries, so take a look at them as well.
Episode 41 summary: "Invitation" shouldn't be capitalized.
Development: "will switch to a single timeline following the fourteenth episode". Should "will" be "would", so this doesn't sound like something that will happen in the future?
Casting and filming: Another grammar fix needed in "a driven, disciplined a type-A Lawyer." There's one "a" too many, along with improper capitalization at the end.
Critical reception: Inside the quote, you can italicize Quantico twice for style. While we don't generally want to touch a quote's content, we can make simple style fixes.
"The series' plotlines involving the current real-life political scenario such as Muslim registry and Black Lives Matter, was also praised." "a" should be added before Muslim, and "was" should be "were" since that refers to the plural plotlines.
Ratings: "the" is needed before adults 18-49 demographic".
Although it looks mostly well done, but I do have a couple of concerns about the critical reception section. I do not believe that the episode recaps from one critic commands an overall well received tag. Also, following it there seems to be no negative review to balance anything at all. I see one largely critical review on RT, but I am sure there are a lot more mixed reviews that can be easily accessed and incorporated into the section. NumerounovedantTalk14:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Numerounovedant: I know what you are saying but I couldn't find any reviews for the Season 2 premiere. The one which I actually found are not reliable sources. So I used the only magazine which reviewed it. I found this and this and both are positive. But I can add some criticism about the early episodes. Are these sources reliable? Well TCOvermind seems like a reliable source since it's parent company is Zap2it. Krish | Talk21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The opening lines here might be helpful to substantiate your claim Krish. Also, try TV Fanatic, BuddyTV, Entertainment Weekly and Vulture for reviews. TVOM should be fine too. You were right to look for the premiere/finale reviews as they tend to offer a (anticipatory) summary of the overall reception of the season. NumerounovedantTalk03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because... this is a comprehensive list of all of Steps songs. Same vein as many of my previous song list nominations. As they were most active between 1997-2001, it's been difficult to source some info but I've tried my best to make do with the relatively little there is compared to 2012-2017. I believe it a smart, presentable, clean cut list worthy of being featured. — Calvin99909:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The songs "A House is Not a Home" and "A Love to Last" should sort under, respectively, "House" and "Love". This needs to be corrected. Jimknut (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would sort the B-sides in album titles by what they're the B-side of, rather than all sorting under "B". So "B-side to "Chain Reaction"" would sort next to Chain Reaction. Likewise, "Single release only" should just sort at the top or bottom of the list, rather than with "S".
Golbez, the acoustic version of Scared of the Dark is included on their forthcoming deluxe edition edition of their most recent album, should I include it as a song from the re-issue as opposed to 'Single release only' which is was in April as a standalone download to the non-acoustic single? I think it would look tidier. — Calvin99911:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The British group Steps" I would make an attempt to include a genre here for those who aren't aware of the work of Steps...
I've never done that for the other song lists I've done, or been asked to actually. It's difficult to find many FL reliable sources which categorically say they are an X band in terms of genre, and if I include one, it will only be subject to constant changes by IPs and other low level users to disagree with it. I think including nationality is enough, we don't tend to include genres in artist bios for example. I wouldn't have thought someone who isn't aware of them would intentionally look for and find this list anyway. — Calvin999
"a Steps band member(s)" awkward, maybe "one or more Steps band members".
I see what you're saying, but there's only one song where more than one of the band members co-wrote together. Any others were co-written by one band member only. — Calvin999 There are two songs where two band members or more co-wrote actually, so I will change it. — Calvin99908:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions which are complete sentences need a full stop.
Some songs were released as B-sides which this doesn't qualify as an "album". Perhaps change the column title to "Release".
The majority of their songs were on albums. Only a couple of album cuts were included as a B-side. Some B-sides were non-singles from albums. I've changed it to Album/B-side. — Calvin999
Most "Songs recorded by..." featured lists I've seen don't include the length of the song. To me it's unneeded.
Most of the "Songs recorded by..." featured lists were written by me and include the length :) — Calvin999
You got it. I've seen a couple lists that don't have the length and in my recently promoted list, I was told to remove the lengths. But if that's how you've done it, then leave it be.
If you're sorting by song title, it needs rearranging. You have songs beginning with "A" sorted corrected but they're in the wrong spot. Move them to the correct spots, such as move "A House is Not a Home" down to the H's.
They are meant to be entered by the first syllable, but sort under the following word if preceded/started with a 'A' etc. This is how I've done it on all of the song lists I've written and they are all featured. — Calvin999
If that's the way you've done it then you're absolutely good.
You also don't need (pictured) in every picture. It's implied that the people described in the captions are in the photos.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
My other FLC is already far in the process so I'm going to nominate this one. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and has the ability to become featured. If not, I'm open to any suggestions on how to improve it so it does meet the criteria to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ojorojo
Lead
Somewhere in the beginning, it should be briefly noted that this is a list of his recordings as a solo artist and doesn't include PF songs.
Check for repetition – "English musician Syd Barrett recorded many songs during his short career as a musician." "One of the founding members of English rock band Pink Floyd, he was the dominant force of the band in their early years,... and recording several unreleased songs with the band." "in 1969 to begin work on his first solo album," "Barrett began work on his second". "Work on The Madcap Laughs proved difficult,... Produced by Pink Floyd members David Gilmour and Richard Wright,[5] the sessions proved difficult". "Barrett would record two solo albums,...left the music business entirely". "Two years later, Barrett would sign a document ending his association with Pink Floyd and any financial interest in future recordings and left the music business entirely". (plus would and entirely don't add anything).
"Barrett was excluded from Pink Floyd in April 1968 and was subsequently replaced by guitarist David Gilmour." According to the PF article (and from what I remember reading), Gilmour was brought in before Barrett was left out.
Unneeded words – "the majority of the material found on their first album," (found doesn't add anything). "His first and only single" (if it was his only single, then it would be his first, last, etc.). "The Madcap Laughs and Barrett would bedouble-paired" (would and double don't add anything). "In 1988, Barrett himself approved the release of Opel," (himself doesn't add anything).
"alternate takes of songs from his solo albums, as well as Opel." The Crazy Diamond article seems to indicated that it includes all of TML, Barrett, and Opel, plus alt takes.
"The greatest hits album Wouldn't You Miss Me? followed suit," (his only single single never charted; compilation or collection is a better description).
"Vegetable Man" and "Scream Thy Last Scream" were previously going to be released on Opel, but was blocked by Pink Floyd." (the songs are already mentioned in the previous sentence; album details are unneeded).
Since this is a list of songs, there could be less emphasis on his albums. For example, "Barrett's highly sought-after song "Bob Dylan Blues" was issued on WYMM and the previously unreleased twenty-minute long instrumental "Rhamadan" is included as a bonus track on the AITSB CD."
Maybe add something about the style of his songs, contrast/similarity to PF songs, which are particularly noteworthy, etc.
Looks good. Have you tried a google-type search for images in the public domain? Without his photo, I wonder if the other photos should be included. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found some photos of him through google that are labeled for noncommercial reuse. The original photos were posted on flickr. Would I have to contact any of the users that posted them or just upload them here? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Image use policy includes "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Wikipedia, or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." Flickr images usually note "may be subject to copyright". I doubt that most who uploaded the images know anything about the copyrights. Sydbarrett.com[9] has some photos marked "1968 Spring photoshoot, photographer unknown", but I don't know if they're OK to use. Maybe ask them.[10] —Ojorojo (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I'll ask them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Follow up. I got permission from them to use a photo whose photographer is unknown. I'm working on uploading it to Wikipedia and figuring out the copyright issue because I was told that they cannot claim copyright nor deny me permission to upload it as they specifically don't own it.BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC) You can't upload images with an unknown copyright so I'm going to work on obtaining a copyright use for image with the photographer known. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo I've been talking to the estate management office of Barrett and I received the ok to use an image of Barrett from 1967 however I'm not sure if I want to use it. All I was offered was pictures of Barrett when he was still with Pink Floyd and this page is about his solo songs. Also, I don't have all the information needed to upload it so I don't think I'm going to bother. Is a picture of him really needed for this page? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Update. The only image of Barrett I've found on Wikimedia that's not fair use is this one, although it's not an actual image, it's a drawing of him that's actually pretty accurate. Although I don't think it's good to use a drawing of someone for an official page like this. What do you think? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've done a good job exploring all the possibilities, but I don't think the drawing or a PF-era photo is optimal. Again, without a good image of him, including the other photos seems unnecessary (PF members & Joyce seems incongruous). It's not a deal breaker, but I'd like to see what others think. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The images don't seem to concern other editors, so your approach is OK. The article needs a source/ref review – I'll try to do it in the next few days. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Structure & Style – No problems here. You have the formatting, etc., down from a previous FLC, although the period at the end of "Name of song, producer(s),..." is not needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive – Double checked with AllMusic and all his solo songs are included (the split of "Waving My Arms in the Air"/"I Never Lied to You" is noted). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Pink Floyd HyperBase is a personal website. Crawfurd lists his sources, but seems to add some of his own commentary. He also includes some complete song lyrics, which may be a copyvio. Is he included as a source in any books about Barrett or otherwise seen as an authority? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've seen. I could find a link that possibly shows some of Barrett's unreleased songs. Update: I replaced that ref with a CoS ref that talks about unreleased songs being released on Early Years
Sydbarrett.net appears to be user generated and Jones and other source info is not in the linked page. Is there a better link or source for this? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this is a PDF of Malcolm Jones book The Making of The Madcap Laughs posted to sydbarrett.net. I can try to find the actual book with actual page numbers I just thought this would be easier as the whole thing is right there. It's also spoken in first person.
The cite:web format for AllMusic should be consistent. One includes "Octopus - Syd Barrett : Listen, Appearances, Song Review", but something like "Syd Barrett: Octopus – Review" should be sufficient. Generally, en dashes should be used instead of hyphens. Also link the first appearance of the author's name (the other refs should also have authorlinks). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Authors with WP articles should be linked: Thompson, Gilmore, Fricke, Chapman, Tolinski, Schaffner, et al. It adds to credibility. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Stranger page includes a link to "Rhamadan", which has been removed (probably copyvio). This ref doesn't look like it's needed and should be removed —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Watkinson, Mike; Pete Anderson. Crazy Diamond: Syd Barrett & the Dawn of Pink Floyd." – This should also use cite:book, unless there is a reason not to. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to use the image that is present in his biography (although I appreciate that it is non-free).
It's under fair use so it can only be used for that article only. Currently working on obtaining copyright permission.
"English musician Syd Barrett" - since this is a British subject, the article should really be written in British English. This opening line is the AmEng way of introducing a person. Using the definite article is certainly British English and should be used here and from herein.
Fixed
"writing the majority of the material on their first album" - debut should be more preferable although it's nitpick-y.
Fixed
"excluded from Pink Floyd in April 1968. After Pink Floyd" - repetition of Pink Floyd in close proximity. Can't we just replace "after Pink Floyd" simply with "Later"?
Changed to "After his departure"
Also I am not impressed with the way the aforementioned sentence is currently (especially using after and before in the same sentence): "After Pink Floyd, Barrett recorded two solo albums, both released in 1970, before Barrett left the music business in 1972".
"before Barrett" → "until he"; let me know if this should be changed as well.
"After leaving Pink Floyd" - why do we need to repeat this?
Removed.
"Released in January 1970, the album garnered positive reviews from critics[3]" - I am not a fan of the ref's placement here. Can't we just shift it to the end of sentence? It's not a quote that we should place it right after where it ends.
Fixed
It might be worth mentioning the year he died or sticking (1946-2006) at the beginning of the article.
Fixed. Could've sore I put the year he died in it.
an EP containing recordings Barrett performed for the John Peel Top Gear show on 24 February 1970, contained the unreleased song "Two of a Kind" - contain ... contain
Fixed
The next greatest hits album - wiki-link greatest hits
Fixed
they were going to be - not a fan of going to here, perhaps meant to or supposed to?
Fixed
It might help using {{Abbr}} for Ref in the table.
Thanks for taking care of these. In the future, note that (per FLC) "nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors". I will add my final judgement of the article in due course, but I am interested to know the other reviewer's opinion. FrB.TG (talk) 14:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a good idea to put birth/death years in intro sentence for temporal context.
" many songs during his short career. " too vague, unencyclopedic.
Changed to "short two-year solo career"
" their second one," no need for "one"
"Due to increasing mental illness, guitarist David Gilmour was hired as a possible replacement for Barrett." maybe "As a result of Barrett's increasing mental illness, ... as his possible replacement."
Lots of references needed, e.g. claims like "When his condition worsened, he was officially excluded from Pink Floyd in April 1968. After his departure, Barrett recorded two solo albums, both released in 1970, until he left the music business in 1972." need serious reliable sourcing.
" David Gilmour and Roger Waters and Barrett " comma after Waters.
" album garnered positive " "garnered" isn't really BritEng, so perhaps "received" will do.
" and enjoyed minimal " sounds odd to say "and .. minimal" perhaps "and enjoyed moderate"?
"second and final album" solo.
" the sessions were difficult like his first album but was recorded..." badly phrased, needs rewording.
Removed "were difficult like his first album". Felt it was unneeded.
"were paired and released on Syd Barrett " on or as? – as
"died at his home in Cambridge, England in" comma after England.
" The first of these, The Peel Session, an EP contain recordings Barrett performed for the John Peel Top Gear show on 24 February 1970, contain the unreleased" grammar fail.
" they were meant to be released earlier but was blocked by Pink Floyd" reads very odd to me. "were ... was..."
Changed both to were
Avoid shouting in refs, e.g. ref 4.
Some of your online refs have accessdates, some don't, be consistent.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I genuinely loved doing this list. A fascinating early history and some amazing individuals throughout. I gave it the TRM treatment, so MOS compliance should be there, lots of good refs, and some images for good measure. Thanks in advance to any of you interested enough to comment, much appreciated. I know I have a handful of other FLCs but they have at least three supports each, so "it's all okay"! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't like the amount of red links. However, I know that red links can be good in some cases so make sure they satisfy WP:REDLINK or I'd remove them.
Thanks but the sentence " Segrave's wife had the trophy commissioned following his death after breaking the water speed record on Lake Windermere." could now be read as meaning his wife (her name would be nice) broke the record.— Rodtalk21:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The citation includes (pictured) for a couple where a pic of the plane is used but not in the Nigel Mansell ones where a car is shown - it might be better to include a portrait of him (eg File:Nigel Mansell - Mexican Grand Prix 01.JPG).
I agree. The point I was trying to get across was that this was Mansell in his Indy car, rather than his F1 car. Have added a pictured comment, is it enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rodw, I've addressed most of your initial concerns, I will need to re-read the MOS on links within quotes (I take your point wholeheartedly), and I'd like your opinion on the Mansell update. Plus, any further comments gratefully received. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work on the list TRM! I've checked high and low on the prose, the deadlinks checker, and categories this article is pretty much flawless. I do have one question regarding this sentence: "A subsidiary award, the Segrave Medal, may also be given." The sentence is not clear on what the medal is given for. Is it an assistance award or an award to the designer of the vehicles? Erick (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude:, brilliant. I've done a quick search on this and it's already revealed that I'm missing some information and winners, so I'll do a thorough trawl, update the prose relating to the substance of the medal, add entries where relevant, and then get back to you. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"when she was cited for flight from London to Cape Town" - for her flight
Wikilink the following: Wolfgang Ullrich, Tom Kristensen and Loïc Duval.
With regards to the picture of Jackie Stewart, there is a cropped version which shows only him: [12]
"(pictured in the Williams F1 in Canada in 1998)." - that picture of Mansell's Williams F1 car is from 1988 not 1998.
"First Briton to win the Tourist Trophy," - the tourist trophy should be linked to the RAC Tourist Trophy sports car race and not the Isle of Man TT since McNish never competed in a professional motor cycle race during his career.
"The Segrave Trophy is awarded to the British national..." - is confusing as 2 Aussies and 2 Kiwis in list, needs a note somewhere? RAC's main trophy page ie ref 1, doesn't mention 'British'. I see in article history it had British citizen then subject then national. Ref 3, ie trophy history, says Lady Segrave's wish was to "...celebrate and encourage British nationals".
Certainly a number of RS state that it's British nationals, and in the early days, those Aussies and Kiwis were at least British "subjects" so that's why they were eligible. I'll dig around for some more notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"...in the short-lived World Rally Championship Ladies Cup.[4] The award has been presented ..." - perhaps use 'Segrave Trophy' instead of 'The award' as the last award mentioned was the Ladies Cup.
JennyOz ok, coolio, thanks. Just the "British national" thing to resolve from that list I think? Look forward to your table comments. Cheers, as always, for your generous support of my efforts with your diligent reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jenny, I found what I was looking for with relation to the Aus/British national piece: have a look at Charles Kingsford Smith where he's introduced as an Australian but the infobox calls him a British subject. I have plenty of sources to back up the requirement for being a British national to receive the Segrave Trophy but my understanding of the complexities of citizenship laws from the 1930s around the United Kingdom and its glorious Empire is limited. Do you have a suggestion for the way ahead? I could always ditch the nationality column but I actually thought it interesting that the early winners weren't actually from this green and pleasant land.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No fear! Don't even think about removing the Nationality column:) Yep, I understand re "subjects" until 1940s (both Aust and NZ). I'd actually looked at Smithy's article to check if there was mention of the Trophy. There could be more but I don't remember ever seeing another Aust bio with "British subject" in its infobox for nationality/citizenship. I see an IP added it on 3 Aug 2011. (Maybe later I'll ask at our noticeboard re Kingsford Smith but not important for here.)
What I couldn't understand was Bruce McLaren receiving Segrave in 1969. But now I see, after reading fuller citation here which includes "...and thus upholding British prestige before the world." and per Can-Am link, it's the team that's British even though drivers rightly recognised as New Zealanders.
My suggestion would be a simple note below table something along the lines of: "At the time of winning, the Australians Kingsford Smith and Hinkler, and New Zealander Batten, were also considered British subjects. New Zealander McLaren's award was after NZ's Citizenship Act of 1948 but he was recognised as his McLaren Team was British-based."? JennyOz (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talking of Bruce McLaren, his ref (30 stuff.co.nz) says that McLaren's fellow Kiwis, his chief mechanic Cary Taylor and Denny Hulme, were both given the Segrave medal alongside Bruce's trophy 1969. See text above and below the photo of... the medal. RAC have missed adding it to their site.
Hi again, all above is great thanks. Not sure you're going to be 'delighted' now though:) It's taken a bit longer than i anticipated to finish looking at the table as i kept coming up against conflicts of info - not your doing but errors in refs and, as we saw for 1969 medals, the RAC site itself has info missing. I just hope you can understand my notes.
Table
1930 Smith - ref 7 aust dict biography doesn't mention trophy, need to use a separate one here this should do. (You know where to grab the already formatted WP cite from Trove pages? Click on the circle i (information) icon at top left of left hand pane then scroll to bottom.)
1936 Batten - ref 16 has same url as Eyston (ref 15), should be /1136708
1949 and 1950 - this confirms not awarded (just in case wondering if RAC has right.)
1968 Wallis - his obit ref 30 incorrectly says 1969 (is correct for 1985). use the rac past winners here?
1978 Cunningham - his ref also mentions year of presentation instead of award
1990 - red link cap L on ladies
2013 Surtees - should be 2012. The motorsportmag ref is March 2013 but seems that was written a week after the actual presentation (not year on actual award). RAC has Surtees at 2012 and here and here have 2012 too.
2014 McNish - should be 2013. The motorsportmag ref is June 14 but talks of 2013 his last year, and his article supports the 3 wins in 2013. And this.
2014 re Medal - should be 2013. The ref 8 media release is dated April 2014 so, like in most previous years, it is announced/presented in first half of year for the previous year's trophy? There's [13] this and this shows McNish with the trophy and his non-Brits with their medals. That one is dated April 2014 so presentation for 2013. (I don't know if these are RS or not.)
RAC past winners is therefore incorrect by missing 2013s altogether?
I think not awarded 2014. McGuinness 2015 is correct (announced March 2016). Not awarded 2016.
Some poss photos I came across while checking dates. Use or ignore, no problem.
JennyOz, thanks again! I have no problem at all with you providing these comments, there's little point in us claiming that this list could be featured standard if it's simply not, so thanks for you diligence and patience. I have a few things to attend to but will hopefully address these before I go to bed (we've just had a dumpload of snow and, as you expect from the Brits, we can't handle it, so making arrangements for work, kids etc!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz I think I've done the majority there. The images I'd be delighted to upload but what licensing arrangement would they have, is there a PD-AUS kind of thing? If you could help me with that I'd be happy to try to upload them suitably. I guess one thing you'd question would be formatting of Trove refs, since I started using those you recommended, so they're not actually internally consistent any longer. I'll go back and resolve those now, just in case. Seems a shame that Trove won't get a link there... Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Was just about to suggest that licence. I have no experience with images but saw some similar time period, taken from Trove, over in commons using that. Fantastic. Finally checked the citations column today. Here are my last comments...
1903 Smithy's citation - move full stop inside the quote marks
1934 Waller - Speeds all converted, how about km distance at "For his 4,000-mile flight..."
1937 Clouston - "For his flight with[Betty Kirby-Green in..." swap bracket for a space
Wonderful work. Another polished trophy for the cabinet! Hope you're coping with the snow. It's a lovely summer over here, perfect for playing cric... (whoops, sorry I forgot), perfect for barbecues. Very happy to sign support. JennyOz (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Will get here shortly; I've been MIA for a few weeks so I'm going to try to do a bug sweep of source reviews today, starting from the bottom of the FLC list. --PresN15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I had nominated this list over a year ago, but it had to be closed due to lack of comments. Now it's all new and updated, and hopefully gets more attention. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The film and stages tables' ref column are titled "Ref(s)" even though these 2 tables only have 1 ref per film. Simply title it "Ref." and leave the television one as is.
"and she made her film debut as the love interest of the teenage lead" — name of the teenage lead or is it the dog? Do specify.
"a drama about star-crossed gay lovers, which became a critical and commercial success, and gained Williams a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress." — Maybe rephrase it as "a drama about star-crossed gay lovers, which became a critical and commercial success; Williams a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress."
"At the same ceremony, three other music videos by the director were also nominated," - if the nominations were not for him, I wouldn't mention it here.
They are considered to be two of the most expensive music videos ever made - I would cut the consider part. They either are the most expensive music videos or not.
I did not suggest removing this sentence. I suggested adding the nomination/s (if any) for Romanek himself at the ceremony. FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed - made a small formatting tweak ("format=" is specifically for website formats, and gives an error if you don't have a "url="), but good other than that. Promoting. --PresN16:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
If you look closely in the location column, the references are right next to the "SKs, etc." and some have a space between. Choose one or the other for consistency.
Another nice list and comments from previous FLC nominations have been taken into account. Just a couple of minor questions:
In the description of Clipsham Old Quarry and Pickworth Great Wood we have "Bajocian Middle and Upper Jurassic". I would have said " Middle Bajocian and Upper Jurassic"
Upper is an error and I have deleted it.
In Eye Brook Reservoir would it be worth wikilinking wigeon, teal, mallard and pochard?
I suppose I'm thinking "user generated" for Anglicans online - but I could be wrong. Something like the London Gazette or a county council publication would be ideal.— Rodtalk17:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is published by the Society of Archbishop Justus, so maybe I should have shown it as the publisher and Anglicans online as the website. Would that be better? I could not find an official source, a common problem as official sources often do not bother to spell out 'obvious' basic details. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we provide a ref for Seaton Meadows being designated "Plantlife" (is this a designation or is this who owns/manages it - might be better in description).
Feels like the lead is a little light, you could include some additional factoids about Rutland, it's landlocked, it's the smallest "historic county" etc?
Added some details, but it is surprisingly difficult to find RSs for basic facts. Two I found had "source Wikipedia"! I have not added smallest historic county, as the cities of London and the Bristol are both smaller counties. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"there are 19 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs)" you've already linked and abbreviated this a few sentences earlier...
"invertebrates include one Red Data Book and five nationally scarce species" odd phrasing, I know what you mean but the Red Data Book is not a type of invertebrate...
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved accessibility comments
Well, nominations by someone who only started editing the article the same day generally don't go so well, but I like the idea of this list, so: I'm not going to do an in-depth review yet, but just skimming I'm seeing a lot of ending sentences and paragraphs that don't have citations. That... needs to get fixed if this has a chance. Additionally, those charts in the "Launch statistics" section sure are pretty but I have a very low percentage belief that they meet WP:ACCESS at all, both in terms of "can a screen reader parse these graphs" and the first one being just shades of blue. Actually, there's a lot of ACCESS work to do- pulled up the tables in the section after that and there's no scopes being applied; the formatting of the whole thing is also just a bit... off, in addition to the seemingly random font size changes in the text. None of the tables are sortable seemingly only so that you can have pseudo-headings within the table, which I'm not buying, and I'm going to stop there.
The above issues are totally fixable: don't get discouraged if you're willing. But... there's a reason it's not usually a good idea to find a list, do a copyedit and nominate it- standards are fairly high and consistent- if you're not really, really into the list, a driveby editor usually isn't prepared to make it actually meet them. Please prove me wrong here! --PresN04:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all relevant statements should be backed by the existing citations, so this is probably a matter of including them in more places. The introduction doesn't have citations as it is only a summary of the sections later.
I don't know if screen readers can parse the graphs, but what is the alternative? Not including them just because a small fraction of readers cannot use them?
Sorting the table would be interesting for the orbit and launch site I guess, maybe for the mission result as well. Would be nice, but without the year headers the list gets very long and hard to navigate, and the list will only get longer.
By the way: By edit count and excluding the 7 recent edits, Insertcleverphrasehere is in the top 15 editors with the first edit in 2015.
(edit conflict)Admittedly, most of my interest in the page has been pretty stealth in the sense that I am nowhere near the most active editor to the page. However, it has been on my watchlist for quite some time and I have been following all the edits and additions to it for several months now. Users such as JFG, C-randles, N2e, and mfb, among others, are the core editors adding content to the list as launches occur. But I am very interested in the subject and keen to help the article improve.
I will have a look at the prose sections of the article, most of the sentences lacking citations should be relatively trivial to reference, even with sources already existing in the article currently (as MfB notes above). As for the colours in the graphs, they were discussed in detail here and decided that shades of blue for the falcon 9 variants (as they are variants of the same rocket design) and another colour for the falcon heavy variants was the best plan (The FH is currently slated to be olive __). I've also had a look at the graphs in a colour blindness simulator to check and make sure that colour blind people won't find them confusing Colourblind simulated image of the graphs at List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches made with Coblis simulator.. Still, I am open to suggestions to improve the ACCESS of these graphs if necessary.
I'm not sure what you mean about 'scopes not being applied', if you could clarify I will work on addressing the issue. I didn't ever notice that the tables aren't sortable, as I don't see much need to sort them by anything other than chronological order. Potentially being able to sort them by Mission/Landing Success/Failure might be useful but I don't see why someone would want to. I'll ask on the talk page whether there is a consensus to remove the small font size in the tables.
@PresN. I have worked on citing the prose sections to make certain that the citations are more complete (mfb also added some). I added a couple citations to the lede where these statements were not directly covered by cited material later in the article. I also changed a couple colours in the fourth graph to make the colour differentiation a bit better on that one than it was previously. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)07:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With Coblis, the upper left graph is actually the best one, because it relies on brightness and not on color. We can check that again with block 4 which will probably be added tomorrow. Flights by landing outcome are difficult with red-blindness and green-blindness (ground pad success=drone ship failure). --mfb (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the main focus was on making sure that it worked for people that have Anomalous trichromacy (6% of males). It is pretty difficult to make graphs with this many variables work for people who have Dichromacy (still 2% of males) without using symbols in the graphs (that's why the graph with the most variables works the worst). — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)07:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@mfb I did a ton of trial and error and managed to find a solution to the fourth graph that looks reasonably good in native colour but it also fairly easy to differentiate even with Dichromacy (making the green for ground pad success darker). I checked block 4 changes, and there is no issue with the colour blind results, however, the graphs are going above 10 results for a given year for the first time, so all the graphs are going to need a bit of tweaking (raised height) so as not to look squished. This is a separate issue however, and I'll sort it out tomorrow if someone else doesn't first. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)07:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear this isn't a drive-by, and it certainly appears that you're committed to the list, which is what I was "subtly" probing for. As to scopes- see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics. The main points are that tables should have '! scope="col"' in the column header lines, and '! scope="row"' marking the lead cell of each row. As to the charts, it seems like you're putting a lot of thought into them; lacking a WP:ACCESS batman-signal I'll just ping RexxS to see if there are are concerns about the charts themselves re: screen readers, in addition to the work you've put in re: colorblindness. --PresN02:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Greetings from Wikimania 2017) To answer the question in brief, I wouldn't have concerns about those charts. As far as I can tell, the most a screen reader is likely to do with them is possibly read out the title for each block, which would be fine – the titles are sensible and informative, so they would not cause annoyance. The reason why we insist on accessibility of our content is to try, as far as possible, to make sure that disadvantaged readers can get the same information as everyone else. For example, those using screen readers can't see information presented graphically, so if that is the only place we offer that information, they lose out. That's really not fair, even if they are only a small proportion of our readership. The simplest solution is to ensure that we also present the same information textually (i.e. redundantly). In this case, I'm reasonably certain that someone can get most, if not all, of the information about the launches from the text and tables. Someone more familiar with the topic could check that for certainty, and add any omissions to the text.
If InsertCleverPhraseHere is unsure of the advice in WP:DTT, let me know and I'll help out when I get home on Tuesday. Structurally, the table in Past launches is acceptable, even with the year breaking it into sub-tables, as long as the headings are repeated (and column scoped). One thing that does need to be fixed, however, is the that the initial set of column headings should follow the "2010 to 2013" level 3 header – just as happens for all of the other sections (years) of that table. I'd recommend that the same scheme is used for the table in Future launches. Sorry if that was a bit lengthy; hope it helps anyway. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much both of you for the info about DTT. I will carefully read through it and then spend some time fixing the issues you have flagged above. If I need any help I will ask and ping one or both of you. Thanks again and have fun at Wikimania. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)05:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS OK. I have sorted out the column scoping (I think). Also the issue with the "2010 to 2013" header was fixed. PresN said that we should do row scoping as well, but I'm not sure how so do this (or if it is even possible or advisable) given the use of rowspan and colspan with the mission description box (the lower box for each entry). I think I might just add a summary to each table indicating that a short mission description is given for each entry (a screen reader should read out the description after all the other stuff in the entry anyway, so it shouldn't be a big deal). Still not sure about sortable tables, some kinks to work out that we are discussing on the talk page. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)06:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Adding the column scopes helps ensure that many screen readers can have the column header read out when navigating around the table. It allows them to move around up, down, left, right, rather than being stuck with reading out just from left-to-right, top-to-bottom. When navigating around the table, they can choose to hear the column and row headers for each cell – something like "3; Payload; Dragon demo flight C2+" instead of just hearing "Dragon demo flight C2+", so it helps orientate their position in the table. It would help if you added the scope="row" to each of the row headers (preferably a unique value like the Fight Number). #2010_to_2013 This is what the 2010 to 2013 section looks like with scoped row headers; and this is what it would look like with the "plainrowheaders" style applied to turn off the bold and centring (just the background colour changes to show it is a header). I don't think it's essential in this case, because the Flight Number isn't a particularly good index, but it's better than nothing. However, adding the row headers and scopes can improve the experience somewhat for some screen readers, so it's probably worthwhile. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --PresN20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We had multiple discussions about which rockets to include. F1+F9+FH together, all three separate, or the way it is now? We concluded that the current way is the most reasonable. F1 is a completely different rocket, while F9 and FH share most of their hardware. I don't know if mentioning historic names helps in the article. --mfb (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed adding the falcon 1 and concluded that it wasn't appropriate. I will try to work into the lede that the falcon heavy is essentially a falcon 9 with two extra falcon 9 first stages as extra side boosters. As a pertinent example, the upcoming falcon heavy flight scheduled in a couple months uses two previously flown falcon 9 first stages as side boosters. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)13:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN, I have modified the bit on the Falcon Heavy in the lede to make it clear to readers that the Falcon Heavy central rocket core is just a strengthened Falcon 9 (using similar wording to that used in the Falcon Heavy lede). This should address this issue satisfactorily without needing historical names. As an additional note, we have decided against making a sortable table for the list of launches (see talk page). The use of small text in the table has been culled slightly so far, and is still being discussed for the landing column. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks. Also, note that, uh, everything that is covered by note B needs to get sourced or dropped. --PresN01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresNWe also decided on a change to the formatting of the 'Landing outcome' column which still uses small text, but makes the use of the small text more appropriate and less 'random'. So that is done as well. Never mind, still some discussion to be had. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN We are now pretty much done with the 'landing outcome' column as well, though the consensus on what style to pick took a while only minor changes from the current version are likely (or none at all). Is there anything else that is a concern? — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)09:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: FLCs require substantive reviews ending in supports from multiple editors before they can be promoted, I'm afraid (and a source review). Since I've been pretty involved in this one, I'll give it a full review soon. --PresN01:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JFG I wasn't aware that I was holding up the review. I thought that I was simply answering a question asked. If you want to know whether I think all accessibilty concerns have been met, I believe they have to the best of one's ability. I mean, it's never going to be perfect, but Insertcleverphrasehere has done a lot to improve the accessibility, and I certainly wouldn't suggest it should not be promoted on that score. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are waiting on other reviewers to step forward. FLC is a bit backlogged at the moment, and although this article is in the 'older nominations' section, it is not even close to the bottom yet. The WIKI cup is on at the moment, so I suspect that might have something to do with the increased backlog. I also suspect that most reviewers are a bit reluctant to do a full source review on this article, as I am pretty sure that this one is one of the longer articles at FLC at the moment. It will come, but I suspect we will have to wait till it falls to the bottom of the list. Thats ok, there's no WP:DEADLINE. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)21:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.
We don't start featured lists with "This is a list of..."
I would move the image up to the start of the article.
Consider collapsing the TOC down to just level one headings, All that whitespace is distracting.
"and there have been a total of 41 launches" needs time-framing, i.e. As of September 2017...
"39 missions were ..." don't start sentences with a number.
occurred on June 4, 2010 and" took place, and comma after 2010.
Lots of short, sometimes single-sentence paragraphs, looks untidy.
Convert units consistently throughout (e.g. you have "9 meters" without a conversion).
"October 7, 2012 at 8:35 PM EST. " comma after 2012 and see MOS:TIME for format of the time.
"within 4 days after" within four days of
"the 8th time" eighth.
Use full years, not '12, '13 etc.
"cubesat" should be "CubeSat".
Why empty cells for some of the "payload mass" entries?
Not convinced those flag icons are of use, particularly without the name of the country.
Inline referencing appears to be very sporadic, e.g. why are "September 21, 2014, 05:52[53]" and "2,216 kg (4,885 lb)[85]" singled out for inline refs whereas those same entries aren't cited in the lines above ?
Be consistent with date formats in the references.
Moving the image up would create even more whitespace. We could add another image there, however. Added another image now. --mfb (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the direct navigation to individual years is very useful, especially with the current (and increasing) length of the table.
Added time (with date as the launch rate exceeds 1/month).
39: Rephrased.
Used "took place". It is a separate sentence now.
I don't see a nice way to reduce the number of short paragraphs without merging separate topics or adding less important information (to make the paragraph longer), but let's see what others say.
Converted 9 m, 780 km and 6457 kg, I hope I got all. A few missions split up the payload into separate pieces in the text, adding conversions for every piece would make the description very cluttered.
Added comma after 2012 and converted the time to 24 hour time, consistent with the rest of the article.
4->four done
8th->eighth done
Full years: Fits for now, changed.
cubesat->CubeSat done.
The first two missions were demonstration missions, they didn't have a payload in the conventional sense (apart from a few kilograms of secondary satellites). For Dragon missions we quote the payload in the Dragon capsule, but these missions tested the capsule. Found a reference for the payload of the third mission and added it.
Flags: I'll leave that to others.
References: The references differ in their coverage, so different launches have different combinations of references. If a reference covers the whole table entry we don't repeat it in every column.
Found 7 deviating date formats and changed them to "Month day, yyyy".
There's no hover on a tablet or phone, and clicking away from an article merely to get a name is just what we don't want readers to have to do. Add to that, our articles are not infrequently printed out and paper doesn't allow hover or click, which is why we shouldn't rely on links to explain acronyms or icons. Our best work ought to be cognisant of all of the different audiences. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Flags are usually well-understood without country names. If a reader is curious about an obscure country flag, they would click or tap. Flags were inserted in this table to highlight the geographic diversity of SpaceX customers, an unusual feature in the space industry. Adding explicit country names would look overly redundant. — JFGtalk20:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support adding the country names, as this puts undue emphasis on a relatively trivial feature. The flags are not essential, but they are nice to have. The fact that they have poor accessibility via page readers and mobile users is not really an issue, as they are not essential for the understanding of the content of the page. As it is they are low enough impact to justify their inclusion as a nice looking but non-essential feature. — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)20:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's the reasoning that is used to justify every example of a failure to meet WCAG 1.1. There's no excuse for failing to provide information to any group who can't access the info, when that information could be presented as text. The country names could easily be accessible to everybody, and highlighting the geographic diversity of SpaceX customers could be achieved for all users quite simply. Not doing that because icons look prettier than text is not a sustainable argument. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I don't think we will have consensus to include country names as text, due to the undue emphasis on a trivial detail (we would probably need a separate column, or it would be awkwardly tacked into the existing customer column). The flags only marginally got consensus to be included in the first place, and that was only because they were low-impact visually. For page readers, I suppose I could edit in a note that will read out the country name without displaying anything else visually (a hidden comment). If this is a failable criteria due to mobile alone, then I suggest removing the flags altogether instead. This seems a little nonsensical though, as surely a minor benefit to most users is better than nothing for anybody. IAR anybody? — InsertCleverPhraseHere(or here)21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sympathetic to the problems of generating consensus to improve accessibility, which is why I rarely push the issue, and I don't blame you. If it's any help, there's no need to add any hidden text; the flag icons already have alt text set to the country name, so that screen readers hear the name. Unusually, the disadvantaged group in this case is those who print out articles, who get less information than blind visitors. (Honestly though, did you recognise the flag of Thailand or Luxembourg? Imagine that printed out in black and white!). Anyway, TRM's point is valid: I'm not convinced either, but I don't think it's a big deal as long as you're aware of what the effect actually is, and you've done your best. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until somebody squints over Monaco, Singapore, Indonesia and Poland. Seriously, it's good that screen readers are taken care of, and who prints the 'pedia anyway? I agree with Clever Phrase that offering "a minor benefit to most users is better than nothing for anybody." — JFGtalk22:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "a minor benefit to most users is better than nothing for anybody" as well. Someone who prints the page doesn't have all the Wikilinks either, and the page stops updating if you print it. --mfb (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of the launches are made by national entities. In my view, the national flags of nation-state governments should only be used to represent government customers. They should not reflect the "Customer" or the many payloads who are launched by private companies. Private companies are not creatures of the nation-state they reside in, except in a few countries.
Now if we did not try to munge the entire row into some sort of national flag symbol, the flag icon might make sense if we had a column for "Country that issued the launch license", as that would always be a nation state. But using the national flag of a country for some private payload doesn't really make sense; we ought to reserve flags for government payloads, and not use them for private payloads.
Or just get rid of the flag icons completely, and not put them on any payloads. Cheers. N2e (talk)
Depends what you think is the purpose of the flag. If you think the flag represents national sovereign ownership then it appears wrong to use for a private company. However, if you think it is there to represent geographical distribution of customers then it makes sense to use flag with private company. Is this possible misinterpretation of meaning an issue? I suggest no: if you see Japanese flag with JSat Group or something similar to indicate a private company/group then it is fairly immediately obvious the flag does not represent national sovereign ownership and is just a geographical distribution indicator.
Most people will recognise a few flags but not all of them. Where people don't recognise a flag but immediately next to it the customer says Thaicom or BulgariaSat or Turkmenistan NSA then there is little need to look up the flag. I think this reduces the problem and I agree that some use to some people is better than nothing for anyone. crandles (talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSFLAG says to use the flags only to represent the country or nation. So they work if the payload is a government payload of the country. They simply should not be used to represent private payloads 'cause they happen to have been assembled in some particular country. The list isn't ready to be a Featured list with the overuse, and inappropriate use, of these flag symbols. N2e (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many people disagree with an absolutist interpretation of MOS:FLAG. Spaceflight articles routinely use flags to represent the customer of satellites, see 2017 in spaceflight and friends. I understand your personal objection, but I disagree that flags should only apply to satellites launched by nation-states. — JFGtalk14:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed I have removed the flags. There was not a strong consensus for inclusion at the start, and there is vocal opposition to the idea of flags alone without written country names, as well as opposition to flags for non-governmental entities. Does appear to be in violation of WP:MOSFLAG ("Accompany flags with country names", and MOSFLAG also says "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." There seems to be consensus that flags with country names as well is undue for a trivial aspect and not what we want. With no way to reconcile these issues, the best option seems to be to remove the flags. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here)06:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Insertcleverphrasehere: Reading the discussion above again, I see that most people agree that listing flags is a net positive for most readers, even those using assistive technology. The only opposing argument comes from N2e who contends that flags should only represent national entities. While I understand this position, there are plenty of pages which use flags as a designation of origin, irrespective of government. I would ask N2e if he is amenable to accepting the same logic here as on the 2017 in spaceflight chronicles. And I'm un-hatting the discussion for readability. Will ping all participants on the talk page for a quick survey. — JFGtalk07:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For this to reach FL, we'll need to see some reviewers supporting the list's promotion. There's been a good amount of reviewing so far, but no support. We can't simply assume that reviewers who do not declare their support meant to; in this case, it's likely that PresN and TRM were seeking to leave themselves the option of closing the FLC when the time comes (they'd have a conflict if they supported). You may neutrally ask regular FLC reviewers for input if you really want to get things moving; just don't ask anyone to support your list, as that would cross the line into full-on canvassing. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actual review by PresN
The lead is a bit choppy. I'd move the second sentence ("The versions of the rocket are...") to the start of the last paragraph, and then combine the remainder of the 1st paragraph with the 2nd paragraph. Also, start that moved sentence as "The rockets in the Falcon 9 family are..." instead.
"The rocket experienced "a little bit of roll at liftoff" as Ken Bowersox from SpaceX put it." -> "Ken Bowersox, Vice President of SpaceX, described the launch as having "a little bit of roll at liftoff"."
Additionally, you should describe what "roll" is in this context, as you mention it several times in this paragraph
"a single Dragon C2+ mission,[14] on condition that all Demo 2 milestones" - on the condition
It might be helpful if you mention what launch # the "notable" missions are; you mention the 1st and 2nd, but stop afterward.
There's some spots in the launch table that are missing citations, namely:
end of launch 23
end of launch 25
end of launch 26 (also, every time you link the flight 26 article you mis-capitalize the F in flight)
I like the "(more details above)" in launch 19; that should be present on the other "special" launches
"when firm planning dates are in place, and reliably sourced" - reliably sourced is an internal WP thing, and should not be in prose- move it to a hidden comment if the point is to deter randos from adding details without a source
"(every two months)" - I get what you mean by these tags, but I don't think there's much reason to call this out when you already list the launch months anyway
There's a "[needs update]" tag in April 2018
"Q2, 2018", etc. - no comma on the quarters, you treat them like you do months
Not doing a source review yet, but take a glance through yourself; off-hand I noticed that ref 167 is missing the publication date, 170 has the url spacelaunchreport.com as the work, rather than the actual site name (Space Launch Report), and 171 italicized NASA as a work instead of a publisher That was just a 10 second skim of a chunk in the middle; there's likely many more inconsistencies (especially with 300+ references!)
took care of the citations for the mentioned flights. Capital F seems to be preferred for "Flight xx", I used that everywhere for displayed text now.
Added "more details above" to more flights. I left out the flights mentioned in "First landings on drone ship" and "First launch and landing of a reused first stage" as these sections are about the boosters not about the primary missions, and "loss of Amos 6" because the linked main article is the better reference here. If someone prefers having these links, feel free to add them.
removed "and reliably sourced"
Every two months means launch delays will shift everything, but as we keep the list updated anyway... removed it.
[needs update]: The in-flight abort test schedule is a bit awkward. Originally the first uncrewed orbital test was planned for February and the abort test (with the same capsule) for two months later - April. Now the orbital test moved to April, therefore the abort test will move as well - but there is no source quoting an actual month, and "probably around June" doesn't fit well in any quarter either. I changed the date to 2018 and sorted it under June as most likely launch order.
removed commas from quarters.
Fixed the three references you mentioned for now, with 319 321 that will need more work. Reference 170 had the parameter "website", used "work" now.
Support - lets get you an actual support here instead of just comments. Source review is typically the last thing done before a nomination is promoted, so I'll hold off until we get a couple more supports. --PresN15:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it's worth anything, I'm happy to add my support, as the nominator has met all of the concerns I raised about accessibility and MOS:FLAG. I agree that a source review would be helpful – an immediate glance at ref #2, for example, shows that it's giving the publisher as "Space.com" (which is the website name), whereas I think the publisher is probably Purch. I won't quibble if I'm wrong about that, but I think |website=Space.com would still be better. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting the nomination! The references use a mixture of work=, publisher= and sometimes others (and sometimes none of them). I don't know what is preferable, I left that as it is for now and hope that someone else looks into this. Meanwhile I took care of dates: consistent format of Month dd, yyyy, checked sources without accessdate and added it (Twitter and Youtube sometimes don't have it but their links should be extremely stable), added date where applicable. --mfb (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Interesting list. Here are several comments from my read-through, which I enjoyed:
COTS demo missions: "included two more test flights Demo 2 and Demo 3". Feels like this sentence needs some more punctuation before the Demos. It feels long without the punctuation.
CRS-1: The abbreviation ISS could be spelled out for the benefit of readers, with the abbreviated form in parenthesis afterward.
Loss of CRS-7 mission: Once the above comment is resolved, the full ISS link here can be removed, and the abbreviation can be used.
Not doing a full source review since PresN has indicated he's got it covered, but I did notice that RT News was used in ref 39. As that source has been questioned numerous times at RSN and elsewhere, I'd like to see something more reliable in an article at FLC. Because that cite covers the Amos-6 explosion, I'd imagine that this is doable. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – One of the comments was still outstanding, but I decided to clean that bit up myself to move the process along. I didn't look at the sources much, but the rest of the list appears in fine shape to me. Assuming PresN signs off on the sourcing, this can be considered a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically just wait for someone to get to it; it's usually pretty fast but I do most of them and I've been busy for a few weeks. Given that you knew there were a lot of problems with the formatting, though, I'm a little annoyed that they've been left alone. Here we go!
Good news first: I'm not seeing a lot of unreliable sources besides Gunter's Space Page, and spotchecks didn't show any problems. Can you explain how Gunter's Space Page is an RS?
Bad news: the formatting here is all over the place. The main rule of formatting references is less to follow a standard and more to be consistent. Which this isn't. It's a bit of a mess. I'm going to list out here some general trends that this list is following, and then call out instances where it falls off of that:
This list generally links works in every reference, not just the first. (except when it just doesn't link at all)
This list does not use publishers- it says the website/magazine, but not the publishing company
Except ref 14 has a bunch of extra stuff not found anywhere else
it does mention the platform in refs 7 and 86 as if it was the work
ref 49 has a publisher
This list uses M-D-Y date formatting
You flip the date format in ref 193
This list does not italicize websites that are not also magazines
This is wildly inconsistent. Just making all instances of Space.com and SpaceNews non-italicized would help a lot, but every "website" should be fixed.
On the flip side, you don't italicize the magazine Astronomy Now in ref 32
Other:
For some reason ref 29 has NYT as a magazine?
As mentioned above, use the website name, not its url. Space.com is actually it's name (note the capital S), as is NASASpaceFlight.com (note the capital F), but forum.nasaspaceflight.com (ref 185) is not, floridatoday.com (ref 202) is not, www.spaceflightinsider.com (ref 220) is not, cnbc.com (ref 222) is not, etc. Do a ctrl-F for ".com".
I'm going to take a stab at fixing some of these formatting issues this afternoon, since this has dragged on so long, but I'd like it if y'all did some too. --PresN18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Many thanks for the source review. I have no time to act upon your remarks now, but I can at least vouch for Gunter's Space Page as a reliable source, despite being self-published. Gunter Krebs maintains a very detailed database of spacecraft, rockets and launches, which is considered authoritative by Wikiproject Spaceflight and included in the generic references for spaceflight timelines at Template:TLS-R. — JFGtalk22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, did a bunch of formatting tweaks. One more potential non-RS: to discuss before it's done: "Launch Photography". --PresN22:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a good answer, but Launch Photography is often first reporting changes and then other sites report the same. I believe people use the site's info to make journeys to view and photograph launches, but I am not sure if I can find any RS to indicate this. Maybe I could find some blog comments if this is needed. Also thank you for all the ref fixes, sorry we didn't get to these. crandles (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Looks like I missed a few dates. I searched for ".com|" and ".com ", just two instances left, and in both cases it is part of the name (Spaceflight101.com, Infoespacial.com). I moved more references away from website=, I hope that was right. In one case (National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service) I don't know how to handle that as we have a separate publisher put in. --mfb (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked closer at what you're using Launch Photography to reference. Most of them are referencing the place/time of launch, and I'm willing to give it a pass on that- a timestamped photo is what you're really citing, even if it's on someone's personal website. You're also using it to cite 3 future dates (January 2018) which... they cannot be a reliable source for, because then you're really just citing Cooper's recitation of facts he got somewhere else. You'll need a different source for those 3 cites- I note that spaceflight now has the date for the one I checked, though not the time. --PresN02:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This list has been in the making for a long time. I originally had the list based on the RIAA certifications, but Billboard has come out with an actual bestselling Latin albums in the US of all-time last month (which can be found here and it thoroughly sourced in the list). The article was peer reviewed by A Thousand Doors, who made List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom a FL and is the basis for this article, and Esprit15d who made significant improvements to the article as well. I look forward to your feedback, thanks! Erick (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for your feedback. I believe I have addressed everything you brought up except for the periods at the end of note a, b, and c. The periods were removed per A Thousand Doors's comment on the PR as they are not complete sentences. Erick (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hameltion: Thanks for your review, I believe I have addressed everything you have brought up. Regarding Dreaming of You, the 3.5 million figure is for units shipped while the 2.9 million are the actual sales. As mentioned in the opening of the third paragraph, the RIAA certifications were based units sold to retails, not the consumers. Erick (talk) 13:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Luis Miguel was the first Latin artist to have two albums certified platinum". Rewrite this to "The first Latin artist to have two albums certified platinum was Luis Miguel" so that who was the first Latin artist is the subject of the sentence.
"Me Estoy Enamorando and Vuelve by Alejandro Fernández and Ricky Martin". This almost sounds like Fernández and Martin collaborated together on two albums, so I'd suggest rewriting it to "Me Estoy Enamorando by Alejandro Fernández and Vuelve by Ricky Martin".
Personally, I don't think that the images improve the article, as (on my screen, at least) they squash the eight columns of the table toegether, but if the consensus is to have them then they're not something that I'd oppose over. But, if you are going to have them, WP:CAP states not to have captions longer than three lines where possible, so trim down the one for Shakira.
@A Thousand Doors: Thanks for your review, I believe I've addressed the issues you brought up. For the image of Shakira, I shortened to the best I could, but it still has four lines. Is it fine? Erick (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but the caption is still showing as six lines on my screen. I really don't think it needs to say anymore than, for example, "Colombian singer Shakira has three of the best-selling Latin albums in the US." A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Title is albums, lead sentence is records... be precise.
"recorded in Spanish" I would be explicit and say "in the Spanish language".
"sold more than " vs " sold over" - be consistent, I'd stick with the former.
"music departments at electronics and department stores" repeat of "department" is jarring.
" awarded by the RIAA,[9] who began awarding" ditto for "awarded/awarding".
"Fijación Oral Vol. 1 " is missing a comma.
"was certified 11×" in prose I'd prefer to see "eleven times"...
"highest-certified album" I would think that should be "most-certified"?
I think somewhere you need to state that this list encompasses only the top 25 best-selling albums. Some people might create a similar list based on 500k+ sales or minimum certifications, and I think what I'm seeing here is just the top 25 based on sales alone, right?
Suddenly I'm seeing note [b] which says "Since September 7, 1992[4]", so this is best sales of the top 25 from the last 25 years. This isn't covered in the lead at all.
Certification column doesn't sort correctly.
Note [b] also raises questions over number 25 in the chart, El Hijo del Pueblo which didn't chart at all (apparently) and was release 18 months before the inclusion date specified by the note. It asks questions that should be answered somewhere in the article.
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your review TRM. I believe I have addressed most of the issues you brought up. Regarding the certifications, they are based on the numerical value of the certifications by the RIAA. As for El Hijo del Pueblo, the article where the list comes from does not address this and I've searched through Billboard's archives to see if maybe there's any article about it since its release in '91 and found nothing. I did add in the prose that Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales in the US in '91 which is also the year El Hijo del Pueblo came out, although I understand that doesn't explain why Billboard added it to their list. I can only speculate that those are the sales of the album since September 1992, but that's it. Erick (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: It's working on my end. If you're referring to El Hijo del Pueblo being first, it's because 2x Disco de platino was for 200,000 at the time it was certified (before December 2013 as mentioned at the footnote at the certification key) which is below standard Gold (500,000). Erick (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get that (a note would be handy there too), but I get 6x and 8x Plat between Gold and Plat... ( ... 18, 20, 14, 15, 2, 3 ...) when sorted in ascending order... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The Tree of Life is a 2011 drama film that shows the origins of the universe and life on Earth as well as the meaning of life through the eyes of a middle-aged architect. The film is notable for receiving several awards and nominations for its director, Terrence Malick, as well as its cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and Jessica Chastain's performance. It is my eleventh attempt at an accolades FLC and my second attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
Get rid of the first reference from the opening sentence, looks redundant.
"..who also co-produced it," --> who is also the co-producer.
Palm d'Or --> Palme d'Or
Is the 'see also' section necessary here? If not please get rid of it.
In refs 33, 42 and 76, you have mentioned the publishers name as HitFlix, but its actually Uproxx.
"its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, visual effects, music, and the performances of Pitt and Chastain" - something is not right here. The way I read it at the moment, it reads sth like, "its direction, its screenplay ... and its the performances". Maybe better as "its direction, screenplay ... and music, as well as the performances of Pitt and Chastain"?
"the film received three nominations—Best Picture, Best Director for Malick, and Best Cinematography for Lubezki—winning none" - the "winning none" part is unnecessary.
For the third sentence in the lead’s first paragraph, I think you can start it off by saying “It” rather than the film’s full name. It just seems a little strange to say the full title of the film twice in three sentences when it is not absolutely necessary.
Do you think that you should include Chastain’s character in the plot summary in the first paragraph, especially since you list her as one of the stars and later point out her performance as getting significant attention from award groups?
For this part (its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, visual effects, and music, as well as the performances of Pitt and Chastain), you need another comma after “Chastain”.
Do you think that you should include the director when you reference Fahrenheit 9/11, especially if the Palme d’Or is awarded to the director?
In the Movieguide Awards portion of the table, there is a stray } following Jessica Chastain’s name for the “The Grace Award for Most Inspiring Performance in Movies in 2011” nomination.
Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Next up, the team list. This is a tiny bit different as pertinent images are few and far between so instead of embedding them sporadically within the list, they adopt a rather more tradional "alongside" positioning. As ever, my undying gratitude to anyone prepared to keep the Laureus ball rolling and I'll get to any and all matters as soon as I can. Yes, I have other FLCs but all have at least three supports, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
108-year drought by winning the World Series sharper link to 2016 World Series
Could you flesh out the lead a further by adding rugby union teams have won three awards and Formula One two, the Cubs win 2017 is the first for a team from the USA
I know we didn't add to the previous lists, but I think another column, "Achievement" should be added, to tell our readers why the team won. You have already provided refs which explain why they won.
Images
add refs to all captions
Manchester United won three trophies in the 1998–99 season and won the inaugural Laureus team award in 2000. link 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season
It seems random which refs are archived. I suggest archiving all.
It probably is. Until such a time that someone can point me to a tool which archives all unarchived links in a single article, I'm going to decline the offer. I'm just using the tool on the History page which is called "fix dead links", it can also add archives (where available). If you know of a tool which can do mass archives, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I use the tool at [21], which I think Rodw pointed out to me and works for me, although he says it does not work with Historic England links. (It shows a 'missing token' error message, but you can ignore it.) Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you have space on the right for photos, I would have more and fill the space.
On my screen, there is no available space whatsoever, I based it on a width where all the nominations were on indivdual lines, so try stretching your window until that happens, you should see little or no space below the Cubs image. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I think the ref and year columns should be centered but if you don't want to that's totally fine. I know there's a lot of featured lists without the year and ref columns centered.
disabled athletes from the world of Paralympic sports change to Disabled sports as those athletes who compete in sports not contested at the Paralympic Games are also eligible.
Also just to be absolutely safe, it's worth considering archiving all the remaining citations that don't currently have one to prevent link rot
Sure, but you could say that about any list. Once someone comes up with a bulk archiving tool, that's cool, until then we'll need to do it on a case-by-case basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM and Harrias, here are my first comments/questions.
Infobox, Awarded for - formats differ ie Sportswoman, Sportsman, Team, Breakthrough, Comeback, Sport for Good, and Spirit, all have quotes and ref but Disability, Action, and Lifetime do not.
Prose, First sentence - "Paralympic sports" is piped to Disabled sports. Laureuas talks of "sport in the Paralympic programme" which I presume means a disabled athlete, competing in a sport which would not normally be an event type at summer or winter Paralympics, cannot be eligible to be nominated? If so, why do we pipe to Disabled sports which includes intellectual disabilities eg Special Olympics, Invictus Games and "unified sports" ie teams that include members with and without disabilities. Remove pipe and simply link to Paralympic sports?
"The Laureus World Sports Academy then select the winner" - selects?
"The first winner of the award was the Australian wheelchair racer, Louise Sauvage, who had won three medals, at the 2000 Sydney Paralympics" - not sure if the comma after "medals" is needed
"In 2002, Esther Vergeer, a wheelchair tennis..." insert Dutch?
Esther Vergeer - "... Vergeer won 470 matches in a row, collecting... " - her records were over career til she retired 2013 but this could read as if she'd achieved them before the 2002 award. Maybe insert "over her career" or "who went on to win" or "before retiring in 2013" or similar?
"... Daniel Dias has the most wins, collecting the prize three times,... " - add "with a further three nominations" or similar?
Dias "collecting the prize three times,..." - prize should be award?
"...while Michael Teuber has been nominated..." - add 'German' and 'racing cyclist'?
"...Michael Teuber has been nominated the most without winning, doing so on four occasions." - doing so should be 'being so'?
"The 2004 winner, Earle Connor..." - add Canadian sprinter?
Connor - ref 12 ("Earle Connor (Rescinded)") only says the award was rescinded (not also the nomination) this and this?
"Swimmers have been the most successful at the awards, with 5 wins and 20 nominations," - I'm only seeing 4 and 18
"... followed by athletics with 4 wins and 25 nominations." - I count 6 wins and 26 noms? (or if reduced for Connor, 5 and 25, and, if so, does prose sentence need a note?)
2014 Marie Bochet - photo says it's of Petra Kozickova of Slovakia but maybe mislabelled?
Yes, a Google image search substantiates it's not Petra (who looks like this) and is indeed Marie. I'll confirm with the uploader and suggest the file details are changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Winners' sports
2002 Sauvage, 2005 Petitclerc, 2006 van Dyk - pipe their Athletics to Wheelchair racing?
Alan Fontelles /Fonteles / is listed on Laureus as Alan Oliveira. There was a RM consensus on talk page 2013 that it should be at Oliviera but was moved back Dec 2016. Should this Laureus page at least use Alan Oliveira which is what the ref uses?
Key - swap "Indicates total(s) exclude those of individuals whose award(s) and/or nomination(s) were later rescinded" for the simpler "Indicates totals which exclude rescissions" per Comeback?
Next up from the Laureus World Sports Awards stable, the comeback award. Very similar in nature to those that have already passed or are already enjoying considerable support. As ever, my thanks to anyone who has the time and interest to contribute, review etc, and I will endeavour to get to any and all comments as soon as I am able. Yes, I know I have two other noms open, one has two supports, one has three, so it's all ok! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mention in the lead that Armstrong and Phelps came back from cancer and retirement – are the reasons for nomination publicized? Since this award doesn't recognize a particular event or performance, I'm quite curious to what constitutes a comeback for other winners.
There should not be a key above the tables when only Armstrong has an asterisk (and is explained in the lead). It would be simpler to just have "Lance Armstrong (rescinded)" in the table. The stats key is written unnecessarily generically when it only refers to one person with one win/one nom.
It shouldn't say "individuals" unless it refers to multiple individuals. Whether there is an award or awards is known, so don't say award(s). It seems excessive on the other pages that use it, also only referring to one person. The changeability is the beauty of Wikipedia if there are more. Reywas92Talk21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's generic across all these lists. And beyond, to say, the ESPY lists, some of which have multiple abusers listed. It would be nice to present this sor of thing in a common fashion to our readers, not to stick to anal rules of grammar. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, it's not fucking anal to have basic singular-plural correspondence. Not sure which of the ESPY lists has something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
Um, what? You're not presenting it as a quote at all, you just justified it as being used as a euphemism! You'd have to say It has been called the "Oscars of Sports" or something beyond a single word like this that's trying to imply to the word by itself requires them. And just because those people didn't call it out doesn't make it accurate. You correctly didn't use them in the first sentence of that nom! Oppose. Reywas92Talk21:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your oppose is noted, but I will not be taking any action on your comments, espeically as they are subjective and particularly as you have resorted to "fucking". Goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And thank YOU for calling me anal. Is that not our job here? The thing is, even if you're calling it a quotation, you are misquoting them, as the award is more specifically being called "Oscars of Sport" or "Sporting Oscars". It is objectively incorrect the way it currently is. Reywas92Talk22:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Ref(s) → Refs; each year has two refs so (s) is unneeded
I'm a fan of have the year and ref columns centered but I know to you it's no big deal so if you don't want to don't worry about it.
Thanks. I'm going to leave the refs as they are, if someone else wants to add all the additional coding to centrally align the whole table then left-align the columns which shouldn't be centrally aligned, more power to them. Cheers for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis players dominate the winners list, with six awards, while athletes and rugby union players have won twice link tennis, athletics and rugby union
Support I'm struggling to find anything that needs fixing on this list, any issues would seem to have been dealt with in previous reviews. No issues with layout, grammar or accessibility. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
"first competed in international cricket in " is "in internatoinal cricket" really needed?
"absolute victories" why do we need "absolute"?
"India played their first One Day International " would add "Women's" here so the acronym makes sense and so it's clear we're not accidently talking about the men's team.
They finished at the bottom of the table as they lost the remaining two games of the group stage Ref 7 doesn't show that they finished bottom of the table. Add this CricketArchive ref which does.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Sorry I missed this one. There are lots of village crosses in this neck of the woods, but we don't really have a suitable article. Market cross is about some of the bigger versions, although the "site for trading" is about right. My problem is finding RS to support a sentence in the lead to explain what they are.— Rodtalk08:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" Exmoor packhorse " borderline WP:SEAOFBLUE for me, I thought that was going to be a type of pony from Exmoor, not two links, one to Exmoor and the other to a type of bridge.
"The district of West Somerset covers a largely rural area covering 740 square kilometres" 1. I don't think you need "The district of", which is in the first paragraph and in the next sentence. 2. Repetition of "cover".
I am not clear what a village cross is. The Historic England entry on Congresbury village cross at [26] has a discussion on standing crosses, and Standing cross on Wikipedia redirects to High cross, but is a village cross a particular type of standing cross or is it just one located in a village (outside the churchyard)?
Further to the comment by TRM above, I'm not quite sure what to do about this. High Cross is largely about celtic decorated crosses, whereas Somerset village crosses are generally plain and in many cases where where a small market or individual trading could take place (but I can't find RS to support this). Yes they are outside of churchyards (otherwise would be labelled as "Churchyard Cross"), but even those in churchyards were sometimes used as the site of trading.— Rodtalk18:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There are two "village crosses" (one in Crowcombe & one Stogursey) in this list, and others in other lists I am working on, so I might have to create an article about them.— Rodtalk19:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The type for "Chantry" is given as house, but surely it was designated for its features as a former chantry chapel, just as the next entry is listed as a country house, even though it is now a hotel.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I have rebuilt the page from scratch to convert the original article into a league only record inline with the standard layout for club result pages and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Kosack (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support on style and comprehensiveness. Minor quibbles:
"They achieved their highest ever position during the 1923–24 season, finishing in second place of the First Division, losing the league title on goal average to Huddersfield Town," could be tightened. Not a big fan of the -ing repetition.
You need to add 'Category:English football club league records by opponent' at the bottom
The reliability of Soccerbase is questionable. Some users have reported missing data, myself included. Best add another site in case.
@Lemonade51: Thanks for the review, I've made all of the changes above bar one. I'm probably opening the age old can of worms but Cardiff are a Welsh team playing in the English leagues not an English team as the category seems to suggest. Kosack (talk) 18:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"They were relegated from the First Division in 1929 and have spent a further 8 seasons in the first tier since" reads odd to me that you talk about relegation then the fact they've been at the top tier for eight (not 8) more seasons...
" The club's first competitive fixture as a professional team came on 24 September 1910 against Ton Pentre,[4] the opening day of the 1910–11 season, in the Second Division of the Southern Football League and their first fixture in the Football League came on 28 August 1920 against Stockport County.[5] " too long, split, and move "the opening day" to next to the date, e.g. "The club's first competitive fixture as a professional team came against Ton Pentre on 24 September 1910, the opening day of the 1910–11 season,..."
"and most recent opponent " I know what you're trying to say, but it was really their most recent new opponent or something of that ilk, because their most recent opponent (as I write) is Sunderland.
@Harrias: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the grammatical mistakes and added an extra reference for the Wimbledon note. As for the two refs, 11vs11 is the official website of the Association of Football Statisticians and, although I'm unaware of any publisher other than the author, the Football Club History Database is widely considered a reliable source at WP:FOOTBALL and has been used in other featured lists such as List of York City F.C. players and has a template setup to include its use on Wikipedia at Template:Fchd. Kosack (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comma before "the most recent return was a one-year spell in the 2013–14 season" should probably be a semi-colon instead.
Commas could be added before and after Burton Albion.
The photo caption says that the picture is from the 1919 Welsh Cup final, but the photo information says it's from 1920.
Footnote F: The information about Milton Keynes Dons renouncing the Wimbledon history can't be covered by the source, since it's from 2004 and the renouncing didn't happen until a few years later. That's going to need a second cite. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment – Looks like another strong list in this burgeoning series. The only issue I can point out is that the players' first names don't need to be repeated in the lead. Otherwise, solid work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another rugby list but this time about the best players in the world. Despite the distinct lack of Australians on the list, I'm still hoping that my antipodean review crew will still participate! I know I have two open noms, but one has substantial support at this time, and the other is unrelated to this topic so everything's fine! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence starting "Since 2014, following...", "World Rugby Player of the Year" doesn't need to be emboldened again, it is just the same as the first line.
"In a year when the Rugby World Cup tournament is staged, performances in that event are also taken into account." The use of the word also made we think some other criteria had already been mentioned, but nothing has, so this wording is a bit confusing? Maybe this sentence needs to go after the following one: "The award is presented to honour "the achievements of those involved at the highest level of the world game on the field"."
"The winner receives a trophy." I mean, I can't really fault it, but this is a pretty diddy sentence. My wife would tell me that there is nothing wrong with small things, (okay, this is starting to sound bad – abort). Anyway, it might work better tacked onto another sentence? It just makes the paragraph seem a bit bullet-point like with such a short, bland statement.
Could you look at the table widths in the Statistics section; maybe consider making them all the same, but I'd certainly Wins by position in particular to be a bit wider. In terms of readability and visual appeal, it just looks a bit of a mess to me at the moment.
Actually, right now the coding seems beyond me, I'm wondering if these minutiae "win" tables are really necessary given the main table can be sorted by these properties in any case.... If you could suggest coding that you'd accept, that would be fine! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider linking World Rugby on the first use in the references.
Support, I can't find an image of the trophy on it's own either unfortunately. Looks like it has changed design from the IRB days to the World Rugby brand too. I played with the widths in the Stats section a little bit, feel free to revert if you're not keen, but it looks better to me, at least. Harriastalk07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"New Zealanders dominate the list of winners having received the award on nine occasions. Two All Blacks have won..." - need to somehow mention that NZ and ABs are actually same? Only neatish way I can think of is to insert "(nicknamed the All Blacks)" after "New Zealanders". (NB this may be important if, as 2017 is announced, you decide to replace the last two sentences of lede (where NZ and AB are obvious same team) with latest winner.)
"...flanker Richie McCaw..." - wlink for flanker (here and multiple others) could possibly go to own article ie Flanker (rugby union)? (though being on same ru positions page as all others seems just as useful)
"... Beauden Barrett who scored the final try for the All Blacks in the 2015 Rugby World Cup Final which ensured their victory ..." Final score 34-17 so even without that try and conversion NZ would have won so "ensured" not quite right word here. Maybe "capped" or similar?
I'm off to sign up a few thousand twitter accounts:)
2017 winner will be announced any minute, will check back when you've added winner updates. Regards JennyOz (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JennyOz all done, just waiting for a 2017 formal quote from World Rugby to complete the lead rather than rely wholesale on last year's comments. All else done though if you don't mind checking? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, sorry to be your worst nightmare - it's payback for me having to click on that rotten Independent ref 16 and see that rotten big photo of that rotten sailing ball... broke my heart all over again:)
"...along with his debut captaincy of his country against the Barbarians." - add "in the 2017 Killik Cup."? (but it's not in ref, is that too OR-ish?)
Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable sources, and the link-checker shows that they all work. Spot-checks of refs 7, 30, and 33 revealed one small issue: the title of ref 33 is different than what is indicated here. I'd say it's likely that some of the text changed since you added the link; the title seemingly shows that the page originally had live coverage of the 2017 awards ceremony, while what's there now is more of a proper article. Fix that and I think we can call this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fixed, but it's an interesting point because URLs often change their title e.g. reports of disasters or terror attacks often update their titles rapidly in the early stages, and are actually quite likely to be archived with a variety of titles too. So I'm not entirely convinced that the title needed to be changed, but since I've spent more time talking about it than it took to fix, I might as well shut up now. Thanks for the source review. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using your other lists for reference, I think you have a featured list right here! The only thing I see is remove the space between the period and ref 73. Honestly other than that I have nothing. Fantastic job!
It might be worth splitting that list in the last paragraph up. It is particularly confusing when commas stop denoting another item in the list, and instead explain an item (1 is in the Dedham Vale, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)).
"..calcareous clay and neutral grassland." – Again, could do with links to explain what they are.
Linked calcareous. "Neutral grassland" is a bit of a problem. I think it is a term used by Natural England for land which is neutral between acid and alkaline, but there does not seem to be a good explanation on Wikipedia. It is also called mesotrophic grassland, so I have linked to mesotrophic.
What are "oak pollards"?
Pollarding is the removal of upper branches. I have linked to it.
Ref #3 and ref #15 use YYYY-MM-DD format for archiving rather than the DD Month YYYY used elsewhere.
"13,200 members" okay, this could be deemed ultra-picky, but it's a charity, and then you say it has members, could you bridge that gap? Members who pay subscriptions to allow them to freely visit the sites under SWT's control/make donations/ i.e. what is a member, just a donor?
I'm not sure of the grammar/punctuation of "...and three are Local Nature Reserves. One is in Dedham Vale,..." I think you mean Dedham Vale is one of the 3 LNRs but that full stop makes it unclear.
You have Alde Mudflats listed as no public access - I thought any inter-tidal areas in the UK were accessible (owned by the queen or something)?
I have never heard that. SWT says that there is no public access and a web search shows other inter-tidal sites which have no public access. SWT suggests looking with binoculars from a footpath, which may mean a high wall or steep cliff with no way down. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks for checking. Perhaps ownership of anything between high and low tide can not be "owned" and therefore closed to the public, but I suppose it doesn't mean you can actually get to it.— Rodtalk15:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moneyball is a 2011 sports drama film about the general manager of a baseball team trying to build it by using a statistical, sabermetric approach to selecting players and the results he gets through his methods. The film is notable for garnering its lead actor, Brad Pitt, several awards and nominations. It is my tenth attempt at an accolades FLC and my first attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2Looking at you, kid16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on other film accolades featured lists I've looked at, such as 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, and The Artist, you got a pretty good list here that matches these other featured lists.
One problem I have is ref 5. It links to La La Land while "Archived" links to Moneyball. Why is this? I feel like La La Land should have nothing to do with this film as Moneyball is 5 years older than this film.
The 3rd lead paragraph needs refs for each award show.
Note c needs a ref.
Everything looks good with the table checks out based on the other accolade lists I've looked at.
I think the "based on the aforementioned book" is really unnecessary. It's mostly redundant and read a a little awkward.
I am not sure if "theatrically released" should be "released theatrically". I've gone over both so many times that i can't seem to figure which is right. But, you should cross check.
"against its $50 million budget" - can be framed better?
"Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, surveyed 247 reviews and judged 94% to be positive" - That's a really unusual way of putting the RT rating. Doesn't mean that there is anything necessarily wrong with it, but it just seems a little odd.
"The film has been" - present perfect?
"Pitt and Hill have received" - again?
The last paragraph can be reworked a little. It's mostly one dimensional with a lot of similar sentences one after the other. There are also sentences like "It won all of its nominations at the New York Film Critics Circle", that read a little odd to me.
Thank you for asking me for help, it has been longgg. I am sure none of my concenrs and very serious, and can be addressed easily. Great work on the list as always. Good luck with you first Hollywood list Ssven2! NumerounovedantTalk18:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you using the Oxford comma for the lead. Here are instances were the Oxford comma is either not used (who also co-produced it, in the lead role with Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Chris Pratt) or used (Moneyball received six nominations including Best Picture, Best Actor for Pitt, Best Supporting Actor for Hill, and Best Adapted Screenplay). You will need to be consistent throughout the lead one way or the other.
For this part (won the Best Song for Kerris Dorsey's rendition of the song "The Show”), I would clarify that “The Show” was originally a Lenka song as the word “rendition” does not necessarily have to mean that Dorsey’s performance was a cover of an existing song. I would also include the year in which the original Lenka version of the song was released (i.e. 2008).
For this part (Bennett Miller, who directed the film,), remove the link to “Bennett Miller” as you already have him linked in the first sentence of the lead. Also remove “who directed the film” as you have already identified Miller as the director so there is no need to be repetitive.
Great work with the list. My review focuses entirely on the prose of the lead as I will be leaving any potential issues with the references to the user doing the source review. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done All recommended edits after a bit of deliberation.Please take a look and reconsider your oppose-
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anefo_922-5524_Jackie_Stewart,_Prins_Bernhard_Zandvoort_21.06.1969_crop.jpg){kind=link}