Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 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: 15 days, 5 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 23:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Self nomination. A completely comprehensive list of his solo material and recordings with the Red Hot Chili Peppers. I drew inspiration from various current Featured lists. NSR77 TC 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comments I fixed all the issues I could, but a few still remain;
- The items in the "EP" section need release dates.
Done - Is the fact that "All albums released in 2004 include Klinghoffer" best stated on the Shadows Collide With People notes box
Probably not. Maybe it could be mentioned in the lead or something?
Done
Could the sales figures of the solo albums that influenced the charts be stated?- Do his solo music videos need to be mentioned in the "DVDs and videos" section? Done
- Nice work thus far. Grim-Gym 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I could not find anything on his solo albums' sales; none of them have been certified Gold by the RIAA, either to at least give us an indication. Otherwise, I believe everything else has been addressed. NSR77 TC 16:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Support - As a contributor to the article. Grim-Gym 18:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Comments Just to make sure, are there any stray tracks that were issued on compilations? Also, I'm not sure how other band member discographies handle the issue, but is it necessary to include his work as part of the Red hot Chili Peppers? WesleyDodds 11:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think the list is more comprehensive to present the material Frusciante contributed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers (a considerable amount). I don't believe there are any current Featured Lists of a certain branching band members' discography, so I assume we'll just present anew. Thanks for the great feedback. NSR77 TC 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, Gwen Stefani has one, but seeing as how she appeared on all of No Doubt's albums and already has a shitload of highly successful solo projects, it would be grossly unnecessary to include her work with No Doubt on the solo list. I don't think this is the case with Frusciante. The Chili Peppers released more albums without Frusciante than with him, because of this listing his work with the Peppers doesn't in any way, make the main Chili Peppers discography seem redundant. It also serves to validate the "With Ataxia" section. If you aren't going to list his work with the Peppers, then how can you list his work with Ataxia? I personally think it's informative to see which Chili Peppers albums he contributed and how much of an impact he had. I think the article would have a noticeable void if the Chili Peppers info wasn't listed. Grim-Gym 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good, but there may be a few issues:
- It may be important to note in the lead that 'Stadium Arcadium is a double album. Done
- "Peaked at #191 on the Billboard Top 200.[1]" should just be in a charts column. It seems he also charted on a few other American charts ([1]). Done
- You may want to add a formats column to the Frusciante albums section, or at least a bullet giving formats for consistency with the RHCP section. Done
- Split the "EPs and miscellany" section into separate "EPs" and "Miscellany" sections. Done
- Each of the 5 songs contributed to The Brown Bunny soundtrack should be listed. Done
- Use <ref name=""> to cite each example of an RIAA certification. Done
- A quick search shows that RHCP also have a few British album sales certifications (see [2]; there's a good example of how to cite each certification at Goldfrapp discography). Done
- Put "Formats:" in the RHCP subsection of the "DVDs and videos" section. Done
- I don't see why RHCP music videos with Frusciante aren't listed (I'm not a huge fan of the band, but I know for sure he appears in at least one or two). Done
- If these are resolved I'll support this list's featuring. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the review. NSR77 TC 21:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- It may be important to note in the lead that 'Stadium Arcadium is a double album.
- Support Well done. --Brandt Luke Zorn 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, the RHCP stuff should not be listed here. They have their own article for that. A discography should only indicate works released by the artist or at worst, with a co-branding of the artist (for instance, were he to release a duet with, um... Tom Jones under the title Tom Jones and John Frusciante, then that could be listed here). If this can be removed, then I'll reassess the article to see whether or not it should be listed, but right now, no way. --lincalinca 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. But what's your take on the Ataxia works? That has no supplementary article in which it could be listed and is basically in the same boat as the RHCP works. If the RHCP info is removed, then shall the Ataxia info be removed as well? I personally feel that it shows the impact that Frusciante had on his band and is noteworthy in that regard. Further clarification from you, and perhaps a second or third opinion, are necessary to alleviate this point. Thanks. Grim 05:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Ataxia works should be listed on the Ataxia article if the volume is not sizable enough to warrant its own discography article, but should also not be listed here. As I said, I only briefly skimmed the article, so I didn't realise that that was there either. This article should only indicate John's own work and maybe as a footnote of sorts, could indicate a listing of his contributions to RHCP and ataxia, indicating that each has its own main article listings. --lincalinca 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this statement. First, John's is a guitarist of the RHCP first and a solo artist second. Furthermore, there are no set guidelines that warrant any reason not to include his works with the Chili Peppers. Lastly, if you feel this strongly then I'd prefer to keep the information in and not have it featured than what you suggest. NSR77 TC 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you disagree with the statement, but that doesn't change the operation of the guidelines in practice. See WP:ALBUM#Discography for a start, but most importantly, have a look at any other article of the kind. It would be a differet kettle of fish if we were talking about an artist who wasn't a solo artist at all (someone like Terry Bozzio for instance), but the fact is, JF's got a solo career and it's not indicative of his solo career to parade his collaborative efforts under the RHCP or Ataxia banners as his own efforts. This is misleading to the article reader. As I said, it would be appropriate to list his efforts with these groups as a collaborator, but to list the certifications, chart positions and such is attributing too much credit to him (and I believe he would even confirm this were you to ask him). Secondly, it's superfluous as this information is invariably listed on the RHCP discog, as I mentioned before. There's a certain amount of information that may be duplicated from one list to another for specific purposes, but this doesn't really qualify for that. --lincalinca 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, one other thing, though he may be more known for his work with RHCP, he's produced a great deal more work as a solo artist than anything else, so voluminously, he's more of a solo artist anyway. --lincalinca 11:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since there really is no precedent, I think we should wait for a few more opinions on this and take it from there. Grim 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- He has stated on several occasions that his commitment is more towards the Chili Peppers, and may only focus on solo material after his obligations with the group are complete (i.e, after touring, in between albums, etc.). NSR77 TC 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- That may not be relevant to this argument. Let's wait for a few more opinions to come in. Grim 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- He has stated on several occasions that his commitment is more towards the Chili Peppers, and may only focus on solo material after his obligations with the group are complete (i.e, after touring, in between albums, etc.). NSR77 TC 17:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Since there really is no precedent, I think we should wait for a few more opinions on this and take it from there. Grim 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with this statement. First, John's is a guitarist of the RHCP first and a solo artist second. Furthermore, there are no set guidelines that warrant any reason not to include his works with the Chili Peppers. Lastly, if you feel this strongly then I'd prefer to keep the information in and not have it featured than what you suggest. NSR77 TC 10:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Ataxia works should be listed on the Ataxia article if the volume is not sizable enough to warrant its own discography article, but should also not be listed here. As I said, I only briefly skimmed the article, so I didn't realise that that was there either. This article should only indicate John's own work and maybe as a footnote of sorts, could indicate a listing of his contributions to RHCP and ataxia, indicating that each has its own main article listings. --lincalinca 05:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support (as a member of WikiProject Alternative music). However, there's a few issues remaining:
Are all the albums in the "Solo albums" studio albums? If so, it might be worth noting just to be specific.In the Red Hot Chili Peppers section, the "debut", "second", "third" etc. is already implied; however, the "left" and "returned" notes should remain.I don't think sales data (or formats) would be appropriate in the Chilis section (although I don't feel too strongly about this; it's more of a personal preference). (I'd treat as if Frusciante were a band appearing on a compilation). Perhaps sort as:
Year Album Comments
- Otherwise, it's well done. CloudNine 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've converted everything concerning the Chili Peppers' table over to a more appropriate table which provides no information not pertaining to Frusciante. NSR77 TC 19:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant opposeYou are citing a "Kiedis 2004" work, but missing the general citation DoneIt might look silly, but I do think a few general links (e.g. {{Allmusicguide}} or {{discogs}}) could be added. If there's a general discography on his website, that would bemost appropriate too. DoneWhile it looks like he didn't shart enough on his own for a charting table to be appropriate, one should be present for the RHCP material.- The second note of "Blood Sugar Sex Magik" is at best confusing. Done
- Circeus 00:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. We just removed all the RHCP chart info because a previous reviewer opposed it. Hopefully a consensus can be established at some point. All the other points were very helpful and have been addressed. Grim 01:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I first took the rather lengthy time to find all of the chart, sales and certificate information; then it appeared the article was misleading, etc., therefore I reformatted it. Now I have no idea what to do, as it appears no one can agree on the arrangement. NSR77 TC 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can go with no charts if the consensus seems to be against it. I added a "See also" for the full RCHP discography. As for the notes, It's not its presence that bothered me, but the lack of context. I'll support now (even if the note isn't added back). Circeus 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I reworded it accordingly; feel free to fix it if you still notice any flaws. NSR77 TC 02:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I can go with no charts if the consensus seems to be against it. I added a "See also" for the full RCHP discography. As for the notes, It's not its presence that bothered me, but the lack of context. I'll support now (even if the note isn't added back). Circeus 02:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm impressed with the edits to tone down the RHCP and Ataxia info. The references need to be tidied up to be consistent and legible, especially the ones referring to Scar Tissue, since most of them don't indicate that that's whet they refer to, but simply state the authors, year and page number, the book name and ISBN should be listed with every reference. Don't expect reads to connect the dots. Once that's done, you'll have my support. --lincalinca 03:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for recanting that point. The current reference format was directly modeled after John Frusciante (a featured article), is consistent with Neutral Milk Hotel discography (a featured list), and complies with the second point stated in WP:Footnotes (Style recommendations). Based on these facts, there is no reason to alter the current format. Grim 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm recanting the point because it bears revisiting. I wouldn't consider the references to be consistent like this and with inconsistent references, the article doesn't deserve (yet) to be a featured list. Though another featured article works in this style doesn't mean that it's considered optimal. It could well be a detail that's slipped between the cracks. I'd encourage promoting improving an article as much as possible rather than accepting a "that'll do" attitude, because to me, that's unaccpetable. I remain opposed to promotion unless this is done. --lincalinca 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's academic convention to use abbreviated citation information in multiple references from the same source, and as Grim-Gym pointed out, it's a Wiki guideline. Personally when citing a book I like to list the full information with the first citation and then used a summarized form for future references from the same book. Some editors I know simply use an abbreviated form throughout since the full citation information is already provided in a references section. Regardless full citation information is not required for every single footnote in an article if that information is already propeerly conveyed elsewhere in the article. In the specific case of Scar Tissue, further information is not necessary in the footnoes for reader accessibility unless another book by the same authors is cited. WesleyDodds 09:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your point about users not being able to "connect the dots", but that underestimates the intelligence of the user. The references section provides all of the necessary information for a person to connote the meaning with ease. Assuming that it makes blatant sense to you or I but not to the average reader not only underestimates their intelligence, and is not even really a plausible issue. If a person is unable to draw the conclusion that "Kiedis, Sloman, 2004. p. 284" is referencing the item above that was written by Kiedis and Sloman in 2004, then such a person is probably not going to be concerned with the intricacies of references formats to begin with. If a person has that difficulty, they will find it throughout Wikipedia and not just on this article. If such a thing confuses them, then they will seek out the reason for it being that way and come to understand it. If you feel the need to continue to oppose the article, then kindly cite Wikipedia policy that supports your opposition. Grim 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel LinkaLinka has absolutely no merit to still oppose this List, considering he is directly contradicting a Wikipedia guideline (the style, in fact, is typically called the Harvard Method, or something along those lines). Unless you can detect a discernable, reasonable and legitimate reason to oppose the list, do not pull things from the air. NSR77 TC 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but let's remain civil here. We should at least try to empathize with his point of view and explain why we find it invalid. Grim 21:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel LinkaLinka has absolutely no merit to still oppose this List, considering he is directly contradicting a Wikipedia guideline (the style, in fact, is typically called the Harvard Method, or something along those lines). Unless you can detect a discernable, reasonable and legitimate reason to oppose the list, do not pull things from the air. NSR77 TC 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I understand your point about users not being able to "connect the dots", but that underestimates the intelligence of the user. The references section provides all of the necessary information for a person to connote the meaning with ease. Assuming that it makes blatant sense to you or I but not to the average reader not only underestimates their intelligence, and is not even really a plausible issue. If a person is unable to draw the conclusion that "Kiedis, Sloman, 2004. p. 284" is referencing the item above that was written by Kiedis and Sloman in 2004, then such a person is probably not going to be concerned with the intricacies of references formats to begin with. If a person has that difficulty, they will find it throughout Wikipedia and not just on this article. If such a thing confuses them, then they will seek out the reason for it being that way and come to understand it. If you feel the need to continue to oppose the article, then kindly cite Wikipedia policy that supports your opposition. Grim 13:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's called Harvard referencing; it's one of three citation formats recommended by the community. CloudNine 21:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's academic convention to use abbreviated citation information in multiple references from the same source, and as Grim-Gym pointed out, it's a Wiki guideline. Personally when citing a book I like to list the full information with the first citation and then used a summarized form for future references from the same book. Some editors I know simply use an abbreviated form throughout since the full citation information is already provided in a references section. Regardless full citation information is not required for every single footnote in an article if that information is already propeerly conveyed elsewhere in the article. In the specific case of Scar Tissue, further information is not necessary in the footnoes for reader accessibility unless another book by the same authors is cited. WesleyDodds 09:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm recanting the point because it bears revisiting. I wouldn't consider the references to be consistent like this and with inconsistent references, the article doesn't deserve (yet) to be a featured list. Though another featured article works in this style doesn't mean that it's considered optimal. It could well be a detail that's slipped between the cracks. I'd encourage promoting improving an article as much as possible rather than accepting a "that'll do" attitude, because to me, that's unaccpetable. I remain opposed to promotion unless this is done. --lincalinca 06:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I first took the rather lengthy time to find all of the chart, sales and certificate information; then it appeared the article was misleading, etc., therefore I reformatted it. Now I have no idea what to do, as it appears no one can agree on the arrangement. NSR77 TC 01:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- I know I'm being particular about this, but this isn't conforming to the standard use of Harvard Referencing. Harvard referencing still requires the use of the title in each reference. I know The authors didn't write another book together that year, but you have to consider that's not always the case. Especially where it's a single author, they may release several books or written articles (or otherwise and sundries) each year, removing the adequacy of said references. All I'm asking for is the book name and (if applicable, and I know it isn't here, but for future reference) the volume number. If you simply add "Scar Tissue" to each of these references (you don't need to link or use the ISBN because those are alread included prior to these inclusions) then I'd be happy with it. I'm well aware of the acceptance of the referencing type, but the use here is simply non-compliant with the format. --lincalinca 07:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. (Smith 2005, p. 1) is an an example straight from the Harvard referencing article (plus I've seen such a style in several papers). Where have you seen the requirement for this? CloudNine 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're omitting reading the very part of the article that indicates where it says that. --lincalinca 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- This sums it up "Under Harvard referencing, a brief citation to a source is given in parentheses (footnotes in our case) within the text of an article, and full citations are collected in alphabetical order under a "References" or "Works Cited" heading at the end". Then it says a brief citation looks like this: (Smith 2005, p. 1). That's what's happening at the moment. CloudNine 11:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- I want you to know that we all understand your point. There may or may not be some validity there, but four people in this thread have understood and disagreed with your argument. You have to understand that the reason for this isn't that we're trying to beat you down, or show you how wrong you are. We are merely following academic convention and Wikipedia guidelines that have already been questioned and proven effective. We have cited several examples of Wiki policy and guidelines that support the current format, failing that, there probably isn't anything we can do to persuade you. I implore you not to dig your heels in and harden your stance for pride's sake. This is Wikipedia—if we don't check pride at the door, all our projects will suffer. Grim 13:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- A really nice equivalence concept there, Grim. What Linca asks is not a difficult task to execute. However the incorrectness of such warrants enough not to make such an edit. Furthermore, I ask Linca to find proof before he comments again, confirming his comments hold any water; please scour the text relentlessly and directly quote them as CloudNine has. Also take into consideration that a fellow user reconsidered a rather large element to his outline (Circeus) after looking at the facts. His argument was far more relevant, and yours is less so. Four users (including myself) have already contradicted you with Wikipedia guideline. That in its own right instantly disproves any argument on your part. I am simply perplexed at your interpretation, to tell you the truth. I have never seen an editor so gruelingly persistent and unyielding that they went this far as to contradict a guideline and Harvard referencing method. NSR77 TC 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're omitting reading the very part of the article that indicates where it says that. --lincalinca 11:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- No it doesn't. (Smith 2005, p. 1) is an an example straight from the Harvard referencing article (plus I've seen such a style in several papers). Where have you seen the requirement for this? CloudNine 09:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- From a completely personal POV, I have a degree in English and during my time in university the citation method we've all described is how I had to cite my papers. Full citations for every footnote are unnecessary, and you only need to add more information if multiple works by the same author or under the same title and so forth are listed. WesleyDodds 22:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- As was said, (a) it's not hard and (b) it says it on the Harvard referencing page; all references should indicate the work they're citing (simply the name). It's all I ask. Come on. --lincalinca 06:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- None of us are sure of what you want, so please provide a specific example (that's found within a Wiki policy) of exactly what you want changed. Also, please provide a rationale (in the form of a citation of Wiki policy) as to exactly why the current version is unacceptable. Simply do these two things and the references will be changed to meet your standards. If you issue a statement that doesn't address these two points, I will assume you are still working on it and won't respond. Grim 06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full_citations (in WP:CITE#HOW). This indicates that when referring to an item (and it doesn't distinguish whether the reference is used once or mulple times), a full citation is used. The guidelines as set out in Wikipedia:Harvard referencing (WP:HARV) are equally ambiguous in indicating whether or not the book should be mentioned every time, however it doesn't implicitly exclude it. The casual viewer (you can quote me on this) will generally not be able to figure out what the reference is stating, however, when the book title is not mentioned every time and, as I mentioned before, the author(s) of the book may have written other works in the same year. It's simply a matter of common sense to provide this little, albeit trivial, very crutial piece of information on each case of reference given. I don't really see why I'm getting so much resistance on this matter. It's both simple to implement and more logical and descriptive than the lack of its inclusion. --lincalinca 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- They won't have generally. You're getting so much resistance because it contradicts the guidelines in question, plus past experience from a number of editors. See "Full citations": "In the Harvard and embedded links citation systems, full citations appear at the end of the article in a section labeled "References." In the footnotes system, full citations may appear in a "References" section or may appear directly in the footnotes." (we choose the former!). In WP:WIAFA, it states the format w're currently using! It's more complicated; it hides the crucial information, the page number, in a load of repetitive text. The format we're currently using is okay. (This is the style guideline in question) CloudNine 08:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Full_citations (in WP:CITE#HOW). This indicates that when referring to an item (and it doesn't distinguish whether the reference is used once or mulple times), a full citation is used. The guidelines as set out in Wikipedia:Harvard referencing (WP:HARV) are equally ambiguous in indicating whether or not the book should be mentioned every time, however it doesn't implicitly exclude it. The casual viewer (you can quote me on this) will generally not be able to figure out what the reference is stating, however, when the book title is not mentioned every time and, as I mentioned before, the author(s) of the book may have written other works in the same year. It's simply a matter of common sense to provide this little, albeit trivial, very crutial piece of information on each case of reference given. I don't really see why I'm getting so much resistance on this matter. It's both simple to implement and more logical and descriptive than the lack of its inclusion. --lincalinca 07:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- None of us are sure of what you want, so please provide a specific example (that's found within a Wiki policy) of exactly what you want changed. Also, please provide a rationale (in the form of a citation of Wiki policy) as to exactly why the current version is unacceptable. Simply do these two things and the references will be changed to meet your standards. If you issue a statement that doesn't address these two points, I will assume you are still working on it and won't respond. Grim 06:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of this particular list, only one book by the same authors is being cited. And the full bibliographical information is provided in the References section. The footnotes section is also not that large, so anyone viewing the Notes section would not only see the first Scar Tissue footnote at a glance, but would also see the full citation of the book in the Notes section. WesleyDodds 08:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- *sigh* This is disappointing, considering having done a heavy amount of editing, submitted several university reports and theses, I've only ever seen it used the way I'm explaining here, but I'm going to have to concede that the concensus here appears to be to the contrary, despite logic not given the chance to prevail. Unfortunately, it seems logic isn't the preference here. You have my weak support, in light of the insistance to keep it against the actual use of harvard (I don't care what you say, you're not in line with the guideline set out in WP:HARV, but I have to concede that you're all being arrogant, and that's a shame). --lincalinca 08:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Once again this is nothing personal against you, and once again we are citing guidelines and experience. Honestly there's published books and papers that reference this way. WesleyDodds 08:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you linca, and thanks to everyone else (Wesley, Grim, and CloudNine) for their support in this as well. NSR77 TC 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Let's close the book on this issue. It has been thoroughly exhausted. Let the record show that Lincalinca has recanted his opposition despite not having physically stricken his initial use of the word "Oppose". Grim 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you linca, and thanks to everyone else (Wesley, Grim, and CloudNine) for their support in this as well. NSR77 TC 14:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Once again this is nothing personal against you, and once again we are citing guidelines and experience. Honestly there's published books and papers that reference this way. WesleyDodds 08:53, 29 September 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: x days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Crzycheetah 00:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni (a featured list; its nomination is here) was becoming unmaintainably long, so I decided to split off the very comprehensive Athletics section into its own list. Note that since the alumni list's nomination, numerous redlinked articles have been written, and several other articles (esp. College Football Hall of Famers) have been added. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, I'm concerned about linking. For example, there's no links to any of the things mentioned in the headers - no links to the Olympics, and the NFL and MLB are only linked in the tables, and there's no links to American Football. Conversely, the baseball table is inconsistently linked, with random "Major League Baseball" links but mostly "MLB player", without any context what MLB means. These sections, I believe, need much more prose than they have now between the section header and the table; that's where you could hide the links. On a similar note, "MLB Player" or "NFL Player", the P should not be capitalized. So, long story short: I think you need prose for each section. --Golbez 10:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)- NFL, MLB, and NBA have now been written out, "Player" has been changed to "player," and the list's lead has been improved. Links to NFL/MLB/NBA have been removed from list entries. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I forgot I'd commented on this one. Need to watchlist these things... Re-evaluating, it looks better, but a new question pops up. Many people are listed in the "Tech Hall of Fame"; is this a hall of fame for only athletes, and if so, shouldn't that have its own table here with a mention why they're in? --Golbez 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's the "Georgia Tech Hall of Fame," which is only for athletes. Many notable athletes from Georgia Tech get inducted into it within 20 years; however, not all inductees are notable. The source I have is on the Athletic Association website and lists the athletes in it, but it only gives their names, their class year, and the year they were inducted, but not any reason why. So, I feel that I should mention that they were inducted, but beyond that I don't really have any information. Does that help you? Perhaps "Tech Hall of Fame" should be renamed to "Georgia Tech Hall of Fame"? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just a small mention of it in the lede might be useful. Changing to support. --Golbez 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- How's this? :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just a small mention of it in the lede might be useful. Changing to support. --Golbez 03:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's the "Georgia Tech Hall of Fame," which is only for athletes. Many notable athletes from Georgia Tech get inducted into it within 20 years; however, not all inductees are notable. The source I have is on the Athletic Association website and lists the athletes in it, but it only gives their names, their class year, and the year they were inducted, but not any reason why. So, I feel that I should mention that they were inducted, but beyond that I don't really have any information. Does that help you? Perhaps "Tech Hall of Fame" should be renamed to "Georgia Tech Hall of Fame"? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I forgot I'd commented on this one. Need to watchlist these things... Re-evaluating, it looks better, but a new question pops up. Many people are listed in the "Tech Hall of Fame"; is this a hall of fame for only athletes, and if so, shouldn't that have its own table here with a mention why they're in? --Golbez 00:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- NFL, MLB, and NBA have now been written out, "Player" has been changed to "player," and the list's lead has been improved. Links to NFL/MLB/NBA have been removed from list entries. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I went ahead and fixed the really picky concerns of the above user, but this list is a direct port from an already featured list in order to make both more manageable. I support this decision as it makes both lists more readable and more maintainable and was an overall good move. This list is incredibly well-sourced and amazingly comprehensive. The topic sortable list format makes it really easy to find and/or analyze the information presented and is a neat touch. Personally, I find some of the information presented in the lede superfluous as this is a list and as such is meant to present information with minimal explanatory prose (which I think this list does rather well), but that is more of a stylistic/editor preference than something that I view as a shortcoming. LaMenta3 18:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I am a member of WikiProject Georgia Tech and made some minor stylistic edits to this list as per another reviewers suggestions, but aside from that I have not had any involvement in the development of this list, and I have made only minor contributions to unrelated sections of its parent list.
- Sorting by reference is kinda weird. Please double-check that the links go to the right page, I had to fix Horace Allen. I'd like to see a column for "position" for team athletes, e.g point guard, would this be possible? Kappa 15:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Done
- The "position" column sounds possible. Perhaps an optional column in {{AlumniStart}} and {{Alum}} would do the trick. As far as sorting goes, I don't know how to disable it for a specific column. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorting by reference could have its uses. For example, doing so would group together all of the individuals who are in the GT Hall of Fame. It also allows for someone who cares about such things to easily see all of the people mentioned in a single source. Leaving the sort option for that column doesn't pose a real problem with regards to the readability of the list nor is it detrimental to the content. LaMenta3 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I figured out how to add an optional column by doing a bit of template hacking in a user sandbox. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I added the "Position" column to the "American football" section, and added the position of all of the players listed. Man, that's exhausting. Which other sports do you think? I'm thinking baseball and basketball... just... not tonight. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Added the position column to the "Baseball" section. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Added the position column to the "Basketball" section, and disabled sorting by reference. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The "position" column sounds possible. Perhaps an optional column in {{AlumniStart}} and {{Alum}} would do the trick. As far as sorting goes, I don't know how to disable it for a specific column. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have two concerns: What is the rationale for including current players? I don't necessarily see how they are notable. Why are there some red links in the list? If they are notable, shouldn't they have articles of their own? ludahai 魯大海 11:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disclosure: I am a University of Georgia alum, but I will endeavor to maintain objectivity on this list discussion.
- Most of the athletes were added per recommendations as to completeness in the previous list's FLC. I'm fairly certain that all of the redlinked individuals have played professionally, and (therefore) are notable enough for an article. I've made several of those articles, but there are certainly many redlinks remaining. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Also to that point, current players are considered notable under WP:BIO: "Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." It is mostly agreed upon that playing at the college level (particularly NCAA-1A) is considered the highest level in amateur sports in the U.S. Combine this with Georgia Tech's definition of alumni as being anyone who has completed a semester in good standing at the school, any current athlete who is at least a second semester Freshman (academically, not "redshirt") is considered alumni provided s/he completed that semester in good standing. As to the redlinks, many of those are players who played professionally a long time ago, making reliable sources that provide more detail than they played professionally in X sport somewhat hard to find. The lack of coverage about these individuals on Wikipedia is more a result of a systemic bias than because they are not notable. Sure, we could make a whole lot of stubs, but it seems to me that we (WikiProject:Georgia Tech) rather wait until we have enough sourced information to create at least a start-class article than have to wrangle (and most likely defend pending the discovery of more sources) a large number of stubs, which diverts resources from the expansion of articles which are more easily sourced. I hope this satisfactorily addresses your concerns. LaMenta3 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OpposeA few things I noticed (mostly in the intro):
- "contributions within athletics," howabout achievements? Is being in Hallf of Fame of X really a contribution? Done
- "Other alumni are found ... staff are found" Odd tense. Howabout "can be found"? Done
- "are called by the common name" awkwardly worded. Done
- "the program's long history" whose to say it's a "long" history? I'd take out the long. Done
- '"highly technical backgrounds and rigorous courses" whose to say the "highly" technical or "rigorous"? I'd take out both words. Done
- I'm not sure about the last paragraph of the intro. Whose to say they're well-known, much less more worthy of special mention? If I were you, I'd let the list speak for itself. But, I could go either way on this one.
- Also, the image captions shouldn't specify the author, and definitely shouldn't have an external link in them. That information has nothing to do with the article itself, and should be saved for the image's description page. (Edit: Check that. I just noticed on the image pages it says that due to the particular CC liscense, captions should give attribution like that. Is this a stipulation of the license or the author? Drewcifer 23:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC))
- I'd also recommend adding an external links section of some sort. Judging by the copious references, you probably have alot of options. Done
- Lastly, does the references columns in each table need one of those sort buttons? Is anyone going to want to sort the list by citation number? Done
- "contributions within athletics," howabout achievements? Is being in Hallf of Fame of X really a contribution?
Hope all of that seems doable. If these issues can be addressed, I'd be happy to support the article's nomination. Drewcifer 23:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a look at your suggestions for the lead. Most of it was written in one or two sittings, so it could probably use a bit of copyediting. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- The image attribution thing is a stipulation of the author AFAIK, although if it's really against policy, I doubt they'd mind either way. I'm just happy to have free images to use on the page... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- While an external link or two sounds doable (perhaps the main GT athletics website would be best) I don't think it's really necessary. There's not a list of GT alumni this comprehensive anywhere else on the internet, and I feel that the thoroughness of the references eliminates any need for further links. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- As far as sorting references goes, I don't know a way to turn it off. AFAIK, either sorting is "on" or it's "off." The relevant underlying code is in {{AlumniStart}}. Even if I could disable it, I'm not sure I'd want to; it gives a nice graphical uniformity to the top bar. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Figured out a way to disable sorting by reference; it has been disabled. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did a bit of copyediting the lead per some of the suggestions above. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- As to whether the program has a long history- most of the sports programs started relatively soon after the school opened in the very late 1800s. For example, the first football game was in 1893, and the first basketball game was in 1906. I'd consider "long" a defensible word choice there. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- The edits you've made so far look good. But there still are a few above that haven't been take care of, namely "long history," "highly technical and rigorous courses," the last paragraph of the intro, the image captions, and the External links. To address your individual concerns: it really doesn't matter how long ago the first games were, it's that describing it as long is POV. Granted, I would agree that that's a pretty damn long time, but there is no objective truth in describing it as such. As for the image captions, could you contact that original uploader? Surely the uploader did that for a reason, so he/she would be the best person to ask about the attribution thing. And the External links are more of a courtesy than anything else. If the article's about a college's athletic program, provide a link to program's homepage (or something like that). It doesn't have to be a source of information from the page, just a place to get more information on the topic.Drewcifer 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Removed "long," "highly," and "rigorous," added an external link (the official athletics website). I'm the uploader of those images, but not the photographer- I know the photographer personally, and he requested attribution. He creates amazing images, and I feel a small link in the caption is a fair trade for being able to use them on WP. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- See your talk page for more on the attribution thing. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- The edits you've made so far look good. But there still are a few above that haven't been take care of, namely "long history," "highly technical and rigorous courses," the last paragraph of the intro, the image captions, and the External links. To address your individual concerns: it really doesn't matter how long ago the first games were, it's that describing it as long is POV. Granted, I would agree that that's a pretty damn long time, but there is no objective truth in describing it as such. As for the image captions, could you contact that original uploader? Surely the uploader did that for a reason, so he/she would be the best person to ask about the attribution thing. And the External links are more of a courtesy than anything else. If the article's about a college's athletic program, provide a link to program's homepage (or something like that). It doesn't have to be a source of information from the page, just a place to get more information on the topic.Drewcifer 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Everything looks great! I've stricken my Oppose comment above, since all of my concerns with the article have been addressed. There's still the minor issue of the last paragraph (see my comments above), but I could go either way on that one. I'll leave it up to you, but I will say this: let the list speak of itself. Anyways, great work, and a great list! Drewcifer 02:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong opposeWeak support Too many red links. If they were 5-10, I might have let it slip, but there are over fifty red links in this list right now. The people are notable enough to have articles, so why don't they? It's a really good list, but fails the featured list criteria. WP:WIAFL states a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria. So, I repeat, there are fifty non-existing articles here; therefore, it's too earlyto feature such list.--Crzycheetah 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)- Note that the sentence you quote is an example of "useful", criterion a, rather than an actual part of the guideline. While having articles written for each list entry is useful, I feel it is less important than criterion c, "completeness". Additionally, I believe this list to be "useful" regardless that some of the athletes don't have articles yet, as the list gives the athlete's graduating year, position, source of notability, and at least one reference where additional information may be found. The criteria for entry are very stable (notable athletes from Georgia Tech, particularly those that reach the professional level) and articles for each will be written in due time. Since you !voted, though, I have written 11 stubs for redlinked entries. I would continue writing them until the list met with your approval, but I have two tests this week to study for (including one tomorrow afternoon), and I would likely be the only editor participating on that particular project (which, I estimate, will take one to two weeks with one to two determined editors participating). Whether or not the list is promoted, I will doubtless come back and fill in the redlinks in my own time. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Useful" criterion is an actual part of the guideline. I am going to trust you on getting rid of the red links over a two-three week period and strike out my oppose. I made this decision since this is a really good list and this nomination has been here longer than expected.--Crzycheetah 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Useful" criterion is an actual part of the guideline. I am going to trust you on getting rid of the red links over a two-three week period and strike out my oppose. I made this decision since this is a really good list and this nomination has been here longer than expected.--Crzycheetah 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note that the sentence you quote is an example of "useful", criterion a, rather than an actual part of the guideline. While having articles written for each list entry is useful, I feel it is less important than criterion c, "completeness". Additionally, I believe this list to be "useful" regardless that some of the athletes don't have articles yet, as the list gives the athlete's graduating year, position, source of notability, and at least one reference where additional information may be found. The criteria for entry are very stable (notable athletes from Georgia Tech, particularly those that reach the professional level) and articles for each will be written in due time. Since you !voted, though, I have written 11 stubs for redlinked entries. I would continue writing them until the list met with your approval, but I have two tests this week to study for (including one tomorrow afternoon), and I would likely be the only editor participating on that particular project (which, I estimate, will take one to two weeks with one to two determined editors participating). Whether or not the list is promoted, I will doubtless come back and fill in the redlinks in my own time. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:11, 26 September 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 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I am self-nominating this article for its comprehensiveness and adherence to discography style. It is mostly based on the style of The Make-Up discography, a recently promoted Featured list I also worked on. Any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer 06:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pre-emptive comment - Unlike the many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since Lightning Bolt are by and large an independent band that has never come close to any album/singles charts. Thanks! Drewcifer 07:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Opposefor now. I just can't figure out why there are Frenzy subsection, Radio and Covers sections in the discography article. Please explain why this info should be here.--Crzycheetah 21:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the Frenzy album is kind a point of quite alot of rumors and confusion in the Lightning Bolt community. Every other forum person seems to have the definitive answer about it, so I thought it was extremely relevant to include some factual information to dispell the rumors, set things straight, and just to be as informative as possible. The Radio and covers thing I'm kind of iffy about. The Muse thing was kind of a big deal in the LB community, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's relevant to a discography. And the radio thing seems marginally important since those were broadcast/recorded performances (mainly the Robert Peel thing). But I could go either way on both of those sections. But, I included them in the first place in hopes of being a comprehensive as possible. But I would definitely say the Frenzy thing is important. There's no reason that a list can't have some text where relevant. Drewcifer 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's the problem I see. Radio and Covers sections are irrelevant to the discography. And The Frenzy album looks more like in violation of WP:CRYSTAL because no one knows for sure whether this album will be released. It's even possible that this album will never be released. I am not sure about it, though.--Crzycheetah 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I could go either way on the Radio/Covers thing. So if you think I should take them out I'd be happy to. As for the WP:CRYSTAL thing, the subsection's entire purpose isn't to predict the album's eventual release (a crystal ball), but to document it as a weird Lightning-Bolt related phenomenon. A weird Lightning Bolt discography related phenomenon to be specific. The section is well-sourced, including original source material as well as reputable 3rd party sources, so it's not like I'm making this stuff up, nor am I actually predicting anything, you know? Drewcifer 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think Radio and Covers sections are irrelevant and must go. The Frenzy subsection can stay. As I said, I wasn't sure about WP:CRYSTAL, it was just my initial thought when I saw the subsection.--Crzycheetah 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done If there's anything else let me know. Drewcifer 08:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think Radio and Covers sections are irrelevant and must go. The Frenzy subsection can stay. As I said, I wasn't sure about WP:CRYSTAL, it was just my initial thought when I saw the subsection.--Crzycheetah 08:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said, I could go either way on the Radio/Covers thing. So if you think I should take them out I'd be happy to. As for the WP:CRYSTAL thing, the subsection's entire purpose isn't to predict the album's eventual release (a crystal ball), but to document it as a weird Lightning-Bolt related phenomenon. A weird Lightning Bolt discography related phenomenon to be specific. The section is well-sourced, including original source material as well as reputable 3rd party sources, so it's not like I'm making this stuff up, nor am I actually predicting anything, you know? Drewcifer 07:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- That's the problem I see. Radio and Covers sections are irrelevant to the discography. And The Frenzy album looks more like in violation of WP:CRYSTAL because no one knows for sure whether this album will be released. It's even possible that this album will never be released. I am not sure about it, though.--Crzycheetah 00:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Crzycheetah 19:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. -- Scorpion0422 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music. However, a few WP:MOSNUM fixes are needed: for example, 4 and 7 should be four and seven. CloudNine 16:13, 24 September 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, 6 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on this list and feel it meets the FL criteria. I have based the list off List of Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers, one of which is a FL and the other is a FLC, which is in a good state. Thanks, Mattythewhite 16:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support what a great template you used i must say ;) Everlast1910 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support good work. The Rambling Man 10:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Oppose for now. The Lead needs a bit of work.
First off, it needs checked for spelling errors. "appoitned" sticks out at me.
- Done Checked through for errors. Mattythewhite 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
It needs some context in places. Relapse of what? What semi-final?: "their semi-final appearance the following season". Does this refer to the playoffs? If so, that sentence needs rewording slightly.
- Done Can't find the information for what the relaspe was of, so I've removed it. I've explained what the semi-final appearance was for. Mattythewhite 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence is awfully clunky. Could it not be rewritten to something like this: The 2004–05 season was York's first in the Conference National and they had three different managers during the season. The third manager, Billy McEwan is the current incumbent.
- Done Rewritten. Mattythewhite 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- More optional. In Honours, could you not list those managers who were promoted, be that through playoffs or league runners up. I understand this could get messy though if one manager were to "see-saw" a bit, promoted, relegated, promoted etc which is why it is entirely optional. Woodym555 21:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've decided to only include honours which were won, to keep consistency with List of Aston Villa F.C. managers and List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers, which are featured lists. Mattythewhite 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Always said it was optional, so no biggy. Just trying to populate that rather bare cloumn you got there. By the way it does not have to precisely mimic the Villa one. (I know it was featured because i jointly nommed it.) There was a suggestion at the time about putting in relegated as well. I have to say i am currently ambivalent about it though. It would be good from a neutral point of view, on the other hand it would clog up the table if you had to list every promotion. For Villa it would be easy - they have only been relegated 5 times.(and then the manager got sacked and the next one got them promoted). For lower League clubs i accept that it could get messy. Good work overall though. Woodym555 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks good - only comment is I would have a wikilink back to the main York City article in the lead rather than leave it to the navbox at the end of the list. Keith D 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a wikilink in the first paragraph. Mattythewhite 22:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Is the Honours column with just one entry really necessary, though? It can be footnoted.--Crzycheetah 04:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- It could be, but I'd like to keep consistency with the other FL's. Because, if this becomes footnoted, then what is the limit? Another list may have three, but there might be a big despute as to whether that should be in the honours list or footnoted, so I feel they may as well all be in the same place.. Mattythewhite 10:26, 22 September 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 days, 5 support, 1 oppose. Opposition appears to have been addressed. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Self-nom. Comprehensive, stable, and uncontroversial in my opinion. All concerns will be addressed. east.718 at 12:06, September 9, 2007
- Comment, a one sentence lead is unacceptable. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 21:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done east.718 at 01:48, September 10, 2007
- Support, thanks. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It wouldn't hurt to have the UFC website listed as a seperate ref at the bottom (like Hart Memorial Trophy, which has the individual citations and general refs). -- Scorpion0422 03:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - The list is complete and well referenced, I'm surprised to find that Sean Sherk wasn't striped of his championship following that steroid suspension. - Caribbean~H.Q. 20:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm satisfied now, I'll Support. -- Scorpion0422 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak oppose; the cities should be linked the first time they appear in each table (The Japanese cities are unlinked) and you should not use abbreviations for the states. Also, it would probably help to put ", USA" after the American cities. --Golbez 00:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
OpposeStatements need inline citations. I added {{cn}} next to them, but you undid that.--Crzycheetah 18:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- To be fair he did provide an explanation for undoing your edit [3]. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, I just couldn't continue that conversation in that particular way, so I answered to his/her question here.--Crzycheetah 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done east.718 at 20:14, September 23, 2007
- Thanks, I support now.--Crzycheetah 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I know, I just couldn't continue that conversation in that particular way, so I answered to his/her question here.--Crzycheetah 06:17, 23 September 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. Crzycheetah 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Like all of the other NHL trophy FLCs, this page is modeled after the Hart Memorial Trophy. Any concerns brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- "Note 1" in the footnotes appears not to go anywhere. I don't know if it's needed, either. --Golbez 21:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- Some comments by Maxim(talk)
- You should have references that point to the Stanley Cup winners and losers, as well as each team's playoff result, points totals, as well as the team they lost to, if they lost in the playoffs. It's uncited at its current stage, and I believe it requires some references; another FLC, Jack Adams Award, has references that point to team's results. Done
- Would there be another way to display the note in the "Notes" section. I hate being so nitpicky, but it's ugly. Done
- I'd be interested in seeing refs for this fact in the history section:Prior to 1986, the best team in the league during the regular season was allowed to hang a banner stating "NHL League Champions Done
- I think it would be useful to provide a reference for the teams that amassed the most points during the season, as it's stated that Montreal has won 21 times (before the awarding of the trophy), but there's no ref. Done
- You should have references that point to the Stanley Cup winners and losers, as well as each team's playoff result, points totals, as well as the team they lost to, if they lost in the playoffs. It's uncited at its current stage, and I believe it requires some references; another FLC, Jack Adams Award, has references that point to team's results.
- I will reassess the article after these suggested changes are done, or when you want me to review it. Yours truly, Maxim(talk) 20:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done and done. Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion0422 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, great work, Scorpion. :D Maxim(talk) 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, well done. --Golbez 00:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - superb work. Deserving of FL status. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support thumbs up.--Crzycheetah 19:18, 21 September 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: Promoted Crzycheetah's concerns are irrelevant to the list itself: such an issues belongs on Articles for Deletion, not Featured Lists Candidates. Circeus 17:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The page is fully sourced and is modeled after The Simpsons (season 1), which is an FL. One small issue I will address, there are no individual citations for the episodes. This is because the official Lost website which has all of the synopsises does not allow you to link to individual pages. Anyway, any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. -- Scorpion0422 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Meets all FL criteria: it primarily is "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed", and also complies with WP:MOS and WP:LOST, although I do believe the episode summaries could be a little more "prosey". Apart from that, there are only a few tiny little things that might need fixing/tweaking:
- Which numbers should be written in numerical form, and which spelled out? In the lead, there are "24" episodes, while in the Reception section there were "twelve" Emmy nominations, but "14" cast members in the Cast section. Per Manual of Style: "the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." Done
- The links to character pages within the episode summaries seem a little... random. Some characters are linked twice, some not at all, and some supporting characters (even Edward Mars) who don't even have their own page. Some are linked on their second mention, not their first, and I find it a little odd to see DriveSHAFT linked to its subsection on Charlie's page. Done
- Not sure about this one, but it just reads a little strangely - in the Reception section, it "was nominated for..." but "would win..." If both (the nominations and awards) have happened, shouldn't they both be written in the same standard past tense - i.e. "it was nominated for..." and "it won..."? Hope all that helps. Done •97198 talk 15:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I have tried my best to fix everything you have pointed out. -- Scorpion0422 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, a {{done}} tag placed on the first point, but no change - don't worry, it's done now :) ; some links removed per the second point - I got rid of the rest; and per the third point I fixed an extra "would be nominated" statement. I still do think the episode summaries could be smartened up a bit - I might take a bash at that if (a) I can find the time and (b) no one else beats me to it! •97198 talk 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I have tried my best to fix everything you have pointed out. -- Scorpion0422 15:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which numbers should be written in numerical form, and which spelled out? In the lead, there are "24" episodes, while in the Reception section there were "twelve" Emmy nominations, but "14" cast members in the Cast section. Per Manual of Style: "the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers (from zero to nine) are spelled out; numbers of more than one digit are generally rendered as digits, but may be spelled out if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)."
- Support. Informative, thorough, and meets FL criteria. -- Wikipedical 21:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose This list fails WP:EPISODES. All episodes except pilot are not notable enough to have their own article. This is where 1a3 criterion of WP:WIAFL comes in. They basically contain plot and trivia, so they should be redirected to this page. I learned all this stuff from here. You may find more explanation from there--Crzycheetah 03:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but the individual episode articles have nothing to do with the quality of this list. -- Wikipedical 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- This list offers links to non-notable articles thus, reducing its quality. They should be delinked.--Crzycheetah 04:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- So please clarify, what fails WP:EPISODES- the list or the episodes. We are talking about whether this list meets FL criteria. Is it not useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed? I would urge you to reconsider your reason for opposing the list based on these criteria. -- Wikipedical 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- And what about List of Lost episodes? It passed an FLC less than 2 months ago - after the more stringent WP:FICT concerns were defined. As well, the majority of the pages for The Simpsons (season 2) are in no better shape, but you supported its promotion. -- Scorpion0422 21:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- So please clarify, what fails WP:EPISODES- the list or the episodes. We are talking about whether this list meets FL criteria. Is it not useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed? I would urge you to reconsider your reason for opposing the list based on these criteria. -- Wikipedical 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- This list offers links to non-notable articles thus, reducing its quality. They should be delinked.--Crzycheetah 04:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so, but the individual episode articles have nothing to do with the quality of this list. -- Wikipedical 03:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- This list contains links to non-notable articles; therefore, it fails #2 of WP:WIAFL by not complying with the standards set out in the relevant WikiProjects, in this case WP:EPISODES. The episodes should be redirected to this list AND the links to episodes in this list should be removed. In other words, in order for this list to be featured it needs to get rid of all those links to the non-notable episode articles.
Scorpion0422, I explained the situation of the List of Lost episodes in your talk page yesterday. The Lost episodes contain plot only while the Simpsons episodes are far more developed.--Crzycheetah 00:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)- The Lost episodes list was promoted 2 months ago, after the WP:FICT guidelines were redefined. -- Scorpion0422 21:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment While I do think this list is good, I would like to see it perfect before I support. I will work on it some more. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 21:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support All right, I cut it down by 6000 kilobytes. As for the episodes failing guidelines, we are getting there – to improving them. We already have one FA and another with out-of-universe information. I think that it is a good idea to cover the season pages first, as more people will be seeing them. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 06:00, 18 September 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nomination. This list is based on List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia, which are both recently listed FLs. It does have two fair use images (Image:One Bayfront Plaza.jpg and Image:Empire World Towers.jpg), but the images are relevant in their respective "Approved" and "Proposed" sections (no free images of any approved or proposed buildings in Miami exist), and both have thorough fair use rationales. I believe the list to be comprehensive, stable, well-organized and well-referenced. Any comments brought up here will be addressed. Raime 04:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have a problem with the images in the "Tallest buildings" section being in a single column on the right hand side, I see to be scrolling past acres of whitespace. This version [4] looked alright to me. Kappa 13:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that problem. The section and the images appear fine to me. Does your browser have a similar issue with List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia? The edit you mentioned above looked very strange on my browser, as it left huge amounts of white space on each side, and completely cramped the text. It was also inconsistent with the 4 other "tallest buildings" FLs. Raime 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well OK, no-one else seems to dislike it. Kappa 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll support if you put the "years tallest" column first or second in the timeline. Kappa 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has been a standard to put "Years as tallest" in 5th position on the table, as this is how other tallest building lists have passed previously. If it was moved to before "Height" or "Floors", it would be very inconsistent with all other ranking lists in the article; "Year", or in this case, "Years as tallest", has been consistently placed after the floor count. However, if you really think it is necessary, I will move it. Rai-me 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- The other lists in the article are sorted by height, so having height in one of the first columns and year towards the end makes sense for them. Kappa 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done - You're right. Since the list is measuring by timeline, the years should go first. I've moved the column to 3rd, after the street address. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um well I'd still prefer first or second but you can certainly have my support. Kappa 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your support. I was thinking about making it 2nd, but opted for 3rd, since the street address is sometimes used as a building's name, and the building's name should probably be listed first above all else. Rai-me 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't the other tables have addresses? Kappa 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Becuase it is not really important, and many new buildings use their addresses for the names anyways. Addresses are usually good additional information for historically significant structures/landmarks such as the Freedom Tower and the Dade County Courthouse, but for newer structures, not necessarily. Addresses for newer, less prominent buildings are sometimes not even directly stated by the developer. Rai-me 13:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't the other tables have addresses? Kappa 12:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your support. I was thinking about making it 2nd, but opted for 3rd, since the street address is sometimes used as a building's name, and the building's name should probably be listed first above all else. Rai-me 03:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Um well I'd still prefer first or second but you can certainly have my support. Kappa 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- The other lists in the article are sorted by height, so having height in one of the first columns and year towards the end makes sense for them. Kappa 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has been a standard to put "Years as tallest" in 5th position on the table, as this is how other tallest building lists have passed previously. If it was moved to before "Height" or "Floors", it would be very inconsistent with all other ranking lists in the article; "Year", or in this case, "Years as tallest", has been consistently placed after the floor count. However, if you really think it is necessary, I will move it. Rai-me 00:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll support if you put the "years tallest" column first or second in the timeline. Kappa 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well OK, no-one else seems to dislike it. Kappa 13:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about that problem. The section and the images appear fine to me. Does your browser have a similar issue with List of tallest buildings in Philadelphia? The edit you mentioned above looked very strange on my browser, as it left huge amounts of white space on each side, and completely cramped the text. It was also inconsistent with the 4 other "tallest buildings" FLs. Raime 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- 'Comments by Maxim(talk)' Great job, Raime. I couldn't find anything missing, to tell the truth, until I plugged in some JavaScript. Here is what it's helped me find (I saw the suggestions, and I manually rechecked them, so they're all applicable):
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 122 meters, use 122 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 122 meters.- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds ->
- That's about all, metric/imperial tweaks of style. Use User:AndyZ/peerreviewer, and it should highlight these minor changes. It's nothing pressing, and it's superficial, to tell the through. I more or less support now, and I just want to see these minor MOSNUM changes. Maxim(talk) 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Thank you very much for the review. I think I've made all necessary changes;
is now used throughout and I've changed "meters" to "m" and "ft" to "feet" where appropriate. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 02:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support I was being excruciatingly picky over the MOSNUM fixes, and that's why I didn't oppose. Amazing list. Great work, Raime. Maxim(talk) 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! Rai-me 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Support Looks great as the other similar FLs. I have two concerns, though. First, I believe the refs(inline citations) should be in numerical order. Second, the external link doesn't show the diagram immediately, I have to refresh my page in order to see it. I don't know whether it's my computer's problem or not, but I'd recommend you to write a note similar to "refreshing the page may be required", anyway. It looked like a dead link before I refreshed the page.--Crzycheetah 03:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I have just added the "(refreshing the page may be required)" note, as my computer had similar issues with the link, so it must be a problem with the entire link. As for putting the refs in order, do you think that is really necessary? All entries are currently laid out using the "Emporis, SkyscraperPage", and, if applicable, "Structurae" ref format, and are all ordered in this way. Putting them in numerical order would mess up this order. However, I will change it if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Rai-me 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure about the order. I just know that most(experienced) of the reviewers at WP:FAC want inline citations to be in numerical order. That's why I just mentioned it.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Okay, all individual entry references are now in alphabetical order. The FAC argument was a strong one. Do you have any other concerns? Rai-me 20:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed one more thing. The refs #6, 7, and 8 have notes and give "SkyscraperPage.com" as a source to those notes. My concern is that it doesn't give the specific webpage from where that note was taken. I don't want to browse through every page in SkyscraperPage.com to find those numbers.--Crzycheetah 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I have removed Source of information: SkyscraperPage.com from the refs. I took the information from the diagrams of the city, but unfortunately there is no way to provide direct links to those specific diagrams. Therefore, no specific page can be given. The information can simply be left as footnotes. Rai-me 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm..I think it's better to have something rather than nothing. Havihng just SkyscraperPage.com as a source is better than leaving all of the statistical data unsourced. Where have you seen those diagrams? They had to be in some page, right? Maybe, you could provide the general diagrams page?--Crzycheetah 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've reverted the edit, at least for now. The only way I know how to access the diagrams is to go to this page and specify a search. To find the information referenced, you would have to type in "Miami", change conversion to feet, set a height limit of 500 ft, select "Official height", select "highrise", select "Built" and/or "Construction" and/or "Proposed". Once this is accomplished, the site will bring you to a URL that reads "[5]"; it is not a specific page, and referencing it will only bring a reader back to the original diagram search page. This occurs because SkyscraperPage treats it as a personally selected detailed diagram, not a specific diagram, which would be found here; a diagram that is not complete, as it only depicts buildings that have images, and is therefore inadequate for referencing and fit only for an external link). Rai-me 01:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm..I think it's better to have something rather than nothing. Havihng just SkyscraperPage.com as a source is better than leaving all of the statistical data unsourced. Where have you seen those diagrams? They had to be in some page, right? Maybe, you could provide the general diagrams page?--Crzycheetah 01:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed one more thing. The refs #6, 7, and 8 have notes and give "SkyscraperPage.com" as a source to those notes. My concern is that it doesn't give the specific webpage from where that note was taken. I don't want to browse through every page in SkyscraperPage.com to find those numbers.--Crzycheetah 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure about the order. I just know that most(experienced) of the reviewers at WP:FAC want inline citations to be in numerical order. That's why I just mentioned it.--Crzycheetah 21:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. I have just added the "(refreshing the page may be required)" note, as my computer had similar issues with the link, so it must be a problem with the entire link. As for putting the refs in order, do you think that is really necessary? All entries are currently laid out using the "Emporis, SkyscraperPage", and, if applicable, "Structurae" ref format, and are all ordered in this way. Putting them in numerical order would mess up this order. However, I will change it if you deem it necessary. Thanks, Rai-me 21:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Whenever you search for a diagrarm there, it gives you a link to a specific page, it's called "Diagram URL". It's located below the "Displaying 1 to 25 of xxx structures" statement.--Crzycheetah 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, thank you. I've never noticed that before. I'll add this URL to the references right now. Rai-me 02:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
- Done - All of the city statistic refs now reference their respective specific diagrams. Rai-me 10:53, 20 September 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 23:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Modelled upon the Hart Memorial Trophy, a relatively recent FL. It is a bit different from the other NHL trophies, as it involves coaches, non-players. All concerns will be addressed. Maxim(talk) 22:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Any source for the notations for President Trophy, Stanley Cup, etc.? ludahai 魯大海 13:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Shouold be, but it's never directly stated, as you need the lists of team winners for each, that the name of the team's coaches... Should I add a general reference which points to the three lists I mentioned before? I think the teams are already there. Maxim(talk) 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think some source should be provided. What do others think? ludahai 魯大海 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'll try to do something. I think I'll try to implement my solution above. Maxim(talk) 11:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think some source should be provided. What do others think? ludahai 魯大海 11:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - I had the following minor concerns:The overlinking in the captions should be removed, as each pictured coach already has an entry on the list.The list in the "History" section would look better if it were merged into prose. I don't think you really need all of the infomation about what team they played on and what year it occurred it in, as is is already clearly presented in the list.The last sentence of the History section is very stubby. It would better if this could be combined with another paragraph. The third paragraph ios also border-line stubby; perhaps it can be merged with one of the first two.The "adjudged to have contributed the most to his team's success" quote in the lead and the infobox needs to have a citation.Perhaps the lead can be expanded with one or two more senetences? It does not seem up to par with the other trophy list leads.Why is National Hockey League Broadcasters Association italicized?
- Overall, I am very confident that these concerns will all be addressed and/or explained, and I'll re-assess my opinion then. Raime 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- All Done. Anything more? :D Maxim(talk) 22:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- All
- Support - Due to recent improvements, list certainly meets all criteria. Great job, Maxim :) Rai-me 00:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Support: Great looking list, very well-sourced.Oppose: I take my support back. The history section needs sourcing. For a cite for the bit about the closest vote, simply search the NHL news archives for last years NHL awards results and I'm sure you'll find one. Google Ruff Laviolette and "Jack Adams" together and you'll probably have no trouble.-- Scorpion0422 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)- I found the ref, with a bit of trouble, I have to admit. It's the fifth link down, for a search with <- Ruff Laviolette "Jack Adams" "point" -blog -blogspot -> Will you reconsider? :) Maxim(talk) 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support: It wouldn't hurt to have a citation for the other point in the section, but I am satisfied. Good job. -- Scorpion0422 01:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I found the ref, with a bit of trouble, I have to admit. It's the fifth link down, for a search with <- Ruff Laviolette "Jack Adams" "point" -blog -blogspot -> Will you reconsider? :) Maxim(talk) 01:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Raime and Scorpion. I am not certain it is necessary in a list of coaches, but would it perhaps help to use the highlight on coaches who are still currently active in the NHL, as we do with players on the other awards pages? Resolute 01:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid highlighting coaches is a POV slimepit, because they maybe active in many different ways, and that's the problem. Now if I define criteria, then it's another slimepit. Players are very well defined, they "officially" announce retirement, that's what I think makes the difference. Maxim(talk) 01:52, 18 September 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: 13 days, 6 support, 1 oppose. There is active opposition, but it appears that the concern has been addressed because a user that had a similar concern is now satisfied. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Modeled upon the Hart Memorial Trophy, a reasonably recent FL, and Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy, a current FLC due to close soon. It is a bit different, as the trophy is relatively recent, and as such has no defined history section, but a paragraph in the lead. All concerns will be addressed. Maxim(talk) 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is there a list coming of Hockey award lists?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- There's NHL awards. It's gonna be a featured topic, so I apologize for bringing a tenth such list here. Maxim(talk) 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can't anything be done about the whitespace on the page. ludahai 魯大海 13:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's the only free image I could find :(. I can't use fair-use. It sucks, I raised a similar comment on a similar FLC myself, but that what it is. Sorry again. Maxim(talk) 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- What does that image have to do with the whitespace?--Crzycheetah 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The whitespace usually has images in it, and that's how the table's structured. I'm not sure how bad it is in monobook, but it's stands in simple. Maxim(talk) 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The whitespace is created by the infobox, I think. You really need the history section, it will make this article more comprehensive and get rid of the whitespace. You need more background info on this trophy than what you have in the lead.--Crzycheetah 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's doesn't have much history to it, as it was established about 20 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- The whitespace is created by the infobox, I think. You really need the history section, it will make this article more comprehensive and get rid of the whitespace. You need more background info on this trophy than what you have in the lead.--Crzycheetah 02:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- The whitespace usually has images in it, and that's how the table's structured. I'm not sure how bad it is in monobook, but it's stands in simple. Maxim(talk) 01:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- What does that image have to do with the whitespace?--Crzycheetah 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but that's the only free image I could find :(. I can't use fair-use. It sucks, I raised a similar comment on a similar FLC myself, but that what it is. Sorry again. Maxim(talk) 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose Do something about the white space and I will reconsider. ludahai 魯大海 11:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the history a bit, is it all right now? Maxim(talk) 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is better, but there is still some whitespace between the header and the table. ludahai 魯大海 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Can you be more specific with what you want me to do? Sorry for the delay, I was on WikiBreak. Maxim(talk) 20:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is better, but there is still some whitespace between the header and the table. ludahai 魯大海 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the history a bit, is it all right now? Maxim(talk) 12:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I've added {{clear}} underneath the history section. It certainly does not rid the article of all white space, but it does prevent the infobox from overlapping onto the list heading. As for the presence of the white space, I don't think there is any way to remove it all; IMO, it is not really reasonable to call for an expansion of the "History" section when no relevant information can be found to add to it. Rai-me 00:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, now for my review. I had only a few minor concerns:
- Lead - This should be expanded. Not up to par with other trophy list.
- For Dave Poulin, is the "Spent countless hours" really necessary? This should probably be reworded.
- Is there a reason why some of the more notable charities and hospitals are not wikilinked?
- I think the References and Notes should be combined with separate "General" and "Specific" sections, as with other trophy lists.
- Okay, now for my review. I had only a few minor concerns:
- Other than these concerns, the lists looks pretty good. Rai-me 00:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I should be able to do the changes, I'm just lagging behind here a little bit, sorry. :( Maxim(talk) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- And now I think I'm Done. Maxim(talk) 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be so nit-picky, but can the lead be expanded any more? A 2 sentence lead is still very short. For example, how are players selected? It it just a coincidence that no player has won it more than once, or is this a general rule? Perhaps mention the exact number of players who have won it over X amount of years since it origin in Z year (similar to the Hart Trophy article). Some of this information may also be included in the history section to help expand it. Rai-me 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- What about now? Maxim(talk) 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - And another great job, Maxim. Lead now seems up to par with other trophy lists. I still am curious about one tidbit of information - can no player ever win the award more than once, or has this just never happened? If this information can be found, it would be good to include in the lead and history sections. But this is a great list. Rai-me 15:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be so nit-picky, but can the lead be expanded any more? A 2 sentence lead is still very short. For example, how are players selected? It it just a coincidence that no player has won it more than once, or is this a general rule? Perhaps mention the exact number of players who have won it over X amount of years since it origin in Z year (similar to the Hart Trophy article). Some of this information may also be included in the history section to help expand it. Rai-me 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- And now I think I'm
- I should be able to do the changes, I'm just lagging behind here a little bit, sorry. :( Maxim(talk) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong OpposeShort lead. Short History.You listed nhl.com as a reference, but you're citing legendsofhockey.net instead. Add legendsofhockey.net to your general references and format that section using something similar to {{cite web}}. In the awarded to the part of the infobox you basically rewrote the lead, I'd suggest you to reword it.I am very concerned how short this is, though.--Crzycheetah 02:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)- Dear Crzycheetah, I can't do much about the length, it only has a twenty year history. I can expand the lead, but the history section already has gone through a creation-expansion through this FLC. About legendsofhockey.net, I'm not sure what you want me to try to do. NHL.com is a general reference, as it describes the trophy, while each legendsofhockey.net footnote has a short bio, more focusing on why the player in question won the trophy. It's a very similar, if not identical, system of citations used for the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy. Maxim(talk) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Maxim on these points. I did a Google search of the trophy, and many sources, even the NHL sources, wnet into far less detail about the trophy than this article's history section does. I really don't see how the history can be expanded, if no more info can be found. The awarded to the information in the infobox follows the same format as other Trophy FLs; re-writing the information in the lead seems to be a standard for many of these lists, so I don't see why this particular one should be reworded. I do agree with Crzycheetah's point about the lead, however; it is a little too short. Rai-me 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you could use some trivial info in the history section. I found something interesting about the great Wayne Gretzky and this trophy: read here.--Crzycheetah 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I personally do not think that the voting statistics of one particlular year are relevant enough to be placed in the history section. That has more to do with the individual players, not the overall history of the trophy. Rai-me 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think trivia should be thrown into the article to get it to FL status. A featured article should contain only important, comprensive information and adding trivia doesn't really cut it. I would love to see a long history section, but we can only add what the sources allow. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was about the very first year of the award and the G.O.A.T in hockey, that's why I made this suggestion. To tell you the truth, 90% of the content in the history sections of all of these awards(Hart Memorial Trophy, Lester B. Pearson Award etc) are trivial , but they still get featured.--Crzycheetah 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lead reasonably, but I think I might've doubled the size of the lead, take a look. Maxim(talk) 13:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- It was about the very first year of the award and the G.O.A.T in hockey, that's why I made this suggestion. To tell you the truth, 90% of the content in the history sections of all of these awards(Hart Memorial Trophy, Lester B. Pearson Award etc) are trivial , but they still get featured.--Crzycheetah 02:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think trivia should be thrown into the article to get it to FL status. A featured article should contain only important, comprensive information and adding trivia doesn't really cut it. I would love to see a long history section, but we can only add what the sources allow. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I personally do not think that the voting statistics of one particlular year are relevant enough to be placed in the history section. That has more to do with the individual players, not the overall history of the trophy. Rai-me 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I think you could use some trivial info in the history section. I found something interesting about the great Wayne Gretzky and this trophy: read here.--Crzycheetah 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Maxim on these points. I did a Google search of the trophy, and many sources, even the NHL sources, wnet into far less detail about the trophy than this article's history section does. I really don't see how the history can be expanded, if no more info can be found. The awarded to the information in the infobox follows the same format as other Trophy FLs; re-writing the information in the lead seems to be a standard for many of these lists, so I don't see why this particular one should be reworded. I do agree with Crzycheetah's point about the lead, however; it is a little too short. Rai-me 14:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dear Crzycheetah, I can't do much about the length, it only has a twenty year history. I can expand the lead, but the history section already has gone through a creation-expansion through this FLC. About legendsofhockey.net, I'm not sure what you want me to try to do. NHL.com is a general reference, as it describes the trophy, while each legendsofhockey.net footnote has a short bio, more focusing on why the player in question won the trophy. It's a very similar, if not identical, system of citations used for the Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy. Maxim(talk) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support The history section doesn't matter that much too me, the table is well sourced and well formatted, so I support. -- Scorpion0422 01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support Whitespace is gone, lead and history are extended. --Crzycheetah 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Scorpion, and per the consistent formatting with the other NHL trophy FL's. It should be noted, however, that I am a member of the Featured Topic drive that this article is a part of. Resolute 22:27, 16 September 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: 22 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Other comments. Promote. Scorpion0422 02:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article as a Featured List Candidate as it supports the main Crowded House article, which is currently in WP:FAC also. The page is fully referenced, has no imagery, as none is applicable, it builds the web, I believe it maintains a neutral point of view and I believe (and hope) that it is considered well written. --lincalinca 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, lots of little beefs (and a bigger one) that should be easily fixable:Lead first sentence should have a properly stated and bolded topic ("list of awards won by Crowded House")- Done - not sure if it reads/looks OK, but it's a start :) Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Article should probably include sales certifications. (Though i can retract this if other commenters disagree.)Do not link to inexistent ceremony articles until they have been created- Links removed. Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Too many links to the same song/album- Multiple links removed. Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're going to add text in all other section, you might as well have some in the "ARIA Awards" section. That way, you can also have a more obvious source. At first glance that section looks unsourced, even if it actually is.- Added some text, and a ref. Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Put the references for individual entries in the result column instead of year. Looks much neater that way.- References moved to entries. Giggy Talk 23:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Circeus 20:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Waiting for more comments re: certifications. Maybe you could consider combining the BRIT, MTV and BMI awards in a prose "others" section? Circeus 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do that. Makes sense considering how few there are of each of those. I kept them initially separate so as to keep them at arm's length according to npov. What was the "bigger" issue with the page? I'll see if I can resolve the matter. Just to let you know, I've actually moved the article to "List of..." in accordance with the other list articles of the same kind. lincalinca 01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- The certification bit. I'm not sure how relevant or not it is, so I'm waiting for other opinions before pulling it out or not. Circeus 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Understood. I know where you're coming from on that matter, however there's a whole article set up as the group's discography. This article is voted/elected awards (with the exception of the sales recognition awards, like BMIs and such), however certifications, generally speaking (and according to WP:MUSTARD) these figures belong with the information about the album itself. This is an uncommon practice to have an article dedicated to awards won by an artist, s the guidelines are somewhat blurred here, but noting that kind of information on the discography page instead of here seems more logical to me, though that's an opinion, so I'd like to see what a third pov would consider it. --lincalinca 13:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have to admit that makes a whole lot of sense. I've added the discog as a see also.Circeus 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll do that. Makes sense considering how few there are of each of those. I kept them initially separate so as to keep them at arm's length according to npov. What was the "bigger" issue with the page? I'll see if I can resolve the matter. Just to let you know, I've actually moved the article to "List of..." in accordance with the other list articles of the same kind. lincalinca 01:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Waiting for more comments re: certifications. Maybe you could consider combining the BRIT, MTV and BMI awards in a prose "others" section? Circeus 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support without the tables I removed. Circeus 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I just added an infobox which I think kind of clears it up. If you disagree then I'll ditch it. I think it makes the page a bit more accessible. I was trying to find an image on creative commons that would suit it, but there wasn't anything wit them receiving any awards, so I had to go without doing that. Is there a way we can prompt to have more people review the article for opposition/support? I don't know if I'm supposed to vote but of course, I'm in support of this. --lincalinca 06:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Weak opposeSupportThe {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are used in some places and there are places where citation is done manually. That's inconsistent.The publishers are included along with the title in the citations. They need to be presented seperately.The rest of the results in the APRA Awards section need references, as well.Chris Bourke's book needs ISBN or any proof that this book is real.
--Crzycheetah 06:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates are used in some places and there are places where citation is done manually. That's inconsistent.- Ok, I'll make them consistent (consistify? is that a word? It is now).
The publishers are included along with the title in the citations. They need to be presented separately.- With use of the templates, that'll amend this (since I intend converting all non-template use to template use).
The rest of the results in the APRA Awards section need references, as well.- Can you clarify this? There's not much in the APRA things, and all of the awards are referenced (if you're saying to duplicate the references where necessary, I can do that, but it's a bit of over kill having the same reference twice on the same line when it's rather evident as to what it's about). Anyway, I'll work on fixing this issue once you clarify this.
Chris Bourke's book needs ISBN or any proof that this book is real.- Yeah, that was an error in the use of the template. I've fixed it now and it now works.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lincalinca (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 September 2007
- Please, don't strike out someone else's comments without his/her permission. As for the references, it looks incomplete which in turn looks unprofessional. In this case, you either cite all awards or none, but at this time there are three ARPA award remain unreferenced.--Crzycheetah 07:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about striking through those issues. I've never been told not to before. In future, I'll just do it to my replications. As to your issues, I believe I've now addressed your concerns, including replicating the references to the APRA awards where they were in the same year. Is there anything else I can do to garner your support? --lincalinca 09:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Support - Great list. Drewcifer 04:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- The nominations pending in the infobox aren't listed against an Award. Sure it's not that important but it seems to make the table incomplete.
- Order citations numerically so change [4][5][1] to [1][4][5], and [17][18][8] to [8][17][18].
- "The group's awards are not exclusive to Australian awards..." overuse of awards I feel.
- APRA award results are all cited, ARIA are not at all. Why not be consistent?
- "...the Triple J Hottest 100, an annual Australian selection of the best songs of that year." - you explain what this is on the second time of mentioning it. Explain it the first time (in the History section).
Otherwise an excellent article. Let me know what you think of my comments, and I'll make a judgement soon. The Rambling Man 18:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Great comments and I'll look to amend the article appropriately. lincalinca 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, tell me if I've appropriately tackled these issues:
The nominations pending in the infobox aren't listed against an Award. Sure it's not that important but it seems to make the table incomplete.- The item in question is "Don't Stop Now" for the APRA Silver Scroll. I've made it more obvious that by being shortlistedf it is pending being awarded. If you think it just needs to be removed from the infobox, I can do that too, but I've left it there for now. lincalinca 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Order citations numerically so change [4][5][1] to [1][4][5], and [17][18][8] to [8][17][18]."The group's awards are not exclusive to Australian awards..." overuse of awards I feel.- I actually got rid of that, since it's right after a sentence about international awards (mtv and bmi), but thanks for drawing attention to it. lincalinca 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
APRA award results are all cited, ARIA are not at all. Why not be consistent?- Done. I've cited them all (though, they are all simply duplications of the same ref, since it's all from the one page, which is referenced in the section lead also). lincalinca 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"...the Triple J Hottest 100, an annual Australian selection of the best songs of that year." - you explain what this is on the second time of mentioning it. Explain it the first time (in the History section).
- I've addressed all of these. Let me know if it's satisfactory! --lincalinca 01:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support not only is the article comprehensive and well written, it looks good too. Good work. The Rambling Man 06:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've addressed all of these. Let me know if it's satisfactory! --lincalinca 01:31, 11 September 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 days, 4.5 support, 0 oppose. I don't know how to count Croat Canuck's comment. It's endorsing the promotion. Otherwise, as this is unopposed, I've self-closed. Scorpion's done once before, should be a problem Promote. Maxim(talk) 21:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The page is modelled after the Hart Memorial Trophy, which is a recently listed FL, however with a few content-type (section which describes why it was awarded to the player, which often mentioned) and style differences(Gallery is at the bottom instead on the right-hand column). The page is fully referenced. Any concerns that are brought up will be addressed. Maxim(talk) 16:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Text of previous comments
Weak Oppose - I had the following questions/concerns:I think it would be best to remove the gallery and place all the images in the right column. Galleries are generally frowned upon at WP:GA and WP:FA, so I don't see why they should be accepted here. In this case, there is no need for the gallery.It didn't fit well on the right with the notes.I don't understand the rationale behind this argument. I made an edit preview], and it seemed fine to me to have each image at 200px, aligned right. For galleries, if it is possible to move the images into prose (or in this case, on the side of a lsit), then it should be done. There is no reason why these images could not fit in well next to the list, so you should remove the gallery. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done
- Some the "Notes" seem border-line irrelevant: "Made the NHL despite his small size", "While Bobby Orr led the headlines, Brad Park led a quiet career that eventually landed him in the Hockey Hall of Fame", " he would play only 16 more games after being awarded", "as he was traded around the league". While they are interesting trivia pieces, they don't really have to do with the players directly winning the trophy (or at least it does not seem so in present context), and therefore should be removed or reworded.
- I intended that they do, as there is usually a strong reason as to why it was awarded (just look at the sources; I only knew the very recent winners' ailments, and Mario's.
- But take this comment, for example: While Bobby Orr led the headlines, Brad Park led a quiet career that eventually landed him in the Hockey Hall of Fame. It was presented for his dedication. What does him leading a "quiet career" have to do with him winning a trophy? It seems that the only relevant note here is presented for his dedication, as that is specifically why he won the award. It dosn't really amtter if the extra information is found in the references; all that is needed is why they won, and nothing else. And as long as that specific why is anserwed in the references (For Brad Park, it is: was selected as the MASTERTON TROPHY winner for 1983-84, commemorating an exceptional career of dedication to the game of hockey.) The same goes for he would play only 16 more games after being awarded; this is interesting trivia, and is noted in the ref, but has nothing to do with the player actually winning the trophy. It seems that each reference has a single sentence that summarizes why each player won (i.e. for his perseverance and dedication to hockey, for his dedication to hockey, For his lifelong dedication to strong, clean hockey), and that is all that should be included (For most part, this is already the case; only a few entries need reviewing). Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I intended that they do, as there is usually a strong reason as to why it was awarded (just look at the sources; I only knew the very recent winners' ailments, and Mario's.
- Perhaps a better term than "Notes" can be used?
I don't really think use of small font in the "Notes" section is necessary, as most entries aren't extremely long, and do not warrant it. Done
Then it requires a gallery at the bottom.Why is that? Yes, it will be slightly more "cramped", but this is not really an issue. See the List of tallest buildings in Providence FL, which has 200px images, and a "Notes" section that has similarly-lengthed entries that use regular font. I made an edit preview with each image moved and the entires put in regular font, and everything seemed fine. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Fixed. Raime 16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Some pieces of information need to be explained further or removed: "After "denouncing" his team" - why is denouncing in quotation marks? Done
- Part of a quotation, but I've removed it.
- I'm a little confused by this entry - The first international player to receive it, Anders Hedberg was recognized for a dedicated career, and not for one season. What does "not for one season" mean? Is this a typo, or is it a hyped-up way of saying "he played for more than one season"? If it is the latter, it needs to be rephrased. Done
- First player not from Canada (or North America) to recieve it. I've reworded it.
- Is that (his place of birth) really relevant to him winning the trophy? Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- First player not from Canada (or North America) to recieve it. I've reworded it.
- During his playing career, Masterton exhibited the qualities for which the trophy is dedicated - This sounds like POV to me. Stating that he demostrated "the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey" is an opinion, not a fact.
- This comes directly from the NHL; I've seen the phrase before, and I've found sources. Should I still remove it, or what according to you is the best course of action.
- I would say use a quote from the NHL. This , in its current state, is not encyclopedic, but rather an opinion. However, if changed to quote format, then it would staisfy encyclopedia standards. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- This comes directly from the NHL; I've seen the phrase before, and I've found sources. Should I still remove it, or what according to you is the best course of action.
- Due to the nature of the award, no player has ever won it more than once seems redundant, after you have already stated in the lead that A player can win this trophy only once in his career.
- Reference #1 (Dinger, p.201) needs to be cited using cite book format.
- It's related to the reference at the bottom. I think there's a template for that use. I'll add it.
- In that case, the "References" section needs to be moved above the "Notes" section. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's related to the reference at the bottom. I think there's a template for that use. I'll add it.
Is there a reason why Reference #30 (Gary R. Roberts. Legends of Hockey. Retrieved on 2007-08-21) is not cited using the [Bill Masterton Memorial Trophy Winner: NAME. Legends of Hockey. Retrieved on DATE.] layout, as all other references are?Yes. It's a different page series. It's Roberts' full Legends of Hockey biography, not a short blurb that exists for every winner of the trophy.My mistake. Raime 15:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Done
- Overall, my concerns are fairly minor. I will re-assess my opinion after the concerns are met and/or explained. Raime 05:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Another comment - You should remove the wikilinks to the hockey players' and NHL seasons' Wikipedia articles that are found in the image captions. This is overlinking, as they are already clearly linked in the list. Raime 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have a few more concerns:
Had his best year on a poor team - completely POV. "Best year" and "Poor team" are opinions. Needs to be reworded. Done Raime 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)- leading his team from the shadows of the superstars - Can't this be rephrased? I know it is a direct quote, but is poorly written and confusing.
Chicago responded with a first place - Not sure if personification of a team is appropriate here. Rewording it would help. Done Raime 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)- Awarded after he beat Garry Unger's record for consecutive games played (914 games). He would later take the record to 964 games - What does him taking the record further have to do with him winning the award? That should be removed. Also, "914 games" should be merged into prose, not left in parentheses.
- Consistency - Some entries have punctuation, others do not. Ether use periods throughout, or not at all.
- Consistency with other trophy lists - I think you should use:
- Player is still activerather than {| class="wikitable" !style="background-color: #CFECEC;" |Still active |} to remain consistent with similar trophy lists.
- Raime 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- I have a few more concerns:
- Another comment - You should remove the wikilinks to the hockey players' and NHL seasons' Wikipedia articles that are found in the image captions. This is overlinking, as they are already clearly linked in the list. Raime 15:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, hopefuly, these will be my final, nit-picky comments. Some have already mentioned, but have relisted them here for oragnizational purposes:
- Pit Martin - I would recommend finding a better word than "responded"
- Henri Richard - he would play only 16 more games after being awarded - What does this have to do with him winning the award? I would suggest removal.
- Ed Westfall - Awarded for "leading teams in the shadows of superstars" - What does this mean? I know it is a quote, but things like this can get confusing to readers, and should be reworded.
- Butch Goring - Made the NHL despite his small size; not sure if this is relevant, but a reowrd would be good. Perhaps stature would be more appropriate than size. But what does his small size have to do with him winning an award?
- Glenn Resch - gave his young team more confidence while he was in the nets' Does this just mean he was goaltender? This seemed like hyped-up language to me.
- Lanny McDonald - as he was traded around the league - Is this relevant?
- Brad Park - in the statistical shadow of Bobby Orr - Is this relevant? Why is it mentioned?
- Anders Hedberg - The first player raised outside of North America to win it - What does this have to do with winning the award?
- Doug Jarvis - He would later take the record to 964 games - Not relevant to winning the award. Also, merge (914 games) into prose.
- Gary Roberts - Successfully from possibly career-ending surgery to correct bone spurs and nerve damage - I presume this is a typo?
- Steve Yzerman - attempted to play during 2002-03 NHL season - Inconclusive: Did he or did he not play?
- Raime 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here are the concerns I amassed. I'm sorry if I'm being nit-picky. :)
Pit Martin - I would recommend finding a better word than "responded"- Henri Richard - he would play only 16 more games after being awarded - What doe sthis have to do with him winning the award? I would suggest removal.
- Ed Westfall - Awarded for "leading teams in the shadows of superstars" - What does this mean? I know it is a quote, but things like this can get confusing to readers, and should be reworded.
- Butch Goring - Made the NHL despite his small size; not sure if this is relevant, but a reowrd would be good. Perhaps stature would be more appropriate than size. But what does his small size have to do with him winning an award?
Glenn Resch - gave his young team more confidence while he was in the nets' Does this just mean he was goaltender? This seemed like hyped-up language to me.- Lanny McDonald - as he was traded around the league - Is this relevant?
- The constant changing of teams affects a players ability to play with a team, and to feel part of a team.
- Well, this definitely seems like a POV, but I can see what you mean. I would suggest just rewording the section: "Presented for his dedication, as he was traded around the league numerous times, and when he came to the Flames, he had 66 goals and 32 assists for 98 points" is too jumbled. Raime 01:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- The constant changing of teams affects a players ability to play with a team, and to feel part of a team.
Brad Park - in the statistical shadow of Bobby Orr - Is this relevant? Why is it mentioned?- Anders Hedberg - The first player raised outside of North America to win it - What does this have to do with winning the award?
- Doug Jarvis - He would later take the record to 964 games - Not relevant to winning the award. Also, merge (914 games) into prose.
- Gary Roberts - Successfully from possibly career-ending surgery to correct bone spurs and nerve damage - I presume this is a typo?
Steve Yzerman - attempted to play during 2002-03 NHL season - Inconclusive: Did he or did he not play?All Done as prescribed except for L. MacDonald.
- Raime 22:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- And here are my comments from previous edits that still have not been addressed
Is there a better term than "Notes" that can be used as the column title? Perhaps "Reasons for winning" or something along those lines? DoneDuring his playing career, Masterton exhibited the qualities for which the trophy is dedicated - This sounds like POV to me. Stating that he demostrated "the qualities of perseverance, sportsmanship, and dedication to ice hockey" is an opinion, not a fact. Should be put into a quote from the NHL. Done, add cite.- Due to the nature of the award, no player has ever won it more than once seems redundant, after you have already stated in the lead that A player can win this trophy only once in his career.
- A lead is a bit repetitive, according to my interpretation of WP:LEAD.
- This has nothing to do with the lead being repetitive, it has to do with restating a statement after you've already said it five sentences ago. However, as a lead should be a summary of an article, I will drop this point, since it can be taken that the sentence in the lead, while located directly above its counterpart, is a summary of the respective statement. Raime 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- A lead is a bit repetitive, according to my interpretation of WP:LEAD.
You should remove the wikilinks to the hockey players' and NHL seasons' Wikipedia articles that are found in the image captions. This is overlinking, as they are already clearly linked in the list. DoneSome entries have punctuation, others do not. Either use periods throughout, or not at all. DoneI think you should use:- Player is still activerather than {
Support - I can now finally say that I think this is completely ready to be a Featured list. It has seen a lot of significant improvements - Great job, Maxim. Raime 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- However, I did have these final concerns:
Lanny McDonald - Presented for his dedication, as he was traded around the league numerous times, and when he came to the Flames, he had 66 goals and 32 assists for 98 points needs to be rephraswed. It is jumbled and wordy in its current form. Also, Maxim, you may wany to explain and add a relevant link relating to the statement that "The constant changing of teams affects a players ability to play with a team, and to feel part of a team". Without a relevant, NPOV link, the information about him being traded around could be confusing to readers. Raime 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Clarified Raime 02:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Ed Westfall - Why is anything about him never being a "superstar" mentioned? If this relevant? Done Raime 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've addressed all these concerns except for the constant team changing part. I think I can find some source, but it will be a bit hard to integrate with the list. I hate to say this so bluntly, but it's very accepted in hockey circles that frequent changing of team messes up chemistry; every time there's a trade at the deadline, all the radio shows talk about is team chemistry. Maxim(talk) 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it is very accepted in hockey, then no reference is needed, beacuse it is accepted as "general common knowledge" per Wikipedia:When to cite/When a source may not be needed/Subject-specific common knowledge. Thanks for the clarification. Raime 02:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've addressed all these concerns except for the constant team changing part. I think I can find some source, but it will be a bit hard to integrate with the list. I hate to say this so bluntly, but it's very accepted in hockey circles that frequent changing of team messes up chemistry; every time there's a trade at the deadline, all the radio shows talk about is team chemistry. Maxim(talk) 02:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Looks good, well sourced, seems pretty good to me. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well sourced list and the page looks good. -- Scorpion0422 17:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support, good looking list. --Golbez 21:05, 7 September 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 15:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This is yet another list done in the mold of featured list, Hart Memorial Trophy, is fully referenced and I'll be happy to make any changes necessary to make this a featured list. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- 'Some comments by Maxim(talk)'
- Two images, the Tony Esposito and Peter Statsny are fair use, and therefore are to be used only in the articles of their subject per policy. What I mean is that Tony's pic can only be used in Tony's article and not in another one.
- Done removed and replaced Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're overlinking in the captions. You already have links in the list proper.
- Done links removed Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
That's about all I can think of. When you have addressed, I will re-assess the article (AKA support).
Comment - Here are my concerns:The two fair use images need to be removed, as they fail fair use criteria in that there is free content that can be used (i.e. all of the other hockey player pictures) and there is no particular need to use those particular images.- Done see above Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I see some problems with prose in the History section, Paragraphs like this one: It has been won the most times by Toronto Maple Leafs, who have won it on nine occasions are very stubby, and would be better if combined with larger paragraphs. Also, the third paragraph doesn't flow well. It goes from the oldest player to when the trophy was renamed. The exact sentence about the trophy being renamed is already repeated in the first paragraph, so it should be removed. I would suggest merging the stubby 2nd-paragraph into the third one.- Done I didn't like it either, I think it was added after I did my work on it. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The Positions key table should be reformatted into one along the lines of the Hart Memorial Trophy FL for consistency, particularly moving Still active into its own separatePlayer is still activetable.As Maxim already stated, the overlinking in captions should be removed. There is no need to provide wikilinks in captions when they atre already presented in the list.- Done - see above Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why is there a stray *Age as of September 15 of their rookie season at the bottom of the page? It either needs to be linked somewhere in the list (i.e. next to the Age column heading), or removed.- Done - just decided to remove it Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The wikilinks to September 15 (in the stray note and in the History section) should be removed.
- Raime 02:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support in light of recent improvements. Raime 04:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please fix short lead. Renata 05:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps a word as to how I could go about doing that. All the noteworthy information necessary for the first paragraph is in the first paragraph, I shouldn't mention who the current holder is in there because its already in the infobox, which would make it redundant. Need I mention that the FL Hart Memorial Trophy contains exactly the same information in its opening paragraph, except for the fact that words and explanations are longer to push it to one line more than this one? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The lead in this article is fine. Any expansion is unnecessary. Lists generally are fine with shorter leads. As long as a lead adequately summarizes an article, as this one does, then there is no need to make it longer. Raime 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I was just wondering what you meant by that. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant by what? I completely agree with your analysis; per the Hart Trophy FL, the lead in this list is fine. Raime 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it is not important, I was just referring to your original comment. Don't worry about that. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I think you mean the original comment made by Renata. But you're right, let's drop it. Raime 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, oh my dyslexic side kicked in there... I assumed you were Renata, you both start with R's. Anyways, sorry for the mix-up, Raime! Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- No problem :) Raime 01:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Haha, oh my dyslexic side kicked in there... I assumed you were Renata, you both start with R's. Anyways, sorry for the mix-up, Raime! Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 01:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I think you mean the original comment made by Renata. But you're right, let's drop it. Raime 15:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind, it is not important, I was just referring to your original comment. Don't worry about that. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 03:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- What I meant by what? I completely agree with your analysis; per the Hart Trophy FL, the lead in this list is fine. Raime 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I was just wondering what you meant by that. Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 22:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The lead in this article is fine. Any expansion is unnecessary. Lists generally are fine with shorter leads. As long as a lead adequately summarizes an article, as this one does, then there is no need to make it longer. Raime 19:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps a word as to how I could go about doing that. All the noteworthy information necessary for the first paragraph is in the first paragraph, I shouldn't mention who the current holder is in there because its already in the infobox, which would make it redundant. Need I mention that the FL Hart Memorial Trophy contains exactly the same information in its opening paragraph, except for the fact that words and explanations are longer to push it to one line more than this one? Croat Canuck Say hello or just talk 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support as all concerns have been met and I "forgot" to do so. :D Maxim(talk) 12:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It's well sourced and a great looking page. -- Scorpion0422 17:04, 5 September 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, 4 support, 0 oppose. All concerns addressed. Promote. Raime 03:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Self-Nomination. This list is based on List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Providence, which are both recently listed FLs. It does have one fair use image (Image:Mandeville Place Philadelphia.jpg), but the image is relevant and has a thorough fair use rationale. I believe the list to be comprehensive, stable, well-organized and well-referenced. Any comments brought up here will be addressed. Raime 01:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good, but unfortunately Image:Mandeville Place Philadelphia.jpg just doesn't stand up to WP:Fair use criteria scrutiny, as it violates both 1) (plenty of free content for that list) and 3(a) (there is no overwhelming need at all to use that particular image for the list). Circeus 03:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done True. I've removed the image, and replaced it with a second and more recent image of Comcast Center. Raime 04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support - This list meets the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and is at least as good as the Boston and Providence lists. -- Austin Murphy 17:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support
with a few caveats:The whole "skyline ranking" (which, I see, is also in the Boston list) is pretty OR-ish to me. Who ever ranked "skylines"?- Actually, skyline ranking is quite common. I have found a few examples here. This is a ranking of city skylines on SkyscraperPage forums based on buildings over 500 ft, which is exactly what is mentioned in the leads of the articles. Emporis also ranks skylines, but on a much broader scale of total buildings in a city. Since Emporis and SkyscraperPage, two reliable skyscraper websites, both rank skylines, I felt it was completely fit for inclusion in the building articles. The following are some other skyline ranking sites, which are not necessarily based on statistics, but rather "visual impacts" or other criteria. While they could never be cited as reliable sources, they are still examples that skylines are often ranked: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. As long as reliable sources are cited, I see no problem with including the ranking information in the lead. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I take it back. Circeus 15:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, skyline ranking is quite common. I have found a few examples here. This is a ranking of city skylines on SkyscraperPage forums based on buildings over 500 ft, which is exactly what is mentioned in the leads of the articles. Emporis also ranks skylines, but on a much broader scale of total buildings in a city. Since Emporis and SkyscraperPage, two reliable skyscraper websites, both rank skylines, I felt it was completely fit for inclusion in the building articles. The following are some other skyline ranking sites, which are not necessarily based on statistics, but rather "visual impacts" or other criteria. While they could never be cited as reliable sources, they are still examples that skylines are often ranked: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. As long as reliable sources are cited, I see no problem with including the ranking information in the lead. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see the decades unlinked.- Done - No longer wikilinked. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Old City Harbor Tower II and III will be the same size should be pointed out.- Done - Added Planned to be the same height as XXX
Also point out at the top of that section that the position is not dependent on any other non-topped buildings?- Done - Added The rank that each building would hold if it were completed is listed. However, its rank is not dependent on any other buildings that are not currently completed or topped off.
- Circeus 03:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review. Raime 03:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support In the Timeline of tallest buildings section, why is there a question mark for Comcast Center? I just assume that you don't know whether it's the tallest building at present.--Crzycheetah 01:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- It uses the format 2007-? per the Boston list to state that it became the tallest building in 2007, but when it will lose this status is unknown. Should I put in spacing to make it "2007 - ?" for clarification, even though this is against spacing guidelines? Raime 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, no spacing is needed. I'd suggest a "2007-present" or "2007-" format, instead. I just don't like it when question marks are used in dates, to me, they always imply unknown. --Crzycheetah 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the implication is supposed to be unknown date of surpassing, but you're right - present is clearer. I'll change it. Thanks, Raime 02:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- No, no spacing is needed. I'd suggest a "2007-present" or "2007-" format, instead. I just don't like it when question marks are used in dates, to me, they always imply unknown. --Crzycheetah 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- It uses the format 2007-? per the Boston list to state that it became the tallest building in 2007, but when it will lose this status is unknown. Should I put in spacing to make it "2007 - ?" for clarification, even though this is against spacing guidelines? Raime 01:24, 28 August 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 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. While I do agree with the comment that this list will eventually self-delete itself, it has enough support. Promote. Scorpion0422 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this list meets all the criteria to be considered as a Featured List, particulary as many contributors over many years have refined the subject area as much as it is likely to ever be. RichyBoy 02:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment For the record this is a partial self-nomination, in somuch as there are a dozen + regular contributors to the construction of this list and I am one of those. RichyBoy 02:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Date linking inconsistent between "verified" section and other sections. Rmhermen 02:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Rmhermen 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)- Done RichyBoy 02:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cannot support for the same reasons I voted delete way back then in 2005... (1) The list will delete itself and (2) there are no people from Russia or Japan - biased towards western countries. I know it's none of your fault and I sincerely say kudos for amazing work cleaning it up, but I just cannot support. BTW, suggestion, how about creating one big table? Right now there is a dozen is small tables separated by headings (current location). How about adding current location in a separate column and making one big table that can actually be sorted? Renata 05:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm dissapointed that you feel the list is biased, I would perhaps suggest reading the 3 archive volumes. There are three countries we don't know - Bulgaria, India and Japan (who (mostly) ran naval escorts, they didn't step onto French soil and is probably the reason why it's nigh on impossible to find info about any veterans). I'm very sorry that are no Russians alive to satisfy you. Also for you info a recent AfD was a snowball keep. It is a fair comment that the list will delete itself - but this could take many years and will probably be less transitory than say a list of members of the current HM Government. Work is in progress on the 'Last veterans of..' page which will be stable in the long-term, eventually. Regarding one large table, that's possible and something to think about. RichyBoy 08:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am not saying it should be deleted, it just has some fundamental flaws that prevent me from supporting. I understand that the list does not have any Russians not because WP does not like Russians but because there is no info about them (Russia does not prize their veterans as much as say France or US, the whole lecture on cultural differences follows, etc.) But that still does not make the list un-biased. Anyhoo, migth I suggest renaming/merging with 'Last veterans of WWI'? At least that way one of the points will go away. Renata 17:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support and it doesn't matter if the information is yet not available about Japanese and Russian veterans as long as you are willing to do more research on the subject. Wandalstouring 08:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment That's no problem for us. RichyBoy 12:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose some entries are unsourced: Orin Manfred Peterson and William Olin. Circeus 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support Circeus 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- most of the people lists I've seen go through FLC recently have had names displayed as "John Smith", not "Smith, John". If you want to sort by surname, you can use {{tl:sortname}} for that. I don't think the list needs to be displayed by surname, if it's listed by (and sortable by) surname.
- I would prefer this list to be one big table, as suggested by Renata. Having nine small sections for 23 people strikes me as excessive: they could be in one table with a column for country of residence.
- It is a very good list, but I hesitate to support given these issues. BencherliteTalk 18:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I think surname sorting is a matter of style rather than policy - but as it seems to be cheap in terms of effort to add then it's something one of us will alter in the next couple of days, it certainly won't do any harm. I appreciate the point about a merge into one table - I'm (initially) a little more hesitant about this though - it's not that it isn't a sensible suggestion, it's that one aspect of a separate table for each country is that the count of veterans by country becomes explicit without having to tally and annotate the information by some other means; it is a key bit of information for this article. I'm not sure it would make sense to create a second table to tally the veteran count by country, it's not that straight forward as the residential place of somebody isn't neccesarily the same as the country that they fought for. Anyway, if you could let me know further thoughts we would be grateful - if you feel it must absolutely be altered we can probably conjure something. RichyBoy 00:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Support so long as it is maintained vigilantly. --Golbez 09:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)