Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/December 2011

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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 23:05, 26 December 2011 [1].

Nominator(s): Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I beleive that in is well writen, informative, and organized Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per another of this editor's nominations, this is far from ready. I am removing it to prevent misuse of limited FLC reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 26 December 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 22:48, 26 December 2011 [2].

Nominator(s): Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I find it to be complete witht the information regarding the article and it is organized in a well-done manner. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest withdrawal – This is the second nomination by this editor in quick succession. The FLC instructions state that "Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been addressed." The other FLC from this user doesn't even have any reviews yet, so it can't possibly have substantial support. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - not because the above reason but because its doesn't meet the criteria. It doesn't have a lead, nor any info on the page exept of nice pictures of crests which feels like a long page of gallery page.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:27, 24 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 18 December 2011 [3].

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is an interesting list and a quality article. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - an embedded list of results does not a list make. This article should be expanded to actually be an article, similar to the GA Mets-Phillies rivalry. — KV5 • Talk • 00:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just looked at the article and thought list. I imagine that there is precedent on rivalry articles. I'll go to GAC if that is where this belongs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Don't believe this is the right process for the page. Rivalry articles in general strike me as ones that should go through GAN/FAC, not FLC. This page looks to me like it's more an article than a list in its present form anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I agree with Giants and KV5, GA/FA would be better for those kinds of articles.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:43, 18 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 18 December 2011 [4].

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it adequately fits the FL criteria.

The prose is of solid standard, fitting criteria 1.

The lede, while a tad bit short, adequately fits criteria 2 (It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria) by defining both the chart itself and the criteria for inclusion in the article.

The article suitably fits 3a (It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.) by noting the length of time each single spent at number one in both the lead and the list itself. While the length of each single is listed without a source, it fits WP:CALC as the calculation of the length each song spent is both routine and uncontroversial.

The article is fit for a stand-alone list, consistent with 3b. It also meets the rest of the criteria.

The article fits 5a by including a table format used on most other FL class chart history lists. It also fits 5b by including images of some of the performers mentioned in the list, and all images are of appropriate usage for the article.

Toa Nidhiki05 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just my opinion, but we have tended to merge these single-year chart lists into multiple years, particularly as this has only nine distinct entries. Not convinced it's going to pass 3b. But as I said, just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per 3b. This list is a part of the bigger scope that's not separated reasonably. I'll support a list similar to List of 2000s UK Singles Chart number ones. --Cheetah (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - We actually have a great deal of templates and lists for individual US charts - look here. Some are quite minor, actually, such as the Dance Airplay and Tropical Songs charts. Toa Nidhiki05 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we're discussing this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 7 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 18 December 2011 [5].

Nominator(s): Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is defined in a similar way as that of other FLs such as the century lists and I believe it meets the criteria. Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:38, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• My intial and primary concern with this article is whether it is notable. Within WP:CRICKET, the unwritten line for a player to have a list of this sort is 25 international centuries (as demonstrated by Template:International cricket centuries.) Without a doubt V. V. S. Laxman is a notable and prominent cricketer, but I'm just not sure whether this is going to set a precedent that means practically every international cricketer will end up with one of these lists. I know we're not going to run out of space, but on the other hand, we can't list everything! The parent biography article isn't particularly long as it stands, could this be merged into that article? On the other hand, if that then gets heavily expanded and to a Good or Featured standard, would there then be an argument for this to become a seperate list, in which case we'd return to the first argument? Any thoughts from anyone else? (Note: as it stands, 41 cricketers have scored 25 or more centuries, and a further 14 have scored 21 or more, equivalent to Laxman.) Harrias ^talk 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had this doubt when I created this list. See this discussion. VVS Laxman is definitely a notable cricketer and many of his 100s are landmark centuries. Since he is yet to retire and only three short of 25, I think there is nothing wrong in having a separate list. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 03:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list there are a few issues even if this point is resolved:

• The opening sentence: "V. V. S. Laxman is an Indian cricketer." seems unnecessarily short to me. It would seem to flow better if merged into the subsequent sentence: "V. V. S. Laxman is an Indian cricketer, who has scored a total.."

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A bit more of a summary of Laxman with his cricketing achievements and batting style would probably be appropriate in this first paragraph.
• "..against Australia in at Sydney Cricket Ground, Sydney, in 2000.." – "in at" should probably be replaced with "at the", and I don't think that it needs clarfying that the Sydney Cricket Ground is in Sydney, mentioning where it is would probably only be necessary if it wasn't in Sydney!

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "..next century also came against the same team in 2001, where he.." – Given that "next century" is a time related statement, "when" would probably be more appropriate in this case than "where".

• Done --Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "His 281 is the highest individual score by a batsman in an India–Australia test match." – "Test match" should be capitalised as such, and I would prefer for "India–Australia" to be written out, it would probably work better slightly reworded: "His 281 is the highest individual score in a Test match between India and Australia."

• Done --Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "It was also the highest individual score by an Indian until that day." – I have no idea what this sentence is trying to say: it definitely needs clarification. Also, what makes Its Only Cricket a reliable source?

• Done Replaced using a reliable source. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of sources, with that one aside, you only reference ESPNcricinfo: a greater variety, particularly in the lead, would be preferable.

• Done --Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the ESPNcricinfo sources works at the moment; I assume you used a replace function to change from Cricinfo to ESPNcricinfo, which has resulted in: "espnespncricinfo.com" addresses.

• Done Yes. I used the replace function! --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The first reference is also formatted differently from the remainder of the ESPNcricinfo sources: try to be consistent.

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 4 is missing the final "t" from "Test".

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The hyphens in the reference should be endashes.

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 6 finishes "4t" whereas the other references are in the format "4th Test".

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "..and remained unbeaten on 32 occasions." – Not entirely sure that this is relevant: an unbeaten score in the nineties might be worth mentioning, especially if there are a few of them, but merely noting the number of "not out"s in his career seems trivial.

• I don't see anything wrong in mentioning this. Many FLs (century lists) have this included in the lead. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "In ODIs, Laxman has scored six centuries against three different countries with four of them against Australia." – I'm not keen on the "with four of them against Australia": possibly try "including four against Australia" instead?

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• ".. the last of the five match series.." – should probably be ".. the last of a five match series..".

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "His highest score of 131, came against Zimbabwe at the Adelaide Oval, .." – No need for the comma after the score.

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In the key, "remained" does not need to be capitalised.

• Done --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: In summary, the article has quite a few issues. The quality of the writing is in general below that I would expect in featured content, and for this, in addition to the other reasons above, I'm afraid I am going to have to oppose the promotion of this article at the present times. Harrias ^talk 23:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's not just about the "25" standard, when I looked at the VVS Laxman article, it was very short, and it seemed to me there to be no reason why the lists of centuries shouldn't be merged into the main article. In short, it's a potential victim of the 3b criterion of what makes a list featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a look at Jacques Kallis, which is roughly the same size as Laxman's article. A separate article for list of centuries exists for Kallis, infact an FL. If you feel the article is too short, then what would be the minimum prose size for the main article, so that the list of centuries can be forked out. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 10:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there's a specific minimum prose size, it's a little subjective. I only made the comment because it felt like you could merge the two at this point and maybe break out the table if VVS's article gets to the size of The Don's (say). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Richards and Inzamam-ul-Haq articles are also too small. They have separate pages for "List of centutries", with the former being an FL. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 18:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The questions on the reviewers' minds are about this list, not other lists. That's because we're discussing this list right now, not other lists that exist or have passed through FLC. We have other processes to deal with those pages, if necessary. Whether this is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list is what is up for debate here, and that should be kept in mind. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had suggested to Vensatry to bring this up to FLC (after addressing issues of prose etc - I haven't had a chance to go through the content yet, so I'm not providing a detailed review). I don't believe that this should fail 3b -- the addition of this content would cause an WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issue within the main article and therefore it couldn't be reasonably accommodated. Also, I view 3b slightly differently in that I don't think it ought to focus on the amount of content as it exists on the main article as it should on what good quality, sourced content could easily be added to the main article and I believe there's a lot that can be done with reasonably low effort. We shouldn't penalize list creation if interest in a particular article isn't great. —SpacemanSpiff 19:29, 4 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 16:22, 11 December 2011 [6].

Nominator(s): NReTSa (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it most likely meets the criteria, but also, it is one of the lists that showcases one of the traditions of college football: rivalry games. These games are something many people take interest in, especially compared to some of the topics of other FL nominations. NReTSa (talk) 08:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose lead should be bigger; "This is a list..." is old school; table should be accessible; there is a "citation needed" tag. Recommend you withdraw this review and work on it. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – The topic of the list is very interesting, but the quality isn't at the level of an FL. As GoP says, the lead is much too short, and the cite tag is something that shouldn't have made it to an FLC. The list isn't even fully updated; Oklahoma and Oklahoma State played yesterday, which isn't reflected in the table. I love the idea, but it needs more work to reach FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – per the two above.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:59, 6 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 16:22, 11 December 2011 [7].

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because its pass the WP:FL?, i have done some work on the list and i think it passes all policies and also the WP:MOS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • Currently the list does not tell about anything the subject of each of the books/poems. Something similar to "summary" in William Shakespeare bibliography needs to be added.
  • "Literary awards and honors" is a little out of place. Awards for specific books like Sahitya Akademi needs to be some "Notes" section near the specific book. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above suggestions are done. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Summary breaks the sorting somehow. Please fix it. May be make summary a column. Also merge Title and Original title columns under Title. Show Devanagari in brackets (). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove language from Summary. Repetition. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Title and Original title throughout: consistency. Utsāha is missing summary. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 more issue is the name. It should be consistent with parent article, currently Rambhadracharya. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues fixed. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason why Poems has a different but almost overlapping main article Poems by Jagadguru Rambhadracharya? I suggest a merge. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the "Compositions" section is a addition, i am not sure whether i should add it or not. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is Critical edition of Ramcharitmanas mentioned in the text? Is it same as Bhāvārthabodhinī , then say so clearly.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a commentary, where the "Critical edition of Ramcharitmanas" was a complete Ramcharitmanas with some differences in text made by Rambhadracharya. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So please mention the critical edition in the "Prose" section. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing year, publisher and language (often critical edition also have some commentary). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The commentary was Bhāvārthabodhinī, and since it was a edition of the ramcharitramanas, so its common sense it would be in Awadhi. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added publisher and year, there is no subject, its an edition. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support assumption of comprehensiveness, my comments are resolved. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Not sure why the tables are being forced to 625px width, why not just let them suit my browser? Comment It does suit my browser (Google chrome), is there any width which suits all browsers?
  • More about everyone else's browser (e.g. IE etc) not just yours. Don't force the width. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of use of <center> which is quite unnecessary in my opinion. Comment Its just to keep the content in line with the column heading.
  • No need. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (Minor poems), (Lyrical poems) etc. Is there a reason why the Minor and Lyrical etc are capitalised? Why are they being treated as proper nouns? Done
• "Chandrashekhar Azad" points to "Chandrasehkhar Azad", is this a typo here? Not done"Chandrashekhar Azad" is the right spelling.
  • So we need to fix our own article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Some summaries have diacritics, most don't, but include words which should have them. Be consistent throughout. Doing
• Would prefer to see column widths for the same columns be the same from table to table i.e. all "summary" columns should have the same width. Not done Tried my level best but its not working.
  • See other FLs for help here with the coding on forcing col widths. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tried it but the column widths are not changing, see this. any idea to fix it? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The keys don't need full stops (e.g. "Undated." should just be "Undated") Done
• Check all linkable content is linked every time in the Audio and video section (e.g. Bhajans).Done
• Don't think the timeline really adds anything to this article.Removed
• No need to explain that "Adi Shankara bibliography " is "Bibliography of Adi Shankara" in the See also links, remove both "explanations" as superfluous.Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 7 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 16:22, 11 December 2011 [8].

Nominator(s): Resolute 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a twin nomination to that of the Lionel Conacher Award. While the Conacher award names Canada's male athlete of the year, the Bobbie Rosenfeld names the female athlete. I have attempted to ensure the technical comments from that FLC are already addressed with this one. Hopefully there will be only a minimum of content concerns. Resolute 20:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments Support –

• Voting: "Voters selected their first disabled athlete as winner in 2008". Feels like "the" would be helpful before "winner".
• List of winners: Don't think Javelin needs to be capitalized in the 1937 note. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Both fixed. Apologies for the slow response... I missed this on my watchlist when it popped up! Resolute 00:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• Not much wrong apart from two WP:ACCESS issues. Firstly the table needs a caption; for this it would be |+Bobbie Rosenfold Award winners. Finally you need to add ! before scope=row. Other than this the list looks good. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A header would be superfluous, as the section header explains the table. Also, I do not intend to highlight one column of the table, which replacing | with ! would do. Resolute 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these items are required by WP:ACCESS, currently the list does not meet access requirements. A quick read of MOS:DTT states that the priority for these two items is high, there fore I feel they need to be implemented. Recent FL's employ these I see no reason why they should be flouted here. NapHit (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a case of flouting accessibility, it is case of not wanting to introduce redundancy for no benefit. The point of a table caption is to define what the table is about. The section header achieves the same function, and given there is absolutely no text between the section and the table, there is no ambiguity. I will add it if I have to, but I do not logically see how not having a header that says the same thing as the section title hampers accessibility. As to the other point, the important syntax is scope=row. The ! is wikimarkup used to make the cell a table header, but that is not an accessibility issue. I have no desire to use row headers, especially in the middle of the table. In fact, W3's own documentation appears to support this: "TH is for headers, TD for data, but for cells acting as both use TD". Resolute 03:18, 5 November 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 not promoted by Giants2008 16:22, 11 December 2011 [9].

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am re-nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be a comprehensive, detailed article. I spent a long time researching the films for their respective articles and have condensed that here to provide as much intimate detail where possible on the characters and otherwise provided a brief summary of the characters actions plus an additional reception section. Everything here is everything I believe it possible to find through research in regards to the characters and I believe it to be a quality article.

Since the last nomination the article has been comprehensively copy edited by the marvelous Stfg. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't believe all the reviewers disappeare,d so I'll leave some comments:

• "In 2001, as part of the American Film Institutes AFI 100 Years... series, the character of Ghostface became one of the four hundred nominees in the "100 Heroes and Villains" category.[43]" this sentence should be combined elsewhere in reception, as one-sentence paragraphs are discouraged.
• "Appears in: Scream 3" Appeared in, to keep consistent.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I have attempted to address both issues, hopefully this satisfies your issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Ok so this is my first review ever for FLC, so bare with me.

• I know the general rule is to not cite things in the lead paragraph, but you have alot of facts there that do not seem to be repeated elsewhere("characters created primarily by Kevin Williamson with contributions from Craven and Ehren Kruger.", and "Each film provides a motive and grounds for suspicion for several characters," just to name 2)
• in the first paragraph you say what the ending to each movie is. Isn't there a "spoiler alert" template that is used in these situations? I could be wrong.
• the alt text in your images is describing the person's accomplishments not who or what they are doing. read Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Also, references do not belong in alt text.
• the lead paragraphs for each of the different movie sections have no references. I am not even sure if they are needed.
• One or two sentence paragraphs are really discouraged. These are everywhere in this article. These are just the ones I found in the "Scream" section. "Billy Loomis" has 3 2 sentence paragraphs, "Gale Weathers" 1 sentence paragraph, "Principal Himbry" 2 sentence paragraph, "Sidney Prescott" 2 sentence paragraph, "Steve Orth" 1 sentence paragraph.
• all of the characters are listed individually except for "Maureen Evans and Phil Stevens", and "Anthony Perkins and Ross Hoss" is there a reason for this? They should be separate.
• "Steven Stone" has no references.
• this whole layout of this list is very confusing. First off it is arranged alphabetically by first name for each movie, usually people are alphabetized by last name. Secondly if a character is in multiple movies they are not listed in the second or third one they are in. Relationships are really hard to follow because of the strange alphabetizing and layout.
• A summary chart would really help this list out. Something that states the character and maybe the actor and then states what films they were in with links that will take you right to the correct part of the page. Something similar to the one on List of Scream cast members
• I don't get the "Reception" section. If we have two lists, one for characters and one for actors, why is there information about the actors and awards they won. doesn't that belong with the list of actors? Do most movies have separate lists for characters and actors here on wiki?
• there are a bunch of links missing the second set of brackets in the "Reception" section as well.

I did not check any of the references to see if they actually state what they are referencing. At this point I believe this list still has a long way to go before being FL material. Another Peer Review might be best for it.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:43, 4 December 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.