Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2017

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 archived by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Ikhtiar H (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because the review was so finished previously. Ikhtiar H (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ikhtiar H while I appreciate you have had no comments on this since your nomination, you haven't edited for over a month, so I just wanted to see if you were still going to follow this up? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't replied to the above note for nine days, and no comments have been forthcoming, so I'm closing this. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is quite engaging with the reader, with interesting graphics and images. Additionally, the content is regularly up-to-date, sources are not simply "Emporis" or "Skyscrapercity" forums (an issue with other FL tallest building lists). Furthermore, list employs a similar style/format to Hong Kong and New York City tallest buildings lists, in that it details the history of skyscrapers within Melbourne, their use, geographical location, etc. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment very thorough list with clearly much effort put into it. I do have the sense that it's a bit too much however, and could be trimmed.

• First, the table is too wide and won't fit on most computer screens, so there is accessibility issues. The records columns on the far right, for example, can simply be added to notes. As a column they are mostly blank anyway.
• Featured lists no longer begin with "This list ranks completed and topped out Melbourne skyscrapers"... You can simply start it with Melbourne has X skyscrapers that stand at least 150 metres tall based on standard height measurement"
• You don't need a section called "Cityscape" if there is no text to go with it. You can just move that picture to be directly above the list, and save a bit of space.
• I do have a big issue with "proposed" or "approved" or "cancelled" buildings being on this list as many of them will not ever end up being built, running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. And "vision" buildings should not be on the list unless they have their own wikipedia page. Otherwise there is notability issues.

This is just a first pass, hope it helps! Mattximus (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mattximus: thanks very much for your review.

I'll respond to each point you've made:

• Table size has been reduced; image sizes have been reduced (120px → 100px); records column has been removed, content (already) merged into notes, per your advice.
• Lead has been reworded per your advice.
• Cityscape section has been removed, image has been retained in following section, per your advice.
• Tricky part: I'll note, such section/s re "proposed" "approved" "cancelled" buildings are included in most tallest buildings featured lists (Hong Kong, Chicago, New York City, to name a few) – Melbourne has the same format. Nevertheless, regarding this list in question: no building listed is unsourced (all projects are verified by reliable sources provided); additionally, re Crystal: this list isn't necessarily aserting that the proposed/approved projects will be built, it's simply displaying information about active projects that have been lodged for planning approval to the State Government. Furthermore: I have been actively creating articles on buildings listed in those sections, whether they be proposed, approved, cancelled or vision.

I hope I make sense. If you would like clarification, please let me know. Again, thank you for taking your time to review this list, I really appreciate it. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• I have some copy editing comments, but these may be just my taste so ignore them if you disagree.
  • @Dudley Miles: two minds are better than one, so I don't mind addressing the concerns of another editor! :) I appreciate your input, and will answer every concern in italics as follows. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it would be helpful to define a high-rise building in the first sentence - presumably one of over a specified height?
  • I've linked high-rises, as to encompass the various definitions of such.
• I think you need to explain your criteria for inclusion in the article in the lead.
  • It opens with the amount of buildings in general the city comprises, and then it specifies the amount of skyscrapers; the actual list within the page lists only skyscrapers (and it is defined within that section that only skyscrapers are included).
• "completed and or topped-out". What is the difference?
  • Building terminology present throughout similar lists; topped-out proceeds completion in that the skyscraper or building is architecturally or structurally complete -- but not open. Topped-out is also wiki-linked.
• "Of the ten tallest buildings in the Australia". The second "the" looks like a typo.
  • Sentence should read "of the ten (10) tallest buildings in Australia", the ≠ ten.
• "other locations of prominent skyscrapers and tall buildings in Melbourne, include: Carlton, Docklands, Southbank, South Melbourne, South Yarra and St Kilda Road." I would delete the first comma and possibly also the colon.
  • Agree, done.
• "a western skyline and an eastern skyline. These two skylines are divided by the Yarra River". Suggest "These are divided by the Yarra River".
  • Agree, done.
• "The western side consists of more density than the east". This sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe "Buildings are more densely packed in the west than the east."
  • Agree, done.
• "120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively" Why "respectively".
  • The sentence in full: "city's tallest buildings–120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively" – the use of 'respectively' is to suggest that 120 Collins is taller than 101 Collins (they are the "city's tallest", but one is taller than the other, hence the order of the sentence). If you believe it still doesn't make sentence, iit can be removed.
• "tallest by roof" What does this mean as opposed to just tallest? Excluding the roof? If so, it would be helpful to explain.
  • So, 120 Collins is taller than Rialto because it has a spire that extends past Rialto's roof (which has no spire/architectural feature (as defined by CTBUH)); despite this, the roof of 120 Collins is shorter than Rialto. I have clarified the sentence: "two of the city's tallest buildings to architectural feature–120 Collins Street and 101 Collins Street, respectively".
• "and whilst it was demolished in 1980," Maybe "which was demolished in 1980;"
  • Agree, done.
• "Skyscrapers in Melbourne have a long and illustrious history." "illustrious" is POV.
  • Agree, done.
• "35 collective years" I think "in total" would be clearer than "collective", and you need to specify up to what date, presumably 2016.
  • Agree, done; sentence specifies that Melbourne comprises the most skyscrapers since 2014.
• "The APA Building (Australian Building) was one of Australia's first skyscrapers and the third tallest building in the world" This repeats what is said above. I suggest deleting the paragraph and merging into the comments about the APA Building above.
  • Agree, done.
• More to follow, but the detail seems excessive for a list article, as an editor observes above. The 'History and specifications' section might be transferred to the section on skyscrapers in Architecture in Melbourne. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have modelled much of the content from List of tallest buildings in New York City and List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong -- both FLs, my contention is that each section -- history, height limits, precincts, functions -- pertain directly to skyscrapers in Melbourne. Architecture in Melbourne is more broad, and from my understanding, is about design as opposed to height and location.
• More comments.
  • @Dudley Miles: thank you for your further comments! I've responded to your concerns, hope that suffices. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 10:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• "as the tallest building in Australia as well as the Southern Hemisphere" Maybe "as the tallest building not only in Australia but in the Southern Hemisphere"
  • Perfect, done.
• The image and notes column should not be sortable.
  • Agreed, done.
• The notes column is squeezed into a very narrow column on my screen which is difficult to read due to the excessive number of columns. The New York and Hong Kong lists you cite only have the completion date, not proposed and started. I agree that the additional info is useful, but not at the expense of putting in too many columns.
  • So, I've removed the proposed and under-construction columns; I've added such information in the notes section where applicable. Better?
• You might consider changing the precinct column to one for coordinates, as in the Hong Kong list, which would be more useful for readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added coordinates for each individual building under the 'precincts' (now 'location') heading; I've retained the actual precincts for clarity (Melbourne is made up of various localities) + we do have a section explaining that.
• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MelbourneStar there are comments here that have been waiting to be addressed for over a month, are you intending to return to this candidate? If not, or if we received nothing in the next few days, we'll archive this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man I've only noticed Dudley's concerns now, as I've had a few busy weeks IRL of recent and without being pinged I have regrettably forgotten about the FA nomination. Nevertheless, I intend to respond to Dudley's concerns within the next few days. Kind regards, —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, just checking that the nomination wasn't dead! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for more than 3 months with only a single supporting editor; it additionally has seen no activity for 3 weeks. I'm going to go ahead and close it as stalled in order to clear out the FLC queue. FLC is currently experiencing a lowered level of review activity; nominators are encouraged to review multiple other nominations for each of their own in order to ensure that all nominations receive sufficient attention. --PresN 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Hpesoj00 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it was formally featured but got delisted for various reasons but I believe the list is now up to standards. I believe I have addressed all comments in the talk page and delisting discussion, and have generally improved the content and appearance of the article. Hpesoj00 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Revise Reference 10 to avoid WP: Shouting.
• If possible, add ALT texts for the images in the “Hand categories” section. I understand if this is not possible given the structure of the section, but I wanted to double-check on this point.
• You do not need to repeatedly link the word “poker” after its first use in the article. Please remove any extraneous links to avoid WP:Overlinking. (The repetition in the link primarily occurs in the first line of those subsections discussing the different types of hands.) The same comment applies to the linking of the word “suit” and “high card”. I would advise that you look for other similar examples in the article to avoid WP:Overlinking.

@Hpesoj00: Great work with this article! It was a very informative read, and I will definitely use this as resource as I have grown very rusty with poker knowledge. Once my comments are addressed, then I will support this nomination. If possible, could you review my FLC? I know that it is very outside of interest field, but it would be great to get input from a new pair of eyes. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47:

• Fixed the reference ALL CAPS.
• I initially linked each section as if it were a stand-alone article, but I have received feedback from several people about this now, so I have removed the extra links.
• I believe that the card images do have alternative text; the images are provided via Template:Card.

• Thank you! I apologize for missing this during my earlier read.

Thanks for the review. Let me know if your points are addressed. I will check out your article ASAP! Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Thank you for your prompt response. This was a very helpful article, and an interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment quick one, it's mildly confusing in the third para of the lead which states "There are nine hand categories ..." and "...when using all nine hand categories." when ten categories are listed. I know one uses a wild card, but that isn't 100% clear. I'll do a proper review in due course! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've tried to clarify. Looking forward to the rest of your review! Hpesoj00 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

N

• I would like to see some sort of ref for "categories". I don't think I've heard of "hand categories in poker", just of "hands in poker".
• for an article of this type please add a footnote showing how "There are 311,875,200 ways to deal five cards from the deck but only 2,598,960 distinct hands" is mathematically reached. probably same for 7,462

• "when using nine hand categories" you mean when excluding 5-of-a-kind? just say for a 52-card deck, and say that these 7k are split in 9 categories.
• "Categorized as high card under ace-to-five low rules" is unclear at a first glance
• each category should have an estimated chance of obtaining (i.e. how many combinations out of the 7k ones); probably add this in the table
• I've seen many mahines giving better bonuses for a royal flush. this should be covered; also give % chance to get one
• I remember that each pair has a name among the players. I think it would be appropriate to include them here
• I think talking about lowball is confusing here. that version is extremely rare IMO so I would rather have it only briefly mentioned here, and focus instead on the normal high-to-low versions. i.e. I would say 75432 is the worst possible hand in normal play, but conversely best in lowball.

Nergaal (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: Thanks for the feedback. Sorry for my delayed response.

• This article used to be called "List of poker hands". I renamed it recently to try and be more precise. The term "hand" in poker can mean a number of different things, so I felt using the generic term "category" to disambiguate would be best. However, a quick Google search suggests that the most common usage of the term "hand category" in poker is for referring to types of incomplete hand in poker strategy (e.g. "pocket pair" or "flush draw"). Perhaps "poker hand ranking category" would be an even more precise term. However, I understand that the title of the article doesn't have to be 100% specific, so I would be happy to change it back to "List of poker hands". However, I still need to use some kind of terminology to refer to the different categories of hand used in poker hand ranking. Would it be acceptable to use "category" throughout the article to describe this concept? The commonly used terms "hand" or "ranking" seem too imprecise for the purpose of the article.
• The link to the source for that number had broken. I have fixed it now.
• I have changed it to "Category does not exist under ace-to-five low rules". It is explained elsewhere in the article that hands that would have fallen into these categories class as "high card" instead.
• The article used to list the chance of obtaining each type of hand when dealt five cards from a 52-card deck. However, the probability of being dealt a type of hand in reality depends on the rules of the game (the article links to Poker probability which contains this information). In addition, since some categories do not exist under ace-to-five low rules, the probabilities only apply for high rules. I have chosen to list only the most generic statistics that apply for all types of poker (e.g. total number of hands, total number of ranks). Also, I would prefer not to add anything else to the table, as I would like it to be able to fit on the page on mobile devices if possible.
• The article used to contain some comment about the special status of "royal flush" in video poker. However, it wasn't sourced, and I couldn't find any sources to back up the claim, so I removed it. Besides, this article is meant to be as general as possible. The specifics of video poker is probably beyond the scope of this article. In general, "royal flush" is just a nickname for the best possible straight flush, and it deserves no more special treatment than "four aces" or an "ace-high straight".
• I'm not sure what you mean by "each pair". This article links to the Non-standard poker hand article which lists nicknames for specific poker hands.
• I originally considered talking only about high poker in this article. However, I realised that this was my own bias at work. High-low poker is extremely popular in both online and brick-and-mortar casinos. Talking only about high poker here would not be WP:NPOV.

Thanks again for your feedback. In conclusion, I would be happy to change the name of the article back to "List of poker hands", I don't think poker hand probabilities should be listed as the article should be as generic as possible, and I do think that low rules should be discussed here to maintain WP:NPOV. Hpesoj00 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: If I wanted to change the name of the article back to "List of poker hands", how would this affect the FLC process? Hpesoj00 (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The FLC would continue as normal, so don't let that stop you. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page. List of poker hand categories now redirects to List of poker hands. I'm leaving fixing of double redirects to the bots. @Nergaal: I have also changed "category" to "hand ranking category" in several places. Please let me know how you feel about the current state of the article. Hpesoj00 (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Director note – The nominator hasn't made an edit on Wikipedia since their last post here almost a month ago. With comments outstanding, we're going to have to archive the FLC soon if the user doesn't respond. Hpesoj00, if you want the FLC to continue please do let us know here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Very sorry for my lack of response. Been very busy over the Christmas period. I aim to respond soon. If you could leave the FLC open a little longer that would be great. Hpesoj00 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for almost 4 months with only a single supporting editor; it additionally has seen its last substantial review over a month ago. I'm going to go ahead and close it as stalled in order to clear out the FLC queue. FLC is currently experiencing a lowered level of review activity; nominators are encouraged to review multiple other nominations for each of their own in order to ensure that all nominations receive sufficient attention. --PresN 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of England international footballers with at least 10 caps, and has been moulded on the already promoted France, Germany, Israel and Scotland lists. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments from ChrisTheDude
  • "Despite the first England international match taking place on 30 November 1872, the first player to reach 10 caps for his country was Norman Bailey," => don't see what the first clause is relevant, or what point it's trying to make......?
    • Removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "England's highest scorer in FIFA World Cup finals matches is Gary Lineker, with 10 goals,[8] and the highest scorer in UEFA European Championship finals matches is Alan Shearer, with seven goals.[9]" => both as numbers or both as words, please
    • Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players highlighted as in the team that won the World Cup seems to include squad members who didn't play in the final, so you may wish to change the wording in the key
    • Replaced team with squad. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Think that's it - ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Does englandstats.com meet FA criteria? It's maintained by some random guy who doesn't know the difference between it's and its. I think it would be preferable, if possible, to use the English FA. Looks good otherwise. Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 11:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd ask a similar question, is englandstats.com a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Pinging Mattythewhite in case he's forgotten about this nom! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd prefer not to use the FA as the source, as it's not third party, their links can not be archived and they don't maintain profiles for every player. As to Englandstats.com, it has been used frequently for years, but I'm not certain if passes WP:RS. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has been open for more than 3 months with only a single supporting editor; it additionally has seen no activity for a month. I'm going to go ahead and close it as stalled in order to clear out the FLC queue. FLC is currently experiencing a lowered level of review activity; nominators are encouraged to review multiple other nominations for each of their own in order to ensure that all nominations receive sufficient attention. --PresN 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Nominator(s): LavaBaron (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this meets the FL standards. It was previously nominated and got a !vote of support from User:Gonzo_fan2007, but had to be closed by User_talk:PresN due to a total lack of interest from anyone else. I'm renominating it now in hope it will draw new attention. LavaBaron (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as all of my previous issues were addressed here. Again, nice work Lavabaron! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, all of the previous issues have been addressed from the Wikiproject A-class Review and the previous Featured List attempt. I would suggest adding an ALT description to all of the images, but that is the only issue that I could find in the list. Great job! Aoba47 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Support

• All the images including two from the prose, and from the columns of table need ALT description i.e. |alt= field in the image insertion module, wherever not mentioned.
• I suggest adding the garrison column, because it is important for the band.
• The external links check shows two dead link and one suspicious link.
• A short summary of the table in section 2 is required, mentioning the history, the oldest and youngest bands, other other note worthy bands etc. Most of the MILHIS FLs do have the thing.

Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks very much for this thorough review. I'm in the process of making these updates and corrections now and will ping you as soon as they're done. LavaBaron (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga I have now finished making all these corrections, except for the "garrison column" as I'm not 100% sure I know what you mean? Thanks - LavaBaron (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The emblem images are too domination the entire the entire row. Consider reducing them to some extent, also this creates space for the garrison column I am talking about. Garrison is nothing but the headquarters, for example, U.S. Marine Band it is Marine Barracks, Washington, D.C., for West Point Band it is West Point, New York. The headquarters need to be mentioned. Also per WP:ACCESS, the colour needs a symbol along with it. For example see 1982 Asian Games medal table. Also the key is never detailed. You assigned green to army bands, white for naval bands and so. But this was never explained prior to the reader. Take help of {{legend}}. If this is done there is no need to mention their service under their title. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks for the feedback. Will get to this shortly. LavaBaron (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - I've added a "garrison" column, added a {{legend}}, and resized each insignia by 1/3. Please LMK if I missed anything. Thanks again. LavaBaron (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have provided the legend, there is no need to mention again the service branch. Remove the service mentioned under the name of each ensemble. As I have said before, a matching symbol is needed along with the colour, see MOS:CONTRAST. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks, I've removed the sub-heads and added numerical symbols to the color legend. LavaBaron (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no article for USAFA Band? If there is one, link it, else make it a red link because it is notable. Also link the services in legend. I am done with this here. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - thanks again for your patience, I've redlinked the USAFA Band (no article as of yet, it's on my to-do list) and wikilinked the legend. LavaBaron (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Baron. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quick remark the table doesn't meet WP:ACCESS, there are no row or col scopes, and colour alone is used to designate the units. Also unsure as to why we need such large font in the Ensemble column, nor the over-capitalisation of "DUI, Badge, Emblem, or Logo". And "On Brave Old Army Team" needs a comma after On. Much more to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, and since this initial comment has been summarily ignored for four days, I'll have to oppose this list's promotion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I see that Baron has addressed the comments. Please have a look at the list. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The oppose stands. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Why do you oppose, may I know the reason? If could come up with some comments, they can be dealt. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as looks well done and very colorful nice job. Sagecandor (talk) 10:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sagecandor! LavaBaron (talk) 12:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• "A premier ensemble is a term used in the United States Armed Forces to refer to a military band that has special status." "special status" sounds vague.
• "While branch-wide, as opposed to unit-specific, bands had existed since the formation of the U.S. Marine Band in the 1790s" I would say "have existed" - "had" seems to imply that they no longer exist.
• "they are not deployable outside the United States, meaning competition for billets is fierce." I don't think any change is needed, but this seems a surprising comment. Don't some first rate musicians join the armed forces partly because they want to see the world?
• " other military media collateral". I am not sure what this means.
• Being colour blind, I find it hard to tell apart the marine and army. It is not crucial as you also use numbers, but could you use a more distinctive colour such as yellow or black for one of them?
• "active-duty band" What would a non-active-duty band be?
• Looks fine. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles, I've made these corrections. To your question, "premier ensembles" do occasionally leave the CONUS for military tattoos, and so forth (the U.S. Army Band recently appeared at the Norsk Militær Tattoo in Oslo), but it's not a regular occurrence as they have heavy domestic commitments primarily in the National Capital Region and their service contracts preclude a duty station outside the CONUS. Many foreign performances are handled by the 120 or so "non-premier" ensembles. LavaBaron (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dudley Miles! LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just a few quick notes on a first brief run-through (oppose still stands).

• "United States Armed Forces" or "U.S. armed forces", be consistent.
• Do you really think our readership need "ceremony" to be linked?
• "There are currently" see WP:ASOF.
• Lead image caption is a fragment, no period required.
• And "The" isn't part of the show's title.
• "While branch-wide, as opposed to unit-specific, bands have existed since the formation of the U.S. Marine Band in the 1790s, the idea of forming superior music ensembles posted in the vicinity of Washington, D.C. originated with John Pershing in the early 1920s and formalized with the transition of the U.S. Navy School of Music from a training program for naval bandsmen to a multi-service institute responsible for Navy, Marine Corps, and Army premier musicians in 1951" how many words in this single sentence?
• "typically attracted the highest-caliber musicians available" really? Do international-quality musicians vie to join the US military? I don't think so.
• What is EPW?
• "Eleven of the U.S. military's 137 regular...." MOSNUM.
• I see no utility at all in the colour scheme and odd numbering of the eleven groups.
• Instead of all the redirects, it would be better to actually name the key subjects of this list explicitly, i.e. United States Marine Band. Why hide it behind your own abbreviation regime?
• dead link right now. Along with all other "usarmyband.com" links.... Maybe they'll come back tomorrow.
• No good reason for the larger font in the table, unless you're aiming for that "high school project" look.
• You have "Wind bands" as a category, looks to me that these are more than just "wind bands", I see "brass bands" as a minimum... perhaps even "marching bands" and the subsequent refined categories.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've addressed those comments that can be addressed and that don't conflict with consensus input from previous reviewers. I didn't incorporate a few edits I didn't think would improve the list (e.g. standardizing to "U.S. armed forces" throughout since I feel it's more conventional it be written out in the first instance, and abbreviated in subsequent use) or that seemed to represent a personal preference that seemed to conflict with the preference of other reviewers. Sorry you're having trouble with the links! Thanks for the review, sorry you still oppose but respect your decision. Have a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond inline to each comment so it's clear what you have and haven't decided to implement. FWIW the dead link(s) now work, so it would be interesting to know how it's an RS, but otherwise fine. "Standardizing" to U.S. armed forces is a capitalisation issue, sometimes you have Armed Forces, sometimes just armed forces, sometimes United States Armed Forces, sometimes U.S. armed forces. Like the "big font", just looks inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The coloured key plus the number is now a bit silly, you might as well have another column for Unit and ditch the maps, considering all but one of those maps shows pretty much the same thing. And it's The Washington Post. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great catch, it appears an IP editor changed to caps [6], I've changed it back. LavaBaron (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Close paraphrasing/plagiarism. I performed a source review for the article and checked the references for a few of the bands against the text. The following items were either closely paraphrased or directly copied from the sources:

• "a fife and drum corps that performs on 10-hole fifes, handmade rope-tensioned drums and single-valve bugles."
• "to perform in support of civic events such as centennial celebrations, sports competitions, festivals, and city or state commemorations."
• "and is the only Washington-based military band to have participated in a theater of foreign combat operations."

That isn't what featured content should be. While I'm here, let me add that I found the lead to be about half as long as it should be for a list of this length, and I agree with TRM that the extra-large font in the table looks unprofessional. The close paraphrasing is my biggest concern, though. Since I checked 3 entries and found as many issues, I have to assume that most of the rest have issues as well, not to mention the prose portion of the article. My suggestion is to close this nomination, go through the entire article and correct whatever close paraphrasing you find, and renominate it once fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feels a bit odd to do this on a nomination with 5 supports, but it's been a week since Giants raised some pretty severe plagiarism concerns with no response, and some of TRM's comments have not been addressed in over a month. I'm going to go ahead an close this nomination as not promoted. --PresN 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pink Fae (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is similar to the featured list NBA first overall draft pick, it has an engaging lead, and is easy to navigate. Pink Fae (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hello Pink Fae, and sorry that it's taken two months for someone to at least acknowledge your nomination! I noticed that you're editing infrequently. Are you still interested in pursuing this nomination? If so I'll gladly add a review in the next few days. Best wishes, The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, The Rambling Man, I still am interested in pursuing this nomination. I don't edit a lot, but I do from time to time. :) Pink Fae (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grondemar

Sorry it's taken so long for anyone to post a substantive review! I've been meaning to review this list for a couple of weeks now. Here's a list of initial concerns but I may have more as I dig further into the list:

• Is it possible to add more images? I know there are free images available for at least the UConn alumna.
• I'd suggest spelling out the names of the linked countries, since not everyone will immediately recognize all of the abbreviations and flags.
• I suggest changing the column order to put Position before Nationality, since Nationality and Former Team are more-closely related.
• I recommend adding more "meat" to the lead. Right now you have two one-sentence paragraphs. Maybe combine the second and third paragraph and add some information on the Elite portion of the 1997 draft to the first paragraph? You might want to look at the lead for List of first overall NBA draft picks for ideas on additional types of information to include.
• The two tables in the Key need to be updated for accessibility; see MOS:DTAB.

I'll expand on the above when I get the chance, hopefully this week. –Grondemar 04:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The nominator hasn't edited since December 19, and none of Grondemar's comments have been addressed in any way over the last few weeks. If we don't see a response to the suggestions soon, we're going to have to archive the nomination. This would be a shame since we don't have any WNBA-related featured lists, and I always like to see new types of lists come through here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open over 3 months without any supports, and has stalled. Archiving to keep the queue moving. --PresN 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Nominator(s): Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, it has the potential of becoming a featured list, i previously nominated this article for FLC, but i was already in the 88th Academy Awards nomination process, so i had to remove this nomination. I firmly believe that this article after minor changes and suggestions will become the featured list. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 18:53, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Birdienest81

• Ref 34: Empire Awards --> Empire since it is the entity behind the awards and the website you are citing fro.

@Birdienest81: It has always been like that, other articles as well are all linked to only Empire Awards page not Empire Magazine.

• Refs 3 and 34: Cinema Blend and cinemascandinavia are not really strong, credible sources.

@Birdienest81: Done. Removed 3 and reinstate new and credible source for Bodil Awards. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 2:23, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

That's all for now.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 2 of the 4 paragraphs have nothing to do with accolades, and the 3rd is a bit tangential. I recommend rewriting the intro to actually be about accolades. Nergaal (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: You mean 2 and 3? because 4th is all bout accolades. I have raised the concern about para's 1, 2 and 3 in comments below. Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Tend to agree with Nergaal above, the lead is a bit bloated and could use trimming to focus on the awards rather than records or film plots... It's not until the second sentence of para 3 that we start talking about accolades.

To address this issue I would you to assist rather pointing out, because previously an objection was raised, that first para should contains story arc, director, producers and cast info. Regarding Second para it has to be that way because of film status and it being 3rd highest grossing ever, a seven line details are enough or can be shortened to five but major details must be accounted. Third para is equally important, because a major award ceremony delayed its nominations in order to compensate film as it was already out of league from many other award ceremonies. Fourth and fifth are all about awards. Please let me know how to move further because it has been too long since this article is a FLC nominee. Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

• " The seventh installment in the main Star Wars film series, and first of three in Star Wars sequel trilogy. It stars" I guess that should be a comma rather than a full stop...

Y Resolved. Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

• I've gone through it twice and count only 30 wins and 98 noms.

Y After 15 minutes look there are 99 nominations and 33 wins. Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

• "$2 billion" etc should use non-breaking spaces.

Y resolved using ‑ . Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

• There's one "pending" award (AMA) in the infobox but not the table...

Y Updated. Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

• Two runners-up in the infobox but five in the table.

Y There are five runners up from two awards ceremonies, but due to limited space in info-box, runner-ups can only be mention once with parenthesis enclosing numbers of runner-ups. Nauriya (Rendezvous), December 23, 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nauriya: There are several comments here that have not been addressed for weeks; are you planning on continuing this nomination or should we go ahead and close this? --PresN 15:44, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I am going to address those issues today or by tomorrow. I was out busy, but I am going to resolve this. Thanks for notifying. Nauriya (Rendezvous), 12:15, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this nomination has been open over 3 months without any supports, and has stalled. Archiving to keep the queue moving. --PresN 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I am sure that it meets the required criteria for all featured lists. It is detailed, comprehensive, and provides a complete overview of the very talented singer's discography. All help is and would be appreciated. Thank you! Carbrera (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carbrera: I apologize for the delay in my response. I can now support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:01, 2 January 2017 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. I have worked on similar lists before, some became featured. This list includes some part of the FL I worked on more than 8 years ago. All comments/suggestions/questions are welcome and will be dealt with. Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo

Alright, even looks good. I'll Support, but note that I don't know too much about properly formatting tables and such. So you might have some other editors point out some mistakes in the format of the table, but regardless, I don't think the lead should give you too much trouble anymore. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No idea what an "unprotected player" is, needs linking or notes.
  • 1988 NBA Expansion Draft is linked, if anyone needs further information.--Cheetah (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not good enough, if I don't even know what one is, how do I know what to click to find out more about it? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, it's linked separately.--Cheetah (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid that still doesn't tell me what an "unprotected" player is. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is a player who is not protected, I just added a Wiktionary link.--Cheetah (talk) 07:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's not any clearer in the context of an "unprotected player" in a draft situation I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• First image caption links the specific draft, the second image caption does not link the specific draft.
  • Fixed.
• Interesting choice of when to and when not to link countries. What makes "Sweden" more exotic than "France"? I'd link 'em all, or not link any of them.
  • There are some weird edits happening throughout Wikipedia of unlinking some country links. Anyway, I unlinked all of them.
• Club Team -> Club team.
  • Fixed.
• Sort by Draft then by Round, it's a complete mystery what order it's in... I would expect Pick to be the secondary sort...
  • This page and all similar ones are always sorted by draft, then by round. What mystery do you see in that?--Cheetah (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do the sort in the order I suggest. What is the resulting sort supposed to be? Perhaps it's a browser issue, but on Chrome the sort results are somewhat... random. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is sorted as you suggest. By draft first, then if the draft year is same, then by round.--Cheetah (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:HASH suggests avoiding the use of the hash character to mean number, several instances of this in the Notes.
  • Fixed.
• Check all publishers/works are correctly formatted, e.g. ref 36 The Charlotte Observer should be in italics.
  • The Charlotte Observer actually published the news, but I changed it to "work" to make it italics. There's no logic in publishers/works formatting because most of the links have the same publishers/works.--Cheetah (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs 14 through 17 use the same ref, just different page numbers, so use a general ref for the URL and just put page number refs in the article.

That's it for a quick once-over. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grondemar

* I don't think the key meets our standards for accessibility. Based on past experience, I recommend removing the key and directly linking the positions in each cell in the table (see List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft for an example).

• • Removed--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* To resolve The Rambling Man's issue with sorting by overall pick number, I recommend adding a column "Overall" that shows that information.

• • Are you sure it was his concern? He said, "I would expect Pick to be the secondary sort". Key word is secondary.--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd recommend switching the Position and Nationality columns, since Nationality and School/Club team are more closely associated with each other.

* Is the table header "Charlotte Hornets draft picks" really necessary? It's essentially the same as the article title.

• • It's required by MOS:DTT, what else would you recommend?--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reviewed the MOS and there seemed to be questionable consensus for that requirement on the talk page. That argument can be had later however. –Grondemar 03:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the transaction descriptors next to the player names distracting and confusing. For example: "from Team A" or "from Team A via Team B, traded to Team C via Team D". Is it possible to consolidate this information in the Notes section? Perhaps some kind of color-coding or italics could be used to distinguish the players drafted by the Hornets/Bobcats that never played for the team.

* Minor comment on the article title: would List of Charlotte Hornets draft picks be better? Draft history implies to be a longer article with a narrative of why the Hornets/Bobcats selected certain players in certain years, and how the picks turned out.

• • That's a big change and should get a consensus at WT:NBA since there are 28 more lists like this.--Cheetah (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, reasonable enough. –Grondemar 03:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like the lead needs one more paragraph at the very start. It should read something like: "The Charlotte Hornets have selected XX players in the NBA Draft. YY of ZZ picks were with their own picks; the other AA selections were made with picks acquired through trade with other NBA teams. The Hornets, including their time known as the Charlotte Bobcats, have made BB first-round draft picks, CC top-ten picks, and one first-overall pick, Larry Johnson."

Note I highly support your choice of pictures in this article. :-) –Grondemar 19:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I struck the resolved concerns. Regretful oppose until the other concerns are at least addressed. –Grondemar 03:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.