Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2007
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm nominating this list of seasons played by Bradford City A.F.C. along the lines of previous lists of other football clubs. I believe it meets the same standards as previous football lists and meets the FLC criteria. Peanut4 10:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, for now. A lot of the seasons do not have any references to corroborate the statistics in the article. For every season, the league positions and FA Cup results should have a source to back them up. Once you provide these sources, I'll gladly support. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-15 13:57- The final league positions and cup records are fully referenced in the sources at the bottom - particularly Football Club History Databse. Peanut4 21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support,
once the matters mentioned below are addressedThis list follows the pattern of previous football seasons FLs, with one (to my mind) improvement, namely the extra column for Other competition round reached. Colouring this column gold or silver when appropriate, rather than the whole, quite wide, competition column looks much cleaner and is easier to read. Well done, Struway2 (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)- Lead. If you're going to use emdashes to separate, then take out the spaces round them, otherwise use spaced endashes (per WP:DASH). Not sure the bit about bolded scorers should be there, it already appears in the Key section where it would seem to belong.
Done Changed the bolded scorers to detail the progress of club's top goalscoring record. Peanut4 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Citations. Where news sources are cited the publication date should be included.
- Lead. If you're going to use emdashes to separate, then take out the spaces round them, otherwise use spaced endashes (per WP:DASH). Not sure the bit about bolded scorers should be there, it already appears in the Key section where it would seem to belong.
- now full support, Struway2 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 16:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
After considerable edits to the discography, I am resubmitting it for FL status. The previous FLC failed mainly due to my lack of free time to address the issues raised, but I have since been able to address many if not all of the issues that were brought up. As always, any comments and suggestions are appreciated and welcome. Drewcifer 05:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice work between nominations. The last thing I would reccommend would be formatting more like Nirvana discography with the year column furthest right and the release date, label, and formats below the title. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Good call. Drewcifer 09:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Clearly FL quality, good work. --Brandt Luke Zorn 09:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support if only all the discographies were like this Jimfbleak 07:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak opposeSupport I like what is there in the list, but one very essential thing is missing i.e Unreleased songs. I seriously suggest the inclusion of the section like Gwen Stefani discography does. Indianescence 15:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)- Is this a requirement of discography pages now? Not only have I never heard of any notable unreleased material, and not only does a search give no results ([2]), but I fail to see how unreleased tracks factor into an artist's discography ("Complete collection of the releases of a musical act."). Drewcifer 16:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Drewcifer. I don't think that Trent actually has any unreleased songs that are known of by name. A quick Google search shows nothing from any reliable sources, and just looking through the band's history—severe writer's block, double album—it's unlikely that there's anything left unreleased. And even when Trent does release previously unreleased tracks (as in the deluxe edition of The Downward Spiral) they tend to be demos and remixes of released songs. The rest of his unreleased material probably consists of more remixes and demos, which don't count for inclusion in "Unreleased songs" sections. --Brandt Luke Zorn 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- If that is the case, then i support. But telling that they DON'T have any Unreleased songs would not be correct. We must say we are not able to find them. But it is the definition of "Discography" that makes me support. Indianescence 06:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Just like last time, thanks for the note. Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Though two things bug me...
- The TOC is duplicated, once under the picture, then again as a standard TOC. I don't have much experience with discography lists, so that may be standard, I don't know.
- Could the "Halo numbers" section be split into two columns? The white-space is annoying.
- Neither of those is enough for me to oppose, though :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support and the comments! The double TOC is common in discographies. I agree, it does come across a bit redundant, but I like how it has the sum totals, and it also helps unify all the discogs a bit. As for the Halos section, I split it up into two columns and it definitely looks better. Thanks again! Drewcifer 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Why has no mention been made of the use of "Just Like You Imagined" in the 300 trailer? Also the article uses both Nine Inch Nails and NIN - firstly, no mention has been made that the band can be abbreviated to NIN, secondly, I think the article should stick to using only one of the two. The second problem is found in the Nine Inch Nails article too. Tommy Stardust 07:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nine Inch Nails songs have been used in probably hundreds of films, tv episodes, trailers, etc, etc. To name them all would be impossible and not all that helpful, especially in a discography. Instead, the article only mentions original songs made for such things (like Perfect Drug, Deep, etc). As for the NIN thing, I took out all the abbreviations - I think it's ok in the Nine Inch Nails article, but isn't necessary for the discog page. Thanks for the comments. Drewcifer 08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- 1 more thing; isn't Bowie's "I'm Afraid of Americans" from Earthling? But anyway, I support. Excellent work indeed :) Tommy Stardust 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! And yes, I'm Afraid of American's is from Earthling, but the NIN remixes only appear on the single. Like the other entries in the table, the album column gives the release that includes the remix, not the release from which the song originated. -- Drewcifer (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then the album column should have either Single or "I'm Afraid of Americans" (single).... I'm Afraid of Americans gives the wrong impression that there's also an album/EP of the same name. Tommy Stardust (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. I fixed it. Thanks again! Drewcifer (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then the album column should have either Single or "I'm Afraid of Americans" (single).... I'm Afraid of Americans gives the wrong impression that there's also an album/EP of the same name. Tommy Stardust (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nine Inch Nails songs have been used in probably hundreds of films, tv episodes, trailers, etc, etc. To name them all would be impossible and not all that helpful, especially in a discography. Instead, the article only mentions original songs made for such things (like Perfect Drug, Deep, etc). As for the NIN thing, I took out all the abbreviations - I think it's ok in the Nine Inch Nails article, but isn't necessary for the discog page. Thanks for the comments. Drewcifer 08:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Detailed, accurate and fully referenced. I removed the table of contents because I think it makes the article look better, but if anyone disagrees I'll put it back. --MarcK 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it looked better with the table of contents than it does with the blank space, and it's my understanding that there should be a table of contents for any article with four sections. GaryColemanFan 22:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Readded. --MarcK 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support This article meets all of the criteria for Featured Lists, and it is identical to many other championship lists that have been promoted. It is thorough and well-sourced, and it is nicely illustrated by an appropriate Free Use picture. GaryColemanFan 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If it possible to get a source for Though the IGF recognizes the belt as the IWGP Third Belt Championship, New Japan does not sanction or recognize it it would be helpful. Otherwise, great list! --Naha|(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Fully support this now as it meets all FL requirements and my one concern has been addressed. --Naha|(talk) 02:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Davnel03 07:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - LAX 10:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- support it's looking good to me, definitely a Featured List. MPJ-DK 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me, too....fully sourced. Nikki311 22:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 19:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Another list based on the ever-popular football club seasons format - please let me know if anything needs amending or correcting.
Cheers!!!
ChrisTheDude 10:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- I think additional research should be done for the top scorers from Gillingham's seasons outside the Football League.
Not done - as set out below, no source for this information exists
- Maybe the empty fields in 'League Cup' and 'Other competitions' can be coloured or maybe the cells can be removed?
- Not done - I feel this would make the table look worse rather than better, I would prefer not to do it
- I think the divisions in the table should be wikilinked. –
- Done - I have linked the first instance of every new division, I don't feel it is necessary to link on every single line
Ilse@ 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Support Good work. Per above it'd be a good idea to wikilink the first instance of each new league but I understand how difficult it can be to find early days and non-league scorers so not expecting much there. Also don't feel there's a need to change the format of the table. The Rambling Man 19:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just to confirm, I have every book published to date on the Gills' history and none list the top scorers from those seasons, nor do soccerbase or allfootballers.com, beyond that I don't know what additional research could be done....... ChrisTheDude 20:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Supportcool--Mini@ 08:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment A few minor comments.
- For seasons, I'd write "in the xxxx-xx season" instead of just "in xxxx-xx".
- Done
- Full stops needed for the sentences starting "No competitive football...".
- Done
Not much, as you can see. Mattythewhite 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite 11:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I participated at peer review; the editor dealt with issues raised promptly, either by making changes requested or by explaining why changes would/could not be made. Only thing I've spotted since, the note in the 1921 position column about no relegation should go against 1929 as well. Well done. Struway2 13:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added the reference to 1929 as pointed out ChrisTheDude 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I have given the Lead a very small copyedit. Other than that, like the other reviewers, I can't find any flaws with this list. It follows the Footy format, seems comprehensive and accurate. Meets all the criteria. Well done. Woodym555 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I can't find any faults. Great work. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 18:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 14 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 18:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on improving this list to featured status, and believe it is now ready to be listed here. It follows the same format of other football manager lists that have been promoted to featured status, and was peer reviewed here. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 07:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments Some comments.
- "The" in "The Football League" needs to be in lower case.
- Seasons need to be split using an endash.
Done — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 09:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- One left in reference 2. Mattythewhite 15:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oops, missed that one. Now fixed. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 16:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Could the sentence "In all the club has had 29..." use something like "full-time managers" instead of just "managers", to help clarify from the caretakers.
- Are months available for the managers' reign?
- Reflist should be used for the references.
That's about it. Good work. Mattythewhite 07:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite 16:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment Could we not have a separate notes column and then add the soccerbase links into that.I understand that you don't have them for the earlier managers,but i think they should be in the table and linked to the respective managers.Woodym555 16:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)- I've added a notes column, but have deliberately kept Soccerbase links to a minimum, using it for only the most recent managers, because of the innacuracies in older manager stats. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yep, that fixed my problem with it. I completely understand about the inaccuracies with early manager links, thats why i didn't ask for more. Good work, meets all criteria. Woodym555 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a notes column, but have deliberately kept Soccerbase links to a minimum, using it for only the most recent managers, because of the innacuracies in older manager stats. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, all my concerns addressed at PR. Good work. The Rambling Man 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, until the dates sort properly. which they now do.
- Since you added the months to the managerial reigns, that column doesn't sort in date order. (There may be better ways to do it, but if you want to keep your current non-wikilinked format, one way would be to add a non-displaying sort key before the date, e.g. <span style="display:none">yyyymm</span>, where yyyy is the year of appointment, and mm the month. For your first row, there would be no need to supply a month number, and for the ones in April 2002, you could put a key of 20020401 for Bater and ...02 for Graydon. This should sort as a string rather than as a number.)
- Done
- I'm surprised no-one noticed the problem before, though. Also, I like your choice of sort key format better than mine. Struway2 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have thought Broadhurst/Osman, as joint caretakers, should be listed as a pair rather than separately. It's misleading that their 6 wins etc appear twice in the list.
- Now merged into a single row.
- Do you really need need the Honours and Notes columns to be sortable?
- These columns are no longer sortable.
- WP:LEAD#Bold title says links should be avoided in the bold title in the lead section (you can link Bristol Rovers F.C. at its next occurrence).
- Fixed.
- HTML is the default format for web citations, so there's no need to include mention of it in your references.
- format=HTML has now been removed.
- You might want to add a note saying something like All figures come from *book* except where stated. (I know it's implied, but it doesn't hurt to say it explicitly.)
- Note added at top of table. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Struway2 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Changed to Support. Sorting problem and all other comments dealt with very promptly, well done. Struway2 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15/16 days, 8 support, an oppose, and an abstain. Promote. Spebi 01:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Selfnom. I believe this list meets all the criteria for a featured list. — Kpalion(talk) 14:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
ConditionalSupport: There needs to be some indication in the "Use" column of what those little symbols mean. After some searching, I found the FIAV symbol, but it shouldn't need to be searched for :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)- Is it better now? — Kpalion(talk) 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Looks fine :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support: looks good - well constructed and informative Goldfinger820 22:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Well written, well laid out and comprehensive. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 08:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Well referenced, organized and looks comprehensive. -- Underneath-it-All 03:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: очень интересно --Mini@ 08:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Mild oppose
- Can the lead be enhanced some? It's definitely a bit short for such a wide-reaching topic.
The "official flag" section should probably mention that in actual use, the two flags are used rather exchangeably Done- Historical flags, if any, are usually listed, but it's hard to tell, given the organization of related articles, whether any relevant ones existed.
As an unrelated aside, I'm intrigued by the weirdly long name for the naval auxiliary ensign... answeredI'm wondering if there's a way to organise the table so that the "names" columns is not so compressed, and possibly give "proportion" a column of its own... There's probably none that would do a good job, but it'd be nice if one could be devised.Not really doable, just wanted to point it out.- The list should specify whenever flags can/are be run concurrently with others. I'm pretty sure the Rank and Commissioning pennants, as well as the Rank flags are flown with the Navy flags, but I'd rather the list tell me. Not done
- That gallery section is entirely unnecessary.
- Circeus 05:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please specify what kind of information you'd like to see in the lead?
- How about the legislation covering the use of the flag/flags in general in Poland? Mentioning the fact most of them are based on one of the versions of the country's flag? What, if anything, makes flags special in Poland? Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead with some historical information trying not to reduplicate too much of what is already said at Flag of Poland. — Kpalion(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about the legislation covering the use of the flag/flags in general in Poland? Mentioning the fact most of them are based on one of the versions of the country's flag? What, if anything, makes flags special in Poland? Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done.
- What would be the criteria for including a historical design in the list? Listing every single modification of each flag plus many obsolete flags of little significance would make the list not only insanely long, but also illegible. I think some of the more interesting flags might have their own articles and this would be a good place to discuss former versions (Flag of Poland and Jack of the President of the Republic of Poland already have their own articles with History sections; I think I might also add an article about the Polish naval jack and maybe the Polish war ensign).
- I don't know if any informal or official flags have existed to countries preceding the republic of Poland, which is why I'm not making it a full argument for inclusion, just asking. Did Communist Poland have a different design? Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I hope the new lead explains it now. Please let me know, if something needs to be clarified. — Kpalion(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if any informal or official flags have existed to countries preceding the republic of Poland, which is why I'm not making it a full argument for inclusion, just asking. Did Communist Poland have a different design? Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sometimes English is more concise than Polish. A very literal translation of bandera pomocniczych jednostek pływających Marynarki Wojennej would be "ensign of auxiliary floating units of the War Marine". Bandera p.j.p. is used in everyday language.
- I made the Name column a little wider; please see, if you like it better now. Remember that how crammed the columns are depends on the resolution of your screen. I think creating a separate column for the proportion would make the table even more compressed. Besides, the longest text in such a column would be in the header.
- As I said, I doubt it can really be helped, but thanks for trying. Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I'll see, if I can add more info about that.
- That's not as easy as I thought. The best source would be the Naval Service Regulations (Regulamin Służby Okrętowej), an internal document of the Navy. Unfortunately it is not available on the web. Looking at an old discussion in Polish Wiki I saw that someone has already asked the Navy to provide them the document and they didn't receive it. I will still try to find the information in other sources, but it may take some time. — Kpalion(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I believe it's good to have a few sample photographs of the flags actually flying in their natural environment, so to speak. I know galleries in articles are generally shunned upon, but in this case, there's no way to integrate the images into the text, because it's mostly tables. And on the other hand, creating a separate page on Commons for only three images would be an overkill, wouldn't it?
- How about moving one as the second lead imag, filling the space right of the Table of Conten, and another as a lead image under "Military flags"? That way, you don't necessarily need a gallery. Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I hope it's better now. — Kpalion(talk) 21:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- How about moving one as the second lead imag, filling the space right of the Table of Conten, and another as a lead image under "Military flags"? That way, you don't necessarily need a gallery. Circeus 01:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Could you please specify what kind of information you'd like to see in the lead?
- Circeus 05:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, well written. - Darwinek 18:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Abstain. Great, but I wonder if it is comprehensive - would like to see a section on historical flags, too.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my response (point 3) to Circeus above. — Kpalion(talk) 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree there is no easy solution; hence I am not objecting. But at least several major flags from Polish history should be included, even if only with directions to more detailed articles on those subjects.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific flags in mind? If so, please put your suggestions on the article's talk page. — Kpalion(talk) 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- What about Image:Choragiew Krakowska.png, Image:Kongresówka.JPG, Image:Flag of Krakow.svg or Image:Flaga PPP.svg? Sure, they are not comprehensive, but they should be somehow mentioned/linked in the article. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Do you have any specific flags in mind? If so, please put your suggestions on the article's talk page. — Kpalion(talk) 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree there is no easy solution; hence I am not objecting. But at least several major flags from Polish history should be included, even if only with directions to more detailed articles on those subjects.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my response (point 3) to Circeus above. — Kpalion(talk) 19:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very well-sourced and well written list. --Carioca 04:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
This has been made in the mold of List of Norwich City F.C. Players of the Year, which has recently passed FLC and feel it meets the FLC criteria. Thanks, Mattythewhite 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Yeah, nearly there.
- Worth noting that Fenton died suddenly.
- Done Added. Mattythewhite 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ref 15 can be reused instead of 17.
- Done Merged references using ref name. Mattythewhite 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Otherwise I can't see much room for improvement. The Rambling Man 11:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well done. The Rambling Man 11:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support with one comment: Per the similar Ipswich Town FLC, should the "Caps" column be renamed "International Caps"? Nicely done! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Renamed for clarity. Mattythewhite 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Commentssome repeated from the very similar ITFC POTY FLC
- The Voting mechanism has to go in the lead, as it is much too short to justify a section of its own. Also, the wording of the lead reads a bit awkwardly in places. I've taken the liberty of having a go at copyediting it in my Sandbox, if you'd like to have a look. (Please don't feel obliged to use any of my changes, moving the voting mechanism bit up into the lead, however you do it, is the important thing.)
- Done Merged section and copyedited. Mattythewhite 16:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- You could perhaps include where the presentation is made (at an awards dinner, before a match, ...).
- I have looked for a source which says where it is presented, but cannot found one. However, I have added some more information on the presentation of the award. Mattythewhite 16:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- The summary tables would look tidier if you centred the numbers so they weren't cramped up to the left of quite a wide column.
- Done Centered. Mattythewhite 16:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the Summary by position table, the note against Forward says "Includes strikers and wingers." The only player listed as a winger, Brian Pollard, has his playing position wikilinked to Midfielder, but he's totalled in with the forwards. You need to decide which you want him to be.
- Done I've changed Pollard to midfielder and counted him as that in the summary table. Also, in this table, I've renamed the "Forward" column to "Striker" so it keeps consistent and is clear. Mattythewhite 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
hope some of this helps, Struway2 —Preceding comment was added at 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support well done, Struway2 16:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- Same comment as for Ipswich re: linking positions
- Same response for Ipswich - the table is sortable so wikilinking every row makes perfect sense. The Rambling Man 07:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Same comment re: "notes". Not sure what the point of notes # 12 and 13 is.
- Same response for Ipswich - notes are to substantiate claims of international caps and belong next to each instance of each player because the table is sortable. The Rambling Man 07:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Same comment as for Ipswich re: linking positions
- Circeus 04:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia. It is slightly different in that it includes "structures", but this is only so that the Reunion Tower will not be left off the list. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that is is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. It contains 8 free images and 1 fair use image, Image:Museum Tower Dallas.jpg, which is used only in the "Tallest under construction and proposed" section to illustrate a future building. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 07:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Article contains the following sentence: "The Praetorian Building is also sometimes distinguished as the first skyscraper to be constructed in the Western United States". Problem is the Western US link shows a map that does not include Texas in the West. Texas: think Southern US? Hmains 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have just removed the link. The reference clearly states it was the first building in the West, not the South, so changing it would probably not be a good idea. Rai-me 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Update: I have re-wikilinked Western United States in the list, as I have recently added a second main image to the Western U.S. page that depicts a broader image of the West to go along with the article's contents. These images are used in all other United States regional articles, so I am not sure why it was left out of the West's article. Rai-me 00:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have just removed the link. The reference clearly states it was the first building in the West, not the South, so changing it would probably not be a good idea. Rai-me 03:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Wow! Extremely comprehensive and well done! My only concern is the length of the lede 3 paragraphs, but that's not enough for me to oppose. Nice! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. I have also questioned if the introduction is an appropriate length, but I really can't find any information to edit out or move. But I have attempted to model the lead after those of the Boston, Philadelphia, Miami, and San Francisco FLs, so hopefully it is acceptable. Rai-me 21:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Mostly irrlevant stuff from Circeus
- Oppose
- I disagree with naming the article "List of tallest buildings and structures" if you're only going to include one structure (have you made sure no radio masts could be included?). Reunion Tower could very well be covered in the intro text of "tallest buildings" instead.
- Not done - The Reunion Tower is clearly a freestanding tower, not a habitable building. Therefore, it would not make sense to label the list "Tallest buildings ..." when that is not all that is being measured. And I am sure there are no radio masts within the city limits of Dallas; this can easily be determined from SkyscraperPage diagrams. I see no reason why this list cannot be named "Tallest buildings and structures ..."; there was no problem with List of tallest buildings and structures in London,a FL, or List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region, a FFL. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The labeling of the lead image is very confusing to me: I'm not sure what the blue pyramid thing is, or what the tall building between it and Trammell Crow is.{{done}} - captioned edited to exclude any building wikilinking. I don't know what many of the buildings are, but the caption was already too selective in its wikilinking, so I think it makes sense just to remove it. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
While it it consistent with other similar article, the post-ToC skyline is not very helpful, and given how rather complete the lead image is (even though it has issues explained above), this one should probably be removed (or at the very least have its building labeled, given the small number of them).{{not done}} - I definitely disagree. The second image provides a wider view of the skyline from a different perspecive. I think it is fine just the way it is. Labeling and redlinking 10-story under construction buildings that are never mentioned in the list, along with a few notable skyscrapers mentioned prominently in other sections, would be pointless. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
http://dallaslibrary.org/ctx/photogallery/downtownliving/praetorian.htm Does not actually source the statements it purports to at all!Yes, it does. The site clearly states: "This 14-story neoclassical style building was the West's first "skyscraper"", and the reference is used to cite: "first skyscraper ... in the Western United States". What about this is confusing? Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What is the "sometimes the entire Western United States" bit based on? The definition of "Western United States" or disagreement as to which building?It is based on both, and this is clearly stated in the heading of "Timeline of tallest buildings." The Lumber Exchange Building in Minneapolis is taller and is thus the first skyscraper in "the West", but only if one includes Minnesota as part of the West. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Although linking the two Republic Center Towers together in this article is useful, Republic Center Tower I is not actually at that title. If its actual title is different, they should be reversed with "formerly known"{{not done}} - This is another issue similar to that found with 555 California Street in the San Francisco list. Republic Center Tower I is the official name of the building, and what is used on all listed sources, so that is what is linked on the page. I am not sure why the article is titled so, but if anything it is the article name, not the list entry, that should be changed. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Also mention explicitly the presence of a spire. Until I looked atthe article that "roof distance" bit baffled me.{{done}} - note expanded. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's an inordinate amount of whitespace at the bottom of the "under construction and proposed" section.
- What do you propose be done? I am having no problems with any white space on my computer, so I don't know how to fix it. But I do not think that removing the image or making it smaller would be the answer, if that is what you are proposing. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Whatever the cause, it's gone now. Circeus 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- What do you propose be done? I am having no problems with any white space on my computer, so I don't know how to fix it. But I do not think that removing the image or making it smaller would be the answer, if that is what you are proposing. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Date ranges should use n- not m-dashes{{done}} - changed to n-dashes. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Portals normally go under "see also"
- This page's portal tag placment was based on the Dallas, Texas page, where both tags were placed in the External links section. From my experiences, placement is usually left for the particular WikiProject to decide. But I will move it if you think it wise, as this is a very minor issue. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Portals go under external links in the absence of a "see also" section (like other projects go under whatever the last header is. Because portals are "content" and in-wiki links, the best pale is the see also section (it's briefly, mentioned in Guide to layout)
- Done - moved portal tags. Rai-me 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Portals go under external links in the absence of a "see also" section (like other projects go under whatever the last header is. Because portals are "content" and in-wiki links, the best pale is the see also section (it's briefly, mentioned in Guide to layout)
- This page's portal tag placment was based on the Dallas, Texas page, where both tags were placed in the External links section. From my experiences, placement is usually left for the particular WikiProject to decide. But I will move it if you think it wise, as this is a very minor issue. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not necessary, but would be nice: what was the tallest building before skycrapers officially came along?
- I will look into it. I based the list on SkyscraperPage diagrams, and 1909 was the earliest date listed for any building. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, as I said, not particularly necessary
- I did find one - the 1904 Wilson Building, which, at 8 stories, does not qualify as a high-rise building. Rai-me 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, as I said, not particularly necessary
- I will look into it. I based the list on SkyscraperPage diagrams, and 1909 was the earliest date listed for any building. Rai-me 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with naming the article "List of tallest buildings and structures" if you're only going to include one structure (have you made sure no radio masts could be included?). Reunion Tower could very well be covered in the intro text of "tallest buildings" instead.
- Circeus 03:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh boy, I think I'll stop reviewing for a couple days; lack of sleep is catching up to me. I guess the only point I can readily quibble is the "buildings and structures" bit. As I said, I think the list could be a "building" with a prominent side-comment that "Reunion Tower" would be amongst them if it was a building (of course, how we define "building" here is at issue). Paris and London both include at least 4 structures stricto sensu (calling churches, stadiums and palaces structures instead of buildings looks fishy to me.). It just feels silly to change the title (and more or less implying multiple structures) just for the purpose of listing one article when another method of dealing with it is available. Circeus 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I think that is a pretty strong argument. How about moving the list, leaving the Reunion Tower as is, and then adding an asterisked note adding that it is included in the list as a point of reference, but not "technically" a habitable building? I will go ahead and do this for other non-FL "buildings and structures" lists of United States cities to be consistent. If a you are in agreement with this, could you just go ahead and move this page? List of tallest buildings in Dallas exists as a redirect, so that page has to be deleted before this can move. However, if this is too much, as it seems you have been very busy, I will just post this as an uncontroversial move at WP:RM. Other than this issue, do you have any other concerns? Thanks, Rai-me 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh boy, I think I'll stop reviewing for a couple days; lack of sleep is catching up to me. I guess the only point I can readily quibble is the "buildings and structures" bit. As I said, I think the list could be a "building" with a prominent side-comment that "Reunion Tower" would be amongst them if it was a building (of course, how we define "building" here is at issue). Paris and London both include at least 4 structures stricto sensu (calling churches, stadiums and palaces structures instead of buildings looks fishy to me.). It just feels silly to change the title (and more or less implying multiple structures) just for the purpose of listing one article when another method of dealing with it is available. Circeus 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Support. Circeus 21:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments, the following minor problems should be solved:
- The non-free image of the Museum Tower should be removed, purpose of use doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #3 and #8.
- I hope I have addressed this (or at least expressed my opinion) on the article's talk page. It passes criterion 8, as a visual of a very significant future building greatly adds to the article and is used to illustrate an entire section. And for 3, I think one image qualifies as "minimal usage", and since there are no free images of any future buildings, I believe it also passes that criterion. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article Cityplace Station Tower (now red link) can easily be created.
- I disagree. It is a non-notable not yet existing building that does not need an article. Should one be created, it would be simply a mirror of Emporis and be deleted. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The image caption of the panorama image should be more descriptive.
- What do you propose be added? Naming every single building on the panorama would be way too much information for one caption. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The subheading 'Tallest under construction and proposed' should be reworded, because the noun is missing.
- This title has been agreed upon as an accepted title by WP:SKYSCRAPER, and has been used in all other building lists. Adding "buildings" would be redundant. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree, specifying "buildings" is pointless and redundant. What else could the noun be? "trees"? "mountains"? "statues"?
- This title has been agreed upon as an accepted title by WP:SKYSCRAPER, and has been used in all other building lists. Adding "buildings" would be redundant. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- This article should not be linked as 'Architecture' in the {{Dallas}} template used in this article. – Ilse@ 23:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why should it not? No other page discusses anything related to Dallas architecture, and this page does. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is entirely unrelated to the status of the article, if you have issues with that, bring it to the template's talk page. Circeus 00:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Why should it not? No other page discusses anything related to Dallas architecture, and this page does. Rai-me 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- The non-free image of the Museum Tower should be removed, purpose of use doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #3 and #8.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 21 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. There is active opposition, but I think it appears to have been addressed. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a discography of the 90s indie rock band Pavement. I believe that this article conforms to all the requirements needed to be a featured list. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. Well-referenced and comprehensive. Well done. WesleyDodds 06:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
original discussion by Circeus
- Oppose
- While I appreciate the research that went into that, the "record labels" bit are very needlessly detailed: we normally only list them for the original release (unless it's some sort of joint release).
- I think that most, if not all, of the labels listed were on a "joint release" for the original release; Matador Records would release the album in the States, some other label in the UK, and then some other label(s) who simply co-released the albums. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like Slanted and Enchanted actually was also released on cassette
- The tables' use of dashes is incorrect: they should be actual m-dashes
- The convention is that dashes are used fro albums that "were released, but did not chart", this way, no dash means the album was not released to begin with
- We usually lists the EPs in a subsection of "albums"
- The details under "singles" can definitely go.
- If they are to stay, why do "Shady Lane", "Carrot Rope" and "Spit on a Stranger" have 1996 rlease dates??
- Done Hmm, hadn't noticed this. I think this was an error that happened early on in with copy-paste. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to keep the detail under the Singles section. Typically, featured discographies for lesser known artists (The Make-Up discography, Lightning Bolt discography, Neutral Milk Hotel discography) contain more information about singles as there's less space being used by chart information or a larger list of singles. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If they are to stay, why do "Shady Lane", "Carrot Rope" and "Spit on a Stranger" have 1996 rlease dates??
- Too many wikilinks to All music guide in the references. Only one should be enough.
- While I appreciate the research that went into that, the "record labels" bit are very needlessly detailed: we normally only list them for the original release (unless it's some sort of joint release).
- Circeus 02:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I made numerous corrections and additions to this list as of last night; I still haven't added the other Shady Lane releases yet but I have corrected the entry for the Shady Lane EP and I plan on adding the other "Shady Lane" singles some time today. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I now believe that all errors in this list have been corrected. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't like how the "EPs" and "Singles" section seem to be cut in half; it is not consistent with other tables. On another note, I don't really see the significance of a "miscellaneous" section. Are the songs it lists B-sides? Outtakes? Live recordings? NSR77 TC 15:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by the EPs and Singles sections being "cut in half"; could you be more specific? Also, I think virtually every other featured discography has a miscellaneous section, titled as such, which contains compilation appearances. --Brandt Luke Zorn 21:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- By "cut in half" I mean the width. Compare the "EPs" table to the "Albums" table. The format should be more consistent. NSR77 TC 00:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. The width for the tables you mentioned should now be equal. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great. I fully endorse this article. NSR77 TC 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very well done. It's featured quality as far as I can tell. One comment, that you might want to clarify though: When a box is blank in the "Chart positions" area, does that mean the item wasn't released there? You might want to clarify this. Other than that, it looks great. Well done. Grim 06:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I added "Blank entries denote..." below the relevant tables. --Brandt Luke Zorn 06:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure the sentence beginning "According to Kannberg, there is a possibility that Pavement may reunite.." is suitable for a discography, as it should focus on the band's releases rather than their status. "CS" is not an obvious acronym to some (I've seen "CAT", "CT" etc, so it's probably worth adding "cassette" once for clarity). A little inconsistency with the formats (with "vinyl" and then '7"/12"'); why not have 12" in the Studio albums section? CloudNine 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I believe that all of your comments have been adequately addressed. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 16:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been doing some more work on this list over the last few days, and has had a peer review which has brough up some useful comments. I believe it meets the FL criteria and is made to match other football seasons Featured Lists. Thanks, Mattythewhite 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the first thing that pops out at me is that on the first line it says "York City City Football Club". - PeeJay 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Fixed. Feel like a right idiot. Thanks for telling me.. Mattythewhite 11:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Got some more comments though:
- Myself, I would suggest removing the links from the divisions column of the table, as the divisions are already linked to in the Key section.
- Done Wikilinks removed. Mattythewhite 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the Football League Trophy page, the competition's official name was the Associate Members Cup only until 1992, but you have it by that name up until 2000.
- I've done this as the source I've been using gives that name up till this season. See here. I'll change it if you like. Mattythewhite 11:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- If the FCHD is correct, though, as it usually is, then the Wikipedia article must be wrong. Before changing the York City seasons article, we should probably see which source is correct. - PeeJay 12:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- It seems as if this is the case for Gillingham too. Maybe Richard can help? Mattythewhite 12:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The FCHD Football League Trophy page links to Jeremy Hicks's site, which implies 1992 as the date of change, coinciding with the separation between Premiership and Football League. On BCFC seasons, I had it as AMC up to 1992 and then FLT in 1995, presumably based on that. My BCFC books just call it the Auto Windscreens Shield, which isn't very helpful. Struway2 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Other than that, I would be happy to support this FLC. - PeeJay 11:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Got some more comments though:
- Support as long as the following minor changes are made to the lead:
- "They were elected to play in the The Football League...." - double "the"
- Done Removed "the". Mattythewhite 12:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- "the highest the club has ever reached in this competition" - should be "furthest", not "highest", given that the cup does not work on a table basis
- Done Reworded to "furthest". Mattythewhite 12:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Other than that it looks excellent - nice one! ChrisTheDude 12:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fulfils all the criteria so I'll support. Excellent work. Dave101→talk 23:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support conditional that you change World War II to Second World War. My pet hate. The Rambling Man 11:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Reworded. Mattythewhite
- Also, since the list isn't sortable, I don't like the overlinking to the various cup competitions line after line, but that's a personal opinion. The Rambling Man 11:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Links removed. Mattythewhite 11:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments I participated at peer review where concerns/suggestions raised were dealt with satisfactorily. One or two more things...
- you might want to highlight seasons when the club's goalscoring record was broken (Gillingham F.C. seasons does it by bolding the relevant scorer's name and total).
- Done Added. Mattythewhite 17:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- you also might want to highlight when the division changes, either by promotion, relegation or league reorganisation, done on Gillingham F.C. seasons and on featured list Birmingham City F.C. seasons by bolding the division column entry. (This was done on BCFC seasons for two reasons. In general, breaking up the long list of division abbreviations makes it easier to read if you're just glancing down that area of the list. And in particular, for accessibility - bolding provides an extra visual cue that something's changed, to help those of us whose defective colour vision stops us making full use of the colour-coding in the league position column.)
- Done Added. Mattythewhite 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- the FA Cup resumed in 1945-46.
- Done Season added with FA Cup details. Mattythewhite 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Struway2 14:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Support all issues dealt with satisfactorily. Well done. Struway2 11:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)