- 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 08:19, 29 February 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): VoBEDD 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. It might a little shorter than other episode lists, but that's because the runtime of the entire series doesn't come to even 90 minutes, so there's not much that can be said about it. This is my first foray into the world of featured lists, so I'm sorry if there are some massive errors that I'm overlooking. Thankyou all in advance. VoBEDD 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I think the four teens who did the show should be mentioned in the lead, especially as two of them have articles.
Done Moved their names to the second sentence.
- The summaries for episodes 4, 5, 8, and 9 are in a different format (it appears double-spaced on the mobile version of Wikipedia).
- Done The only way I could think to solve this problem was just to stick the notes at the end of the paragraph. This has fixed the issue, but I'm not sure if it's now as visually appealing.
- "Pudsey Bear" just redirects to the Children in Need article.
--Glimmer721 talk 01:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed wikilinks. VoBEDD 13:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking the notes shouldn't be italicized, in parentheses, or even with "note" in front of it...for example, the last sentence of the Episode 4 summary could simply be "The episode also featured a cameo from indie band The Young Knives, who sent the group a video message wishing them luck for their project". Also wondering if there is perhaps an image that could be used--like maybe File:Alex Day ChartJackers gig for Children in Need.jpg. Glimmer721 talk 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done both I've removed the italics, parentheses and "Note:"s, and have put the photo of Day in the top-right hand corner. VoBEDD 04:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. Glimmer721 talk 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Ha, I remember watching this show when it was on. Gosh, has it really been two years already? I've had a brief look over the list, and, although I'm not particularly familiar with episode listings on Wikipedia, this seems to meet WP:WIAFL by my reckoning. One thing I would say is that the citations from the summaries of Eps 4 and 9 should be moved to the ends of their paragraphs. I also think it's kind of odd to have an image of only Alex Day in the right-hand-corner of the article, since obviously he was just one of the four guys on the show. Are there any free images of all four of them available, say, on Flickr? That being said, the absence of such an image isn't something that I would oppose over. Nice job! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 03:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Have moved the citations to the ends of the paragraphs. It seems that there are a whole load of great Chartjackers-related photos on Flickr, but none of them seem to be free use, unfortunately. If a free image of all four bloggers becomes available, I'd definitely use it to replace the current one. Thankyou for the support. VoBEDD 09:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support as nominator. Is, uhh, this allowed? I could swear that I've seen it done elsewhere on Wikipedia (although, now that I think about it, maybe not at Featured List Candidates). If it is a little audacious then I will apologise, and remove the self-support - I just wanted to give it a shot. Chalk it up as being bold and ignoring all the rules, if you'd like. Cheers all! VoBEDD 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- We don't really count the nominator's support as it's implied when you nom a list at FLC. I'd be scared if you didn't think it met FL standards. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, fair enough then, I guess it was worth a shot. Thankyou for the response! VoBEDD 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't really count the nominator's support as it's implied when you nom a list at FLC. I'd be scared if you didn't think it met FL standards. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets the criteria NapHit (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: The image used appears to be free and is properly tagged. Goodraise 23:39, 28 February 2012 (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 promoted by The Rambling Man 15:41, 28 February 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is as complete as it I can make it without more information being made available. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious. What's up with no 1917? No source for it? Jhenderson 777 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources have 1917 down. The Numbers and Variety really start at 1920, and the AMC Filmsite starts at 1915 but misses out 1917 and 1924. Wikipedia's film year article reckons it was Cleopatra and they have been right in most cases, but they don't have a source for it or any figures. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I reckoned was the reason. That's a bummer too. I am not really a reviewer so I will give you the summary of what I feel on the article. I feel the list article is well organized and taking care of (by you I might add). The article is very reliable at telling the source's side of the story and the notes are really appropriate when there's two or more different sides to the story as well. I don't feel I should vote yay or nay on supporting it as a featured list article because I have edited it but I do feel that you (as a editor) deserve a thumbs up for all the work you put over it. Congratulations on that. Jhenderson 777 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from WFC |
|---|
Opening comments from WFC: Wow. At first glance this is a worthy candidate. Due to its length this could take some time to review, but it's definitely on my to-do list. A few initial observations:
—WFC— 00:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. I'm happy that the data meets FL standards, and that the lead covers the right points. For the director's benefit, I should point out that I haven't covered criteria 1. —WFC— 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from RexxS
- I hope you don't mind, but I've updated the † symbol to the {{dagger}} template, because † is often unreadable by the screen readers used by the visually impaired, while the template is intended to be universally readable.
- In general, this is a most impressive collection of related lists and the nominator should be congratulated for the work put into it. I have a few comments to make about accessibility:
- The images all have sensible alt text which greatly benefits accessibility.
Three of theAll four of the tables have captions, which is a real bonus for anyone using JAWS or similar screen readers.- I have problems with distinguishing blue/green hues, so I find the colour "lightblue" (#ADD8E6) a poor choice as background against a wikilink (#0645AD). It's not too bad for most folks, but it would be nice if a different colour were picked that gave better contrast with the blue wikilinks.
- The accessibility of tables generally benefits from marking the column and row headers with scope="col" and scope="row" respectively. The section at WP:DTAB gives examples, or you could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia as an example of where the row header is the second column (in this case the Title would probably be a better row header than Year or Rank).
- The table "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" is interesting as it contains collapsible tables within the main table, and some of the collapsible tables contain multiple sub-tables. The mechanism works well for sighted visitors, but is clearly not designed with screen readers in mind. All of the content is available in the html delivered to the browser, so a screen reader could work through all of the information one item at a time. In that sense, it is not inaccessible, but since the headings at the top (Rank, Series, Total worldwide box office, No. of films, Average of films, Highest-grossing film) are actually in a different table from other pieces of information, the visual appearance of a single table is an illusion (This can be seen at 800x600 where the columns no longer line up - I know we don't support 800x600 but this is only to illustrate what is happening). The result of this is that none of the headings can be connected with the data to which it should be related (other than visually) - and this means that a screen reader will be unable to navigate around the information in the way it could if this were a single table.
- I'd recommend scoping row and column headers for the first three tables, as this is easy to do and produces quick benefits. The fourth table is a problem, as I can understand the visual appeal of its structure, but I believe it falls short of our best practice for accessibility of data tables. Perhaps someone like Graham87 could be persuaded to look at the table and comment on how it sounds to him through JAWS. If he found it acceptable, I'd be willing to set aside my reservations in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of the dagger issue so thanks for sorting it out. I've added a title to the chart that was missing one and I'll get onto the row and column scoping tomorrow. Have you got any suggestions for the color highlighting? I'm not that precious about it so I'm happy to go with more or less any color scheme. As for the franchise table, I appreciate it is unorthodox, but there were some very good reasons at the time for its construction, namely all these reboots and spin-offs blur the lines between what is in a series and what isn't, so the soft groupings we have more or less solved that problem—interestingly we haven't had a single edit war since we created it over the summer. Rather than getting side-tracked by accessibility issues, it may be simpler to make the whole chart "go away" and port it into Film series since technically "highest-grossing films" is a topic distinct from "highest-grossing film franchises". Each of the other charts explicitly deal with the subject of the highest-grossing film, so the franchise chart is a bit out of sync and it may be more appropriate for it be in an article that actually covers film franchises. I think we'd still have comprehensive article without it, just a bit more focused and tighter in its scope. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding that caption; every little bit helps. If you need any help with the scoping, just ping me. Generally, yellows give the best contrast with the blue wikilinks and something like #FFFF66 meets WCAG AAA standards. However, you're using yellows for the sub-tables in the last section, so it might be confusing.
- I still like the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" and it would be a shame to get rid of it. If you were willing to remove the collapsible stuff, it could be written as a normal wikitable and improve its accessibility. Let's not worry at the moment and see what other reviewers say. If you want, I could make a version of the table in a subpage so you can see if you like how it would look? Let me know. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with removing the collapsible elements is that we either have to ditch all the stuff in the sub-tables i.e. giving the table a permanent collapsed form (thereby sacrificing about 90% of the information in the table) or we construct it to have a permanently expanded form retaining all the information that we have in the sub-tables, but by doing that we lose the distinction between the primary and secondary content which will make it look like one huge muddled mess (just expand all the tables and sub-tables and see what a monstrosity it would be). The first option gives us a table that is drastically reduced in its information value, the second a table that will be so unwieldy it will be virtually unreadable. Both options dramatically reduce its effectiveness for the vast majority of readers. If there was a good alternative solution we probably would have thought of it, but the choices seem to be between incoherence and reducing the information we can provide. The current table allows a reader to make comparisons at franchise level, at series level, and in some cases such as the Bond films at actor level, and I don't see how else we can do that, and if we don't do that we fall short in what we currently offer to most readers—it seems perverse to offer less to everyone because not everyone can have more. Could we do something along the lines of an appendix for the screen readers if they can't read the table? I appreciate all the article content must be available to everyone, but I honestly think that the collapsible table delivers the content in a way that is of maximum effectiveness to the majority of the readers; I think if we can include the content in two forms then no-one is penalised at the expense of someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame that nobody else has pitched in on the issue of the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" table. I do understand your desire to present the table in the most usable form for sighted readers as they will be in the majority. I wanted to make sure that you understood the trade-off that it entails for the visually impaired, who are actually presented with the expanded "monstrosity" as a sequence of tables, and can't navigate sensibly within any table. Anyway, you've done your best to make the rest of the article as accessible as possible, so I expect that reviewers will recognise that in this case, we can't achieve perfection. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, honestly speaking, I can't 100% appreciate the trade-off because I don't exactly know what a screen-reader does with the table. However, I still think an appendix that renders the table into list format is a viable way around the problem for readers not in a position to comprehend the table, since if the information is available elsewhere in the article, then I think the accessibility of the table isn't such a big deal. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame that nobody else has pitched in on the issue of the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" table. I do understand your desire to present the table in the most usable form for sighted readers as they will be in the majority. I wanted to make sure that you understood the trade-off that it entails for the visually impaired, who are actually presented with the expanded "monstrosity" as a sequence of tables, and can't navigate sensibly within any table. Anyway, you've done your best to make the rest of the article as accessible as possible, so I expect that reviewers will recognise that in this case, we can't achieve perfection. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with removing the collapsible elements is that we either have to ditch all the stuff in the sub-tables i.e. giving the table a permanent collapsed form (thereby sacrificing about 90% of the information in the table) or we construct it to have a permanently expanded form retaining all the information that we have in the sub-tables, but by doing that we lose the distinction between the primary and secondary content which will make it look like one huge muddled mess (just expand all the tables and sub-tables and see what a monstrosity it would be). The first option gives us a table that is drastically reduced in its information value, the second a table that will be so unwieldy it will be virtually unreadable. Both options dramatically reduce its effectiveness for the vast majority of readers. If there was a good alternative solution we probably would have thought of it, but the choices seem to be between incoherence and reducing the information we can provide. The current table allows a reader to make comparisons at franchise level, at series level, and in some cases such as the Bond films at actor level, and I don't see how else we can do that, and if we don't do that we fall short in what we currently offer to most readers—it seems perverse to offer less to everyone because not everyone can have more. Could we do something along the lines of an appendix for the screen readers if they can't read the table? I appreciate all the article content must be available to everyone, but I honestly think that the collapsible table delivers the content in a way that is of maximum effectiveness to the majority of the readers; I think if we can include the content in two forms then no-one is penalised at the expense of someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware of the dagger issue so thanks for sorting it out. I've added a title to the chart that was missing one and I'll get onto the row and column scoping tomorrow. Have you got any suggestions for the color highlighting? I'm not that precious about it so I'm happy to go with more or less any color scheme. As for the franchise table, I appreciate it is unorthodox, but there were some very good reasons at the time for its construction, namely all these reboots and spin-offs blur the lines between what is in a series and what isn't, so the soft groupings we have more or less solved that problem—interestingly we haven't had a single edit war since we created it over the summer. Rather than getting side-tracked by accessibility issues, it may be simpler to make the whole chart "go away" and port it into Film series since technically "highest-grossing films" is a topic distinct from "highest-grossing film franchises". Each of the other charts explicitly deal with the subject of the highest-grossing film, so the franchise chart is a bit out of sync and it may be more appropriate for it be in an article that actually covers film franchises. I think we'd still have comprehensive article without it, just a bit more focused and tighter in its scope. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Although the last table is not as accessible as the others, any visitor using a screen reader would still receive all of the information, and would really just be lacking the convenience of navigation that sighted users have. It's a problem that we ought to be looking at, but by no means a reason to oppose this list being considered among the best that Wikipedia has. In all other respects, it's an excellent list, with masses of "lookup" information for film aficionados as well as an interesting commentary in each section. It's a piece of work to be proud of, Betty. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – This isn't a full review, but I'm finding quite a few prose-related problems. Someone with a sharp eye needs to review the writing in this list carefully, in case I don't have time to come back.
Still think another editor should go through the prose carefully, but I don't have time to do so myself now. I'll try to come back sometime during this FLC, but I make no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I regularly visit the page to see the ranking... and seeing the other day that it had evolved into this detailed analysis impressed me. igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've sorted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments First of all, good on you for taking on this list. It covers quite a significant topic and receives thousands of views each day. The comprehensiveness and detail of information is amazing. Just a few picks:
"The superhero genre has also seen a revival" - revival from when? Source?- In the 'High-grossing films by year', what do the figures in brackets mean?
- I suggest anchoring the asterisks like you have the other notes.
The Bond 'Eon productions' sub-set and its sub-sub-sets are a bit confusingly laid out. Not sure if much can be done about it, though.
—Andrewstalk 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I've initiated the changes you have recommended:
- I've altered the wording as per this edit. It's hard to track down references that analyse the emergence of the superhero film in recent years, it just kind of happened. I've worded it so it comes across less as a claim/analysis and more like an observation of the data with a link to a list of superhero films (as you can see from the wikipedia list of superhero films, there were only two feature length movies prior to 1978, and since Superman 4 there have only been two calendar years where a superhero film hasn't been released).
- The grosses from the original theatrical runs are included in brackets. This is done because many of the Disney re-releases have seen the Disney films take over the record. On one hand it speaks of the enduring popularity of these films, on the other it isn't a straight fight when other films from the year where more popular in the original market, therefore I feel it is best to present both perspectives. The bracket notation is explained in the introduction to that section in the first paragraph, but I guess many readers (myself included) sometimes look at charts without reading the accompanying text, so I've added an explanation to the key for the chart.
- I've anchored the asterisks.
- We're kind of limited with what we can do with tables. I think being able to expand and collapse tables aids the reader in indentifying what belongs to what because the reader can just study one entry, and the expansion helps to make it clear what films belong to which series. The Bond franchise entry is the most complicated table, because you have three separate series, and within the Eon series we've divided by actor too. We could get rid of the actor divisions and maybe simplify it slightly, but I think we would be losing information if we did this. Each Bond actor's set of films tend to be regarded as a cohesive serial, and covered in those terms by published literature.
- On another note, I'm in two minds over the inflation map caption. The map looks like it is updated periodically, so I'm not convinced we should label it as a "2009" map, since it will possibly be updated to a 2010 or 2011 map at some point and the article caption will become incorrect. The aim of the map is not to really show inflation rates of a particular year, it's just illustrating the concept that they are different across the world. Anyway, it's not a big deal, and I can live with it either way, but if anyone else has a view on that I'd like to hear it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the inflation map: yes, fair enough, it makes sense to remove the year. Also note per WP:CAPTION that there should be no full stop/period at the end of the caption. —Andrewstalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very comprehensive and well-written. Well done. —Andrewstalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I still have some reservations over the unnecessary bolding and embedded collapsed tables, but won't oppose at this stage. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 27 February 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of this writing, my nomination of List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area has two supports and no actionable items, so nominating this shouldn't be much of a problem. Anyway, the format of this list mirrors that of the Bay Area list, even using the same lead section and table formats. After overhauling the entire thing, I believe it should be FL quality at this point. Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Surprisingly couldn't see any issues (noting that I am not a Californian, so a native might see something I don't). The ordering of the images by population size was a nice touch. Well done with the list, Ruby 2010/2013 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment -
|
Support NapHit (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I read through this earlier and meant to comment at that point, but got distracted. So, I've read through it again, and everything looks good! Prose and references are solid, image licensing looks OK to me (though I'm not an expert), and the table is easy to use and understand. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 27 February 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets WP:FLC. I created this very list five years ago, yet never had the time to complete it – it has since recieved a Peer review and mirrors the other Premier League awards already listed as FL's: the Manager of the Month and Player of the Month. Any feedback, critique, suggestions would be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahem, have you notified/co-nominated with the major contributors? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, you are a major contributor to this I apologise, HonorTheKing, MickMacNee too. Will notify through talk. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here to inform that will also help fixing the issues it might raise. Lemonade51 did a fantastic job on improving the article, sourcing, and what not.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- So I'll co-nom since it seems that not much was done to the list since I last edited it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here to inform that will also help fixing the issues it might raise. Lemonade51 did a fantastic job on improving the article, sourcing, and what not.
- Whoops, you are a major contributor to this I apologise, HonorTheKing, MickMacNee too. Will notify through talk. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it wanted that Wenger is linked 10 times in the table? Shouldn'T it be oly the first one? Or is that because of sorting? -Koppapa (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean Ferguson, and yes, it's because the table is sortable, so each time an item is linked, it should be wikilinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, could use a lot more work, e.g. like the recent List of UEFA European Football Championship finals FLC, which has a nice "history" section which this could easily accommodate, especially since it's so short. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also suggest that any history section added is copyedited thoroughly... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Need to add sources too, thanks for your feedback.Done, will go over it after a dose of forty winks. That and Parutakupiu's comments. – Lemonade51 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support gladly. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Support NapHit (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments seeing as the tables are simple, basic and functional, I'll have to concentrate on the prose. You'll like that...
Hope some of this is helpful, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Thought I already had, sorry. Meets FL criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 27 February 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the list over the past week or so and think that it is ready for a shot at FL. Because this is the first list of this sort that I've worked on, I've based it off of List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana, which became a FL in 2010. Thanks in advance for any comments - I look forward to seeing them, Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from RexxS
- Thanks for the nomination, Dana. Although I know almost nothing about Michigan, I found the list very interesting and the introduction well written. The statistics and the detailed map in the lead went a long way to establishing the context for me.
- Standards have tightened, I think, over the last year or so, and FLC has become more sensitive to the issues surrounding accessibility, principally because of the fact that tables are prominent in most list articles. I'd like to make a few points that I feel would improve the list if they were addressed:
- The use of colour – we should not be providing information through the use of colour alone. If you imagine that you were reading the article to a friend over the telephone, would they get the different meanings that are in Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend from the way the colours are used in this article? I can see that you added '†' to indicate 'Historic District', but there's no audible cue for 'Landmark'. This would make it awkward for anyone using a screen reader to distinguish the two categories used here. In addition, '†' is not accessible in the sense that many screen readers read it as '?'. The characters that can be typed from a standard keyboard are usually read accurately by screen readers, so I always recommend '#', '+', '*', as good choices. We have created templates for some of the common inaccessible characters like {{†}} and {{‡}}, which use an image plus user-definable alt text to make those keys much friendlier for screen readers. You might, for example, use {{†|alt=Historic District}} and {{‡|alt=Landmark}} throughout the table and key. This would produce a very similar visual appearance for the sighted, but a much more satisfactory experience for the blind.
- We also need to be aware of the effect of colour contrast on viewers who may not have the same colour responses as the general population. The standard called 'Web Content Accessibilty Guidelines' (WCAG) gives us guidance on what colours we can use as background against a given text colour. There's a useful tool at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html which shows that 'NHL color' (i.e. #87CEEB) and 'NHLD color' (i.e. #00CED1) are marginal for black text with the small small point size used, but the latter fails even the lower AA standard if the text is wikilinked (colour is #0645AD). I understand the desire to retain a project-wide colour scheme, but the scheme really needs lighter or less blue colours if they are going to be fully accessible. I'm not suggesting this is anything you can rectify individually (other than abandoning the NRHP scheme in favour of the default wikitable colours), but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if examples of our very best work don't match up to world-wide standards for accessibility.
- Data tables now have a recommendation in the Manual of Style that they should identify column and row headers where possible, and mark them up as headers with the relevant scope. So column headers should have ! scope="col" and row headers should have ! scope="row". The benefit of this is to allow users of screen readers to hear the row and column header for each cell if they choose. In that way they can navigate in any direction within the table and still receive useful information. The alternative is to restrict them to having to hear the contents of the table cell-by-cell from left-to-right, then top-to-bottom. Imagine trying to find the date of designation for St. Ignace Mission, if you had to hear every piece of information in every cell for every row above it first. I suggest that it would be a major benefit to mark up the first row as column headers with ! scope="col" and the Landmark names in the second column as row headers with ! scope="row".
- Finally, images benefit from having alt text, because it is read out by screen readers. If we don't specify alt text (as with some of the images in the table), the wikimedia software supplies the filename as alt text which means the screen reader reads out the filename twice (because there is a link that is also read out). That must be incredibly annoying to visually impaired visitors. I don't know how easy it will be to fix but the alt text for the map in the lead is "List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan is located in Michigan", which I find rather odd.
- I'll keep this page bookmarked, so if you need any clarification or assistance, I should notice it. I'm also quite certain that any of the regulars here will also be happy to help out if needed. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rexx, and thanks for your comments. Although I don't know that much about accessibility guidelines/policies on WP, I will try to answer your questions as best I can.
- This also came up in the FLC for the Indiana list, which can be see at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive2. The answer given there made sense to me, so I'm going to copy it here. In a list where "most of the cells were not colored, and the colored cells were different, [they needed] explanation by a color/symbol key. Here in this list, the light blue coloring is the base coloring, and only the differently colored cells need explanation." Is this wrong?
- I really don't want to put this list out of step with all of the other national register articles/lists. So, I have left a message with the NRHP WikiProject to see if these colors can be changed throughout the project.
- I think I have all of the column and row markers in the right place (I didn't really understand your explanation of placement, so I'm basing it off of another featured list I did where someone else added them in for me). Let me know if they're not right.
- The lead "image" is actually a template, transcluded from Template:Michigan NHLs map. I have no idea how to (or if it's even possible to) add alt text to templates. I have added alt text to the rest of the images, although AFAIK this is not a requirement for FL status.
- Thanks again, and hopefully the work that I did improved the accessibility of this list. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've made some useful improvements to the list, and its accessibility has increased as a result. I'll re-examine the points:
- I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with doncram's interpretation of the guidance. Where there is no information to be conveyed, then no colour and no symbol is obviously correct. If some information is to be conveyed and a colour is used to convey it, then providing a corresponding symbol will be helpful to the visually impaired. I don't agree with the concept of a base colour in this case. Let me put it another way, if this were a list of "important buildings in Detroit" and some were National Historic Landmarks, then any 'no information' item (i.e. not a NHL) would not have colour or symbol, but the NHLs would have both. In this list, you are providing two classes, NHL and NHLD, both of which convey information; both of which are coloured, and both of which would benefit from a symbol. I can see that you're suggesting that NHL is a base property of all of the list items and treating NHLD as a higher designation, but the introduction seems to imply that it is more an alternative. You're also still using the symbol '†', despite the fact that screen readers may read it as '?', or worse, silently drop it. There's a series of discussions at User talk:Bamse/Archive 2#Re: Dagger and double dagger with JAWS, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (C)/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 11#Accessible symbols if you want to understand the issues more clearly.
- I would be good if the colours could be adjusted throughout Wikipedia, but I don't expect that to be a quick job. As long as you don't place a wikilink on the NHLD colour, the contrast is acceptable, if sub-optimal. I must admit I have to strain a little to read the [5] reference link in the top-left cell, but I have poor blue-green discrimination anyway. Incidentally, is that footnote required in its present form? It lists several designations that are not used in this article, so it may be confusing.
- Have a look at WP:DTAB that I linked above to see the recommended markup. You've made a good step forward with the markup you used, but I wouldn't have picked the number as the row header. Let's say a JAWS user wants to know the dates of designation of several sites. They can set JAWS to read row and column header before each cell, then go down the 'Date of designation' column. At present they would hear: "1, Date of designation, 1987"; "2, Date of designation, 1989"; etc. If, instead of the number, the Landmark name were marked as the the row header, they would hear: "Bay View, Date of designation, 1987"; "Calumet Historic District, Date of designation, 1989"; etc. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be much more informative for the screen reader user. You may want to add the plainroweaders class to restore the left-aligned, unbolded appearance to the names if you do mark them up as row headers (it's ! scope="row", not |! scope="row", by the way). You could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia for an example of where the row headers are in the second column. I should mention that on my browser, the column headings are rendering as very bold because they are now marked as row headers (bold) and also have the '''Bold text''' markup as well. The latter isn't needed, and double-bolding doesn't fit with MOS:BOLD.
- Thanks for adding the missing alt text on those images. Looking at other FLCs, I don't think that a list would currently pass if accessibility concerns were not addressed because WP:Featured list criteria number 5 requires compliance with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages (which includes WP:ACCESS). I've added "Map of Michigan with National Historic Landmarks named and marked by a dot" as alt text to Template:Michigan NHLs map.[8] If you prefer different alternate text, it should now be simple to change it.
Looking at the map in Firefox 9.0.1, I see the list of Detroit NHLs much more widely spaced compared to how they display in IE9, such that Pewabic Pottery is lost. The problem does not manifest itself in Google Chrome, but I'll have to boot up another PC to check in other browsers. This is probably something beyond your control, but I thought I'd flag it up.
- If you'd like me to find other examples of best practice, or make some illustrative edits to this list, please feel free to ask. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. Done.
- Done.
- I have no idea what you're talking about. The coding in this list is already way beyond my pay grade. If you want to change it, have at it.
- Looks fine. I don't know about the map - I didn't make it and I'm not enough of a coding guru to change how it displays.
- I'm sorry if I sound snarky on this, but it feels like I'm being asked to do things that are not part of the criteria. There are several other (older) nominations on the FLC page that are lacking alt text - some of which have been reviewed by one of the featured list directors, who really should know the criteria. Also, there are several on the list that include color coding with no markup, and this has not been challenged, nor has the readability of certain colors according to an external site been challenged on any of the nominations I looked at. If you're going to make lists conform to your (stricter than normal) standards, please do so consistently. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at a loss how to respond at this point. I did not feel that my standards were any stricter than the normal ones, or that I was being inconsistent. Other things keep me from reviewing many articles, but I try to as often as I can, so I really can't comment on lists that I have not reviewed. I'll ask for some other opinions and adjust my comments as necessary. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that the Template:Michigan NHLs map was setting the width of the div (the box that the text goes in) to 6em wide by default (that's about 6 characters). Somebody had prevented the line wrapping by inserting between each word, so that each item was forced to be on one line. However, Firefox (but not IE) reserves space for the lines that it would need if the text wrapped, resulting in blank lines between each item. For future reference, there's no need to put between words, just add |line_width=12 (or whatever number works) to make the containing box wider like this. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm at a loss how to respond at this point. I did not feel that my standards were any stricter than the normal ones, or that I was being inconsistent. Other things keep me from reviewing many articles, but I try to as often as I can, so I really can't comment on lists that I have not reviewed. I'll ask for some other opinions and adjust my comments as necessary. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've made some useful improvements to the list, and its accessibility has increased as a result. I'll re-examine the points:
- Hi Rexx, and thanks for your comments. Although I don't know that much about accessibility guidelines/policies on WP, I will try to answer your questions as best I can.
Support: Apologies for not revisiting sooner, but I've been on a wikibreak. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of Dana and TRM, the article is now as compliant with our expectations for accessibility as possible, and I'm more than happy to recommend the awarding of FL from the standpoint of accessibility. I do understand that it can be difficult for editors to appreciate the difficulties that visually-impaired visitors can have when reading our articles, but I believe that our standards are being raised across the 'pedia – and our featured content can take much of the credit for those improvements. Well done Dana! --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, Rexxs! I apologize again if I was a bit snarky above - table formatting makes me slightly frustrated on the best of days, but I shouldn't have taken that out on you... Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, Dana, and there's nothing to apologise for: you've worked hard on this. Formatting tables for accessibility is a relatively new innovation and nobody can be expected to take it all in without considerable practice, but we pride ourselves at FLC that we do our best to iron out problems as far as we can. I hope I haven't put you off from nominating more lists in the future :) --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
General Motors Building: Oddity here, as there seem to be two competing descriptions.Grand Hotel: Double period at description's end (one inside quote marks, one outside).Highland Park Ford Plant: Remove "were" from "Automobile manufacturing operations were begun in 1910..."?Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Giants and thanks for your comments! I apologize for taking a while to get back to you - I haven't been on WP all that much in the past few days... The above should be addressed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support NapHit (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see neither the keys nor the indicated green/blue background...--♫GoP♫TCN 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have absolutely no idea what is going on with those tables. The last time I looked at it (granted, that was probably a week ago) both the color and the keys were there. Now, I agree, they're not. All of the formatting is still there, it's just not showing up in the reader screen. Nothing has been done to the article - maybe something's going on with the table formatting on the back end? Anybody else have any ideas? Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you mean the # National Historical Landmark (in blue) and the + National Historic Landmark District in turquoise key, I can see it fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the key itself fine. It's when I scroll down to look at the rows of information for each landmark that there is no formatting. Where previously some rows were blue and some were turquoise and some had one symbol and some had the other...now there's nothing. It's just all gray. Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, I see. I'll have a closer look.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like it was this edit when you tried to force the sorting and used a
display=nonebit of coding.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Rightyho, I've trialled one change, it looks promising. You may need to use the {{sort}} template (with a preceding couple of zeroes for safety!!) but follow the guidance of what I did here should do the trick. If not, I'll retire, scramble my password and delete my user page..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, don't do that!!! Then I won't have anyone to tell me how I managed to screw up the table this time :) Anyway, I think I've managed to complete the rest of the changes to make the pretty formatting come back...please let me know if I've managed to screw anything up! Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, don't do that!!! Then I won't have anyone to tell me how I managed to screw up the table this time :) Anyway, I think I've managed to complete the rest of the changes to make the pretty formatting come back...please let me know if I've managed to screw anything up! Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the key itself fine. It's when I scroll down to look at the rows of information for each landmark that there is no formatting. Where previously some rows were blue and some were turquoise and some had one symbol and some had the other...now there's nothing. It's just all gray. Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The major issue was resolved, and otherwise the list is excellent.--♫GoP♫TCN 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, GOP! Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 01:05, 21 February 2012 [9].
- Nominator(s): —Commander (Ping me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This was nominated for FLC at the time of its creation but was not promoted due to lack of content. The list was designed based on the one for England and List of India Women ODI Cricketers, and has been significantly updated with statistics up to date. —Commander (Ping me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Excess "India." after refs 4 and 5 needs removal.
-
Excess period is still there, though the India is gone.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Didn't see that —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Suresh Raina photo caption, "international" could use capitalization.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering why you have listed the players starting with most matches. In the Test and ODI Indian cricketer lists, its chronologically on who played first, i.e. depending on when you debuted, your listed starting with those who played first. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was listed like that before I started working on the list. Is it mandatory that players have to be listed in the order of who played first when we have sortability. —Commander (Ping me) 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just wondering why its different. Normally, Iv seen the lists the other way (debut first, listed first). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. It has to be in that order. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Drive-by comment I was alerted to this nom on my talk page, I have spotty internet access for a while, but I just found one minor issue -- "having played 31 T20I matches with 16 wins and a tie against Pakistan." To me, this reads like the 16 wins and one tie were against Pakistan, a comma after wins or parenthesis for "against Pakistan" would be helpful. Otherwise, it looks good to me, and I think I'd support the list (just don't have enough time to check the table deeply). —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support
I've not had a chance to examine the article in detail, and while it looks good at a quick glance two things strike me. First of all, I think the "first" and "last" columns are a good format; there are some other FLs of this type (ie: list of international cricketers in a given format) and the more common "career span" column isn't entirely satisfactory because you could effectively only sort by start date. List of Australia Twenty20 International cricketers (an old FL but perhaps worth looking at) has a brief section on captains in the format, what are your thoughts on something similar here? It's covered, theoretically at least, at List of India national cricket captains#Men's Twenty-20 International captains but may be worth considering for this list. Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "first" and "last columns" were added to avoid ambiguity. Coming to list of captains, I personally don't think there is a necessity to include, as only three players have represented the team so far. It will not be significant as Sehwag and Raina had led the team on very few occasions. The captains are however represented using a double dagger. —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. After having a look at similar kind of lists that seem to be a good idea. I have added that now :) —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's worth mentioning somewhere that Sehwag's only match in charge was also India's first T20I. I've made a couple of copy edits you'll want to check over to see if you agree, but I'm close to supporting. Nev1 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done :) —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched to support. You've put in some good work here, and it reminds me that the list of Ireland's ODI players needs updating. Nev1 (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the four previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Arkansas). Hopefully I have caught most of the issues, but there is always something after a fresh set of eyes looks at it. Thanks to all who take the time to look at this as all comments to better the list are greatly appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments quick ones I'm afraid...
- Not keen on the empty cells in the key.
- The empty cells are included as part of the {{List of College Football Program head coaches key}}. In previous revisions, the key looked like this. I feel the template works better in that it provides for more uniformity across other college football coaches' lists. However is consensus here is to utilize the previous format, I will be more than fine to change it back. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Would have thought Bo Rein would deserve a mention in the lead.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Other than the blank cells TRM notes above, I found no issues with the list. I'm sure an adequate compromise can be dreamed up, so I won't withhold my support. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Thanks for taking the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Support NapHit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. In my opinion this list fully meets the featured list criteria. My only suggestion is that you might want to use WebCite to archive your references to reduce the risk of them going dead. This is certainly not required for FL status, however. –Grondemar 02:13, 11 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. We have an existing FL which is directly comparable 1968 Summer Paralympics medal table, and I have sought to build on its strengths. 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good just a few more comments
|
Support NapHit (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"This event was the eleventh Summer Paralympic Games, quadrennial competitions...". Should the last part be "a quadrennial competition" instead?
- To me there are many levels of potential plurality here (divided by year, sports) - note "Games". But I agree it could be considered singular, and don't have a strong view either way. So if you think it is better singular... Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wish the "Amongst" starting a sentence could be replaced with "Among" (one of my pet writing peeves).
- Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"surrounded by the games arenas." "games" → "Games'"?
- Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [12].
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I find the subject interesting and different from most current FLs. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ♫GoP♫TCN 14:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from MT (talk) 06:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment — Perhaps there should an explanation about the word "consensus" in the Runner(s)-up columns for readers who are not familiar with sports voting process. — MT (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
'Comments
|
Support NapHit (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Suggest remove the infobox picture, as too much space below.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought spacing like this was fairly common and innocuous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 5 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [13].
- Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive, helpful, and easily navigable collection of all post-secondary institutions in North Dakota. It will be particularly helpful for high school students who are beginning to plan their college journey. The list is pretty short compared to my last one, and shouldn't take much time to review for interested editors. I should mention that this is a Wikicup nom. I look forward to your comments. Thanks in advance! Ruby 2010/2013 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 19:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Seems solid and I'm happy enough that it satisfies the criteria. GRAPPLE X 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all issues seem to be resolved. (fellow WikiCup competitor). --He to Hecuba (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [14].
- Nominator(s): — Status {talkcontribs 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article to be a featured list because I feel that after creating the article from scratch, and putting about a month of really hard work into it, it now meets the FL criteria. — Status {talkcontribs 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
No dead links or DAB needed to be fixed. Image looks good.
Okay, more comments:
|
Quick, non-reviewer comment from Michael Jester
I may have missed this, but what exactly does the "N/A" mean in the box office column? Does it mean it is unknown due to a lack of sources or was it not released in theaters? I am a tad confused.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The movies marked with "N/A" denote ones that weren't released in theatres, yes. — Status {talkcontribs 03:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Is there a way you can make a note saying that? Because I think I may not be the only one who would get confused with the "N/A".
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Well, "N/A" usually stands for "not applicable" or "not available"; but I don't really see how I could add a note on it. I suppose I could try something like that are on discography tables? "Blah denotes blah blah"? — Status {talkcontribs 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. That clarifies it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. That clarifies it.
- Well, "N/A" usually stands for "not applicable" or "not available"; but I don't really see how I could add a note on it. I suppose I could try something like that are on discography tables? "Blah denotes blah blah"? — Status {talkcontribs 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Is there a way you can make a note saying that? Because I think I may not be the only one who would get confused with the "N/A".
- The movies marked with "N/A" denote ones that weren't released in theatres, yes. — Status {talkcontribs 03:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Quick comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the issues pointed out have been resolved. :) — Status {talkcontribs 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- I don't see any changes in this article that I pointed out in its peer review :/ Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been taking my information all from Allmovie, and that's who they credit her as. I don't see a need to go off on other sources for certain names. Some places use first names, some don't. That's how it is. I thought I said that on the review, but I guess I forgot to. xD — Status {talkcontribs 02:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support NapHit (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Why did you left out her appearance in Selena's posthumous music video "Siempre hace frio"? Here's the source. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added JLO as a guest appearance for that music video on Selena videography. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Selena budget was $20 million. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 22:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Imdb is not considered to be a reliable source. I had this problem on JLO's discography. If you can find another source, I will be sure to add it. Thanks for the Selena budget. I never heard of that site before! — Status {talkcontribs 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea I know that's the only source that is on the Internet, odd. You're welcome :-) Best with the nomination, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The DVD itself could probably be sourced. That's what I had to do with the Janet video. Do you happen to own it? Or know where scans of it could be, to see if she is credited? — Status {talkcontribs 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I do mister ;-) I would have to check it out when its the afternoon over here 'cause I'm very tired. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The DVD itself could probably be sourced. That's what I had to do with the Janet video. Do you happen to own it? Or know where scans of it could be, to see if she is credited? — Status {talkcontribs 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea I know that's the only source that is on the Internet, odd. You're welcome :-) Best with the nomination, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Siempre Hace Frio" music video was on this VHS as well. You can use {{cite video}} for it, however, this source does not give any credit to Lopez. Can't you just put her as "un-credited"? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since she's uncredited, I don't believe that she should be credited. You know what I mean? I've never understood this "Name (uncredited)" stuff. — Status {talkcontribs 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, well I now support the article to be a FL. Good job, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since she's uncredited, I don't believe that she should be credited. You know what I mean? I've never understood this "Name (uncredited)" stuff. — Status {talkcontribs 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it has been almost three months since I nominated this. All issues pointed out have been resolved. What is the hold up? — Status {talkcontribs 17:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update the FLC once you address issues because I only watch the FLC page, not the actual article. Nonetheless, I added my well deserved support. Great work! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:42, 18 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [15].
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC), HonorTheKing (talk · contribs)[reply]
Honor and I are nominating this for featured list because we believe it meets the criteria. We worked together recently on List of Israeli football champions, a similar list which now has FL status, and have brought this list up to a similar standard. Referencing is thorough; prose is, I believe, more than adequate; presentation is good; images are well-chosen and accompanied by appropriate captions and alternate text; finally, there are no accessibility issues, so far as I can tell. The result, I hope you will agree, is a list of a high standard. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
More later. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support NapHit (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow, this nomination just fell off the face of the earth, didn't it. Looks quite nice, actually, I'm good on the text and tables. A few redirects you might want to adjust if they're not intentional- Penalty shootout in the key table, Hapoel Rishon LeZion in the people's cup table, Hapoel Ironi Rishon LeZion in the Isreal state cup table and the performance by club table, Be'er Sheva in the by city table, center and south in the district table, and Rec.sport.soccer Statistics Foundation in the references. Consider archiving your references with web.archive.org or webcitation.org - it's a pain, but websites have a tendency to move, change, or die and then you're left with a pile of dead links that don't cite your information. --PresN 21:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and the tips. Indeed, this nomination seemingly got lost behind the proverbial sofa. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [16].
- Nominator(s):
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on this article extensively, and I feel it meets the featured list criteria. All comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks to everyone in advance.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – In one of the reference 7 cites, the owner of Allmusic is listed as Prometheus Global Media. Elsewhere in the refs, it's given as Rovi Corporation. Would you mind double-checking that one cite to make sure the owner is correct?Giants2008 (Talk) 04:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Wow. I can't believe I made a mistake like that. Sorry. I fixed it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I can't believe I made a mistake like that. Sorry. I fixed it.
| Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - great work on this list. I did a copy edit and improved the prose.
End of comments. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support and happy holidays! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, WP, for taking time to review this article, and hope you have a happy holidays as well!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- No problem. Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, WP, for taking time to review this article, and hope you have a happy holidays as well!
| Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - I have very few issues with the page - however, there are still a few things I am not sure about.
Apart from that, the page is excellent. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – excellent page. Great work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Rufus! I appreciate that you took time out to review this article.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
No picture?- I have not found a picture that I can use. I've checked Flickr and Google Image Advanced Search.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Disappointing, but I suppose a picture isn't absolutely necessary for this kind of page.
- I have not found a picture that I can use. I've checked Flickr and Google Image Advanced Search.
"None of the albums charted." – Exchanging the for these might make this a little bit clearer.- Fixed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- I don't use a screen reader, but I suspect users of such software are likely to miss explanatory text to a table if that text is stored in the very last line of that table.
- That's just what has been on every FL discography and is suggested at WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- So?
- It doesn't need to change. If it was a problem, it would have been address when the other 156 FL-class discographies were nominated.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Standards rise.
- Alright, well oppose it then.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, well oppose it then.
- Standards rise.
- It doesn't need to change. If it was a problem, it would have been address when the other 156 FL-class discographies were nominated.
- So?
- That's just what has been on every FL discography and is suggested at WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
The see also section is redundant to the navigational template. It should be removed. (See WP:SEEALSO.)- Alright, removed.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, removed.
Allmusic often uses > in place of dashes or colons. They should be replaced. (See MOS:QUOTE.)- I'm confused? I use ">" in the Allmusic references.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Reference titles are quoted text. When quoting text, we adjust it to our house style. For instance, we don't keep ALLCAPS for words that aren't abbreviations. Likewise, we shouldn't keep website specific styles, like using > instead of dashes.
- The Allmusic references are fine. There is no ">" or dash in the title on the webpage; ">" has been used for I don't know how long. It's never been a problem before.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- It's a problem now.
- How? The use of ">" also helps clarity of the article. Having "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim – Overview" makes it looks like the main article is "Classic", then I clicked "Eric B. & Rakim", then clicked on "overview", which not the case. The use of ">" makes it known by everyone that the title of the page is "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim" and the sub-section "Overview" is clicked.
- Having a consistent style across Wikipedia or at least across individual articles is desirable, if only to make us seem more professional. Using greater-than signs this way is highly unorthodox. But what do I know. Let's just dump the MoS and do whatever we please.
- Well there is WP:Ignore all rules, so technically we could dump parts of the MoS. Would you rather see a colon, however? Colons usually show a sub title.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Colons are fine. (I believe I mentioned them.)
- Changed to colons.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to colons.
- Colons are fine. (I believe I mentioned them.)
- Well there is WP:Ignore all rules, so technically we could dump parts of the MoS. Would you rather see a colon, however? Colons usually show a sub title.
- Having a consistent style across Wikipedia or at least across individual articles is desirable, if only to make us seem more professional. Using greater-than signs this way is highly unorthodox. But what do I know. Let's just dump the MoS and do whatever we please.
- How? The use of ">" also helps clarity of the article. Having "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim – Overview" makes it looks like the main article is "Classic", then I clicked "Eric B. & Rakim", then clicked on "overview", which not the case. The use of ">" makes it known by everyone that the title of the page is "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim" and the sub-section "Overview" is clicked.
- It's a problem now.
- The Allmusic references are fine. There is no ">" or dash in the title on the webpage; ">" has been used for I don't know how long. It's never been a problem before.
- Reference titles are quoted text. When quoting text, we adjust it to our house style. For instance, we don't keep ALLCAPS for words that aren't abbreviations. Likewise, we shouldn't keep website specific styles, like using > instead of dashes.
- I'm confused? I use ">" in the Allmusic references.
Goodraise 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 02:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TRM asked me to take a look at the question of dashes, and I'd like to make a couple of observations:
- Visually-impaired users are generally quite savvy about the use of abbreviations, so I'd generally expect most visitors to assume that a dash meant "no value" (or more specifically in this case "did not chart") because it's such a common usage of the dash both here and on other websites. As a result, I would be much less concerned about anyone missing the key in this particular case.
- The recommended style at DISCOG has taken on board so many improvements to meet accessibility concerns, that it seems almost churlish to point to the dashes when there has been so much effort put into decent captions, column and row headers, accessible colour schemes, proper lists, etc.
It would be very best practice to place an informative key immediately before the table that it refers to, so Goodraise is not wrong to raise the issue. You could suggest removing the last line of the table and placing it an explanatory sentence before, but frankly, I think there's so little to be gained in explaining such a common meaning that I'd prefer to congratulate the nominator for their diligence in meeting so many other important aspects. I would certainly support this nomination on accessibility grounds; it's really almost as good as it gets (well, you know I'd prefer the year in each row, rather than row-spanned, but that's minor). For the record, I think all of the contributions here have been valuable, and I'm heartened by the amount of collegial work that goes into this process. I hope I haven't trod on anyone's toes with my comments as I appreciate the effort the nominators and reviewers put in. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At issue here aren't the dashes, or the doubtful necessity of explaining them, or where such explanations should be placed. It's where such explanations should not be placed. While these particular explanations may not be crucial to the understanding of the tables in this article, there are lots of tables on Wikipedia which cannot be understood without proper explanations. Featured lists serve as examples. Any imperfections we tolerate in them may, and often will, propagate to other lists. Therefore, "almost as good as it gets" isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned. Goodraise 23:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that featured lists are used for examples. With that being said, a FL discography is an example for other discography articles. So, with that being said, it should be good enough. I highly, highly doubt someone is going to use a discography article to model something like list of castles in England (something that needs a key to describe the table). That user is going to model their list with another article within that WikiProject.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- You are mistaken if you believe that featured lists only influence lists of their particular kind. To give just one of many examples: An editor pioneering a type of list is likely to look at featured lists of other types for guidance. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen something—or heard of something—like that. Why would a user try to base a list of castles article off a hip hop group's discography page? If one is going to attempt to bring a list-class article to featured list, they're going to model it off of a similar list.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Have you ever been to a restaurant? If so, have you ever ordered less than the whole menu? It may be hard to believe, but it's possible. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a restaurant. Anywho, you're obviously not going to change you mind no matter what I say, so I'm going to stop trying to convince you. I do appreciate your other comments however.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a restaurant. Anywho, you're obviously not going to change you mind no matter what I say, so I'm going to stop trying to convince you. I do appreciate your other comments however.
- Have you ever been to a restaurant? If so, have you ever ordered less than the whole menu? It may be hard to believe, but it's possible. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen something—or heard of something—like that. Why would a user try to base a list of castles article off a hip hop group's discography page? If one is going to attempt to bring a list-class article to featured list, they're going to model it off of a similar list.
- You are mistaken if you believe that featured lists only influence lists of their particular kind. To give just one of many examples: An editor pioneering a type of list is likely to look at featured lists of other types for guidance. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that featured lists are used for examples. With that being said, a FL discography is an example for other discography articles. So, with that being said, it should be good enough. I highly, highly doubt someone is going to use a discography article to model something like list of castles in England (something that needs a key to describe the table). That user is going to model their list with another article within that WikiProject.
Support - If RexxS says that it's not a big deal to have the dash explanation at the bottom, then I'm willing to look past it, though I agree that table explanations should be before the table, not after it. The list as a whole appears to be on the same level of other DISCOG FLs. Note that you have a bunch of redirect links, which should be changed if they were not intentional- specifically, (in order) R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, Dutch, New Zealand, Dutch, New Zealand Singles Chart, Swedish, and Hot Rap Tracks in the lead; in the first table the NL, NZ, SWE, CD, CS, and LP links; CD in the 2nd table; US Rap, NL, and NZ in the 3rd table; NL and NZ in the 4th; and The Official Charts Company in the references. Eric B. and Gold in the template at the bottom, too. Some of these are just capitalization errors, so I doubt they're on purpose. It's not worth opposing over, but you should get them fixed. Also, consider archiving your links with web.archive.org or webcitation.org - it's a pain, but websites move, change, and die over time, and your citations then turn into deadlinks- don't let it happen to you! --PresN 21:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you PresN for your comments. I believe I have address all your comments. I have started to archive most of the links. Some of the archived pages are messed up in someway, so all links in this article will have the archiveurl parameter. I do have one question though. Why is it bad to have redirects in articles?
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Here you go: WP:NOTBROKEN. Goodraise 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Goodrasise. I'll read it when I get home.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- NOTBROKEN actually is telling you not to "fix" redirects- my counterarguement is since double redirects don't work, you're relying on people fixing the redirects when they rename the target page- if you link to Compact disc, which redirects to Compact Disc, and someone moves that page to CD (disc), your link gets broken. More importantly, though, in my opinion, is that if you have a lot of redirects there's a strong chance that you don't know for certain that your links are all going where you meant to. That's why I don't oppose for redirects, or even require that you "fix" them, but I do prefer at the FL/FA level that editors know for sure what they're linking to. --PresN 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Goodrasise. I'll read it when I get home.
- Yes, definitely use the archiveurl parameter- webarchive tends to drop the page style from websites, so you get the text but poorly formatted; webcitation tends to do better, but you have to ask for it first. It's just better than being left with nothing if the link goes down. You can also, if you like, add in |deadurl=no, which formats the citation as "url, archived at archiveurl on archivedate" instead of "archivelink, archived from the original on blah"- totally optional, though. --PresN 20:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (I only read the lede)
- I think webcitation.org is down so I'm looking at the original for Ref 1.
Eric B. & Rakim formed and were signed by Zakia Records in 1985.[1] The following year, the duo signed a deal with 4th & B'way Records.
is a bit clumsy. For the first sentence, it doesn't quite say they were signed by Zakia, but that their first single was released by Zakia in 1986. For the uneducated, what does "signed" mean? With the second sentence, what is meant by "deal"?- I have reworded the sentence a little bit. Is it still messed up?
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded the sentence a little bit. Is it still messed up?
- It would be interesting to see how an album "spawn"s!
- Me too, ha ha. Changed the verbs.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 16:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too, ha ha. Changed the verbs.
That's it. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:49, 16 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [17].
- Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first nom in a while. --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Sorry to respond so negatively so abruptly, Trust, but I have to oppose this just based on the table alone. It has numerous problems in terms of accessibility (and usability). I would suggest you take a lingering read through WP:ACCESS and especially MOS:DTT. I'll be glad to elaborate more on what I see wrong with the table, if you ask me to, but I assume the pages I pointed to will explain things more clearly and completely. It seems like sortable columns would be pretty useful here, though (not an accessibility issue, more like usability). And the use of bold and caps seems inconsistent with the MoS.
- I also notice that the title of your main ref varies from the bottom of the table to the refs list. It also looks like short citations would be useful for this page. Again, sorry to be so negative when I know you've worked hard on the page. I look forward to supporting its promotion after it's been worked over some more. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see a problem with the tables (I fixed the many errors I failed to see....). Even so, talk - just tell me, the list probably has a lot of problems. The only way to fix them is by telling me (or another user, but is not happening under my watch :). --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for asking for more details. I hope this list helps you understand what I was talking about. I've also noticed a few other things (like in the intro) and thrown them on the heap as well.
- Done
First, there's the mark-up for column headings withscope="col", as explained a bit at DTT, basics section. This can help screen readers used by people who can't view the table graphically. - Done
Then, there's the mark-up to make row headings into row headings ("!" rather than "|"), with thescope="row"code (also at the same MOS:DTT section). This also helps make the table a table for those who can't see the lines. - Done
While you're under the hood getting greasy, might as well rip out all that unnecessaryrowspan="1"stuff. - Done
By default, table row headings are probably rendered by your browser as bold and centered (just like column headings). If you addplainrowheadersto the class list inclass="wikitable sortable", the row headings will remain non-bold and left-aligned. In that case, you can get rid of thealign="left"code before each guy's name at the start of each line. (In fact, you don't need that already, since the default for the table is left-alignment; viz. all the other cells. Although speaking of that, centering might not look bad on this table. You could make that the default by addingstyle="text-align:center;"to the end of the top line of the table, instead ofwidth=100%.) - Done
It doesn't seem logical to have two columns labelled "Tenure". I suppose what you really mean is "Candidate tenure (non-voting)" and "Full tenure (voting)". Yes? And judging from the examples of Mazurov and Podgorny, maybe the table would be clearer if the Candidate tenure columns were on the left of the Full tenure columns; the person goeas forward in time, from left to right, from candidate to full member. - Done
Nail down that footer row by using|-class="sortbottom"to keep it from being included in the sort. An alternative is to take those notes right out of the table, and place them below it. - Done
The sorting itself is a little dysfunctional:- Done
The Name column doesn't sort at all for me. I don't get to see the arrows to initiate a sort for that column (although I do for all the other columns). I don't know what's causing this. - Done
The sorting of the dates needs work, as they come end up in what looks like random order (8 April 1966, 16 July 1960, 4 May 1960, 25 January 1982, etc.) - Done
Same problem with the Durations.
- Done
- Done
Maybe look at Help:Sorting for more ideas?
- Done
The name of your main source is still unclear; is it "...is Governed" or ...was Governed"? - Done
Since the captions of both images are sentences, they each require one period. (And maybe a bit of variation in wording between the two?) - Done
In the lede itself (and possibly in the captions, although it doesn't bother me as much there), change the phrasing like "from 1964–1982" to "from 1964 to 1982" per MOS:ENDASH and WP:YEAR. - Done
I agree with TMR that "was no other than Frol Kozlov" is a bit sensationalist. Grammatically it should be "was none other than Frol Kozlov", encyclopedically I'd suggest you make it simply "was Frol Kozlov," followed by his significance as you already have it. - Done
When you start a list, as after "three members were elected to the Politburo", use a colon, not a semicolon.
- Done
The semicolon originally in "Brezhnev and Kosygin often disagreed on policy: Brezhnev was a conservative while Kosygin was a modest reformer" was correct; you should change it back. In this sentence, you aren't introducing a list, so the colon is the wrong punctuation.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Done
Also, in "Third Secretary: the secretary responsible for industry", think the colon here should be a comma, since we're merely saying what the Third Secretary is.— JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Done
Change "count on 3 to 4 votes" -> "count on three to four votes" per WP:ORDINAL. - Done
Misspelled month in "31 Octobe 1961". - Done
I do still recommend short citations for this page.
- Done
- Now, aren't you sorry you asked? Good luck! — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, thanks for asking for more details. I hope this list helps you understand what I was talking about. I've also noticed a few other things (like in the intro) and thrown them on the heap as well.
- I really don't see a problem with the tables (I fixed the many errors I failed to see....). Even so, talk - just tell me, the list probably has a lot of problems. The only way to fix them is by telling me (or another user, but is not happening under my watch :). --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just had a look at the reworked page and see that you have made many changes, including splitting the candidate member and full member portion into separate tables. I'm a bit sorry to see that, because we lose the easy visibilty of seeing who began their full membership when, following their candidate membership. I guess the two-row heading on the old table was what was keeping the names from sorting? Pity. But ah, well, let's take another look:
- Sorting looks fully functional to me now. Yay.
- I really like the short citation for the Fainsod book. Don't you?
- Done The more I look at the page, the more uncomfortable I grow with the footers. The sourcing notes are identical in both and could just as well (IMHO) come in ordinary text right after the List of members heading. The separate notes about voting could also be outside the tables, coming right after the respective Full members/Candidate members headings (or after the respective tables, or just right after the List of members heading, combined into one note after the sourcing note). But instead of external links to pp. 230–231 and pp. 239–240, why not a reflink down to (say) Ref 14, where Ref 14 is "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231 and pp. 239–240" down in the Notes section?
- Done
In any case, the bold style in the footer looks odd, especially with the external link to the source pages. We generally try to avoid bold links. This problem goes away if you move the notes out of the table footers. Done The mark-up for the footers is a bit overdone. All you'd really need is!class="unsortable" colspan ="7". (I'm sorry if I misled you withclass="sortbottom"; I'm sure I've used that before and it's still in one of the sorting help pages.) This point about the mark-up goes away completely (except my apology) if you move the notes out of the footers.- Done
I see the alt text for Khrushchev claims he's wearing a dress. I am disappointed to see that he appears to be wearing merely a suit; many folks would have paid good money to see him in a dress. I'm also not convinced Brezhnev is wearing a military uniform. It, too, looks like a regular suit with some medals pinned on. - Done I was thinking earlier (before you split the tables) about how nifty it would be to be able to quickly determine who was in the Politburo on any given date. I don't know how to achieve this, however, either with the old combined table or split, as now. There seem to be too many columns to sort simultaneously. Obviously, I can't fairly oppose if we can't incorporate such a display, but if you (or anybody else) can think of a way to do it neatly, I'd sit right up and applaud heartily.
- I'll be working on it. --TIAYN (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The present changes is the best that I can do (of course, I may be wrong). --TIAYN (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can come up with. Thanks for the hard work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just had a look at the reworked page and see that you have made many changes, including splitting the candidate member and full member portion into separate tables. I'm a bit sorry to see that, because we lose the easy visibilty of seeing who began their full membership when, following their candidate membership. I guess the two-row heading on the old table was what was keeping the names from sorting? Pity. But ah, well, let's take another look:
With all the remodeling that has occurred in the past weeks, I'm not sure how or why some of the changes ended up as they did, so I'll ask again here:
- Done I'm still uncomfortable with the repeated citations for How the Soviet Union is Governed in the General references section. Why not just "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231" as I suggested above?
- Done (added them to the lead) What happened to the notes about who can vote? Did you decide those are no longer important? It seems that you could add some explanatory text right after the List of members heading, so the reader has an idea of the significance of the two tables.
- Done (I really cant solve the table issue; Its stil a puzzle for me why it didn't work in the first place) Im also still a bit unsure about the separation of tables. I know it's more accessible, and it's technically cleaner in terms of semantic mark-up, but now we have doubled-up entries. Perhaps a mention of this right before the tables (like after the voting rights explanation above), explaining that X candidate members later became full members, and therefore appear in both tables, while the rest didn't (Y of them were shot, maybe, and Z of them just died in office; poor Demichev was in there for 24 years as a candidate and never made full member (do we know why?), although he was there the latest of any of these guys).
- Done Speaking of Demichev, this page calls him Peotr, but the WP article is titled Pyotr Demichev. There's a redirect, but does this need correcting?
- Done (added two templates; one which has existed for a while, and another long-needed template for the CPSU)Would some See also links be appropriate, say to List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1970s or # List of members of the Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1950s? Or is there a nav template? (If there isn't one, please don't make a template just to pass FLC; I'm just mentioning the idea as an alternative or supplement to See also links).
Sorry for throwing in the new items about See also links and Demichev's first name. As you can perhaps tell, I'm having trouble supporting the nom without reservation, although I do see it as much improved. TIAYN, I appreciate your patience and continued efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For some weird reason this guy is not responding, what should I do? --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
|
Support NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails criterion 3b. Considering how the main article stuffs essentially the same data into a single graphic, I'd expect much more detail here. Either expand, or merge. Goodraise 00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list... I'll expand the Politburo article just as I will expand the Central Committee article (which I am doing).. A user is for some weird reason bent on adding the old table. + Is this a good enough reason for opposing a list? It seems a bit random! --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- + that graf (which you saw) is factually inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I agree with the nominator. We have 9 lists, and merging them all into one article is absurd.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Agree with Pumpkin, I see no issue with 3b for this one. Everything seems in order to me. GRAPPLE X 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Done
From 1955 to 1964 and from 1964 to 1982 the Politburo was chaired by Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev respectively
is oddly worded. As I read it the first time I wondered what had happened in 1964 for there to be a stop and a start, and I think it's because it's in the passive voice. "Nikita Khrushchev chaired the Politburo from 1955 to 1964; Leonid Brezhnev succeeded him that year and chaired until 1982." is active but there are more deft ways of saying it. - Done What's with the past-future tense in the caption?
Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and would chair the Politburo until 1982.
What's wrong with "Brezhnev succeeded Khrushchev in 1964, and chaired the Politburo until 1982."? - Done
17 October–31 October 1961
is made up of two elements, "17 October" and "31 October". Because they're spaced, you need spaces between the dash. If you did "17–31 October 1961" though (because the span is within the same month and you don't have to repeat it) you wouldn't space the dash - Done
Alexander Shelepin, the Chairman of the State Control Commission, Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers.
should have semi colons after each position, rather than commas. So "....Chairman of the State Control Commission; Petro Shelest, the First Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine; and Kirill Mazurov, a First Deputy Chairman...."
Doesn't seem too bad otherwise. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:38, 16 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [18].
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought of bringing this up for GA, but was told it works better as a list. I will happily take this to FL status. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I'm going to be on vacation from December 23 through January 8, so if there are any further comments between now and then, please keep them on ice for me and I'll address them when I return. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First a quick note: I can see from your comment above that you won't be around for a while: but I figured I'd post my questions while I'm here, and you can look at them when you get back.
- A couple of things strike me regarding the "All-Star" emphasis: firstly, what reference is backing that information up? And secondly, when was the player an All-Star: the article doesn't state whether the player had been an All-Star when they were picked, had been an All-Star before they were chosen, were an All-Star for the team that drafted them, or were an All-Star at some point in their career for someone.
- In the Procedure section, it states that: "Colorado won the toss and chose to pick first overall leaving the second and third overall picks to the Marlins." but in the table, Colorado picked first, Florida second and Colorado third: appearing to contradict the previous statement. Could you clarify for me please?
That's all from me at the moment. Harrias talk 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for your comments, and understanding that it took me until today to address them. To your comments, (1) I added a sentence mentioning who had been All-Stars in their career, using a reliable statistics website to source that they were All-Stars. I debated discussing it in greater depth (as in who was an All-Star before the draft and who after), but chose to leave it this way so the reader can peruse articles and see when these players were All-Stars. I can change that if it's a sticking point. (2) That comment in the procedure section was an error. The Marlins did not chose second and third, the teams alternated picks. I struck the erroneous bit from the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support your comments seem reasonable, nice work. Harrias talk 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I thank you for your comments, and understanding that it took me until today to address them. To your comments, (1) I added a sentence mentioning who had been All-Stars in their career, using a reliable statistics website to source that they were All-Stars. I debated discussing it in greater depth (as in who was an All-Star before the draft and who after), but chose to leave it this way so the reader can peruse articles and see when these players were All-Stars. I can change that if it's a sticking point. (2) That comment in the procedure section was an error. The Marlins did not chose second and third, the teams alternated picks. I struck the erroneous bit from the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support
- The "Position" column doesn't sort correctly. You may need to change "Right-handed pitcher" to {{sort|pitcher|[[pitcher|Right-handed pitcher]]}}.
- I can't find it, but I know there's a guideline somewhere about linking every instance of an element in a table. Having all the instances of "Colorado Rockies" and "Florida Marlins" as links in the "Selected by" column is overwhelming. Similarly all the items in the "Position" column.
- Other than that, the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Table sorting is fixed.
- As for suggesting that each instance repeated in a table shouldn't be wikilinked, I'd need to see where it says that. WP:WHENTABLE shows examples of tables that use the same exact behavior. Other lists that I (Babe Ruth Award, Warren Spahn Award) and others (Kansas City Cowboys (AA) all-time roster) have recently promoted also link every instance in a table, even if it's repeated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Goodraise 12:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from the baseball ignorant Goodraise
Goodraise 16:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Okay, now that I'm confident I don't misunderstand any of it, how about replacing the first paragraph with the following? – The 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft was an expansion draft held by Major League Baseball (MLB) in New York City during the 1992–93 offseason on November 17, 1992 to allow the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies to build their rosters prior to debuting in the National League (NL) East and the NL West divisions, respectively, in the 1993 MLB season. Goodraise 12:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? You'd prefer "...Major League Baseball expansion draft was an expansion draft held by Major League Baseball ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, should have read that one more time... Still, I don't like the first paragraph as it is now. It sounds clumsy. I recommend following MOS:BOLDTITLE's advice: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be bent in an effort to include it". – On November 17, 1992, during the 1992–93 offseason, the Major League Baseball (MLB) held an expansion draft in New York City to allow the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies to build their rosters prior to debuting in the National League (NL) East and the NL West divisions, respectively, in the 1993 MLB season. Goodraise 13:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that suggestion. It has been incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Goodraise 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that suggestion. It has been incorporated. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, should have read that one more time... Still, I don't like the first paragraph as it is now. It sounds clumsy. I recommend following MOS:BOLDTITLE's advice: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be bent in an effort to include it". – On November 17, 1992, during the 1992–93 offseason, the Major League Baseball (MLB) held an expansion draft in New York City to allow the Florida Marlins and Colorado Rockies to build their rosters prior to debuting in the National League (NL) East and the NL West divisions, respectively, in the 1993 MLB season. Goodraise 13:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? You'd prefer "...Major League Baseball expansion draft was an expansion draft held by Major League Baseball ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from another ignoramus
- It's unnecessary to Wikilink New York City in the Lede. I doubt anyone who will read this article won't have heard of the city, and the link is of very little value because it has nothing to do with this page's subject.
Major League Baseball (MLB) expanded to add two new expansion teams
-- sounds a little repetitive. Can a synonym be used for the first "expanded"?Each existing club could protect fifteen players on their roster from being drafted and only one player could be drafted from each team in each round.
More context is needed. How many players are on a team's roster? I don't even know how many men are on the field during a game!- Did Joe Giradi play for the Rockies and manage the Marlins at the same time? The image caption is really unclear about this
The Rockies' payroll appeared to be $4 million, less than what the Marlins would pay Bryan Harvey
This is the wrong tense. Why not "less than what the Marlins paid Bryan Harvey"?- The rest of it, especially the 2 paragraphs of the Results section and the last 2 of the Aftermath section, just goes over my head. But I'll put that down to being up since 4.30am with a teething baby and it now being 11pm.
Matthewedwards : Chat 07:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, other than the teething baby part. That challenge puts FLC into perspective. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2012 (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 promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 19 February 2012 [19].
- Nominator(s): Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list after rewriting it to bring it up to FL quality. This is part of an effort to contribute more articles to the Food & Drink FL category. Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is too far from my comfort zone to give an in depth review, but to my opinion you should avoid abbreviations. Not everybody is familiar with the latin names. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean in the sublists, like F. grandifolia under Beech Fagus spp.? Waitak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed what I mean. Abbreviation can make a sentence unreadable or confusing. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I like the abbreviations, they seem easy enough to "decode", and I'm not coming from the point of view of a scientist. It can be practically useful to know the name Fagus grandifolia. Gzuufy (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed what I mean. Abbreviation can make a sentence unreadable or confusing. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean in the sublists, like F. grandifolia under Beech Fagus spp.? Waitak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what to do here. I personally prefer them, but I just removed them in response to Night of the Big Wind's comment. I've put in a request over at WikiProject Plants for clarification. Given that there's some question, I'll revert the changes I just made and wait until someone more knowledgeable provides some feedback. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The feedback from WikiProject Plants is that the standard guideline is to abbreviate the genus in situations like this one. That said, if the consensus is to spell them out, I'm happy to do that. Waitak (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the page is valuable and well done. I found the thorough list of tropical nuts very interesting! WP:Plants knows best, I guess, but it seems to me spelling out those names would be helpful for the lay reader not familiar with the genus abbreviation convention. Either way, I support the nomination, but I'm not as experienced as others at evaluating featured article criteria. Araucana (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I've unabbreviated all of the genus names. Waitak (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments quick ones at the moment.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment The table is a little bit disturbing or even distracting; could you make it horizontal?--♫GoP♫TCN 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've converted it to a bar chart. Is that better? I have no objection to losing the production section altogether if it doesn't seem to fit the article. Waitak (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really mind the format, but having it in the lead I do find problematic. It should be in a section of its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've converted it to a bar chart. Is that better? I have no objection to losing the production section altogether if it doesn't seem to fit the article. Waitak (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to its own section, and added a list of which countries produce the major nuts (because having the chart alone in a section looked a bit sparse). I've wikilinked all of the country names in the list, creating a bit of a sea of blue. Is that okay? Waitak (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll endeavor to review properly later in the week. My opening observations are that the major peanut-producing countries aren't listed, but that the list otherwise contains what I'd expect. —WFC— 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Good spot. Fixed it. Waitak (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everything looks in order just one thing I noticed, you need to format=PDF to the refs that are PDF's. NapHit (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Done[reply]
- Fixed! Waitak (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from WFC |
|---|
Comments from WFC Notwithstanding the comments here, I love this list and hope it becomes an FL.
—WFC— 00:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- The lede is a bit short on wikilinks. Maybe it's just me, but I sort of expect several words in the first sentence to be linked - "culinary nuts", "fruits", "seeds". Don't know if it's necessary, but it struck me as something that was missing. Done
- The "peanut" wikilink is missing a closing "]" Done
- I would move the "Production" section to the end. Done
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I ask others following this review for an opinion on moving the Production section? Waitak (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of any opinions to the contrary, I've moved the Production section to the end as SatyrTN requested. Waitak (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Does not satisfy criterion 3a. I'm willing to assume that "all of the major items" are present, but the additional information provided is insufficient. From a featured list, I expect more than the item's name and a random fact. Also, I think the list would benefit from using tables instead of bullet points. Goodraise 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize the entries as just "a random fact". The entries give information about where the nut is grown, what they're used for and (where appropriate) how long they have been used in a culinary role. I would have thought that that's sufficient to satisfy the criterion ("where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items"). In any case, I'm in the process of adding more on culinary usage as WFC suggested. I can go through them and see if there's anything else that seems appropriate to add. Is there anything else in particular that you'd like to see? Waitak (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the facts are chosen at random, making them random facts. I see nothing unfair about calling them that. What I'm objecting to is nothing in the article, it's what isn't in the article. I'd like to see a table of culinary nuts sortable by name, scientific name, place of origin, length of history as a culinary nut, amount of annual worldwide production, name of the plant producing the nut, with a column for pictures of the nuts and another for additional annotations. Though, if that, or something similar, is unfeasible for some reason, I may reconsider my opposition. Goodraise 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The way that the entries were written was by looking at the best sources available, for each nut, and summarizing what the sources recorded as the most key facts about them. The concern was to faithfully reflect the source, and to trust what they chose as most important to mention. The list is modeled after FL List of vegetable oils, and was rewritten from an earlier (and, IMHO, very poor) table-based list. The problem was that the individual nuts are sufficiently different in role, history and origin that a table design did a poor job of helping the reader learn about the nuts and, more particularly, about the groups of nuts, as they're reflected in the article. As an example, world-wide production is available for only a small portion of the nuts in the list. By adding a column in a table, we'd effectively be spending a significant amount of screen real estate just to make the point that don't have that information. All in all, I thought that the bullet-point based list was a better fit to the available information. Waitak (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I prefer the bulleted list. --♫GoP♫TCN 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I, for one, have no issue with the present format of the page, and wonder if some of the information proposed to be added is even avaliable. To me, this meets the FL criteria, and that's all I can ask for. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The table I considered more carefully. I concluded that length of history as a culinary nut or amount of annual worldwide production are unlikely to be known for many nuts, and that having a column for the plant name is often pointless, as in many cases the scientific name and the name of the plant are interchangeable. I agree that each entry should ideally have a geographic element to it, but think prose is a more flexible way of doing this than a table column. For some nuts the true "origin" won't be known. For others, an origin it might give a misleading picture of modern-day production (English walnut for example).
The specific outstanding things that concern me are:
- The entries for Almonds, Cashews, Pistachio, Mockernut hickory are not specific enough about culinary use. I did find additional instances of parent/sub nuts lacking detail, but this is fine because the sub nuts/parent nut had good descriptions.
- The claim that "vast majority of soybean production is not for use as nuts" needs an inline citation. If you have a suitable ref but aren't sure how to cite a footnote with an inline citation, ping me on my talk page and I'll make the edit.
- I think every nut should be accompanied by some sort of geographic information (one of where they come from, are eaten, are produced etc). What needs to be be said will vary from nut to nut, so I'll leave it down to your discretion. The following nuts are the ones I think need something geographic to be added: Filbert, Malabar chestnut, Almonds, cashews, Mockernut hickory, Shellbark hickory, Jacknuts, Stone pine, soybeans.
- This is what I love about the WP review process. Having several people, over a period of time (okay, maybe not quite this long a period of time, but fine) contributing thoughtful suggestions on how an article can be improved leads to articles of a quality that no one author would have attained by his or her sole effort. I'll have at it over the next day or two, and hopefully we'll be able to put this to bed and move on to the next food and beverage related FLC. Waitak (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have limited WP time over the next week or so, but am looking forward to addressing each of these points when I surface. Thanks again for the review. Waitak (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Good work. I found the bullet point approach to be perfectly fine. I'm not sure tables would be a good idea for this one. GRAPPLE X 03:49, 12 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 13 February 2012 [20].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My current nom has three supports and now actionable opposes or comments, so should be alright nomming this. i feel the list meets the criteria, I know there are a lot of redlinks and I will endeavour to remove these over the course of the nomination. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Otherwise, would be happy to support this. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, good job. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Think that's about it. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comments Sorry, hopefully this is it from me...!
|
- Support. Happy to support this now, well done! Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments –
Not sure if this has been covered before, but did we ever establish whether LFC History was a reliable source? Also, can we find a better source for historical information than Sparticus Educational, which looks like a school-related website? Surely there's something stronger out there.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been established before, but no harm in clarifying the situation, the sixth paragraph on this page should establish the sites reliability. I managed to find a reference from the telegraph, which covers ww1, can't find one that explicitly refers to both, will that suffice? NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a perfect world there would be another cite covering World War II. I figure you should be able to find something from a reliable source discussing it.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Managed to find a source which should cover it. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been established before, but no harm in clarifying the situation, the sixth paragraph on this page should establish the sites reliability. I managed to find a reference from the telegraph, which covers ww1, can't find one that explicitly refers to both, will that suffice? NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*"first significant trophy" is POV: maybe something like "Liverpool won the First Division title for the first time in 1901, since when they..."
Comments. When I first looked at this list shortly after its nomination, I was going to oppose on criterion 5a, "a minimal proportion of items" being redlinked. There were at the time 109 redlinks out of under 300 names, so it was clearly terminally optimistic to reduce that proportion to anything approaching "minimal" in the couple of weeks that the nomination would be open. Having looked again and surprised to see no redlinks, I had a look at the stubs created, and was underwhelmed to find things like "Abraham Foxall is a former English footballer who played as a striker.", with an external link to LFC History, a stub tag and 2 categories: English footballers and Liverpool F.C. players. No vital dates, "is a former" rather than "was" for a man who if really still living would be celebrating his 138th birthday this year, no other clubs played for, no project banners on the talk page, and not even a Football League players category to give some assertion of notability. Clearly this isn't an actionable comment, but I wouldn't mind knowing why you chose to submit the nomination and then frantically create dozens and dozens of 12-word sub-stubs, rather than wait a few weeks till you'd done rather more of the redlinks as stubs with at least a little bit of content/context and then nominate?
Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. That nominators put in time and effort to perfect their own work should go without saying, but I'd just like to say how impressed I was with how much time and effort Matty put in to review the content of someone else's work in such thorough detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 13 February 2012 [21].
- Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. A previous nomination failed due to low participation, but all concerns have been addressed then. As the list has been stable for months and no other problems have cropped up, I believe it is time for another attempt. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Kurykh (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't see any major issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need to add rowcsopes as Trm stated, you only added the colscopes, i've done the first cell as an example. Apart from that the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they only used for row headers? There are no row headers in the list. --Kurykh (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed your example and added the other rowscopes. --Kurykh (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly you need to use an exclamation mark, instead of the pipe, as I did in my example. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Changed some formatting and text alignment, but should conform now. --Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure you're supposed to alter the colour of the row headers it's supposed to be a different colour to indicate it is a header, so I think you should remove the colour formatting and then everything should be fine. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how that's not allowed under any guideline; for the purposes of this list that column isn't a header column anyway. In any case, color is an important part of the list (a different color is used for county seats), so using the darker default header color may create more confusion instead. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That column is a row header therefore it should stand out to indicate such, I fault to see how it would confuse anyone when all the row except the ones in green would be the same colour, if that's the case then surely they would be confused now. No other list that has been promoted or is at FLC has formatted the colour of the rowscopes so I don't why this list should be an exception. NapHit (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to color it as a row header for the sake of default formatting rather than to benefit the reader. We're supposed to make life easier for the reader, not to blame them for potential misinterpretations. Also, just because other lists haven't done it does not mean this list can't do it; FL standards change all the time. --Kurykh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not being coloured, its for the benefit of people using screen readers so they know what parts of the table are rows and what parts are columns, adding this text would confuse their view of the table. I think the readers are clever enough not to misinterpret data, how would they misinterpret anything? Green indicates a county seat thats it, where would a reader get confused? surely they'd assume they every other row indicates that that one is not a county seat. FL standards don't change all the time, they change over a period of time, and they haven't changed over this issue. All the examples in MOS:DTT use scope=row without colour formatting, so again i would stress that you remove colour formatting and just leave scope=row. NapHit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about screen readers or the efficacy of rowscopes; rowscopes have been added already, so that's a nonissue. I was merely discussing the coloring of a column for non-visually impaired visitors. FL standards change gradually, but they do change dramatically over time (I've been here quite a few times and the standards were different every single time). I don't understand why we need to ask for even a bit of unnecessarily guesswork on others, but if current standards demand that we follow rules for the sake of following rules then so be it. It's a disappointing and regrettable attitude and I don't have time for that, so I'm not going to press the issue and have removed the coloring in question. --Kurykh (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FL standards do change over time but not in the 10 days since you nominated this list. Anyway you've done what I asked so I support. NapHit (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't talking about screen readers or the efficacy of rowscopes; rowscopes have been added already, so that's a nonissue. I was merely discussing the coloring of a column for non-visually impaired visitors. FL standards change gradually, but they do change dramatically over time (I've been here quite a few times and the standards were different every single time). I don't understand why we need to ask for even a bit of unnecessarily guesswork on others, but if current standards demand that we follow rules for the sake of following rules then so be it. It's a disappointing and regrettable attitude and I don't have time for that, so I'm not going to press the issue and have removed the coloring in question. --Kurykh (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not being coloured, its for the benefit of people using screen readers so they know what parts of the table are rows and what parts are columns, adding this text would confuse their view of the table. I think the readers are clever enough not to misinterpret data, how would they misinterpret anything? Green indicates a county seat thats it, where would a reader get confused? surely they'd assume they every other row indicates that that one is not a county seat. FL standards don't change all the time, they change over a period of time, and they haven't changed over this issue. All the examples in MOS:DTT use scope=row without colour formatting, so again i would stress that you remove colour formatting and just leave scope=row. NapHit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to color it as a row header for the sake of default formatting rather than to benefit the reader. We're supposed to make life easier for the reader, not to blame them for potential misinterpretations. Also, just because other lists haven't done it does not mean this list can't do it; FL standards change all the time. --Kurykh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That column is a row header therefore it should stand out to indicate such, I fault to see how it would confuse anyone when all the row except the ones in green would be the same colour, if that's the case then surely they would be confused now. No other list that has been promoted or is at FLC has formatted the colour of the rowscopes so I don't why this list should be an exception. NapHit (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how that's not allowed under any guideline; for the purposes of this list that column isn't a header column anyway. In any case, color is an important part of the list (a different color is used for county seats), so using the darker default header color may create more confusion instead. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure you're supposed to alter the colour of the row headers it's supposed to be a different colour to indicate it is a header, so I think you should remove the colour formatting and then everything should be fine. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Changed some formatting and text alignment, but should conform now. --Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly you need to use an exclamation mark, instead of the pipe, as I did in my example. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I made a minor tweak to the lead - please check to make sure you're OK with my revised wording. Other than that, everything looks good, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:08, 13 February 2012 [22].
- Nominator(s): PresN 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, I'm back with another science fiction award list. Having finished up the Hugo Awards a few months back, I now take a step sideways to the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, an award that is presented with the Hugos, voted on in the same ballot as the Hugos, but is not actually a Hugo Award. In that vein, I use the same format as the Hugo lists, so it's the same long white-and-blue table you've seen so many times before. Everything about the award is in this list, as it's not as well-known as the Hugos so it can't support a regular article on top of the list. Let me know what you think! --PresN 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comments –
Ref 2 has a pp. for a single-page cite, which should be p.Some refs (95, 97, 98, 101, 103, 106) are missing en dashes in their page ranges.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed and fixed. --PresN 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
103 is missing a range entirely now. The other stuff is fixed.Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, now fixed. --PresN 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- First sentence: is awarded annually to the best new...writer whose first work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published in the previous two... - sounds a little awkward. Perhaps "is an award given annually to the best new...writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy
appearing in a professional publicationwas published within the two previous calendar years." - Intro: and who is considered one of the most important and influential - this is rather blunt. Can this be re-framed more factually? Like, "The prize is named in honor of science fiction editor and writer John W. Campbell, whose science fiction writing and his role as editor of Analog Science Fiction and Fact made him one of the most influential editors in the early history of science fiction."
- Second paragraph: clarify here that the nomination procedure for the Campbell Award is the same as the Hugo Awards, because references 4+5 only say "Hugo Award". maclean (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First sentence: is awarded annually to the best new...writer whose first work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published in the previous two... - sounds a little awkward. Perhaps "is an award given annually to the best new...writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy
- Fixed all of these. --PresN 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more comments: (1) Should The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction be italized? (2) After re-reading that intro sentence, perhaps the phrase "science fiction or fantasy" doesn't need to be repeated. What do you think about " is an award given annually to the best new
science fiction or fantasywriter whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy was published within the two previous calendar years." —maclean (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it should be (now done) and yes, that's much smoother (also done). --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All issues resolved. I've fact-checked the list of writers and the prose content. All the refs are to reliable sources (mostly The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). maclean (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The lede is a bit long - four paragraphs in the lede, plus another paragraph in the "Winners and nominees" section. Could that be shortened a bit? And is the separate section necessary? I know your most recent Hugo FL is similar, but it struck me as a bit long.
- Images - with that many notable authors, surely there are a couple images that could be added?
-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit long, but that's because there's no corresponding "article" to go with the list, so I had to put all of the information here. The separate paragraph was originally a sentence or two, but with each of these nominations more information seems to get added to it. I've added in an infobox with a relevant image; is that enough? I could add in some authors, but I'm not sure about adding in a bunch of photos just for decoration. --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand the lede length, and it's not a show-stopper for me.
- Despite comments below about authors not being notable for their looks, but rather for their writing, I don't think that's appropriate. This is a list of people. Having images of those people (where appropriate and copyright-friendly) makes the list that much better. I can't support it as an FL without them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Goodraise
Goodraise 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 17:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the verge of supporting. Goodraise 13:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Regarding the images requested by other reviewers, I'd like to say that I disagree. While I'm usually the first to ask for non-essentials to be added to lists, I think, considering the subject matter, it might not be appropriate to force images onto this article. Writers become notable for their writing, not their looks. I wouldn't recognize my favorite author if I met him on the street. They're not politicians, pop-stars or professional baseball players. We shouldn't treat them the same just to spice-up our articles. Goodraise 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Goodraise 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After reading through this list and looking at the sources, I find no issues that would prevent me from supporting this list's promotion to FL. To comment on a couple of issues brought up by previous reviewers: I think that the lead is a proper length for a list that does not have a corresponding article, and really a proper length overall for an entry that exceeds 70 KB. I find that I agree with Goodraise above with regards to images - they would be rather useless, IMO, because authors are not famous for their looks, they are famous for their work. If, at some point, copyright is removed from the covers of any of the works, it might be interesting to have those included, but that will most likely be decades in the future, so not something we have to worry about now! So, overall, I am happy with this list as it now stands. However, I might suggest that the nominator put neutrally worded posts on the talk pages of the editors who have commented above to see if they have further comments or concerns that are preventing them from supporting the nomination - this list has been on the page for two months now and has attracted quite a few comments but only one specific support/oppose declaration. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for reviewing; I've posted to the commentors asking them to return. --PresN 22:54, 6 February 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 6 February 2012 [23].
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meets FL criteria. The list is based on similar Grammy FLs. Albacore (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments from Ruby2010
- Capitalize "qualitiy" in infobox
- Also in the infobox, add the | holder = parameter for John Benjamin Hickey (see this for an example).
- You use "win", "won", and "winning" a lot. Could you input some synonyms?
- "...whereas both parts of Tony Kushner's Angels in America series have also won the award." This and the Neil Simon blurb imply that the plays themselves won, rather than the actors in them. Ruby 2010/2013 04:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Albacore (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns were addressed. Ruby 2010/2013 18:42, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Albacore (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments:
|
Support. I'd add more images, but this is already a very good list. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 12:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2012 (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 promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 6 February 2012 [24].
- Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malmö FF is a Swedish association football club that have achieved both domestic and international success. The club's most notable feat is reaching the 1979 European Cup Final. The club also reached the quarter-finals of the Cup Winner's Cup twice and played once in the Intercontinental Cup, the only Swedish team to have played a competitive match outside Europe. The nominated list consists of statistics from all matches played by Malmö FF in official UEFA and FIFA competition, complete with references for all matches. I believe that the list meets all of the FL criteria and I hope that my fellow editors feel the same! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments seeing as the consensus id for the list to remain a list I'll strike my oppose and review the list:
|
Support well done NapHit (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Alt text was needed for the picture at the top, which I have added. This is a complete, comprehensive and well-laid-out list of Malmö FF's results in Europe, which is all it needs to be. A detailed history in prose form belongs in the History of Malmö FF article. Have given this a thorough copy-edit and resolved some small issues – feel free to revert if you disagree with any of this. I have no qualms about supporting this fine list which meets all of the criteria. Well done! —Cliftonian (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- What makes fussballdaten.de a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the legal statement of the website I'd say it looks reliable. The website is a service offered by a publisher specializing in football data by the looks of it. Perhaps a German editor could be able to tell us if he/she would consider it reliable? --Reckless182 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mh, not reliable: Die Autoren übernehmen keinerlei Gewähr für die Aktualität, Korrektheit, Vollständigkeit oder Qualität der bereitgestellten Informationen. - The authors do not take any warranty for topicality, correctness, completeness and quality of provided information. Doesn't sound very reliable... ♫GoP♫TCN 12:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just a disclaimer, surely... many books include these too, should we discount them as well? According to its "about" page, the site is affiliated with T-online and fussball.de, both run by Deutsche Telekom, and sport.de, published by RTL Interactive. I remember when I used to do a lot of work on English soccer lists and articles the yardstick we used to use there to establish reliability was whether or not the site was cited by a high-quality source. I'd say both Deutsche Telekom and RTL would be considered sound references, so I'd be happy with sourcing to fussballdaten.de. This is just my opinion, of course. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, similar legal statements is used quite often for websites and books. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there's some debate on this one, I'll leave it outside the capping for others to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some research and found that the site is used as a reference in several season articles for German football clubs on the English Wikipedia as well as the GA Franck Ribéry. Looks more and more like a reliable source. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, doesn't automatically make it acceptable here – just a tip. You'd be better off looking for reliable sources off-Wiki which use its database. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that, I just thought I'd mention it. Only source I've found this far is ströer interative which is most likely the company that built or perhaps designed the website. They state in German: "Fussballdaten.de ist DIE bewährte Quelle für Fußballjournalisten und viele andere Meinungsführer aus Deutschlands beliebtester Sportart", which rougly translates to "Fussballdaten.de is THE trusted source for football journalists and other opinion leaders from many of Germany's most popular sport". Can we use this to determine reliability or is this judged as a subjective opinion since they probably built the website? Note that they are not the administrators of the website. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me what is the purpose of the disclaimer then? Tell it to a newbie who has nearly zero knowledge in law :)♫GoP♫TCN 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- fussballdaten.de really is as reliable as it gets for statistics on German league and cup games. Line-ups, substitutes and other information is exhaustive and commendable for its accuracy. As for their legal disclaimer, this is very typically German. I don't think Germany has a culture of suing as is stereotyped in America, but Germans are very clear about not assuming safeguards for accuracy (which in itself seems incredible with their own stereotypes of correctness and punctuality). Each and every publication includes the same information: "Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr". A great example of this is the official national lottery website, http://www.lotto.de/, note here at the bottom of the page in italics Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr. Not even the lottery's own website assumes responsibility for the publication of the lotto numbers! Even when the draw is made or the winning numbers are announced at the end of the news bulletin, it's always the same "We take no responsibility for the correctness of this information" (and have a look how often this is pointed out here). That fussballdaten.de has the same thing written in their disclaimer makes it no different to any other German website, but the contents, indeed, are as reliable as any other you can find. Even the news service of Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg's "inforadio" discount the responsibility of content errors here, so the general disclaimer over at fussballdaten.de really does nothing to discredit its content, as far as the original question is concerned. Jared Preston (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Jared. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Indeed! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I understood (this can be capped). --♫GoP♫TCN 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- fussballdaten.de really is as reliable as it gets for statistics on German league and cup games. Line-ups, substitutes and other information is exhaustive and commendable for its accuracy. As for their legal disclaimer, this is very typically German. I don't think Germany has a culture of suing as is stereotyped in America, but Germans are very clear about not assuming safeguards for accuracy (which in itself seems incredible with their own stereotypes of correctness and punctuality). Each and every publication includes the same information: "Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr". A great example of this is the official national lottery website, http://www.lotto.de/, note here at the bottom of the page in italics Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr. Not even the lottery's own website assumes responsibility for the publication of the lotto numbers! Even when the draw is made or the winning numbers are announced at the end of the news bulletin, it's always the same "We take no responsibility for the correctness of this information" (and have a look how often this is pointed out here). That fussballdaten.de has the same thing written in their disclaimer makes it no different to any other German website, but the contents, indeed, are as reliable as any other you can find. Even the news service of Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg's "inforadio" discount the responsibility of content errors here, so the general disclaimer over at fussballdaten.de really does nothing to discredit its content, as far as the original question is concerned. Jared Preston (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me what is the purpose of the disclaimer then? Tell it to a newbie who has nearly zero knowledge in law :)♫GoP♫TCN 13:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am aware of that, I just thought I'd mention it. Only source I've found this far is ströer interative which is most likely the company that built or perhaps designed the website. They state in German: "Fussballdaten.de ist DIE bewährte Quelle für Fußballjournalisten und viele andere Meinungsführer aus Deutschlands beliebtester Sportart", which rougly translates to "Fussballdaten.de is THE trusted source for football journalists and other opinion leaders from many of Germany's most popular sport". Can we use this to determine reliability or is this judged as a subjective opinion since they probably built the website? Note that they are not the administrators of the website. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, doesn't automatically make it acceptable here – just a tip. You'd be better off looking for reliable sources off-Wiki which use its database. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some research and found that the site is used as a reference in several season articles for German football clubs on the English Wikipedia as well as the GA Franck Ribéry. Looks more and more like a reliable source. --Reckless182 (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there's some debate on this one, I'll leave it outside the capping for others to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 04:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, similar legal statements is used quite often for websites and books. --Reckless182 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just a disclaimer, surely... many books include these too, should we discount them as well? According to its "about" page, the site is affiliated with T-online and fussball.de, both run by Deutsche Telekom, and sport.de, published by RTL Interactive. I remember when I used to do a lot of work on English soccer lists and articles the yardstick we used to use there to establish reliability was whether or not the site was cited by a high-quality source. I'd say both Deutsche Telekom and RTL would be considered sound references, so I'd be happy with sourcing to fussballdaten.de. This is just my opinion, of course. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mh, not reliable: Die Autoren übernehmen keinerlei Gewähr für die Aktualität, Korrektheit, Vollständigkeit oder Qualität der bereitgestellten Informationen. - The authors do not take any warranty for topicality, correctness, completeness and quality of provided information. Doesn't sound very reliable... ♫GoP♫TCN 12:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support, nice work. – Lemonade51 (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.