The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think that it meets all the criteria, and I want to subject it to thorough scrutiny before applying the same approach to other lists in Category:Lists of MPs elected in United Kingdom general elections, starting with other elections from the same period which currently have no lists. It is a complete list of all the Members of Parliament (MPs) elected at the first general election after the United Kingdom's Great Reform Act, which marked the first step on the democratisation of the UK's election process. It is fully referenced, with links to the primary sources as well as to secondary sources, so it is easily verifiable by even the casual reader. It is structured to be sortable under several different headings, allowing it to be used to group MPs in many different ways.
To assist maintainability, I built it using templates and sub-lists. When I created it in July I had some concerns that this might cause problems with maintenance or server-load (see discussion on talk page), but four months later that seems to be working fine.
My only outstanding concern is that the introduction may perhaps be a little too verbose, and may include some material which might better placed in United Kingdom general election, 1832. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are just a few major issues that have to be resolved before a proper review can be made. — KV5 • Talk • 13:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just a quick skim...
That's enough for now. If this lot gets addressed, I'll happily re-visit for a comprehensive review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because i believe it meets all the requirements to be a FL. Thank you BineMai 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments looks good: Nergaal (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Just a partial review, as I'm occupied at the moment. Writing looks a bit rough at first glance, and could use polishing before this is over
Oppose needs copyediting by native English speaker. Some of those issues, and some technical problems...
This is just the lead. I really suggest you appeal at WP:FOOTBALL for a native English speaker to help you with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [3].
A legendary wolf deity joins a wandering merchant on a trip to find her ancestral home. This episode list has had its first half checked in a peer review. I feel this list passes all featured list criteria and I will make any necessary improvements. Thanks. I have acquired permission to run two simultaneous FLCs. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 06:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments firstly an apology that it's taken so long for you get some interest here. Nevertheless, some comments for you:
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'll have a better look when I'm free. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 16:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:30, 30 December 2010 [4].
I'm giving this another shot, as it came pretty close last time. I updated the format to match the rest. Designate (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose as it presently is; it does not conform to the higher standards of the current governor FLs. Specific concerns:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
I think we should have a discussion about references. Right now most governor lists reference the "Other high offices" section but not the biographical details (except the unusual ones). That's the scheme I used for this article, but I'm not sure it makes sense. How should we handle this? —Designate (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:24, 15 December 2010 [5].
The article satisfies the FL criteria. You may refer to other Olympic medal table FLs. Just a question, will credits be given to significant contributors to the article? Thanks in advance for reviewing, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments Support –
Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:"The concept of mixed-NOCs was newly introduced in the games" Not quite- see Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The first three Olympiads (and perhaps 1924 Chamonix) had mixed teams.
Courcelles 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 07:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 08:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:06, 14 December 2010 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the standards for a Featured List and covers the topic of shooting thalers thoroughly.-RHM22 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments nice to see a list of something slightly different here! Comments on the lead only as I am "otherwise engaged"!
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments more on the top part of the list...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note to those interested in the article: JohnFromPinckney suggested added new tables to the article in order to increase it's usefulness to users who are required to use special read-aloud software (sorry, I forgot exactly what that is called). John and I have both decided on a suitable layout. I'll begin implementing them soon, but it may take a little while, as I need to add some information about the images for the rollover text. I apologize for the inconvenience to reviewers. Please feel free to remove this article from the FL nominations if these changes could possibly cause some type of jam in the system. Thanks to all who have contributed thoughts and suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 15:09, 6 December 2010 [9].
Peer review is closed ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jujutacular talk 14:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Jujutacular talk 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Lead comments
Jujutacular talk 19:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Oppose
1. Prose.
2. Lead.
5(a). Style.
References
more:
doing
added more awards after I had whitelisted it-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
done[reply]
— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GreatOrangePumpkin, I just saw that you left a message on my Talk page to "Stop insulting [you]." I don't know what insult you are referring to, as I haven't edited this page since 19:58, and you made multiple edits here before leaving your note at 21:37. It doesn't make sense.
I must also say, however, that I am sorry I took a swing at trying to review the article you nominated. Not only is it quite unready for Featured status, but you have taken a weird approach to the review. I should have known better following our last interaction, but then, I guess I'm a slow learner. I don't like that you interleave replies between my notes contrary to the instructions, but I see that happens a lot. I really don't like the way you move my signature around so that a reader may mistake your words for mine. And I can't understand why you think it's okay to strike out a bunch of my comments and notes when they haven't been addressed yet. I hadn't even read all of your replies before you started striking out the text. Once again, it makes me wonder what you think we're doing here. It certainly makes me wonder what I'm doing here.
I believe the best thing is for me to withdraw from this process. I remain opposed to this article being promoted without considerable work being done, but you or whatever FL honchos end up reviewing my notes may choose to disregard them, as I no longer expect to respond to further claims of "done" or queries whether it's "okay now". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Lots of problems with refs:
There are also lots of problems with the prose, which really needs a copyedit from a native English speaker, but the referencing issues are the most glaring faults for me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]