The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has the appropriate quality for a Featured List, it has actually been through an FLC before, but failed due to lack of participation sadly. I have kept this up to date, make sure to do format improvements as our FLs evolve. I have pushed 17 lists to FL status and each time I have learned a little. This latest list is the sum of everything I have learned and hopefully produced featured content. MPJ-DK (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments on the lead
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*OK, I think my only remaining query is around the structuring of the refs. If I look, for example, at Bestia Salvaje and Pierroth Jr.'s reign in 1990, the ref in the end column is to note aj in the "footnotes" section, which reads "Duncan & Will (2000) p. 396 "Pierroth Jr. & Bestia Salvaje 1990/05/26 Puebla". This is in turn sourced to ref 16 in the "references" section, "Duncan & Will 2000, p. 397." Firstly, the page numbers don't match, but secondly why is the info sourced to a footnote which is then sourced to a reference which says the same thing? Why not just source it straight to ref 16.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
That's all from me at the moment. Harrias talk 11:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
(Harrias based on the definition in the N/A article it can stand for not applicable,[1][2][3][4] not available[3][4] or no answer
, in this case "Not Available", so it seems to be within the definition of N/A. I am working on the remaining issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it contains everything needed to become a featured list such as a good lead and a clear table. WDM10 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I shall submit this review to the WikiCup.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*We don't start lists with "This is a list"... just like we don't start articles with "This is an article..."
That's it for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Refs 38 and 40 have no work/publisher
|
Source review passed (fixed improper usage of "language" cite parameter, and one instance where you claimed an article was written by "Association, Press"); promoting. --PresN 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]
The latest in my lists of country number one songs. So far 41 of these have been promoted to FL, so here's the potential #42, covering a year in which Waylon Jennings had the year's biggest hit with a song celebrating a town which a few years earlier had a population of 3 people and an alcoholic pig called Oink Van Gogh (true story - allegedly.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 22:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I really enjoy this series. I'm going to give myself a subsection so I don't edit conflict with anyone, but I'll remove the section heading when I'm done (assuming no one else creates a section heading). - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Source review passed (fixed 2 ISBNs); promoting. --PresN 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]
I created this list after putting together Souvenir Henri Desgrange as a future FLC. I needed to confirm what the highest point of each Tour when I couldn't find one single source. The red stage links will eventually be sorted, hopefully soon. BaldBoris 00:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now thought it might be better for it to be instead named List of highest points reached by the Tour de France. BaldBoris 01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Really interesting work, thanks for creating this.
Overall, a really nicely presented and interesting list, well done. Harrias talk 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I can find, great list. NapHit (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [5].[reply]
Until Michael Schumacher broke his record in 2001, Alain Prost had won the most Formula One Grands Prix. He won 51 in total, on his way to four world championship titles. He also developed a famous rivalry with Ayrton Senna that got quite nasty at times. This list follows the style of existing FLs, List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Michael Schumacher and List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna. I have an open FLC, but it has three supports and no outstanding concerns. As always, all feedback gratefully received. Harrias talk 09:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A WikiCup submittable review.
That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Comments from MWright96
That was all I could find. Nice work! MWright96 (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Other than this, I can't find any other faults, Fantastic work as always Harrias! NapHit (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed (removed unneeded publisher params (e.g. the ESPN website is published by ESPN inc.); promoting. --PresN 03:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [6].[reply]
Third in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids), here is "List of mustelids", containing all of the animals in the Mustelidae family- otters, badgers, weasels, and more such long creatures with legs. It's a diverse set of animals, widely varied in size and habitat, and much bigger than the cat and dog families. The format is based on those other two lists, and like with canids I've included a section on prehistoric species; unlike with canids, there's no generally accepted authority on how to arrange the species, so I've gone with the Paleobiology Database's categorization, which is a bit messy but at least doesn't contradict itself. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Values and units used as compound modifiers are hyphenated only where the unit is given as a whole word; when using the unit symbol, separate it from the number with a non-breaking space ( ). So, 17 cm, but 1.8-meter. --PresN 22:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"In addition to the extant subfamilies, Mustelidae comprises three extinct subfamilies" => "In addition to the extant subfamilies, Mustelidae includes three extinct subfamilies" ("comprises" means "consists entirely of")
|
@FLC director and delegates: Note that I cannot promote this list, as it is mine. --PresN 17:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe | ) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC) | |
---|---|---|
Comments I'll promote but my thoughts first:
The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [8].[reply]
Billy Wilder was one of the greatest American filmmakers. Known for film noirs such as Double Indemnity (1944), Sunset Boulevard, and the comedies Some Like It Hot (1959) and The Apartment (1960). As always I welcome all constructive comments to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Jimknut
Introduction
Filmography
Both
I hope these comments help. Jimknut (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Jimknut (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Drive-by comment - as with your Keanu filmography, the lead is a bit prone to short, choppy sentences e.g. "He became a screenplay writer in the German film industry. His first screenplay was for the silent thriller The Daredevil Reporter. Wilder fled to Paris in 1933 after the rise of the Nazi Party." Try and combine some of the short and perfunctory sentences so that the prose has a bit more flow to it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments by Mymis
Source review –
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC) [9].[reply]
This is the Torrens Trophy, an award given to those who improve the status of motorcycling in the United Kingdom. I believe this list meets the criteria to become a featured list and am welcome to all comments regarding this nomination. MWright96 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After you have made these changes, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:43, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Year | Image | Recipient | Nationality | Citation | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1982– 1989 | Not awarded
|
seems prefereable to
Year | Image | Recipient | Nationality | Citation | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1982 | Not awarded
|
||||
1983 | |||||
1984 | |||||
1985 | |||||
1986 | |||||
1987 | |||||
1988 |
Overall, nice work; not much to catch on this one at all. (I might claim points for this review in the WikiCup, though it is a bit on the short side!) Harrias talk 10:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) [10].[reply]
Jennifer Aniston is mostly known as the 'Rachel'. She has appeared in many films, telefilms, video games, etc. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:19, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments about the title. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Drive-by comment - there are several films, etc, listed which she directed/produced but did not (as far as I can see) appear in. These are not performances so should not be included -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from -- LuK3 (Talk) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by LuK3
That's it from me for now, great work on the list! -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
|
---|
We should be set after my above concerns are resolved. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
I can now support following sufficient improvements. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For a media review, I don't see any licensing problems with File:Jennifer Aniston 2011 (cropped).jpg. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review –
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [11].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it merits recognition as a list of high quality. Though it is a list of a minor league team's players, it is an exemplar of what major league all-time rosters could look like. Yes, this is its third nomination. I withdrew the first nomination amid consensus that the list was too thin. The second nomination of the much-improved list received only one comment/support before being archived. I have since further improved it. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a good piece of work, with very little wrong with it. Harrias talk 17:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [12].[reply]
Participation Guide | |
---|---|
Support | |
Aoba47, ChrisTheDude, Spy-cicle, zmbro | |
Comments/No vote yet | |
Eurohunter, The Rambling Man | |
Oppose | |
David Fuchs |
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all aspects of the FL criteria, comprehensively covering the characters featured in Red Dead Redemption 2 and providing insight within the game and in a real context. The article provides a detailed overview of the characters' roles within the game, as well as the development process that was undertaken for the characters. I believe that the article is good to go all the way, and would appreciate your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 12:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Almost every character's description starts off with "....is a major/supporting character in Red Dead Redemption 2". Any chance the language could be varied a bit? It seem particularly redundant to keep stating the name of the game, given that the scope of the article is characters in that exact game, so what else would they be characters in? Does that make sense?
|
Great work with the list. I will do another read-through tomorrow to make sure that I caught everything, but this is everything that I noticed when reading it for the first time. I hope my comments are helpful and that you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with the review. I only have three relatively minor comments, and once those are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I will definitely have to check out these games sometime in the future. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC. No worries if you do not have time or interest. Hope you are having a great day and/or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After having read through this list, I am inclined to argue that it fails criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL. This is 63KB article—10,000+ words—about the characters of a single video game. It's bigger than the article about the actual video game. There's no third-party sourcing that demonstrates that the characters of Red Dead are notable outside reception of the game's story in general, and it's stuffed full of plot that definition runs afoul of our fiction guidelines. It's an improper spinout from the main article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Superb list it is well referenced and uses a good range of media. The only thing I found that needs improving is the ciation to the book. It should really use the "cite book" template with something along these lines: Price, James, ed. (October 26, 2018). Red Dead Redemption 2: The Complete Official Guide — Collector's Edition. United States of America: Piggyback. ISBN 978-1911015567.. I will happily support this nomination once that is done. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 20:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great list! Loved this game. Very well-written and should be an FL in no time. Few comments:
That's it for me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Flipping through this list, I see that a full 15(!) characters don't have a single reference, and another 8 have one from a guidebook in the middle of their text; many of the others are that plus a sourced one-liner. This seems to be because their sections are solely composed of plot summary. While not as vehement as Fuchs about it, this is emblematic of a structural problem with the list: the main purpose of a character list (or article) is to hold a description of the character along with as much real-world information (development/reception) as possible. To see 23 out of 42 characters in a list essentially have none of that is disquieting. A list like this needs to be based on reliable sources for the purpose of notability, not just verifiability- that is to say, it should contain only major characters, as shown by 3rd-party sources writing about them, not instead including every single named character that you could find a bit of backstory for. I'm inclined to oppose, but I'm going to open a discussion at WPVG for other opinions. --PresN 22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note: this FLC has stalled out, and it's because I (and I think the other 2) are waiting on another review on the content of the article. I still don't like that it's a list of character-focused plot summaries; the majority of the characters have no individual development or reception, but do have a (now more tightly-written) character arc summary. It feels like too much, but I'd like to see more reviews before I make a call one way or another as this is going to set a precedent, even though that means it's sitting here for quite a while. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the Supporting characters and Antagonists tables, replacing them with sections for those characters with commentary, and added brief paragraphs in each section outlining other relevant characters. You can see the new version here. I would love to hear your thoughts. Please let me know if you have any other changes to suggest. – Rhain ☔ 06:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @PresN, Czar, and Axem Titanium:. – Rhain ☔ 01:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I need to just pull the trigger. This list has come a long way since it was nominated; at this point the outstanding issue is still "should this list exist". It appears to me that this is a minority opinion- with most of the minor characters culled, we're left with an oddball list because the game has an ensemble cast, unlike most. I think it qualifies as a valid list. As such, with no more reviews coming (and a source review: passed)... promoting. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [13].[reply]
After a several year hiatus, we return with our 11th (out of 13) municipalities nomination with the goal of bringing the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 10 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Reywas92Talk 19:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Reywas92Talk 20:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [14].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"… Tatís became the only player to hit two grand slams in the same inning and established a new major league record with eight runs batted in (RBI) in a single inning."). —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall this list looks solid. Table looks properly formatted, images have alt text, the few references I checked were good. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Seems a bit pointless in the photo caption to list two guys who aren't pictured. Why not just say "Willie McCovey (left), Andre Dawson (center) and Alex Rodriguez (right) are three of the only five players to hit two home runs in one inning on two separate occasions."
|
"Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last."In this list, there are no explanatory footnotes (for example of such, see List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders#Notes), nor any short citations. There are only full citations/general references. I've just separated them into generic and specific ones. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"...Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style."(My emphasis added.) NatureBoyMD (talk)
Everything else looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"… to hit home runs from both sides …". —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, a well-written list with very few issues, nice work. Harrias talk 11:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN:; @Giants2008: I think a consensus has now been reached. What do you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [15].[reply]
This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No issues. Sources are reliable for what they're used for and images are free. A few source checks did not uncover any problems. buidhe 00:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Dank
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [17].[reply]
The latest list of country number one songs by year. Thus far this little project of mine has produced 40 FLs, so here's the potential #41, covering a year in which everyone was crazy for CB radio and Johnny Cash built a mad car in song, after which some guy built it for real......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Harrias talk 09:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [18].[reply]
This is a comprehensive list of all transports that deported from Slovakia between 1942 and 1945, carrying most of the Slovak Jews to their deaths. It is a pair with The Holocaust in Slovakia, headed to FAC soon, and I believe it meets the FLC criteria. Copyediting was recently done by Twofingered Typist of GOCE. This is my first FLC nomination. buidhe 19:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, thanks for your work on this important topic. Reywas92Talk 00:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [19].[reply]
One of the Cardiff lists I haven't got around to until now finally being brought to FLC. I've based the format on the other promoted lists of club records and believe it's up to the same standard. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
|upright=1.2
.{{Abbr|No.|Number}}
sould be used instead of #
to indicate number in four tables. See: MOS:HASH.{{flagicon}}
.{{Abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
Overall, a good solid piece of work, well done. Harrias talk 16:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [20].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it contains all up-to-date awards and nominations with correct sourcing. The tables also adhere MOS:DTAB. As always, I would appreciate any comments. Thank you! -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* For this part, (a role for which she was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series three times and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series for the final season in 2019), I would add a "a" in front of the phrase "Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series" since it is separate from the Supporting Actress award.
Great work with the list. I only have a few nit-picky comments, and once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 22:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
Source check
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [21].[reply]
This is a list of awards and nominations received by the K-pop group BTS. A group of editors (including myself) did an overhaul on this page back in August to fix all sources and essentially come up with a format that meets FL standards and works for K-pop articles. This list wasn't nominated due to issues with the lead but the format was used by List of awards and nominations received by Exo which passed FL. After making some changes to the lead and speaking to that editor group I got the go ahead to nominate this. This list is long, so the deciding factor on which awards to omit and those to keep was based on WP:GNG; if the win got significant enough coverage for the award show to be notable, it was put on here. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 18:10, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment - a quick glance suggests there's some singular/plural issues going on eg "BTS has also placed [....] and are the youngest ever recipients" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you so much for the comments. Apologies for the ridiculous lateness -- I will go through and address the comments now. DanielleTH (Say hi!) 07:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
|
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [22].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured listing as a companion piece to Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire, which became a Featured List last year. Together, I think they may be the only Grade I and Grade II* listed building county lists for England and Wales which have articles and images for every entry, although it's quite possible I'm wrong about that. With over 240 entries, this is obviously a major collaborative effort, but I'd like to record particular thanks to KTC, who began the list, and Tryptofish, sadly no longer editing, who helped me enormously when my head was throbbing over some devilish coding issues. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a beautiful list. Ping me if this doesn't pick up a support in the next two weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)
Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* The building descriptions in the table look to be taken (almost) verbatim from the given sources. Does Cadw publish its website under a suitable free license?
|
Sources all appear reliable and are what you'd expect for such a list. Some spot checks of online sources did not uncover any issues. buidhe 07:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Planning to submit this review for WikiCup points.)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"with a population of 93,600" probably needs an "as of" here, the area is less likely to be volatile, but I guess the population would have been counted during a specific census?
That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
class="without_image"
, so I've set it to class="with_image"
. Please reset that if I've misunderstood. By the way, those classes don't actually seem to do anything at present.font-weight:normal
if you would prefer your row headers to contain bold text. Below is a quick accessibility review while I'm here. In brief: acceptable accessibility given the constraints of a list article. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Topic | Comments | MoS link |
---|---|---|
Text | Size: No text is below 85% of the basic font size. | MOS:FONTSIZE |
Colour |
|
MOS:COLOUR |
Tables |
|
MOS:DTAB |
Images |
|
MOS:ACCIM |
Clark, Arthur (1980)
be swapped in position for the 1979 cite?More of a psssing rumination, but I've never quite understood the philosophy of using harvard referncing for books but full refs for web pages. Why not, for example, Sfn, for example. But I have to assume it's a done thing if others do it!Is there a reason (perhaps customary, apologies again of this comes up all the time) that Listed buildings in Wales and Grade I listed buildings in Monmouthshire are "See also", rather than linked on first use? It strikes me as being rather more useful to the reader to know what he's reading about before he starts the list than after...Also on the "See also", alphbetise the list?I wonder if it's possible to give the reason for listing each building/structure? The obvious answer is age, but that being the case, say how old. For example, a couple of times you mention "dating from..." or "14th-century...", nt in most cases there's no indication of age.Hope this is OK with you KJP1, feel free, as ever, to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about : ——SN54129 13:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
150x150px
with 150x200px
in each row of the table. The image syntax is designed so that the numbers indicate the maximum size of <width x height> that the image will be scaled to. Since almost all of the images have close to a 4:3 aspect ratio (as far as I can see), they are currently either <150px by 112px> or <112px by 150px> – so they have the same area regardless of whether they are portrait or landscape. If you change to maxima of 150x200px
, the landscape images will stay the same and the portrait ones will enlarge to 150px by 200px – same width, but they will look bigger. It's an aesthetic decision: same width or same area. I've made a demo so you can compare at User:RexxS/CADW demo. You can see there are a few portrait images that need to be slightly taller because they are 3:2 aspect ratio (try setting 150x225px
). See what you think. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 - many thanks indeed. Have sought to reply to the comments below.
I think this addresses the issues raised, except for the questions on the See also and the one above. Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
====Comments by ChrisTheDude====
- note 2 seems a bit meta to me. I'd be inclined to remove it, and in cases like Gunter Mansion just put something like "Comprises three separate listings" followed by the three refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
ChrisTheDude - Much appreciate the review and glad that the list was of interest. It's always good to know that somebody actually reads the stuff one writes on here! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC) [26].[reply]
The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. Harrias talk 20:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - Dank (push to talk) 22:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing. Also, I'll probably claim Wikicup points for the review.
|
Comments I'll add this to my WikiCup submissions.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"The West Indies were the most successful team in Test cricket," what's the context for this? Over the same period? Preceding that period?
That's all I have. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Inconsistent use of the publisher field in the Cite X templates
|
Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 18:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]