The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:09, 27 June 2012 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. :) Khanassassin ☪ 18:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. :) Khanassassin ☪ 19:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets Wikipedia's FL Criteria Swcrowemessage 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some work to do here.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets the Featured list criteria. Till 07:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments quickies...
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Three dab links, Chris Brown, Fergie and James Morrison.
S'ok as a list, just not amazing. The refs reflect that, you've just about used nothing but primary sources to do this. I'd look to include some imagination (encyclopaedically of course) into the lead as a minimum. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 20:32, 18 June 2012 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because it think that it meets the criteria. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A few Comments
Oppose unless I can be convinced why this cannot be reasonably included in the main article, i.e. 1964 Summer Paralympics. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – Really concerned about some of the writing I found.
|
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:26, 17 June 2012 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets criteria. TBrandley • talk • contributions 20:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
That's the lead, too much now to even consider supporting. Please address, or perhaps better still, withdraw, take it to peer review and then return when it's been seriously looked at. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 09:23, 15 June 2012 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to fit the featured list criteria. I initially created it in order to clean up the people section of SRI International; I also created the relevant people category and did an extensive check of Special:WhatLinksHere/SRI International to ensure that the list and the category includes all prominent biographical articles about the subject. While there are surely other notable people that have worked for SRI, I believe that they will have to be added over time as relevant articles are created. I'm looking forward to your feedback on how I can improve this list. Thanks, Disavian (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a few too many things to deal with right now...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 11 June 2012 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after improving this list and comparing it to List of Interstate Highways in Texas, a similar article of Featured List quality, I feel that this list has fully covered the topic and deserves to be a featured list. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 07:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—I made several changes to the article which were necessary to be up to the level of writing needed. For the benefit of the nominator, I'll detail the changes here with my rationales.
Having said all of that, I wonder if this list has enough items to justify standing alone as its own article. It might be possible to merge this content into List of Alaska Routes as a section without making that article too long. I'll leave it to other reviewers to comment about that, but this means that the article may or may not meet criterion 3b of the Featured List criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 08:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the recent addition of the individual maps takes up a lot of individual width in the table to little benefit since all four highways are included on the map in the infobox. Because of this recent addition, the "Highway names" column is now one-word wide, displaying roughly similar to:
Glenn Highway, Richardson Highway, Tok Cut- Off, Alaska Highway
on my display. My web browser is set at a width that approximates a printed sheet of paper, and we can't assume that all users a) have wide-screen displays, or b) use them at full width. The pace of recent changes to the article is pushing what I'd expect of a "stable" article brought to FLC. Others may disagree, but I personally would expect a nominator to "finalize" how s/he wanted to set up the article before starting the nomination, and then make only changes after the nomination in response to the reviewers' comments, barring minor typo corrects and the like. I await the comments of other reviewers on the criterion 3b issue, and I'm prepared to oppose on that basis. Imzadi 1979 → 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hmm, well four items in a table which would easily fit into the parent article (List of Alaska Routes). It's an oppose on 3b for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:22, 11 June 2012 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that the list meets the criteria. I look forward to addressing any comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Oppose (with regret) on sourcing, nothing else checked. Unfortunately, under WP:RS, it's for nominators to show that the site is a reliable source, rather than for others to show that it isn't. I too checked the site and found nothing that could help. Can you find reliable sources that use StatsF1 as a source themselves, or discuss it in a way that shows it's reliable? If not, I don't think it cuts the mustard at FLC. BencherliteTalk 20:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:42, 5 June 2012 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after all the hard work, the list is finally ready. Khanassassin ☪ 16:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Oppose This article is so not ready. It needs a major copy edit and peer review. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 04:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Comment looks like this has descended into peer review territory already. Suggest the nominator withdraws this, works on the many good points that Matthew has raised, take it to PR and then bring it back here once it's polished up a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deal, I withdraw this list and will bring it back once it's polished up. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:25, 4 June 2012 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. It contains a lengthy and engaging lede and solid prose; all charting albums are covered, with less notable or minor albums listed in an 'other albums' criteria. All media and visual criteria are met and the material is not being warred on. Toa Nidhiki05 00:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree with Bencherlite here, there seems no real reason to split the albums from the singles, many featured discogs have them combined in such numbers. Suggest you withdraw this nomination as well and work on the merged list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:16, 2 June 2012 [12].
A developed list of international centuries by Chris Gayle. It meets the criteria. I am the creator of the article. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 07:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. All this information exists in the main article. What's the point of this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by Khanassassin 16:14, 2 June 2012 [13].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the article meets the criteria. :) Khanassassin ☪ 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – At Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes/archive1, another FLC you initiated, I noticed instances of plagarism from articles not used as sources. Well, I've been looking around and found more problems in this list.
I'm not checking any more for now. It's frustrating to me that after what happened at the previous FLC linked above, more such instances of plagarism were found. I'm starting to wonder if there's an issue here that needs to be addressed in a different venue than FLC. Either way, this fails the requirements and should quickly be archived, unless there's a very good reason why the content matches what's in the links. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:10, 2 June 2012 [14].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria. It contains a lengthy lede; all singles are covered, with information such as release date and peak positions included. Songs which charted but were not singles are also included in a separate section. All media and visual criteria are met and the material is not being warred on. Toa Nidhiki05 00:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing this one so the albums one can be reviewed. Toa Nidhiki05 14:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 10:02, 2 June 2012 [15].
I am nominating this for featured list because there is a lot of these "List of people from..." pages and I think getting some consensus on what they should look like would be a good move. I chose this list because it's the best example I've seen, with all names cited and relation to town made clear. Relevant consensus besides WP:Lists (stand-alone lists) include WP:USCITY#Notable people. Note: this nomination could set precedent for similar pages. Dkriegls (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not sure if this is ready for FLC yet, especially if you think it should set a precedent for similar pages. Some quick stand-out comments.
A way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done with my effort at addressing the above issues. I guess it's ready for another peer review, including the question and comment I added in-text above. Also, the citation connecting Chuck Russell to the city is a bit ify. It appears to be an independent film review zine. I thought it was better than IMdB, but if we can find something else we should. I gave up looking. Dkriegls (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Sorry, but the sourcing quality is not good enough to meet FL standards. What makes any of the following reliable sources?
That's a lot of questionable sources covering many different entries. Add to that my opinion that the list would be better off tabulated, and that's enough for me to oppose. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment two fair-use images removed from the list (including the logo) as their use was purely decorative. BencherliteTalk 06:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I turned the list into tables. Please review. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done everything that was suggested except where I made questions/comments. Listed below are those outstanding questions/comments.
Please note, WP:FLC is not a peer review mechanism. For that, please take the article in question to WP:PR. I believe this nomination should now be archived, and any subsequent work performed at a peer review, before being renominated. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
class="unsortable" added to them; see the example I've done for you at the Media subsectionI don't think that vast quantities of work are needed to get this through FLC, so I'll say weak oppose, but a polish through WP:PR should see it sail through next time. I think TRM's suggestion of archiving and renominating after a peer review is a good one. Let me know when it's at PR and I'll stop by to help. BencherliteTalk 19:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]