Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2011
Contents
- 1 List of accolades received by the Spider-Man film series
- 2 1948 Summer Olympics medal table
- 3 The Simpsons (season 10)
- 4 Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (R)
- 5 List of songs in Green Day: Rock Band
- 6 List of accolades received by Sense and Sensibility (film)
- 7 300 save club
- 8 List of Major League Baseball players from Australia
- 9 IBM Award
- 10 Venues of the 1952 Winter Olympics
- 11 2002 Asian Games medal table
- 12 List of Arizona hurricanes
- 13 List of posthumous number-one singles (UK)
- 14 Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (P–Q)
- 15 List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)
- 16 List of 350cc Motorcycle World Champions
- 17 List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)
- 18 List of World Heritage in Danger
- 19 List of Florida Marlins team records
- 20 List of NK Maribor seasons
- 21 List of accolades received by Black Swan
- 22 List of Texas Tech University alumni (sports)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 27 September 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 10:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Ruby2010 comment! 03:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Ruby2010
done
done
done
done
removed
done
done
done
done
done
reworded
done
done
done
done
done
done for the accessdate, no url because its a treelink
done
done
done
done
done These need resolving. Ruby2010 comment! 18:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Article now looks great. Ruby2010 comment! 03:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments (feel free to intersperse responses): –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Wikilink publisher and work fields in references at all applicable occurrences, not just the first one. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about WP:Overlink?
- Oh... that's weird. I thought reference lists lists were excluded from that, because they're lists. I'll ask about it, but for now, it's okay as-is. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (linking)/Archive 11#Does overlinking apply to the references section? with, as with so many discussions on Wikipedia guidelines, absolutely no conclusion whatsoever. I guess that the refs can be kept as-is, but I'm not particularly happy about the layout. What if someone clicks a citation link to jump down and read a reference? Are they supposed to search through all the references to find a link if they want one? I won't oppose solely because of this issue, but I'm not thrilled with it either. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think linking refs every time is fine. Who knows which ref will be clicked on first? I think of it in the same way as I think of sortable tables. If there's no guarantee which link our readers click first, then we should link everything every time... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about WP:Overlink?
- Wikilink publisher and work fields in references at all applicable occurrences, not just the first one. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
done
done
done
done
corrected
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
After first linking them in the lead, I chose to link them once again on first use only
reworded
done
done
done
fixed
lol fixed
done
done
done
done
removed refs Crystal Clear x3 03:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
done
done
done'
done
done
done
done Crystal Clear x3 09:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
|
- Support Meets the criteria, well done NapHit (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:19, 27 September 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as the second part of my little project to upgrade the previous London Olympic articles prior to the 2012 games next year. I believe that the article is now on par with the other Olympic medal table FLs. Haven't been able to find an image of the actual 1948 medal, but the image added is from another games that uses the same design. Miyagawa (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Bill william comptonTalk 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
— Bill william comptonTalk 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Fulfills the criteria. — Bill william comptonTalk 08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contradiction:
- Sorry to be contrarian, comrades, but since neither caption on the two images are sentences, neither of them should end with periods. See MOS:CAPTION. Regards, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to confirm, I've reverted it back to having no periods. Miyagawa (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'd like to confirm, in case it's not clear to all directors, that this nom shouldn't be held up because of my little quibble. I'm happy. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
Don't need the comma in "in March, 1946."In the second paragraph, the en dash in "twenty–three" should be a regular old hyphen.Photo caption doesn't need Marathon capitalized.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, fixed those points. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
— Parutakupiu (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Several links fail Wikipedia:Links#Link clarity in that their target articles were not obvious, but this seems to have been ignored for similar FLs.
- Changed the link to the 1944 Summer Olympics from just "1944" to "event in 1944" to make it clearer.Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some context would be nice - is second a good result for Sweden? Highest ever? Did any countries win their first medals? Which countries failed to achieve any?
violet/riga [talk] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second wouldn't have been anything special for Sweden at the time - they'd been around the top for a while, and had previously been second on two occasions in 1912 and 1920. Regarding the other countries, some 25 countries didn't win medals. I can't find anything specific which states which countries won their first medal there. However, I did find a story about the delay in awarding the gold medals to the Belgian team cycling team. Miyagawa (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:11, 27 September 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): Theleftorium (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is needed for the Simpsons season 10 Good topic. Theleftorium (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Fox arose—however, it was soon --> I don't think thats a correct usage of em-dash.
- The tenth season was the second for which Mike Scully served as show runner --> Doesn't sound right. Try to rephrase.
- File:Simpsons s10.png --> album, single, book, dvd etc coves shouldn't ideally exceed 300px in its length or breadth. Try reducing it a little.
- Scully was popular with the staff members, many of whom have praised his organization and management skills. Writer Tom Martin has said that he was "quite possibly the best boss I've ever worked for" and "a great manager of people". --> Somehow doesnt seem right to me. The context doesnt fit here, seeing that it would have been more appropriate tagging along with the area that says that this season was the start of decline. A kind of relation exists.
- I disagree. I think it fits perfectly. This section is about the production of the show, and what the staff members thought of him certainly belongs here. It shouldn't be in a "Critical reception" section since that is for critics opinions. Theleftorium (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- US$30,000 --> cluttersome, why not a simple $30,000?
- with the actors threatening to strike--> ??
- I don't understand the problem? Theleftorium (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be "actors threatening to go on a strike" I believe. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, strike is an actual verb, but I changed it to your suggestion. Theleftorium (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be "actors threatening to go on a strike" I believe. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the problem? Theleftorium (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Avoid this .[20][21][22][23][24][25]... by using WP:CITEKILL.
- This one is left. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, Coeur d'Alene Press ---> Similarly, a writer/writers of Coeur d'Alene Press
- is held responsive --> you mean responsible?
More to come.... — Legolas (talk2me) 16:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment: Surprised this has been waiting so long for cmts.
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a look! Theleftorium (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment - check out the two edits I made to fix the en dashes and non-breaking space issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see now! Thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should fix the dead link from TheSimpsons.com in the External links, but once fixed ISupport.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed, thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the promotion of this list. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) Theleftorium (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:48, 27 September 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that I have a current open nomination that is relatively recent; however, citing this discussion, I am nominating the next list in this series for featured candidacy on the grounds that my current nomination has no outstanding comments and four supports. If a director is of the opinion that this is not yet appropriate and that I should wait, I will withdraw this on request. Otherwise, I will address all comments expediently. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments It's a great list, there were just two things in the prose that I didn't quite understand
Apart from these two quibbles the list is great, well done NapHit (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Great list, well done NapHit (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well done, another good Philadelphia Phillies roster list.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- I see 3739 and 1,871 in the lead. I imagine the comma usage should be consistent throughout.
- This is true, but herein lies the problem: {{frac}} doesn't do commas. I prefer the comma in all cases, but the template won't do it. I suppose I could raw hack it and put the fraction template after the number with the comma even though it's technically not the right use. — KV5 • Talk • 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In John Russell's photo caption, should "triple-A" be capitalized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can, doesn't have to be. Usually an editorial decision since reliable sources usually say "AAA". — KV5 • Talk • 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a bit of liberty here, I think neither of these points are crucial, and had already raised the first one elsewhere. So I'm promoting the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can, doesn't have to be. Usually an editorial decision since reliable sources usually say "AAA". — KV5 • Talk • 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:48, 27 September 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... erm... I think it meets the criteria. :) I've put some work into this article and have used experience from taking List of songs in Rock Band 3 to make this list even better at the start of the nomination than that one was. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
As a comment from when I did the GH lists, it might be better to have a separate body section (or subsection) on the exporting instead of that trailing paragraph. In this, I would add to the fact (well, I know its fact, but I can't immediately recall sources) that the songs with harmonies still support these in RB3 --MASEM (t) 04:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. What should such a section be called? –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just looked at the GH lists and didn't see any such sections. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't any such section, I would include it in the first main section (not lead) prior to the list itself, simply to explain this factor. The exportability in GH is explained in a similar place and then shown in the tables (since it's not universal for all songs, compared to RBGD and Lego RB). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I moved it. I also added a note about the harmonies, but I couldn't find a reliable source for the information. However, I know that it is true (I've exported GD:RB after all!) and I don't think the statement is very controversial. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't any such section, I would include it in the first main section (not lead) prior to the list itself, simply to explain this factor. The exportability in GH is explained in a similar place and then shown in the tables (since it's not universal for all songs, compared to RBGD and Lego RB). --MASEM (t) 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually just looked at the GH lists and didn't see any such sections. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.
- The "Announcement" section seems kinda small to be its own section. Maybe combine it to "Music selection" as the last paragraph.
- What makes Plastic Axe a reliable source?
- Why are the two notes for the set lists in different cases. I find that odd especially when the two As state the same thing.
- Note C and D seem like they border on game guide content, but I'll defer to others on whether they should stay.
- Other than the above, the list is in good shape. I'll check back in later. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- THANK YOU for the review! I agree that the announcement section seems a bit small, but I'm not sure where else it would fit. It doesn't seem like part of the "music selection" process. See [6] for my reasoning regarding Plastic Axe. I've combined the notes into a separate section. Comments on missing or additional parts are quite common in the Guitar Hero song lists, all of which are FL now, and include more minor stuff such as whether or not a song has a double bass drum part in addition to a single bass drum part. I'd say that notes C and D are as, if not more, important to the game's setlist than the vocal parts; note also that List of songs in Rock Band 3 passed FLC with one such footnote and an entire column for keyboard support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Announcement" will fit into "Music selection". If you have reservations, maybe rename the whole thing to "Selection history" or "Track listing history". (Guyinblack25 talk 17:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Alrighty then, Done. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other thing I would recommend is mentioning the reception in the lead. I know leads for lists are handled slightly different than articles, so I'm unsure if this is warranted. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Seems reasonable; I've added a couple sentences to the lead. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My concerns have been addressed/answered, and I believe that the list meets the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Thank you for the review and support! –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comment
Other than this it looks good. NapHit (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and support! –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Resolved issues
|
|---|
|
- Support. All issues have been dealt with as best they can be.∞陣内Jinnai 20:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank your for the extremely thorough review and support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. After finding no real issues with the content, and no source problems, I think that it fulfills FLC criteria. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 05:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good work--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's me 11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. This will be my third film accolades FL (assuming that Master and Commander passes, which I do). I'm ready and willing to respond to any comments. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 20:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two minor qualms. You dont need to bold the film name in the first line and include a summary of the total number of awards won from total nominations. Other wise support. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. Thanks very much for the support. Ruby2010 comment! 14:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked over the entire article, but the infobox says the film won 30 awards, while the last sentence in the lead says 31. - JuneGloom Talk 15:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with just a few minor suggestions:
- "Sense and Sensibility is a 1995 British period drama film directed by Ang Lee." period should be linked as some readers might not be familiar with period pieces
- "Sense and Sensibility was released in cinemas on 15 December 1995," I think "to" instead of "in" would be better
- Link review aggregator
- "Winslet was recognised in both categories for both lead and supporting actress," I think the first both is a bit redundant
Other than that, superb work on this and the film article. Crystal Clear x3 10:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very helpful suggestions. All now fixed. Thanks for the support! Ruby2010 comment! 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You should probably make a new infobox for these sorts of articles, at something like {{Infobox film awards}}. It would be better than hard-coding infoboxes, a practice which is essentially extinct at this point. –Drilnoth (T/C) 23:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into it. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 01:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 11:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it's FL quality, silly. Glorious return to FLC, Muboshgu also did a mess of work on this list. Much nicer than the old top 500 list. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Support All my comments have been suitably dealt with, great work. BTW I have a list that could do with a review its here if you have a minute. Cheers NapHit (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Otherwise splendid work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should fix the † to its template, ie {{†|alt=XYZ}}, and use alt text for the template. You could also change the * to the double-dagger (‡) with alt aswell. (both according to the new ACCESS for reading screeners.)
– HonorTheKing (talk) 21:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for the note! Staxringold talkcontribs 01:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [9].
- Nominator(s): Afaber012 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the requirements, and combines elements of (what I think, at least, are) the best of the "List of Major League Baseball players from x" articles. Afaber012 (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
|
- Happy to support another great baseball list. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my queries resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've updated the text including the table after the debut of Shane Lindsay. I've checked a couple of times, and am fairly certain I've haven't missed anything that would need to be changed with his inclusion, except for the graph - I'll sort that one out after I've woken up tomorrow morning. I may actually fall asleep before I submit this in which case you won't see it. :) Afaber012 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The graph's now been updated, so it should now all be right. Afaber012 (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also noticed that Liam Hendricks has got his first callup. After he gets his first game I'll update this again. Afaber012 (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...It’s a former DYK candidate which I believe is close to being ready for FL. Follows a similar format to the other NBA Awards articles that are already FL. I am also nominating this to be part of the NBA Awards Featured Topic if the FL is successful Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I made the description clearer and added a reference, aside from this its a great list, well done NapHit (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [11].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the list meets the criteria. It is closely related to the existing FL Venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics. Arsenikk (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Check the overlinking of the place names like Oslo etc. Format tables per WP:ACCESS. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments. Regarding overlinking, repeating of links is permitted within tables, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Repeated links. Outside the tables and caption, I believe there are no links which are repeated (if you see any, please tell me). Regarding the latter, could you be specific about what part of WP:ACCESS you feel is being violated. I have read the guideline without finding any violations, and I have had the same structure to previous tables previously at FL without any feedback, so I would very much like to know how I can improve accessibility. Arsenikk (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to agree that the linking in the tables is reasonable as-is. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Why do only three venues in the first section have a capacity listed? –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
|
- Support Just for future reference you need to have an exclamation mark instead of a pipe when you use scope. Anyway Great work. NapHit (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No outstanding issues as far as I can see. Miyagawa (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [12].
- Nominator(s): — Bill william comptonTalk 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is a fifth in the series of Asian Games medal tables. Thanks to KV5, it also implements all web accessibility requirements. As always, thanks for your time and feedback. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Provisional support – All my comments have been taken care of and the list looks good. The only thing I'd like to see is another close paraphrasing check from someone, since an issue has already been found. You can never be too careful when it comes to things like that. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants2008, if you still have some doubts then please don't support, because I know what I've written, and I have nothing to hide. The phrase which was questioned by StrPby, by chance matched with my writing style, and I've already given my reason for that. — Bill william comptonTalk 00:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Oops, dinner's ready, more to come! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comments
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see any outstanding issues. Miyagawa (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:10, 17 September 2011 [13].
- Nominator(s): Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is an interesting and comprehensive page that meets all the featured list criteria. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from KV5
| Comments from KV5 relating to opposition |
|---|
These two things should be clarified by consensus before full reviews are undertaken. — KV5 • Talk • 19:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is perfectly fine where it is. There have been numerous discussion across Wikipedia and these sorts of articles, and the consensus was in favor "List of [State] hurricanes". I'll review this later tonight. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
OpposeNeutralThose lists consist mostly of list items and have non-hurricanes. This "list" is 80% prose and hence an article, not a list. It should be renamed and moved to FAC. PumpkinSky talk 19:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Changed it to be more list-based. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More Comments 1) I'm okay with the format now 2) ref retrieve dates are half m-d-year and half year-m-d, they should all be consistent 3) I have to go with KV5 on the name, cyclones are not hurricanes, hurricanes are in the Atlantic, typhoons are hurricanes in the Pacific, both have gobs of water, Arizona is not even on an oceanic coast-and it's in the desert. Sorry but I simply can't refer to a storm in AZ as a hurricane.PumpkinSky talk 01:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the accessdates. As for the naming, I don't understand what you mean when you say "cyclones are not hurricanes". A hurricane is the name given regionally to tropical cyclones, and this includes the Northeastern Pacific, which is where Arizona gets its tropical cyclones. Typhoons only occur on the Northwest Pacific Ocean; Hurricane Ioke, Hurricane Linda (1997), Hurricane Rick (2009), Hurricane Guillermo (1997), Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Ismael, Hurricane John (1994), Hurricane John (2006), Hurricane Kenna, Hurricane Kiko (1989), Hurricane Nora (1997), Hurricane Daniel (2006), Hurricane Isis (1998) and Hurricane Lane (2006) (all of the Featured Articles) occurred in the Northeast Pacific and are properly referred to as "hurricanes". Whether Arizona is a desert or not has no bearing on whether it can be affected by one, so I don't understand your last point either. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, my oppose had nothing to do with whether storms in Arizona can be called hurricanes; there is no doubt that this is correct. My oppose was based on the fact that the list includes multiple types of tropical cyclones: hurricanes and tropical storms. — KV5 • Talk • 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to whoever is opposing this what do you think of when you here the word "hurricane"? BTW, Strange PAsserby, AFAIK, this issues has been brought up once in 2007 on List of California hurricanes. 13:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, my oppose had nothing to do with whether storms in Arizona can be called hurricanes; there is no doubt that this is correct. My oppose was based on the fact that the list includes multiple types of tropical cyclones: hurricanes and tropical storms. — KV5 • Talk • 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the accessdates. As for the naming, I don't understand what you mean when you say "cyclones are not hurricanes". A hurricane is the name given regionally to tropical cyclones, and this includes the Northeastern Pacific, which is where Arizona gets its tropical cyclones. Typhoons only occur on the Northwest Pacific Ocean; Hurricane Ioke, Hurricane Linda (1997), Hurricane Rick (2009), Hurricane Guillermo (1997), Hurricane Iniki, Hurricane Ismael, Hurricane John (1994), Hurricane John (2006), Hurricane Kenna, Hurricane Kiko (1989), Hurricane Nora (1997), Hurricane Daniel (2006), Hurricane Isis (1998) and Hurricane Lane (2006) (all of the Featured Articles) occurred in the Northeast Pacific and are properly referred to as "hurricanes". Whether Arizona is a desert or not has no bearing on whether it can be affected by one, so I don't understand your last point either. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More Comments 1) I'm okay with the format now 2) ref retrieve dates are half m-d-year and half year-m-d, they should all be consistent 3) I have to go with KV5 on the name, cyclones are not hurricanes, hurricanes are in the Atlantic, typhoons are hurricanes in the Pacific, both have gobs of water, Arizona is not even on an oceanic coast-and it's in the desert. Sorry but I simply can't refer to a storm in AZ as a hurricane.PumpkinSky talk 01:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed it to be more list-based. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retrieve dates ok now. Like I said before, I have always seen hurricane used to mean a storm over a certain wind speed in the Atlantic (which means kaboodles of rain). It makes my skin crawl to see hurricane used to mean a storm on the west coast, even more so one in the desert. So I can't support this naming convention. But since I seem to be in the minority here, I'll change to neutral. I think that COMMONNAME is being MISAPPLIED here. PumpkinSky talk 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with support.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
The Olivia 00 bit is boring and lengthy- Not sure how to fix boring. Maybe making the text blink? :P Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tis it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion for now,but I want to comment with regard to the name of the article. Since there is precedent for the term "hurricane" in such articles, including a number of featured lists, I would argue it is reasonable to assume that this has been raised at previous FLCs. If those lists were not affected by their names, there is no reason this nomination should fail simply because one or two reviewers don't like the article's name. That being said, it is less of a list than an article as it stands. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I understand your point of view and appreciate that input; however, consensus can change, and just because it happened before doesn't mean it has to stay the same. Thanks for your thoughts on the topic :-). — KV5 • Talk • 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as someone with a decade of research on tropical meteorology and something like 40 FAs and FLs on hurricanes, I can say with reasonable confidence that "hurricane" has two usages; a common usage and a technical usage. From a technical standpoint, a hurricane is a tropical cyclone with sustained winds that satisfy a given wind criterion. However, it is used far more commonly to encompass all tropical cyclones in the climatological context (ie. a season or other time frame, or a list of storms to affect a state). We have the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season in addition to the National Hurricane Center, the US governmental agency responsible for tracking all tropical disturbances with the potential to develop into any sort of cyclone: depression, storm, or hurricane. Since Wikipedia follows a common naming convention, "hurricane" is the most appropriate term. Juliancolton (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all issues on Hink comment's have been addressed AFAIK, so I support. I alos think it's title should remain the same per WP:COMONNAME and per what Juliancolton (talk · contribs) said above. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as someone with a decade of research on tropical meteorology and something like 40 FAs and FLs on hurricanes, I can say with reasonable confidence that "hurricane" has two usages; a common usage and a technical usage. From a technical standpoint, a hurricane is a tropical cyclone with sustained winds that satisfy a given wind criterion. However, it is used far more commonly to encompass all tropical cyclones in the climatological context (ie. a season or other time frame, or a list of storms to affect a state). We have the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season in addition to the National Hurricane Center, the US governmental agency responsible for tracking all tropical disturbances with the potential to develop into any sort of cyclone: depression, storm, or hurricane. Since Wikipedia follows a common naming convention, "hurricane" is the most appropriate term. Juliancolton (talk) 00:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point of view and appreciate that input; however, consensus can change, and just because it happened before doesn't mean it has to stay the same. Thanks for your thoughts on the topic :-). — KV5 • Talk • 21:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - See my above comment for why I believe the above objections are based on inaccurate assumptions. The article is the result of extensive and thorough research, and I believe it's well deserving of the status. Juliancolton (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no further issues. Name doesn't bother me, and my only other concern has been adequately addressed. I think this is enough of a list to qualify now. That said, wouldn't it have been better if all the wikiproject supporters declared their conflict of interest? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose many, many, many (perhaps trivial) issues:
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – Not a fan of the title for the reason already mentioned, but I'm ignoring it as I don't particularly want to start a debate on this topic. Kind of disappointed in how much I found, since there have been so many reviews before this one, but none of the things below should be too hard to fix.
|
| TD | Tropical Depression: <39 mph (0–62 km/h) |
|---|---|
| TS | Tropical Storm: 39–73 mph (63–117 km/h) |
| C1 | Category 1: 74–95 mph (119–153 km/h) |
| C2 | Category 2: 96–110 mph (154–177 km/h) |
| C3 | Category 3: 111–130 mph (178–209 km/h) |
| C4 | Category 4: 131–155 mph (210–249 km/h) |
| C5 | Category 5: >=156 mph (>=250 km/h) |
I make no claim to be an expert on anything, but in my humble opinion, there's no information in the table conveyed by colour that is not available in the text of the table. I'd say the table meets our standards for accessibility, although it would benefit from a caption. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for {{Saffir-Simpson small}} as it displays windspeed information on mouseover that is denied to anyone who only uses a keyboard (since the table elements it produces can't receive focus). I'd prefer to see something like the table on the right but that's really an issue for your WikiProject (or whoever maintains {{Saffir-Simpson small}}).
The only other thing I would suggest is that the second table has a colspanned heading: "Wettest tropical cyclones, and their remnants, in Arizona - Highest known recorded totals", which ideally ought to be the table caption, rather than a header row. Readers using JAWS (screen reader) or similar would appreciate these sort of minor changes. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Swapped {{Saffir-Simpson small}} with {{Saffir-Simpson}} and modified the table accordingly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks fine, the new Saffir-Simpson table is a big improvement and you've made captions for the main tables. I don't see any outstanding accessibility issues. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the article/list issue. I was leaning towards considering this an article as well. However, there is precedent on having small clusters of text be considered a list, namely at one of KV's FLs, List of Major League Baseball managers. Given that I'm not sold on the validity of the oppose. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that my oppose is not based on this being a list. It is. My oppose is based on the use of "hurricane" in the name as opposed to "tropical cyclone". — KV5 • Talk • 15:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to see the Wettest tropical cyclones, and their remnants, in Arizona table reduced down in size.Jason Rees (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the font is already 92% of normal. Reducing the table size is not possible without removing information from the table, and I don't know what could be removed while retaining the table's usefulness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it can be done rather easily by reducing 50% to 30%.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that forces the last column to span four rows in a 1024x768 screen, at least for #10 in the list. Even 45% causes that problem in my monitor, and the smallest width that does not cause me that issue is 50%. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no major issues with the list, ive read through it over the last few weeks and everything seems to be upto scratch. As for the width, i can now see what Titoxd meant having just checked it out on a small screen.Jason Rees (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that forces the last column to span four rows in a 1024x768 screen, at least for #10 in the list. Even 45% causes that problem in my monitor, and the smallest width that does not cause me that issue is 50%. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it can be done rather easily by reducing 50% to 30%.Jason Rees (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:04, 16 September 2011 [14].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments: (feel free to intersperse responses) –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment – Just one from me: a comma is needed after George Harrison in the lead.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone has submitted this this to AfD[15]. Regardless of the merits of the submission, which I think are very few, it would be good to establish the notibility of music sales increasing after death. Something like this, I suggest. Thincat (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a bit about this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see the AFD done and dusted, then I'll be back with comments. Chris, if I forget, please please ping me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to say I'll now be off Wiki till Wednesday, I'll catch up with any comments made in the meantime then....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD result: The AFD has closed as keep. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments now sense has prevailed, I'll comment.
Otherwise very nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support from AFD to FL (hopefully) in hours. Awesomeness. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That's all my concerns resolved, thanks a lot. Although why has the header of the first section been changed to a rather uninformative "List"? Personally, I think something more descriptive like, say, "Number ones" would work better. Anyway, nice going! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone else made that change. I've amended it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, read through it a couple times and saw no issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:46, 15 September 2011 [16].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Phillies list: mind your Ps and Qs. — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
:Comments - Very nice list, just two things
|
- Support, Very nice list. – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Chan Ho or Chan-Ho? Our article hyphenates. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is the only place I've seen it hyphenated, and it was apparently moved in Dec 2010 (after this was moved out of userspace) without consideration for the sources. Baseball-Reference, ESPN, MLB, and Yahoo! Sports all have no hyphen, so I'm moving the article back. That should do it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well played. Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is the only place I've seen it hyphenated, and it was apparently moved in Dec 2010 (after this was moved out of userspace) without consideration for the sources. Baseball-Reference, ESPN, MLB, and Yahoo! Sports all have no hyphen, so I'm moving the article back. That should do it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Found no issues with the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:46, 15 September 2011 [17].
- Nominator(s):
– HonorTheKing (talk), 03md, 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are nominating this for featured list because it meets all of the new FL criteria, and WP:ACCESS, All previous issues had been fixed, and please note that the older nomination was closed as stale nomination (no votes)
Please tell us whats need to be fixed and we will do so, and if you think it meets the criteria, please support it.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - HonorTheKing has done excellent work in getting this list to FL standard. I'm still bemused as to why it wasn't promoted the last two times it was nominated, seeing as it's almost exactly the same as the other two Manchester United players lists. – PeeJay 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments indeed, very close for me...
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support a nice list though a bit many pictures. Sandman888 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Photo caption: "Oscar Linkson participated in Manchester United's first FA Cup-winning 1909 title." Flow doesn't seem strong to me. Perhaps consider something like "in Manchester United's first FA Cup-winning side in 1909."?Kieran Richardson caption: "participated in Manchester United's League Cup-winning 2005–06 title." Again, the "winning" and "title" don't work well together. Suggest a similar edit to the one proposed above.- Would still like to see some feedback from other reviewers on whether MUFCInfo.com is a reliable source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the caption issues.
- About MUFCInfo.com, Will you consider this as a feedback, as seen Twitter can be considerd as RS at times -
- Steve Bartram - ManUtd.com contributing editor (you can see article from site here), he also wrote ManUtd related books, as you can see Simon & Schuster publishing book here, jointly with offical ManUtd
- He wrote on 20 Aug 2011 - "......@mufcinfodotcom for stats...", So if he wrote it, it means that ManUtd editor consider MUFCInfo as a RS.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Nick Coppack - ManUtd.com contributing editor and journalist (you can see article from site here)
- He wrote on 14 Sep 2011 - "If you fancy indulging in a few stats before this evening, you could do worse than visit mufcinfo.com. Run by @mufcinfodotcom.", He also mention MUFCInfo a RS.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks fine to me, I've had a little run through the prose and made a few very minor alterations but otherwise I think this is ready. Good work as always. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:30, 15 September 2011 [18].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list fulfills the criteria to be a featured list. NapHit (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments by Staxringold talkcontribs 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Perhaps include a description of any notable championships (if there are any)? Jon Ekerold's narrow 3 point win (in a modern championship so that many more races) seems like there'd be a story. Or Kork Ballington's 57 point whalloping.
- I would but the official website doesn't delve into the history of the championships and I don't have any books on motorcycles unfortunately. Information is very thin on the ground regarding MotoGP. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, support (though that info would be nice). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:30, 15 September 2011 [19].
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, all of my concerns have been resolved. Passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but if you remove the overlinking in the references column, for example "The Official Charts Company" or "London". Do not link the latter one, as common city.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed wikilinks to London. Thanks very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments good list, thanks to the other reviewers, just some last minute odds-and-sods....
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- What does
#mean? Why isn't it in the key?
- The number next to each album shows that it is the nth album to reach number one, e.g. the 752 next to Don't Believe the Truth by Oasis shows that it is the 752nd album ever to top the UK Albums Chart. Putting it in the key would certainly be a good idea, I just can't think of any succinct way of describing it. Any suggestions?
- Well, saying "nth album to top UK Albums Chart" is a good start! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables should use MOS:DTT as guidance for accessibility using row and col scopes.
- Sorry, but I'm a bit confused - what do you mean by this?
- For the benefit of WP:ACCESS, you should add !scope="col" in front of each column heading, and !scope="row" in front of each row heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what, in this article, would the row heading be? The number? Artist? Single name? Whichever one it is will look different from the other cells, which would be annoying for people using standard visual media. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be the element of the row that is considered the most significant. And using "plainrowheaders" in the table class should prevent it looking too different. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But which of those is most significant? They all seem more or less equally important to me. Anyways, I'll leave it up to the article nominator. –Drilnoth (T/C) 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the album itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The album itself would make sense, since that's what's referenced in the article title. But there are ten "Album" headers in the list in total - do I add !scope="col" before each one, or only the top-most one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert but since the header has been repeated, I would imagine that yes, you'd need to repeat the scope parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent work! Crystal Clear x3 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 9 September 2011 [20].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying something new... This is my first FLC that is not about Japanese National Treasures. I expanded this article from a simple list (with little value) to a sortable table. The design is stolen from List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment(s):
|
- At this point I would support promotion if another reviewer were to take the time and look this list over. Again, I haven't done a proper review, haven't read the lead, studied the references, etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
Overall a very nice list, just some minor issues to look into. Arsenikk (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Thank you for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
| Resolved comments from Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comments from Night w:
This list looks of very high quality, and my comments are mostly merely suggestions based on pickiness.
Thanks for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments. I am not sure about which "single-word" figures you meant (see above), so I'd need more instructions from you before I can proceed. bamse (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 9 September 2011 [21].
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... it's the next article in the series. However, I have two major issues with this list that I would appreciate some input on. First (the more fixable of the two), the third paragraph of the lead is really weak, but I can't find anything else to add to it. Next, more problematic, is the fact that the Marlins season team records page doesn't list any team season records outside miscellaneous records, as opposed to, say, the Mariners team season records, which lists stats, not miscellaneous records. So, should I add the misc. records or not? On a related note "Individual single-game records" was changed to "team single-game records" due to a lack of single-game records. Albacore (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Apart from those quibbles its a great list. NapHit (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support great work, well done NapHit (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Slight opposeSupport First big thing, this may be the style so far for these lists but I hate the repeated use of "the holder" or "the holder of" in the image captions. First off it's massively passive voice, and second it just sounds awkward. Why, eg, "Josh Johnson, the holder of two career records for the Marlins" and not "Josh Johnson holds two career records for the Marlins". "Dan Uggla is tied for the Marlins' single-season extra base hits record" as opposed to "Dan Uggla, the co-holder of the single-season extra-base hits record", etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Albacore (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And looking at that Uggla entry... Why are tied-records listed twice (ie, Shutouts and Shutouts, XBH and XBH)? Why not simply span the record title across 2 rows? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done per ACCESS concerns specified in this comment. Albacore (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Huge amount of white space between end of tables and images. I think setting it to 80-85% would be better.PumpkinSky talk 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of. Albacore (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason 80% jacked up the layout on my screen, which is a standard screen, though 80% works on other lists, so I changed it to 76%.
Why is "baseball-reference.com." lower case but "Marlins.MLB.com" and "Retrosheet" upper case?PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Decapped retrosheet; changed to MLB.com Albacore (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit iffy on why the tables are so wide. For the most part they could be thinned out, since there's not a huge amount of info in any columns. If it's to maintain consistency with other lists in this topic then I won't worry about it, but it did throw me off. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to maintain consistency; only changed List of Oakland Athletics team records. I'd like to hear what PumpkinSky has to say on this one. Albacore (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because before there was about a 3" white gutter between the tables and the photos--a huge waste of white space, it also makes for more scrolling as it forces the page to be longer. Not mention that much white space is hugely unattractive. They don't seem any wider than other list tables to me.PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because before there was about a 3" white gutter between the tables and the photos--a huge waste of white space, it also makes for more scrolling as it forces the page to be longer. Not mention that much white space is hugely unattractive. They don't seem any wider than other list tables to me.PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 9 September 2011 [22].
- Nominator(s): Ratipok (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every season that NK Maribor has played in a major tournament, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. Ratipok (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- nothing in the tables is sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And how would you like it to be sourced? Every statistics on the table is sourced by NK Maribor official website (I have changed it now to NK Maribor official website - Statistics in case it wasnt visible before), which is added bellow both tables so there is no reason to think that the information is not geniuine as every single information in the tables are verifiable with this source. The tables are based on similar (format) lists of both Manchester Premier League clubs, which both have sources bellow and not in the tables, for every separate season and statistics. List of Manchester City F.C. even has a similar source "MCFCStats" bellow their stats.Ratipok (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Place the sources under the references header with a subheading General, have a look at List of Luton Town F.C. seasons to see what I mean. NapHit (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. In the near future there will also be a book published about history of the club and when that happens, I can add that as a general source as well (although the one used is reliable and covers every single season and match the club has played during their history).Ratipok (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the oppose !vote, will assess more fully later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. In the near future there will also be a book published about history of the club and when that happens, I can add that as a general source as well (although the one used is reliable and covers every single season and match the club has played during their history).Ratipok (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Place the sources under the references header with a subheading General, have a look at List of Luton Town F.C. seasons to see what I mean. NapHit (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And how would you like it to be sourced? Every statistics on the table is sourced by NK Maribor official website (I have changed it now to NK Maribor official website - Statistics in case it wasnt visible before), which is added bellow both tables so there is no reason to think that the information is not geniuine as every single information in the tables are verifiable with this source. The tables are based on similar (format) lists of both Manchester Premier League clubs, which both have sources bellow and not in the tables, for every separate season and statistics. List of Manchester City F.C. even has a similar source "MCFCStats" bellow their stats.Ratipok (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I've gone through the table and made some changes but it is a lot better now. Two things I would ask you to do though is try and bring down the number of redlinks and the two images in the lead need alt text, other than that I think you've done a great job, well done. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you. The redlinks will be fixed over time when articles about the club's season by season will be created (currently there are two) and when the same will be done with the lower leagues seasons of Yugoslavia (there is a task force working on that). Some of the footballers articles (the most important ones) will also be created.Ratipok (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
All in all a lot of work remaining to be done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – Noticed a few of the things KV5 pointed out like the bolding and symbol issues, so I'll refrain from re-listing them below. If there are any repeated comments, I'm sorry; I tried to weed them out, but the review above covers a lot of ground.
|
- Comment (KV5&Giants2008): OK, thank you. I have changed most of the issues that KV5 expressed, I still have to do some things with the table though. I will also look into the comments from Giants2008, however, I will adress everything during the weekend as I dont have the time to do it today.Ratipok (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have already changed most of the things that were adressed here, except the table section. I am working on that and will change it asap.Ratipok (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (KV5&Giants2008): OK, thank you. I have changed most of the issues that KV5 expressed, I still have to do some things with the table though. I will also look into the comments from Giants2008, however, I will adress everything during the weekend as I dont have the time to do it today.Ratipok (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that I have sorted out everything that was adressed here and I think I have finished the article. Please look into it and let me know if there are any problems to be solved and fixed/edited. Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment: "The club also won the 2009 Slovenian Supercup, the only domestic trophy missing among the club's honours" If they won the trophy, why would it be missing? This sentence has me baffled, though that could just be me remembering the last sentence in the previous paragraph. Perhaps make it clearer in the para that they've won all the Slovenian awards at some point if that's the case. The only other issue I have is the number of redlinks, but that's not an FLC issue; writing articles on a couple of the major scorers likely wouldn't hurt though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 2 September 2011 [23].
- Nominator(s): User:Aquila89, User:Bruce Campbell, User:Crystal Clear x3
User:Aquila89, User:Bruce Campbell and I are nominating this for featured list because we believe that it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
removed it
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
At present I see quite a lot of prose issues and consistency. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support The article looks fine now. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Ruby2010
done
done
done
done
done
Resolve above comments and I'll be happy to support Ruby2010 comment! 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - comments now resolved Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
done
done
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
done
removed American
done
lol done
done
done
done
done
done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - well written and referenced article. Have no issue with its promotion. Good job guys.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A beautiful list--well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:07, 2 September 2011 [25].
- Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status as it meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these give you a start. — KV5 • Talk • 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from PumpkinSky
- There are a lot of red links here, not just to names but to at least one see also link. FL guideline is that red links should be "minimal". IMHO there are way too many here. Suggest moving them to the talk page til they have articles. PumpkinSky talk 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" from WP:SAL. — KV5 • Talk • 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my objection stands. 17% is too much--that's more in "significant portion" land than "minimal" land. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for your input. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Similarly, what makes ArenaFan (refs 116 and 126) reliable?
- ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one that is as accurate as the ArenaFan references. Also, there's a comprehensive list of AFL players on ArenaFan that lists ~30 AFL players that could be included on this list if ArenaFan can be determined to be a reliable source. I've added the ~30 players in a formatted table on the talk page to be inserted into the existing table in the future. NThomas (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and brought up the validity of www.arenafan.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As of now, the references in question have been removed so this FLC can move forward. NThomas (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*I'm looking at reference 6, on the indicated pages. This list lists lettermen; what makes you think the graduating years and the lettering years are the same?
Albacore (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Albacore (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support my niggling issues politely and expediently dealt with, with my thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.