The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because i have been working on improving the article, its formatting, sourcing, prose etc and i believe that it is of good quality. have also had the article peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions Mister sparky (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks solid. I made a few super-minor edits of my own, but other than that, this looks great. No complaints; happy to immediately support its nom. Nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick question
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards of other featured lists, as well as the criteria neccessary to be featured. So here goes. SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer |
---|
Comments A few things catch my eye right off the bat:
Further comments by Drewcifer3000 (This is just a straight copy+paste of a message from my talk page left at 06:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)):[reply]
After looking through various discographies found in FL-Class Discography articles, I noticed that a similar manner of displaying songs found on other releases is used in Nirvana discography, here titled "Other appearances". I have retitled the section in this discography accordingly. Please see there for the rationale for its inclusion. --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←Its quite good to hear you say that, considering I was going to mention something about the releases pre-dating the EP in my next comment. I will downsize the table to include these three songs. Should the releases be mentioned in the article's lead? |
Support Looks good to me. Happy to finally support. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cannibaloki 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
Cannibaloki 03:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Question—Does a live performance video even count as a music video?—indopug (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
←After further discussion of the sources, I agree Zobbel shouldn't be used (since it includes disks which are ineligible to chart) and I will side with you on ChartStats, as its reliability is still in question. I have removed references to the above two with the exception of two citations, which I am leaving in for just now purely for flagging. I am currently waiting on an answers to a further question which i have asked RS, so I ask again that this is put on hold until I am given an answer. --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
←It was added this way by Cannibaloki, so I don't want to talk for him, but I think it was because we had a discussion above about the widths remaining constant across all tables. Its the same as the widths for the albums and singles. Is this a problem? --SteelersFanUK06 HereWeGo2010! 13:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:10, 26 January 2010 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria, and I have improved the list based on feedback received during a peer review session. Thanks! Another Believer (Talk) 18:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Support - Looks good. The only suggestion I have is that {{Dynamic list}} should be above the actual list. But that is really not a big issue. As for the missing years of birth, you may need to add a footnote to explain that they can't be found.—Chris!c/t 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While topic is a great idea for a list, I think the List of politicians itself suffers from a lack of specificity. I'm not sure how useful it is to lump honest hemp farmers like Jefferson in with potheads/coke fiends like Obama. I'd like to be able to see from the table whether or not Michael Bloomberg for example smoked marijuana, rather than having to dig through the references section. I suggest adding a sortable column to the table for type of use; recreational/medicinal/agricultural would be one way to divide it. On another point, the captions for the Jefferson image parrots that of the Washington one; it would be best to change one of them so as to make reading them more worthwhile to the reader. Skomorokh 15:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 20 January 2010 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on this list for hundreds of hours and it is very hard to find information on the monarchs of Sri Lanka all in one place. It has come a long way and in my opinion has reached the standard of List of French monarchs which is the only other featured list on monarchs. Blackknight12 (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work Blackknight12, what is missing is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Any reasons Taprobanus (talk)
Oppose Good work Blackknight12, but as Taprobanus says , where is the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. Please explain what motive behind to not to include or deleted the list of Kings belonging to Jaffna Kingdom. --Jai Kumara Yesappa (talk) 23:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Once these are corrected I will support. --Kumioko (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sorry mate, but this has too many problems.
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 20 January 2010 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list because the new list was created to highlight Landmark structures and districts in Dallas that were previously not mentioned. I created the list to better categorize and distinguish Dallas Landmarks from other historic designations. Dfwcre8tive (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - suggest this is withdrawn and reintroduced when, as a minimum, the following is fixed:
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 08:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:54, 20 January 2010 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list. I realize that my grammar has a lot of issues and this being a mystery episode list can be confusing so all criticisms appreciated. I have a lot of time to fix up the mistakes. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The image does not have a proper WP:ALT. FUR looks line. (how would someone who is blind and unfamiliar with the series know what "Conan Edogawa" looks like. The Alt should be generic. The summary of ep 494 is too long (over 300 words and longer than all the rest). The rest of them seem fine, at under 200 words each on a quick check. A copyedit really should be done before an FLC is started. A few points from the lead that I noticed:
Did not check the episode summaries grammar. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments – Also haven't looked at the episode summaries.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because the last nomination went stale / had a lot of editors that were arguing with me in another context that came to simply oppose it, and since the holidays are all but over. While I have created my own format in this road list, I feel its essentially as complete as possible (Minus a completely unavailable history of the system), and provides a more visually pleasing article.
A few notes for reviewers:
twice before, so I'm certain most of it has been caught, but second eyes are always appreciated. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First Review |
---|
Further replies: I do see your reasoning, and I disagree, plus I have some addition points to make now.
I hope this helps Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Just found this on my camera. It shows a 7 & 35 shield alongside the Trans-Canada marker. How would I go about citing these images? Should I do it as I would a website, simply linking to the file namespace in the url? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I believe that I've fixed every issue you've brought up thus far, with the exception of the Google Maps issue and adding shields to the map (in progress). Let me know if I missed something. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Second Review |
---|
I've collapsed the original review, and I'm restarting it here with the remaining points left to address.
I still can't support the article at this time. Yes, substantial progress has been made, but there are still remaining issues. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started a sandboxed version of this article to better illustrate some changes. I cleaned up and standardized all of the references in the main list. One change I made that is more of a personal preference was to spell out the full date, rather than using ISO dates. All of the citation templates are in the {{cite XX}} family instead of the even worse mixture of {{citation}} now used. I moved the History section down, which has the benefit of pushing the current designation types up including the IMHO better photos. The King's Highways table was reorganized to move the references into a separate column. The Names column was eliminated as it duplicated the names given under the Route # column, and the non-duplicative names could be moved to the Comments column. The Lengths column was moved left so that the two sortable columns come first. Finally, there was a lot of unnecessary code I removed to streamline the table. A lot of the WP:OVERLINKing was removed, including the extra links to MapArt in the references. The note at the bottom of the table needs to be reworded. The City roads table should be organized along the same principles, but in this case, I would prune out some of the unnecessary trivia from the Comments column to merge the names into that column. Barring that, the Names in this table could stay, but I'd remove the duplication between the Names and the Route # column. The other suggestion I would make is using some abbreviations. I've read the word "Kawartha" SO many times in reviewing this article that it looks misspelled every time I see it. "Kawartha Lakes Road 8" could easily be abbreviated to "KLR 8". Only the abbreviated version I just gave would need a non-breaking space. Street names do not. Please consider some of these ideas to help clean up this list. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have a small point of clarification for the KLR 2 entry in the table, the comments are: "signed as Kawartha Lakes 2 north of Seagrave, where it forms the boundary with Durham Region, but is maintained by Kawartha Lakes". Do you mean that it's signed as Durham Regional Road 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imzadi1979 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
I collapsed the second review and pulled the follow remaining items here into a short list.
|link=|alt=
parameters and formatting the correct wikilink, with abbreviation. We don't have to remember the naming convention for 50+ systems of roadways' shields and links. Having said that, if I'm linking to another road in the prose of an article, where the shield will not be displayed, I enter a wikilink, not a template. If I'm not linking the text, I wouldn't use a wikilink either. It just makes editing the article that much easier for others.I've done a lot more than most reviewers in reviewing this list. I've researched better sources to clear up your SPS issues, and created the sandbox to illustrate what this list should look like. You still have a lot of work though to get this up to the quality that's expected of the bronze star. I'm still going to oppose until it's complete. Imzadi1979 (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the continued reviews. I've revamped the City Roads table, removing many instances of 'Kawartha Lakes' from the comments, removing repeated route names from the names column, eliminating the links from the terminii columns, cleaning up the comments, using {{ntsc}}
, and shifting things around. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{jcon|KL|2|Simcoe Street|ot=yes}}
which involves for another editor, dealing with the code in the edit window, a template that generate the same finished output as Kawartha Lakes Road (Simcoe Street)
. Why take two steps figuratively (template + ot parameter) when one step (plain text) would suffice?at=
parameter that works similar to the page=
parameter, but doesn't prepend the "p." From the documentation, "When the page prefix is unwanted. "at=Table 5" produces Table 5." You could use that parameter to reference the exact location inside of the reference, such as at=Part III, Section 26
or even use the internal anchors and change the link directly to [14] if that is the section you are specifically using. (The first method would look better though.)page=
and pages=
parameters. It doesn't prepend the p./pp. though, so you'd have to add that manually if you switch over.) Where in all of that text is the information that specifically supports the claim: "The City of Kawartha Lakes was formed on January 1, 2001, and was known as Victoria County before that"? A page number, range of page numbers, etc. is needed. This could be in the form of "p. 1", "pp 2–4", or "pp. 2, 5–6" as needed, but whatever the situation, the pages numbers are necessary to complete this reference. Additionally, you now state here that this report ordered the creation of the merged municipality. It looks like the final draft of a study report into the feasibility of merging the county and it's constituent municipalities. Wouldn't there actually be an act of the provincial legislature that accomplished that task?Some final comments:
The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi) of roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes in the Canadian province of Ontario.[note 1][1] These roads[note 2][2] include King's Highways that are signed and maintained by the province, as well as the Kawartha Lakes Roads under the jurisdiction of the city. The third type of existing roadway in the single-tier municipality is that of locally-maintained roads that are also called concession roads and sidelines. A fourth category of roads, Secondary highways, existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist within Kawartha Lakes.
The 49 numbered highways provide year-round access to the mostly rural municipality. The longest of these roads is Highway 35, which stretches 86.7 kilometres (53.9 mi) across the municipality from the south to the north. The shortest numbered road is Kawartha Lakes Road 3, Hartley Road, a causeway just less than a kilometre long crossing Mitchell Lake.
Before 1998, several additional King's Highways and Secondary highways were located in what was then known as Victoria County. These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County was abolished in 2001 and replaced with the City of Kawartha Lakes.
This sample lead flows better, has all the important stuff linked, and it summarized the whole article better
You'll notice that I substituted a different map for the lead. I'd move the existing map down to the top of the first section, "Types of roads", left-aligned. I've just realized that the King's Highway photo is left-aligned under a third-level heading, which is a violation of the MOS. You could add a brief into paragraph about the types of roads, link to the MTO and explain that they maintain and sign the provincial highways, explain who maintains and signs the city roads (CKL Dept. of Public Works?) and then move the photo to right. The second photo should be moved down into the City roads section, because that what classification of roadway is shown in the photo.
I hope this helps. Imzadi1979 (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[File:KL Road Map.svg|thumb|200px|alt = "A map of the entire city of Kawartha Lakes. The lakes, rivers, and roads are shown, each represented by coloured lines, except lakes which are coloured shapes. Lakes and rivers are light-blue; roads are either black, representing numbered city roads, or dark-blue, representing highways maintained by the province of Ontario. The outline of the city is a much thicker, partially transparent grey line."|A map of Kawartha Lakes. Highway 115 crosses to the lower right, King's highways are deep-blue, city roads are black.]]
[[File:Hartley Road causeway.jpg|thumb|alt = "a dirt road crosses the centre of a lake on a clear day."|Hartley Road (Kawartha Lakes Road 3) crossing [[Mitchell Lake (Ontario)|Mitchell Lake]] by [[causeway]].]]
If I renamed the Route maps section to External links, would that be satisfactory? There is a citation (to the paper map) at the top of the Length column that is the actual reference to the length of each road. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following excerpts need citations:
Here are some other issues I noticed:
All of the information you mentioned above now has a source, or has been removed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [17].
I am nominating List of Saw media as per the new featured list criteria and that I based the article formatting and style off of List of Metal Gear media, another featured list with similar multimedia scope. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 17:23, 16 January 2010 [18].
I am nominating this for featured list because after it faild the first nomination i was ocupaded by another FLC but now i am able to give this nomination a lot of atention. Pedro J. the rookie 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
As requested. Article needs some improvements, especially in sourcing. Cheers, The Flash {talk} 16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I was asked on my talk page to review this list, and so I come bearing comments. However, I am concerned about some of the repetitive phrasing I'm seeing after reviewing the first part of the page.
I'll come back to review more at a later time. Meanwhile, please consider finding an outside copy-editor to take a look at the page and clean it up. I'd hate to see a bunch of problems in the episode summaries, which are usually a problem spot for similar FLCs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [19].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has gone through peer review and I feel the list is ready to become featured. I am not sure whether a table for doubles players is needed. 03md 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criteria 3a and 3b. For 3a, you would need the doubles. Also, given that we have complete lists of finalists from 1905 and 1922 for men and women respectively, I don't understand why this only goes as far back as the start of the slam era. Surely we should be consistent? But my main issue is 3b. I just don't see the need for this list. I don't see why it couldn't reasonably be incorporated into List of Australian Open champions (or vice versa, given the superior quality of this list in terms of referencing and prose). WFCforLife (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:30, 11 January 2010 [20].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Although short, it will extend as time passes, without changing the current design/layout of the article. It is incomplete, but the only new information to be added will be the future number-one albums and current top 10, which will be added after they are revealed every Sunday. Many other similar lists have been given featured list status when still incomplete, such as List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) Loveable Daveo (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:31, 2 January 2010 [21].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets FL criteria and deserves featured status. Mephiston999 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest recruiting an experienced copy editor. This list probably should have gone to peer review before coming here, and I wouldn't be opposed to its withdrawal to be put through peer review before a re-nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.
Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, a bit of this is said above, but my main concern is the rather subjective presentation of and lack of crucial information. In addition there are some style and grammar issues.
Arsenikk (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:36, 2 January 2010 [22].
I am nominating this for featured list, because the list is fully complete, well structured, very accurate, easily navigable, and is categorized very well with an extensive amount of information. My only real concern is that the article may be too long at 115 kilobytes to meet specific criteria without being split into multiple articles (though the maximum length of an article is not really mentioned in the criteria). —Notorious4life (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some serious issues here that need to be fixed before I could considering supporting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per the lack of references. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this list is a nice starting point and has potential, but some critical elements are still lacking. The most obvious is the complete lack of references. Some other comments:
<sup>2</sup>
that produces 2.Arsenikk (talk) 12:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]