Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2008: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
fix |
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 8 |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Denver Broncos head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Kansas City Royals Opening Day starting pitchers}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of premiers of the Northwest Territories}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of men's major championships winning golfers}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Milwaukee Bucks head coaches}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece video games}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Diamond Rio discography}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Extreme points of Sweden}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Extreme points of Sweden}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour}} |
||
Revision as of 20:53, 22 November 2008
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Diamond Rio discography Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes
- 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 User:Gimmetrow 23:06, 18 November 2008 [10].
Did you know that only nine goaltenders have scored a goal in an NHL game? If you didn't, you didn't read the article. (Stolen from David Fuchs). Maxim(talk) 03:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article was only created half an hour ago, maybe you should have waited a day or so and allowed some of the regular hockey editors to take a look at it. -- Scorpion0422 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is not stable as other users could possible make changes it to it or correct things, I recommend a copyedit in the prose and a check on tables before coming here, the list should have waited at least 36 hours before FLC.--SRX 03:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't get why this is a valid comment. If the article has problems, then point out the problems. Whether it was created two minutes ago or a week ago, judge it on its own merits. Many of the lists I've made have practically no editors working in that area, and I'm the one bringing them forward. This simply isn't actionable. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Another comment The lead says six goalies got a goal by shooting the puck in the net, but there are only five on the list (although it's more than possible I made an error when I made some changes). -- Scorpion0422 03:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- That would be my mistake, which I fixed. Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)—The article would have benfited greatly from a peer review, where most of the little things would have been addressed. However, since those issues were easy to deal with, I fixed most of them in this edit. I have a couple more things to ask: All issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
"Martin Brodeur, known for his puckhandling skills" Sounds POV to me.- It's a very accepted fact that Brodeur is one of the best ever, perhaps the best ever, puckhandler; do a survey at WT:HOCKEY, and trust me, you'll get a lot of votes for Brodeur. ;-) Also, it's in the third para of his article too. Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"Martin Brodeur's second goal, which was credited to him,"—Why is "which was credited to him" needed? Was his first goal not credited to him?- He didn't shoot the puck in; it was an own-goal and the last opposing player to touch it was Brodeur. The wording's a bit confusing I agree; what do you suggest? Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about: "Martin Brodeur's second goal was actually an own goal by the opposing team; however, because Brodeur was the last opposing player to touch the puck, he received credit for the goal. It is the only game-winning goal scored by a goaltender." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- He didn't shoot the puck in; it was an own-goal and the last opposing player to touch it was Brodeur. The wording's a bit confusing I agree; what do you suggest? Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Refs 6, 7, and 8 (http://www.hockeygoalies.org/) deadlink, and what makes that site reliable?- The author cites his sources and he has some hockey background. See this about page. However, I've found better, stronger sources for those three ones, and I have replaced them. Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
"Evgeni Nabokov was the first European goaltender to score a goal." Needs a source (If it comes from the book, an inline citation).Dabomb87 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)- An inline cite is needed when it's an unusual/controversial or challenged fact; in this case, Nabokov was the first non-Canadian or US goaltender to score, as evidenced by the list, and Russia is in Europe, so I don't see the need for an inline citation. Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments -
http://www.hockeygoalies.org/bio/nabokove.html deadlinkshttp://www.hockeygoalies.org/bio/hextallr.html deadlinks- What makes http://www.hockeygoalies.org/bio/brodeurm.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- WRT to the site, the author cites his sources and he has some hockey background. See this about page. However, I've found better, stronger sources for those three ones, and I have replaced them. [copied from my reply to Dabomb.] Maxim(talk) 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment All of the entries in the table need to be linked as it is sortable. Gary King (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Killervogel5
- Comments from Killervogel5
- Per WP:BOLDFACE, you should find some other way to indicate the facts currently shown using bold (additional symbols/colors, italics, etc.).
- Rather than having the notes column, since everyone has a dagger or asterisk, just put them next to the names in the first column.
- The flags in the table aren't necessary, per MOS:FLAG: "Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand, such as comparison of global economic data or reporting of international sporting event results, and cannot be expressed better with text. They should always be accompanied by their country names at least once." Either remove the column or change it to simply the name of the country.
- Any particular reason why the column of dates is right-aligned?
- "There have been two goaltenders to have both scored and earned a shutout in the same game" - "to have both scored" is grammatically incorrect, a split infinitive. Both could be removed, or this sentence can be reordered to remove this. I would also end this sentence with a semicolon to promote continuity with the two goalies who have accomplished this feat.
- I would like to see the legend put into a separate table, a la many of the other sports FLs or FLCs.
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- All fixed.—Maxim(talk) 15:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Well done. The only thing that I would change is leaving no spaces between the names and symbols, but otherwise, I support. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I tried with no space, but it looked cramped, so I rved. Thank you very much for your support. Maxim(talk) 15:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly. Have you tried superscripting the daggers (a la List of Philadelphia Phillies team records)? That helps with cramping a lot. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks better with the superscript. :-) Maxim(talk) 15:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment You know, I liked it better with the seperate notes column because that way you could sort by who scored a goal and who was credited with one. -- Scorpion0422 22:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Comment: I have to agree with Dabomb87 on the possible POV in the Brodeur image with "known for his puckhandling skills". Although as hockey fans, we would almost all agree on this, the non-hockey fan would simply not know. I remember when I put List of Vancouver Canucks players up for FLC, I got a similar comment with Todd Bertuzzi and "Todd Bertuzzi became known as one of the NHL's premier power forwards". One of those things that doesn't hurt to include, but could hurt if left out. You could always just snag one of the references from the Brodeur article, as there are a few in there. Aside from that, I fixed the dab/dio issue with José Théodore...GoodDay would be so impressed :)– Nurmsook! talk... 03:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Done--Maxim(talk) 23:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
One more thing, I think the key should be moved to before the table, like we have on most other FL articles. This would improve the flow, as the reader won't have to skip the table to get to the key, and then go back to the table. Instead, they would read the key first, then continue on to the table.– Nurmsook! talk... 17:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)- LarRan moved it for some reason. I've a partial revert of that.--Maxim(talk) 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment original author removed the {{when}} tags I added to sentences which need dates, rather than addressing the problem. Prose isn't great. Modest Genius talk 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
It's the list, there's no point in {{when}} tags, they mess up with the flow. I've asked Risker to go over the prose, although she is busy atm, this is not a huge article, so she'll probably handle within a few days.--Maxim(talk) 23:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yet another comment I'd like to see a bit added to the lead about why a goalie scoring is so rare and notable. Sure it's obvious to us, but it wouldn't hurt for those not familiar with hockey. -- Scorpion0422 00:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
-
Yes, now the hard part is framing the sentences so that they are not POV or ambiguous:"Scoring a goal into the opposing team's net is very challenging for goaltenders, since it must be scored into an empty net, six feet wide, from the other end of the rink, with sufficient trajectory and speed to beat the defenders. A goaltender cannot cross the centre red line, thus they cannot get close enough to the opposing goaltender to have a chance to score when the net is not empty." Issues:
"very challenging" I understanding that it is hard to say why goaltenders' goals are rare without some slightly non-neutral language, so I will let "challenging" go. However, can we do away with "very"?"must be scored into an empty net"—The way this worded, it sounds like a rule that goaltenders can only score into an empty net."centre red line, thus they cannot get close enough" Comma to semicolon, comma after thus.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- All fixed.--Maxim(talk) 01:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [12].
I am submiting this list because I think its ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "for 25 weeks this year," – "this year" sounds to me like it's the current year (2008), and not the 2005 as mentioned earlier in the sentence. I suggest rewording this. FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "reached the number 26" – "reached number 26" - FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "on The Billboard 200" – "on the Billboard 200" – "the" is not part of the billboard's official name, remove it from the link too - FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "on The Billboard 200 and was named" – "on The Billboard 200, was named", FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "and also won" – "and won" FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Another recording by Daddy Yankee (released on December 7, 2004) titled Barrio Fino en Directo reached the first spot on the chart. " – "Another recording by Daddy Yankee entitled Barrio Fino en Directo was released on December 7, 2004 and reached the first spot on the chart." – don't use brackets when they are not necessary, FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "This album includes" – "The album includes", FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "chart-topper" – I'm not so sure if this is encyclopedic. Sounds too informal. FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "on their careers" – "in their careers" FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "chart topper" – same as above; also, no dash is used here as opposed to the other? FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest changing all occurrences of "this" to "the" as every time "this" is used, mentally I'm thinking of someone pointing at something specific, when in fact the entire article's focus should already be the chart so "the chart" is sufficient, FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Fijación Oral Vol. 1 by Colombian singer-songwriter Shakira spent 17 weeks at number one on this chart and despite a ban by retail chain Ritmo Latino, this album" – "Fijación Oral Vol. 1 by Colombian singer-songwriter Shakira spent 17 weeks at number one on the chart, and despite a ban by retail chain Ritmo Latino, the album", FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "No. 4" – "number four", FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "The Billboard 200" – same as above, FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- "record-holder" – "record holder", FIXED Jaespinoza (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved review by SRX
- There were nine number-one albums in 2005, including Barrio Fino by Daddy Yankee, which peaked at the top of the chart for 25 weeks, sold nearly 900,000 copies in the United States, reached number 26 on Billboard 200, was named Reggaeton Album of the Year at the 2005 Billboard Latin Music Awards,[2] and won a Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album. - wouldn't it be the Billboard 200?. No, acording to Gary King who reviewed the list yesterday, he told me to remove "the". Jaespinoza (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fijación Oral Vol. 1 by Colombian singer-songwriter Shakira spent 17 weeks at number one on the chart, and despite a ban by retail chain Ritmo Latino, the album had the largest sales week for a Spanish-language album since Nielsen SoundScan began tracking in 1991, with 157,000 copies sold, which led to a first-ever debut by a Latin album at number four on Billboard 200, surpassing Ricky Martin's Almas del Silencio, which was the previous record holder with 65,000 units in 2003. - this needs a full stop after "on the chart." Then begin the sentence with "Despite a ban..."--SRX 00:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC), FIXED, Jaespinoza (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Support I made some minor fixes, but otherwise, this list meets all criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by SatyrTN
- I was not a part of your previous FLCs, so I realize your other lists passed without some of these issues being addressed.
- The column heading "Issue Date" confuses me. It's not the date of the albums release, which is what I first thought. Is that the date the Billboard list is issued? Maybe "Chart date"?. Answer: FIXED!. On the Billboard page the chart date is refered as "issue date" but chart date I think is more acurate. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- The third instance of Daddy Yankee (December 31) shouldn't be wikilinked. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe "Internet sales" should have a capital "I" - is that correct? I see your other lists have that, but it doesn't look right to me. FIXED!. On a previous review someone told me to capitalize it, but now is fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I give this list a Weak Support - if another column heading can be found, I'll remove the "Weak". -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [13].
I am nominating this article because I believe it satisfies the FL criteria: it's comprehensive (only 29 players have represented Ireland and the stats are up to date) and the lead explains the article (a bit about what ODI cricket is and the background of Irleand and ODI). All comments and suggestions are welcome. Nev1 (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would reconmend creating articles for the red links. If this is done then I will support. 02blythed (for some reason I cannot sign.
- Not a problem, as these people have played international cricket they satisfy notability crieria. I'll get on it right away. Nev1 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now done, everyone on the list has their own article. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I therefore believe it fulfills all the FL criteria and Support this nomination. 02blythed ( I still cannot sign properly.
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- "This is a list of Irish One-Day International (ODI) cricketers." – remove bold because of link per WP:BOLDTITLE
- reword the "this is a list of" to make it more interesting; check List of mergers and acquisitions by Adobe Systems, List of Oklahoma City Thunder head coaches, and List of ISS spacewalks for ideas
- "Twenty-nine" – "29" per WP:MOS; needs to be moved somewhere else since sentences can't begin with numbers
- "and one tie" – "and 1 tie" – per WP:MOS because when comparing numbers they need to all either be numbers or letters to be consistent (within the same sentence)
- I don't think there's any need for the text to be small in the table. Just make it normal size.
- Perhaps italicize and indent "Statistics are correct as of 3 November 2008."
Gary King (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Changes implemented. The text was smaller to make the table look a bit neater, but you're right it doesn't need to be small. Nev1 (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"and that each team has only one innings" "innings"-->inning.- "Inning" is not the singular of innings in cricket. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"By reaching the final of the 2005 ICC Trophy"-->Because it reached the final of the 2005 ICC Trophy...- I don't believe this phrasing is superior to the one already used. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- After reading the original sentence a couple times, it is OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe this phrasing is superior to the one already used. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"which took many pundits by surprise" Which pundits? Where's the source for this statement?- Here's the source used in the article. A sporting "upset" is only an upset if it's unexpected, and the cricinfo staff are pundits. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"Ireland qualified for the 2007 World Cup where they progress to the super eights" Several issues:Comma after "Cup".- Why is a comma needed? Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is additional information. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is additional information. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why is a comma needed? Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"progress"-->progressed.- Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
What are "super eights"?- Explanation added that it's the second stage of the tournament. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"Irish cricket has suffered" "suffered"-->experienced. Less POV.- I don't believe this is POV as some of Ireland's best players are choosing to play for their counties, meaning Ireland are forced to play less experienced players. However I realise it could be argued from the other direction that it's giving the younger players exposure, so have changed it. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"something that is not possible in Ireland" Why?- Explanation added that it's not possible because there is no professional structure in Ireland and no professional teams. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
'have been labelled the "leading associate".' Meaning?- Explanation has been added that this means they are the best non-Test playing nation. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see this explanation. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- In the second paragraph: "Ireland are one of only two associate nations to be part of the rankings; associates are the next level of team below those that play Test cricket". Therefore the leading associate means the best non-Test playing teams. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see this explanation. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Explanation has been added that this means they are the best non-Test playing nation. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"115*" Why is there an asterisk by the number?- This means the batsman was not out, this will be addressed by the addition of a key. Nev1 (talk)
- Actually, running prose should not have symbols, use en dashes or parentheses for this information instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to "not out" , for which * is shorthand, in the prose. Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, running prose should not have symbols, use en dashes or parentheses for this information instead. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- This means the batsman was not out, this will be addressed by the addition of a key. Nev1 (talk)
"763 runs 35 wickets" Shouldn't these quantities be separated by "and"?- Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- The table needs a key.
- In progress. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- A key has now been added. Only terms which do not have a wikilink at the top of the table have been included as the link should provide enough explanation. Nev1 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- In progress. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"occassion"-->occasion. (twice in the article)- Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"embarked on a break"-->took a break- Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"commitments with his county side" What is a county side?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)- You don't believe it's clear what a county side is from the third paragraph of the lead? Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not made the connection between the county cricket system and "county side". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- You don't believe it's clear what a county side is from the third paragraph of the lead? Nev1 (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Add all the terms to the key, even the linked ones; readers should not have to leave the article to be able to understand the table.
- The key has now been expanded to include all abbreviations used in the table. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Move the key to above the table.
- "The record for best bowling figures in an innings for Ireland in ODIs belongs to Andre Botha who took 4/19 against Kenya on 24 August 2008." Comma after "Botha". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by SatyrTN
- The first instance of "cap" in the lede should be wikilinked
- I'd like to see the table sortable. Since the "rowspan" headers don't work for a sortable table, I recommend adding "Batting", "Bowling", and "Fielding" to the Key. You will need to make use of the {{sort}} template for the 100/50 and BB columns.
- BTW, the "100/50" column header isn't bold like the rest
- Wikilinking the header columns (Runs, Avg, Overs, Runs, Avg) is a bit strange, IMO. I would add them to the Key and wikilink there. The two "Runs" and "Avg" columns should probably be differentiated, as well.
- I Conditionally Support this candidate after some of the fixes above are taken care of. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly done. The sorting issue is a tricky one to solve, and one that's cropped up on other lists. I've completely removed the top line of the table and now it sorts fine. I don't think the top line was necessary, but if anyone disagrees, it can be reinstated. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can I recommend doing the Key like this? As for sorting, are the "100/50" and "BB" columns sorting correctly? I don't understand what those mean, so they may be fine - I'm just checking :) Also, the "HS" field isn't sortable and probably should be? Finally, you'll want to make use of {{sortname}} to sort the Name column by last, first. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- New key implemented. 100/50 and BB sort fine (although it's a shame about the dashes in BB). HS doesn't sort properly, the only way to do it would be to convert every highest score to three digits (ie: 3 would become 003 and 17 would become 017). I've played around with {{sortname}}, but I just can't get it to work, are you sure it can be used in tables, I've only ever seen it sorting categories. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've added {{sortname}} to the name column and added the sorting capability for the HS column. The HS column sorting automatically interprets numbers (so you don't need to worry about 325 coming before 37).
- As an aside, the key still has "an innings that ended not out", which is grammatically incorrect. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for fixing that (and somehow you got HS to sort properly!)
- In cricket, innings is both plural and singular, so to say "an innings" is fine (eg: "he had a good innings"). Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- New key implemented. 100/50 and BB sort fine (although it's a shame about the dashes in BB). HS doesn't sort properly, the only way to do it would be to convert every highest score to three digits (ie: 3 would become 003 and 17 would become 017). I've played around with {{sortname}}, but I just can't get it to work, are you sure it can be used in tables, I've only ever seen it sorting categories. Nev1 (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Can I recommend doing the Key like this? As for sorting, are the "100/50" and "BB" columns sorting correctly? I don't understand what those mean, so they may be fine - I'm just checking :) Also, the "HS" field isn't sortable and probably should be? Finally, you'll want to make use of {{sortname}} to sort the Name column by last, first. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mostly done. The sorting issue is a tricky one to solve, and one that's cropped up on other lists. I've completely removed the top line of the table and now it sorts fine. I don't think the top line was necessary, but if anyone disagrees, it can be reinstated. Nev1 (talk) 14:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [14].
I am nominating this list to become a Featured List becuase I believe it meets all FL criteria. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved review by SRX
- Review by SRX (talk · contribs)/
Oppose- fails to meet the standards of writing and their are faults with the table, fails FL cr 1-3,5 - Prose
- The Milwaukee Brewers Major League Baseball franchise has employed 17 managers and 8 general managers (GMs) since its inception in Seattle, Washington as the Seattle Pilots in 1969. - this is the opening lead sentence. In other similar FL's, they state what division they play in, what stadium, where they are from. They don't go directly to the point of the list.
- Take my suggestions that I pointed out above and then place the prose about them being the Pilots and combine it with the second sentence.
- Buck Rodgers managed the team in 1981 when the Brewers won the second-half American League East Division title - link to this "half" division title?
- Rodgers and Harvey Kuenn managed the Brewers in 1982, leading them to win the American League pennant. - so two people managed, both were head managers? Or did one resign and then the other came in, if so that should be elaborated.
- Phil Garner won 563 games from 1992 to 1999, placing him first on the all-time wins list for Brewers managers. Very confusing at the end and sounds bias, so his 563 ranks him first on "what?"
- The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more is Harvey Kuenn, whose .576 winning percentage is sixth on the all-time wins list for Brewers managers. - Get to the point, begin with Harvey Kuenn has the highest winning percentage with .576, which is sixth on the all-time wins list for Brewers managers. Also, how is it the highest if he is only sixth?
- The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more is Harvey Kuenn, whose .576 winning percentage is sixth on the all-time wins list for Brewers managers. - the word "worst" is POV
- Lead needs to be expanded and better written, the first manager should be listed first, the current manager, and those with the record winning %. See current FLC, List of Tennessee Titans head coaches.
- Tables
- What do the dashes in the # column mean?
- Source for general managers?
- Can it be elaborated in the prose the difference between the GM and the head manager?
- Notes
- The awards need to be integrated as a row/column into the table, see the FLC I pointed out above.--SRX 04:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Take a look now. Most of the lead was re-written with your suggestions in-mind. I'm not sure what you mean about bullet #3 (about the second-half title). All "Tables" comments were addressed. The way the notes/awards are indicated is standard for other FL of MLB managers. I see no need for this list to buck the trend. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. Still has problems
- The beginning of the sentence states they are in the national league but of what the MLB or the AL?
- So where is the home stadium?
- Ken Macha, former manager of the Oakland Athletics is the team's current manager; he will manage his first Brewers game when the 2009 season begins. - this should go at the end of the paragraph, needs to be in chronological order. + comma after Athletics. Since his first game will be until 2009, I recommend adding a {{future}} template.
- The team's first manager was Joe Schultz. Buck Rodgers managed the team in 1981 when the Brewers won the American League second-half East Division title. - you need a transition. Wow, Shultz was the first manager, so what? Elaborate more on him, or transclude from there to the next sentence. In the second sentence, wikilink to that title?
- Still no explanation for the emdash in the tables under the "#" row.--SRX 15:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Indicated Nat'l League of MLB & home stadium, fixed Macha, added {{future}}, worked on Schultz sentence, added em dash explanation to table key. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Final Comments
- Buck Rodgers managed the team in 1981 when the Brewers won the American League second-half East Division title. - I remember reviewing a list in this nature where there were half champions and it elaborated why they were half champs, can that be elaborated here?
- The ref for the GM's should be made into a General one since the same one verifies all of them, possibly into a separate row or indicated below the table.
- Also, seeing the size of the table, is there a way to place the GM table next to the Manager's table?--SRX 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I added a bit about the 1981 Major League Baseball strike being the reason for the splist season. I removed the references column for the GMs, and put it under the "General" references section. I tried putting the tables next to each other, but (on my 1024x768 display in IE) the managers table was squeezed such that it became visually unpleasing. Also, the current layout is standard for other MLB manager FLs. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Support - My review was addressed to meet WP:FL?, but I feel that the article should have been peer reviewed before coming here due to the many prose and misc. issues I pointed out above.--SRX 00:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Support Meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- My only suggestion is to find another picture or two?
- I Support this candidate. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd love to add more pictures too, but free images just can't be found. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved review by SRX
Comments --
- Generally it looks good. I did add a column for league championships/pennants won, since that is a critical item in assessing a manager's career, even if he lost the WS that year. Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The one thing I think needs to be addressed is a little bit of confusion in the lead over which league the Brewers play in. It starts by saying the Brewers play in the National League, but then the 2nd paragraph mentions winning the American League east, and then goes back to discuss the National League again. I think the lead needs to clarify the Brewers' situation with respect to changing leagues. Perhaps a 2nd sentence could be added to note that the Brewers played in the American League until 1998, when they were moved to the National League.
- Additional pictures would be nice, but there don't seem to be any relevant free ones available on Commons, so I don't think that should impact the articles' assessment. Of course, it would be good to get a free picture of Ken Macha in a Brewers uniform added to the article as soon as possible. Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. - I added a sentence very similar to the one you suggested. I think the situation has been clarified. I'd love to add more pictures too, but free images just can't be found. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - My issues have been addressed. Rlendog (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Killervogel5
- Comments (KV5)
- If there have been no managers elected to the Hall of Fame, it doesn't belong in the key.
- First sentence: "The Milwaukee Brewers Major League Baseball (MLB) franchise of the National League has employed 17 managers and 8 general managers (GMs) during its 40 seasons of play."→"The Milwaukee Brewers franchise of Major League Baseball's (MLB) National League has employed 17 managers and eight general managers (GMs) during its 40 seasons of play."
This change should not be doneDo not change 8 to eight; per MOSNUM, comparative quantities should all be written the same way. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)- My fault, this didn't come up in either the Phillies or Twins managers FLC; however, that's not the only change to be made here; the other half still needs to be fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Playing their home games at Miller Park is extraneous to the first paragraph of the lead - remove.
- "the lowest winning percentage over a season or more is .395 by the team's first manager Joe Schultz." - add comma after .395.
- Italicize Macha and his record until the 2009 season starts, to indicate that he has not yet managed the team.
- Needs a reference either with Harvey Kuenn or in the key to show the source for Milwaukee Walk of Fame.
- I know it's just one redlink, but any chance of creating even a tiny stub for Dean Taylor?
- Any chance of creating a GM template either? (see List of Philadelphia Phillies managers)
- You note in the key that em-dashes are used to denote prior service as manager, yet you also use them for blanks in the playoffs. I suggest removing that line from the key and following the format used in the above Phillies list or List of Minnesota Twins managers, wherein a footnote is used to explain em-dashes in the "#" column.
- Playoff rows should be complete; that is, where a manager has appeared in the playoffs, 0s should be used in place of an em-dash if a manager has won 0 pennants or 0 World Series championships.
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the suggestions. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent work. Support. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [15].
I am listing this, as the last in the seasons set. It has completed it's recent peer review and I believe it meets the criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm opposing for now, considering the issues listed below are only from the lead; I haven't checked the rest of the article yet.
- "In an attempt at a new time-slot " – Why would it be an attempt if they actually did it? Should be something more like they "tested a new time slot". Done
- "anymore" – "any more"; any more than what? please specify, even if implied
On hold Matthew brought this at PR too. I originally had "anymore" but the automated peer review suggested that "any more" was BrE and "anymore" was the AmE version. I am not american so don't know, but would like further clarification and will go with consensus.
- I think that PR suggestion is for a different use of "any more". It's for something like "He didn't go to the store anymore", not "he didn't get any more than he needed", which must be two separate words. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done, as usual you are correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that PR suggestion is for a different use of "any more". It's for something like "He didn't go to the store anymore", not "he didn't get any more than he needed", which must be two separate words. Gary King (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- "returned to Thursdays" – "returned to Thursday" – there is a "... of every week" that is implied here, that's why Done
- ""core four" characters" – which four? Done
- "however executive" – "however, executive" Done
- "five disc" – "five-disc" Done
- "The season was also made available to purchase" – "The season was also available" Done
- "on the US Xbox Live Marketplace and the US iTunes Store for registered users" – "in the American versions of the Xbox Live Marketplace and the iTunes Store" – or something to that effect Done
- "premiered anywhere on television" – "premiered on television" Done
- "In the US" – "In the US," Done
- "available from October 26, 2006 at 3:01 a.m. ET" – "available from October 26, 2006 at 3:01 a.m. ET onwards" – or something like that Done
- "In Canada the" – "In Canada, the" Done
- "on terrestrial" – "on the terrestrial" Done
- "CTV Television Network, CTV Broadband Network" – "CTV Television Network, CTV"
- Comment, sentence restructured per point below so this no longer exists. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- "allowed the episode to be streamed from 12:00 p.m. ET on October 30, 2006" – confusing. So, CTV allowed Warner to stream it? And, stream it where? On CTV's website? I thought Warner owned the program?"
- Done Hopefully clarified. Warner allowed CTV to stream it on the CTV Broadband Network.
- "8:30 p.m. (local time)." – there's no three letter timezone code to use here? It should be obvious which timezone this is in without clicking on the link.
- On hold The point is that there are three timezone codes to list here - AWST, ACST, and AEST. Programs do actually air in local time so if you lived in Perth it would be 8:30 p.m. AWST, whereas for someone who lived in Sydney it would have been shown at 8:30 p.m. AEST. I used local time as it seemed more appropriate than mentioning all three timezones. Please let me know if you disagree. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The above issues are only examples from the lead; the rest of the article should be double-checked for similar issues. Gary King (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Diff Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all your comments. I will try and triple check for mistakes, but I seem to be exceptionally spotting them, as having written it, I just read what I think should be there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- "With Lost about to go enter a three-month hiatus it was hoped that a move for The O.C." – "go enter": "enter"; "was hoped" – change to active voice; who is hoping? Done
- "season; however the " – "season. However, the "
- On hold I have been told in the past that "season. However, the" was wrong. See the second comment here. I don't know which version is correct, but am just providing reasoning for my choice. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- "it's" – "its" Done
- "the Xbox Live Marketplace and iTunes Store for registered users." – does "registered users" need to be specified? Does either store sell items to non-registered users? Done
- "The fourth season was also broadcast outside of the United States." – I think I brought this up before, but I don't think this needs to be said. The paragraph can start with "In Canada" and people will realize that it's broadcast outside the US. The reader doesn't assume one way or the other that the show does or does not broadcast outside the US up to this point. Done
- "the episode could be streamed " – "the episode was streamed "
- ✗ Not done. I disagree with this one, was streamed seems to imply that people streamed the episode from 3:01 onwards. I don't know if people actually streamed the episode at that time. Unlike being broadcast on television it wasn't definately done at specific times, hence the "could be". Is that reasonable? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- "the season premiered January" – "the season premiered on January" Done
- "was first broadcast" – first? so it broadcast on other networks after? Perhaps say at the end of the sentence "and it broadcast on other networks aftewards" or something. Done
Gary King (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have now addressed these points. Thanks for looking over this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Article still needs work.
- "Other cast members returning in recurring roles included" – "Other cast members that returned in recurring roles include" – watch out for "-ing" nouns masquerading as verbs Done
- "Actors leaving the cast included" – "Actors who left the cast include" Done
- "New members joining the cast included" – "New members who joined the cast include" Done
- There are more like these.
Gary King (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing a bit of copyediting, I have addressed the above issues and added a ref for the regular directors you marked as {{fact}}. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The article still needs a lot of work. For example:
- "The fourth season of The O.C. commenced airing in the United States on November 2, 2006 in the United States, concluded on February 22, 2007, and consisted of sixteen episodes." – "The fourth season of The O.C. aired in the United States from November 2, 2006 to February 22, 2007 and consisted of sixteen episodes."
Question: I don't understand how the current version is incorrect. This is also seems to be a standard opening in season FLs (e.g. The other seasons of The O.C. use it as does all Lost and Degrassi seasons). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- My version has the same information but it's more concise. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - please delink the mass use of wikilinks in references. Used once and only once is usually best.Mitch32(UP) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I have delinked a lot of these but I'm not sure that references fall under overlinking. I have never seen this requested and notice that of the present four most recently promoted FL's [16][17][18] suffer from what you'd call overlinking in refs, whereas this has no linking in the refs at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Change "In America" to "In the United States" in the Notes section. Done
- I have to disagree with Mitch32 above. Most refs sections I've seen are masses of blue, and that's okay.
- I Support this candidate. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- "This was the first season without one of the "core four" characters of Ryan Atwood, Seth Cohen, Rachel Bilson, and Marissa Cooper;[4] however, executive producer Stephanie Savage said that Marissa's death "set up a new direction for the show".[5]" ← I understand you're trying to be concise here, but I had to read it twice to glean what was going on. Perhaps you could be a little clearer? Done
- You don't need to link to The O.C. in the second paragraph of the lead; I think "the show's creator..." would suffice. Done
- "that maybe wasn't as evident last year" ← could "last year" link to the article on season 3? Done
- "Former main cast member Mischa Barton did not return because her character, Marissa, died in the third season finale" ← I don't much like how straightforward this is.
- On hold, I don't understand. Relative to the season 4 article it is that straight forward. Details of her death should be explained in the third season finale article not here, in a season in which she does not feature and a season of which her death is not part of. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- "This increase was mostly due to 6.7 viewers, 76 percent more than the season average, tuning in to see the final ever installment of The O.C.[30]" ← 6.7 million? Done
Hope these help. Seegoon (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Seegoon (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 18 November 2008 [19].
After finishing Annie Award for Best Animated Video Game for the FLC contest, I wrote this up. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I don't particularily like the formatting of the table. I think you've made it more cumbersome to read just so it could be sortable. There are some cases where sortability just doesn't work and this is one of those. I would prefer to see each year just have one row (using rowspan), that way it would be easier to see which were nominated in a certain year. Admittedly, the sorting is helpful, but I don't think it adds much here since no film can be nominated more than once. I would prefer to see it formatted more like this, with the result column removed and extra thick lines added at the bottom of each year to make things easier to see. -- Zombie Scorpion0422 19:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree on the sorting part. The downsides to sorting only appears when you get too much redundancy (for instance, List of Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, in which I agreed with your assessment that the table shouldn't be sortable due to the excessive redundancy and mirrored at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates in Economics), and here, the benefit to sorting (sort winners, studio, directors), outweighs the redundancy in having multiple year columns. That said, I added thicker lines to divide the years up. Is that sufficient? — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "In 1992, the scope of the awards were expanded to honor animation as a whole"—"were"-->was.
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- "To be eligible for the award, the film must have been released in the year prior to the next Annie Awards ceremony" "prior to"-->before.
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Add a brief sentence or phrase to the lead that describes what ASIFA-Hollywood is.
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by SatyrTN
- Best Home Video Production,[3], was
- Extra comma
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion would be to have "Won" instead of "Won Annie Award"
- Prefer the full text myself. See List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the color of the fields in that column be partnered with a text indicator, like * or † ?
- I don't see how that's necessary with the color. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Per WP:COLOR: Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information.
- There's text clearly indicating what is meant in that cell. This line in WP:COLOR only applies in cases in which color is the only identifier. This is not the case. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- (reply to SatyrTN) But in this case, the color is associated with text ("Nominee" or "Won Annie Award"). In other words, the color doesn't even need to be there, it is used for contrast. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The redlink for Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker can be fixed
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The "Year" column needs to make use of the {{sort}} function so that sorting returns the list in the original order. For instance, {{sort|1995-a|[[1995 in film|1995]]}}, {{sort|1995-b|[[1995 in film|1995]]}}, {{sort|1995-c|[[1995 in film|1995]]}} would be the entries for The Gate to the Mind’s Eye, Opéra Imaginaire, and The Land Before Time II: The Great Valley Adventure. And go from there :)
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Having said that, shouldn't each year be sorted to have the winner first, followed by the other nominees sorted by title?
- Was supposed to already do that, but fixed now. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Because the table is sortable, the Studio entries need to be linked in all instances.
- The non-linked ones are redlinks. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't they still be linked? There are red-links in the other columns.
- I
ConditionallySupport this candidate. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Expedia
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 18:59, 15 November 2008 [30].
Seems to pass all the FL criterion. Prose is fine, references are good and list is complete and bluelinked. I used List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as a template for the format on the advice of User:Choess, who should probably get a co-credit if this goes through with the amount of cleaning up he did of this article and the articles of the Chief Justices themselves. Ironholds (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question: are there any more pictures of Chief Justices available to use? The top one is good, but it would be nice to have some going down the table. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- A few more, yes; are you thinking some kind of system like the List of Nobel Laureates in Literature? I'd considered it, but there (unfortunately) aren't enough to make it look halfway decent. I could probably justify nicking them from the National Portrait Gallery under the "we can't get anything anywhere else you scat-munching bitches" rationale (as you can see I'm not a fan of the NPG). Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Me neither actually :-) I was actually thinking along the lines of this, meaning you only need a few images. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, pretty! Image, funfact, Image, funfact.... Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC).
- Me neither actually :-) I was actually thinking along the lines of this, meaning you only need a few images. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- A few more, yes; are you thinking some kind of system like the List of Nobel Laureates in Literature? I'd considered it, but there (unfortunately) aren't enough to make it look halfway decent. I could probably justify nicking them from the National Portrait Gallery under the "we can't get anything anywhere else you scat-munching bitches" rationale (as you can see I'm not a fan of the NPG). Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- More questions/comments: Why do some of the CJs have no corresponding number? Indeed, why are they numbered at all? Where was the table sourced from - there's not a single citation! You've also given exact dates for date of birth/death – why not for the terms too? Born/died may be better in two columns as well. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can see a source in the General Bibiliography for the list; it was put it there or reference it on every single entry. Some of the CJ's aren't numbered because they are repeat services; a justice who served as say, number 32, left and then came back shouldn't really be numbered as number 34. In many cases I don't have exact dates for the service period, I'll try to look that up. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest then that numbers are removed – unless they are very important? If the source is in the bibliography, it needs to be moved to the references section, and cited to. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough on the first point. You want me to reference the article on every entry?Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, is that a problem? If it's the same thing sourcing everything, just put a reference at the top or something. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm just worried that the single list reference at the bottom is going to look rather blue, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It'll be fine. If not, it can always be reverted. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm just worried that the single list reference at the bottom is going to look rather blue, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, is that a problem? If it's the same thing sourcing everything, just put a reference at the top or something. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough on the first point. You want me to reference the article on every entry?Ironholds (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest then that numbers are removed – unless they are very important? If the source is in the bibliography, it needs to be moved to the references section, and cited to. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can see a source in the General Bibiliography for the list; it was put it there or reference it on every single entry. Some of the CJ's aren't numbered because they are repeat services; a justice who served as say, number 32, left and then came back shouldn't really be numbered as number 34. In many cases I don't have exact dates for the service period, I'll try to look that up. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Another point: links only need linking once, especially in the table. For example, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and Chief Justice of the King's Bench are linked at least once in the table, and it's not necessary. There are others too. – How do you turn this on (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty, done that. I'll get on with the images tomorrow if I have time. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've done the images, although there aren't really enough in my opinion; any other points? Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty, done that. I'll get on with the images tomorrow if I have time. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The position of Chief Justice was not initially an appointment"-->Initially, the position of Chief Justice was not an appointment...
- "One would become more senior and respected than his peers" How does one become more senior when they grow older at the same rate as everyone else?
- "from then on
wards" Comma after this phrase also. - "In 1875 the court was reduced to a division of the High Court of Justice, with Alexander Cockburn serving as the first Chief Justice."-->In 1875, the court was reduced to a division of the High Court of Justice; Alexander Cockburn served as the first Chief Justice.
- "The court was dissolved as a body in 1880 when the functions" Comma after 1880.
- "with John Coleridge serving as the first Chief Justice of a fully unified High Court" Make this phrase a separate sentence.
- In the table, full date ranges should have spaced en dashes: "26 May 1814–1 November 1873"-->26 May 1814 – 1 November 1873".
- Forgive my stupidity, but in the first inline citation, what does "ibid" stand for? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Normally it means a reference to a text previously mentioned; so "Mackay ibid 51", for example, would be "the same Mackay text previously mentioned, just on page 51"; it was a leftover from when I copied the reference over from the Court of Common Pleas article. Ironholds (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done all of Dabomb's concerns. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only full date ranges should have spaced en dashes, not anything else (26 May 1814 – 1 November 1873, but 1309–1326). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Woops, sorry! I'll doeth that now. Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm doing that. What about mixed ones? Where I have a complete date for the appointment but not for the removal, for example. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- MOSDASH says: "Spacing: All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; July 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but July–August 1940)." So yes, the ones which have one complete date and the other is just a year should still have a space. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I'm doing that. What about mixed ones? Where I have a complete date for the appointment but not for the removal, for example. Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Woops, sorry! I'll doeth that now. Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Only full date ranges should have spaced en dashes, not anything else (26 May 1814 – 1 November 1873, but 1309–1326). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done all of Dabomb's concerns. Ironholds (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Normally it means a reference to a text previously mentioned; so "Mackay ibid 51", for example, would be "the same Mackay text previously mentioned, just on page 51"; it was a leftover from when I copied the reference over from the Court of Common Pleas article. Ironholds (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Excellent, ta. I'm almost done. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, that seems to be done; if I've missed any, poke me. Any other points? Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- One more thing: Only image captions that are complete sentences should have full stops (periods) at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alrighty, changed; any other bits? Ironholds (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from SatyrTN
- Some copyediting is needed:
- As such the Chief Justice was one of the highest judicial officials in England,
- Add a comma after "such"
- behind only the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's (or Queen's) Bench.Initially, the position of Chief Justice was not an appointment;
- Space before "Initially", and the comma after "Initially" needs to go.
- of the justices serving in the court, one would become more respected than his peers, and was therefore considered the "chief" justice. The position was formalised in 1272 with the raising of Sir Gilbert of Preston to Chief Justice, and from then on, it was considered a formally appointed role similar to the positions of Chief Justice of the King's Bench and Chief Baron of the Exchequer.
- The comma after "and from then on" is unnecessary
- There are two wikilinks - "Lord Chief Justice of the King's (or Queen's) Bench" and "Chief Justice of the King's Bench" - that go to the same place, and both are redirects. This is confusing and maybe even misleading.
- As such the Chief Justice was one of the highest judicial officials in England,
- The table should be sortable, with the last column unsorted. You will need to use {{sort}} for the dates.
- Done all that, but after much previewing and fooling about I can't get the sorting right. Could someone help me out? Ironholds (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I Conditionally Support this nomination. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 18:59, 15 November 2008 [31].
I am nominating this list because I beleive it is well-organized and fully meets the criteria for a Featured List. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"Many of the PCL records were set on May 5–6, 2006, when the Sounds participated in a 24-inning game against the New Orleans Zephyrs which matched the longest game, in terms of innings played, in PCL history." Comma after Zephyrs.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have no idea what most of this stuff means, but it looks well researched and well organized. Great work. Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I would like to see maybe one or two more images, but I know they are hard to find. Suggestions include record-holders Salomon Torres, Russell Branyan, Ryan Braun, or Ray Durham. Totally not a deal-breaker, though. Great job! Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I went on a quest for images for another Sounds list, but never got around to adding the applicable ones to this list. There are now 4 additional player images. I would have added more, but I wanted to keep images in the appropriate sections; spacing was also an issue. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks great. I did notice that you use fractions for innings pitched in one table and decimals for another. I suggest all fractions, but uniform is more important than one or the other. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for pointing that out. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by SatyrTN
- Very nicely done! I don't understand *all* the jargon, but the list is well organized and informative. My only suggestion would be that there are places with lots of white-space. It's just a suggestion, but perhaps two tables could be placed side-by-side? But I'm not wedded to that idea - I just dislike all that open room to the right of my screen :)
- I Support this nomination. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 18:59, 15 November 2008 [32].
This is my second Nobel related list. A lot of problems that I encountered with the first one - image licensing, improper quotes, etc. have been fixed in this list, so I think it's ready to go. As always, any concerns brought forth will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - excellent list. --TheLeftorium 21:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "(slightly more than €1 million, or US$1.4 million)" Source?
I am concerned about the use of Encyclopædia Britannica, a tertiary source, to source Wikipedia, another tertiary source.- it's not used as a main source. Basically, it's just included because in the past I've had some people complain about having an article rely entirely on one source (especially when it's an official source), so if anyone wants confirmation, there it is.
"In 2008, the prize was awarded Makoto Kobayashi, Toshihide Maskawa and Yoichiro Nambu " Missing a word.- Done.
Random image check: Image:Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (1845--1923).jpg needs an author and date, Image:Erwin Schrödinger.jpg has an obsolete tag, I think Image:Ketterle.jpg. Have you recruited an experienced image reviewer to confirm that the images check out?- Done.
"William Lawrence Bragg is the youngest ever Nobel Laureate, he won the prize in 1915 at the age of 25." Semicolon instead of comma.- Done.
"John Bardeen is the only laureate to win the prize twice, in 1956 and 1972."-->John Bardeen is the only laureate to win the prize twice, in 1956 and 1972. I think an em dash would serve better than a comma, the placement and the flow of the sentence are abrupt with the comma.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)- Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 17:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Another blasted image review in progress
Sorry for the delay, but the literature list kept me busy. First set:
- Image:Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (1845--1923).jpg - missing source, date, author, making license invalid
- Image:Pierre Curie (crop).png - missing date, author, making license invalid
- Image:Albert Abraham Michelson2.jpg - just because it's on other encyclopedias does not prove the license
- Image:G lippmann.jpg - without author, can't use pd-70
- Image:Ferdinand Braun.jpg - same with this one
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The first batch have all been removed. -- Scorpion0422 15:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Johannes_Diderik_van_der_Waals.jpg - wrong license, might be PD-1923 but not PD-old
- Fixed.
- Image:Charles Glover Barkla.jpg - licensed under GFDL and claimed PD; no author, so PD-old not proper
- Image:Charles Édouard Guillaume.jpg - no source or author; god-awful image anyhow
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Second batch is done. -- Scorpion0422 16:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Niels Bohr.jpg could be cleaned up via a template, and should have PD-US in addition to the EU tag. Like this one (although that might need EU tag).
- Done.
- Image:Niels BohrUpOwenWillansRichardsonDownSolvay1927.JPG - god, did Bohr ever change his expression?
- Apparantly not, is there a problem with the image?
- Image:Broglie Big.jpg - can't use PD-old without an author... another tag accounting for anon author would work, I suppose.
- What kind of template?
- Image:CVRaman.jpg - using a fair use image of a dead person is shaky in general, but using it in a list as decoration is definitely so. Remove.
- Wow, how did I miss that? It was not put in intentionally. Removed.
- Image:180px-Werner Heisenberg.jpg - same as above.
- Same as above. Replaced.
- Image:Erwin Schrödinger.jpg - needs more specific PD tag.
- Like?
- Image:Chadwick.jpg lacks source, date, and author info
- Removed.
- Image:Carl anderson.1937.jpg - page needs cleanup, and explanation of what organization took the photo (author).
- Image:Enrico Fermi 1943-49.jpg] - what's with the years after his death? Also, bad tag!
- Done.
- Image:Isidor Isaac Rabi.jpg - date and author?
- Removed.
- Image:Wolfgang Pauli2.jpg - missing verifiable source for license
- Removed.
- Image:Blackett-large.jpg - real author and reason for PD?
- Removed.
Also, as a general comment, if any of the above licenses are invalid, please mark them as copyvios on Commons so that they're gotten rid of for good. I like everything tidy :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Third batch is done. -- Scorpion0422 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was bold and went through the rest of the list and removed all images that did not meet criteria for inclusion. Images should now all meet FLC critiera.
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Many Laureates do not have images by their names, but most of their respective articles do. I would like to see an image by every person. If this is accomplished then I will fully support. Reywas92Talk 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would love for every row to have an image too, but there are two main problems:
- The lack of images is not due to negligence on my part, I went through every page and added whatever free image I could find. The only way I might have missed any is if they are not on the Laureate's page. If there are any free images with proper licensing out there that I have missed, then by all means please add them. -- Scorpion0422 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by SatyrTN
- I'm a bit uncomfortable with the "Reason" column having each line start with three different things, either "for", "For", or "[for]". I understand the third one, but not why the others are different.
- Each quotation is a copy of the Nobel website. Most of them start out with "for", but some don't, so for uniformity, [for] was added. As for the capitalization, I can go through and fix that. -- Scorpion0422 04:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still feel these lists should be sortable. I know I'm "outnumbered" on this one, but there ya go.
Oppose unless it's made sortable. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Could you please point out where in the criteria it says that lists need to be sortable? I am not a big fan of making it more cumbersome and repetitive simply so it will be sortable. -- Scorpion0422 04:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 18:59, 15 November 2008 [33].
Cornucopia and I have been cleaning this up for a while, and have recently concluded a peer review. Since Veronica Mars is off the air, the list is comprehensive and complete. We're seeking formal recognition for the list, and anticipate resolving any lingering issues in this process. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, looks great.--Music26/11 16:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- You need to offer more than that for it to carry any weight. Matthewedwards 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- "PCH biker gang" Write in full on first use, so that non-So-Cal residents what the PCH is Done
- "Southern California seaside town" I've never heard "seaside" in So-Cal.. How about "coastal" or "beach"? Done
- Use
EpisodeNumber=andEpisodeNumber2=from {{episode list}} for the series and episode numbers, which will negate "(1-01)", which doesn't make sense Done- I went ahead and deleted the (s-ep) numbering, since the airing order is consistent with the production code. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- {{episode list}} has been modified so that instead of using
Aux1=andAux2=, you should useDirectedBy=andWrittenBy. Entries will have to be reversed though, because it forces the Directors column to appear before Writers column Done - For the viewing figures, use
Aux4=rather thanAux3=, which will place them after the airdate. This makes more sense because the viewing figures occurred as a result of it airing. Entries will have to be reversed, don't forget Done - Episode summaries could do with being expanded. They seem more like teasers at the moment. See Wikipedia:Plot_summaries and WP:PLOTSUM Done
- Clarifying question: What's another article that you consider a good model for total length in plot summaries? Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- The_Simpsons (season 9), The_Simpsons (season 8), (any of The Simpsons lists, actually), The O.C. (season 3), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), Blue Heelers (season_13), and The Office (US TV series) season 3 are pretty good. They've been promoted recently, so they'll indicate the lengths that are okay.
- Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 1), List of Desperate Housewives episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes were promoted some time ago and need a bit of attention. Matthewedwards 04:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. Working on the tables now. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the plot summaries, do you mean that they are too short, or that some contain vague sentences. I think the length of the summaries are good as-is, it's just the vague parts that need to be cleared up. Is that reasonable? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have increased the length of all summaries to two or more lines, and I have cleared up any vague sentences. Are the summaries fine now? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Matthewedwards 00:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. I'll get on those tonight. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
More comments
- Please follow encyclopedic WP:TONE. "dad", "kid", "cops", and "couple of" should be "father", "student", "police (or sheriffs)", something more specific done
- Specialist words such as "bumfights", should be wikilinked done
- "who took pictures of her and sent them to her mother and the Moon Calf Collective" needs refactoring.. the pictures weren't sent to the Moon Calf Collective done
- "Rap producer" sentence case done
- "Veronica finds out that her mother left rehab, asks her to leave town." is not a complete sentence done
- "bus' driver" --> "bus driver" done
- That's all I've caught, you could try to enlist a copy editor from Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers. I've also found User:Scartol and User:97198 to be good. Matthewedwards 00:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. I've gone through the entire list again and found and fixed several more issues. How important do you judge the necessity of an outside copyeditor at this point? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Killervogel5
- Comments from Killervogel5
I've reviewed this list (mostly because my girlfriend would be horrified if I didn't, she's a huge fan) in its entirety, only some little things to fix.
- Section headers (year ranges) should use en-dashes instead of hyphens. Done
- In the lead, correct the following: "The second season decreased to an average of 2.3 million viewers, however it included the series' highest rated episode with 3.6 million viewers."→"The second season decreased to an average of 2.3 million viewers; however, it included the series' highest rated episode with 3.6 million viewers." Done
- "high-school"→"high school" Done
- "The CW President"→president Done
Otherwise, very well done, well-constructed and well-organized. This list meets the criteria and is definitely worthy of promotion. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- As my comments have been resolved, I support this excellent candidate for promotion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review and kind words. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.gpstore.com.au/News/Archive/9850.htmlhttp://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/799359- Both these sources are Australian DVD retailers. They are being used solely to support the DVD release dates in Australia. Gameplanet is a retailer that has been in business since 2002. EZDVD since 1999. Absent any online catalog of DVD availability dates, this is the best evidence we've been able to find to verify release dates. The S2 DVDs also appear within the context of other DVDs for Australian release inSeptember 2008. Is that sufficiently reliable for this purpose? Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
http://www.mediavillage.com/jmentr/2005/07/22/web-07-22-05/ deadlinked- Done restored via Internet archive. Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"Balancing murder mystery, high school and college drama"-->A balance of murder mystery, high school and college drama...Done"introduced in the first episode of the season and solved in the finale."-->in which the conflict is introduced in the first episode of the season and solved in the finale.Done"In September 2008, Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello reported that Thomas still planned to make a film, even though he was busy with other projects." The second comma is not needed.Done"which would likely involve Veronica solving crime in college"-->in which Veronica would likely solve crime in college.Done"Thomas has had a meeting with DC Comics to talk about a Veronica Mars comic book series." "talk about"-->discuss.Done
More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've made the corrections as suggested. Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Veronica starts her Junior year at Neptune High by freeing new student Wallace Fennel" Why is "Junior" capitalized? Done
- "Celeste Kane hires Keith to follow her husband Jake, and Veronica stakes out a seedy motel where he meets an unseen woman." Who is "he"? Done
- "hallucinates"-->dreams of.
- Going to rewatch this episode. I'm pretty sure it's actually an hallucination, not a dream. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- "When Veronica's pregnant neighbor Sarah goes missing," "goes missing"-->disappears. Done
- "goes missing" Same as above. Done
- "Paris Hilton guest stars." As who? Done
- "Aaron
tries togrieves after Lynn's suicide, but Logan thinks that he is faking." Done- Disagree with this one. Aaron turns out to be a psychopath, and the insincerity of his grief is actually a plot point. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- "Aaron
- "Veronica also has to contend with a classmate who is getting mysteriously harassed." "getting"-->being. Done
- "Logan tries to save Veronica, and they end up kissing." Is he successful? Done--I think. tries->intervenes should clarify that sufficiently, I think. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- "as it was the same drug used on her prior to her rape at Shelly Pomroy's party." "prior to"-->before. Done
- "surviver"-->survivor. Done
- "When blame for the bus crash lands on the driver,"-->When the bus driver is blamed for the crash.. Done
- "He asks Keith to run for Sheriff, and he accepts after seeing Sheriff Lamb's investigation of the bus crash case. Kevin Smith guest stars. " Who accepts? Who does Smith guest star as? Done
- "but finds no skeletons in his closet" Don't use unclear idioms, be more straightforward. Done
- "Veronica learns that Terrence Cook, Jackie's father, has a lot of gambling debt, and is being blackmailed by Sheriff Lamb. Veronica finds a voice mail message left by someone on the bus crash which suggests an explosion caused the bus crash. Veronica shows it to Keith, who does not go public with the message, and instead gives it to Sheriff Lamb." Use something other than "Veronica" to start one of the sentences, mix up the sentence starts. Done rewrore most of the paragraph.
- "Joss Whedon guest stars." As who? Done
- "He tells Keith of his plan of incorporating the wealthy part of Neptune, which would widen the divide between the rich and the poor."-->He tells Keith of his plan to incorporate the wealthy part of Neptune, which would widen the gap between the rich and the poor. Done
I will finish the comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your excellent feedback. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- "She also learns that the bridge witness, Dr. Griffith"—"She also learns"-->"Veronica learns". Done
- "a case involving two "09er" boys versus a poor Hispanic woman"—"versus"-->against. Done
- "Logan flirts with sophomore Hannah, the daughter"-->Logan flirts with Hannah, the sophomore daughter... Done
- "Feeling guilty for not helping her, Veronica sets herself to catching the rapist." The wording is not correct here. Done--reworded
- "no one was going to believe them as a suspect." "as"-->to be. Done
- "the party is robbed Point Break-style" Can we have a term that is more understandable to all readers? Done
- "and no hair or DNA from the rapist has ever been found at the crime scenes" "has"-->had. Done
- "Mercer is arrested after Parker recognizes his cologne as that of the rapist"-->Mercer is arrested after Parker recognizes his cologne to be the rapist's... Done
- "Patty Hearst guest stars. " As who? Done
- "
In orderto salvage their friendship, Logan dumps Veronica as a girlfriend" Done - "but Logan gets stuck babysitting an eleven year old girl"-->but Logan has to babysit an eleven year old girl instead. Done
- "DC Comics to talk about a Veronica Mars comic book series"-->DC Comics to discuss the a proposed Veronica Mars comic book series. Done
Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks again for the detailed feedback. Do you have additional ideas for the two suggestions I disagreed with? Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Side-issue (not really) can you merge&redirect all the episodes to this list? The episodes, asides from the premieres and finales are completely not noticeable and should be only limited to this list. Nergaal (talk) 10:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am currently working on the individual episodes, so they will be kept for now. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 07:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from SatyrTN
- The only concern I have is that the final paragraphs probably belong in the main article, but not in the *list*. Other than that, the list looks good.
- Support this nomination. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support but please add a hatnote-link for season 3 to this LoE. I am neutral on the inclusion of the the section "Cancellation and future". When/If all seasons get articles though, it can/should be reconsidered if each season intro in this LoE really needs to be this long (I am fine with this now as this LoE also serves as a season overview beyond its LoE purpose). – sgeureka t•c 08:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Understood. Ideally, we will be breaking out all three seasons and make corresponding changes to this list when those articles go live, too. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Red Hat
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of mergers and acquisitions by Dell
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 22:28, 11 November 2008 [40].
previous FLC (03:15, 20 October 2008)
Is it ready? Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - this strikes me more as an article than a list. Have you considered taking it to FAC? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think the FA people would welcome such a huge table; anyways, the previous 3 seasons are FLs. Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
The bolding in the lead is not necessary.
- is it discouraged though? Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- If what is bolded is not the exact repetition of the page title, yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- ok
- If what is bolded is not the exact repetition of the page title, yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- is it discouraged though? Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"refused to cross the picket line." This is in the lead, be more clear.
- now?
- I was referring to defining what crossing the picket line means. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- now?
- I was referring to defining what crossing the picket line means. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- now?
"The DVD set contains all 14 episodes, as well as commentaries from creators, writers, actors, and directors on some of the episodes, while also containing deleted scenes from all of the episodes, as well as bloopers and other promos." Split this sentence up."the two of whom are executive producers on both versions." "two of whom"-->both of whom. What are "both versions"?"Season four featured fourteen episodes" Is there any way to fix this distracting alliteration?"directed by eleven different directors.""While The Office was mainly filmed on a studio set at Valley Center Studios..." "While"-->Although.The last paragraph of the Production section does not flow well.
- I bet it is an OR added by a random user - so I chopped it off. Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"pop culture obsessed" hyphenate "pop-culture""The fourth season premiere "Fun Run" received a 5.1/12" Is this referring to the share?"While the episode "Job Fair" received the lowest number of viewers for the season, at 7.2 million,[31] it and the episode following it, the season finale "Goodbye Toby" both" Comma after "Toby".
I will review the episode summaries later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Except for the ones where I replied, all the comments should be solved now. Nergaal (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
"Now broken up from Karen" Who broke up with Karen?"Jim and Pam announce they are dating" Insert that before "they"."The race is won by Toby"-->Toby wins the race..."As the new brainchild of Ryan, the new Dunder Mifflin Infinity website is about to be released, the staff of Dunder Mifflin Scranton prepare to host a party as part of a company-wide video chat room." Split this sentence up."Later, at the party, Dwight and Michael take a hostage in the form of a pizza delivery boy, although they later release him."-->Later, at the party, Dwight and Michael kidnap a pizza delivery boy, although they later release him."revealing that he only said he had leave to try to get a raise." Are you sure this is right?"Michael and Dwight decide to surprise Ryan in New York for a night of clubbing and meet his friends." You can't surprise someone "for" a night of clubbing.Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- updated all of these, how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support, great list, Jaespinoza (talk) Today, 12:46 am (UTC-4)
Resolved issues, Mitch32(UP)
- Comments -
- Shouldn't "season" be capitalized in the title?
- I don't thinks so but I might be wrong. All the other season lists I've seen are uncapitalized. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible to get references in for each episode?
- That should not be necessary since (1) the plots don't require refs, and (2) all the episodes articles in this list are allready GAs, which means they are already adequately referenced, and those refs are found in their respective articles. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is it possible to bold "fourth season" in the lead?
- One of the previous reviewers specifically asked to remove the bloding. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is Reference 5 a reliable source? I don't believe, personally that it is.
- Nice spotting there! I switched it with the official site. Nergaal (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- De-bold the episode names in the chart - Bold blue links violate MOS and policy I think.
- I don't think this should be an issue since the table uses the same template as any other FL about seasons; this means that all the other similar FLs out there have the same issue. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then I support - good job.Mitch32(UP) 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from SatyrTN
- This looks like a mashup of a list and an article. The paragraphs of text are longer than the actual list itself. Are the first three sections (Production, Cast, and Reception) specific to the season? I believe those sections are overwhelming the actual Episode List. Season 3 has half as much lede text as list, Season 2 and Season 1 seem to suffer the same as this one. I recognize that all three of those reached FL status, but IMO that's a shame :)
- Let's see "The fourth season premiere "Fun Run" received a 5.1/12 share in the Nielsen Ratings among viewers aged 18 to 49..." Your are right it refers to a completely different subject. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The two columns "Directors" and "Writer(s)" - please pick one format or the other.
- That was typo. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The "Notes" section is missing, denoting what "‡" and "†" mean.
- This shows how much attention you actually paid while reading the article. Go check it again and maybe you will find it this time. Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I know I'll be a lone wolf here, but even though this is well written and comprehensive, and even though the list itself is in great shape, I can't support what seems to me to be more of an article than a list.
- Do you seriously believe that anybody at the FAC will accept the table as a part of an FA?? Nergaal (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I am actually confused. I don't really understand the opinion of the above oppose. The user states that the list is more of an article, but how about these FL's: Lost (season 4), 30 Rock (season 2) and The O.C. (season 3)? They too have information other than the list. I am also working on a season list which is very similar to this one, and I would
hatereally dislike it if someone opposed it for having to much information. After all, isn't that a good thing? Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)- And I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude or harsh, it's just that I'm confused. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- As Cornucopia pointed out, this page matches the typical list format of the season pages. There is only one season article to my knowledge that is FA (Smallville (season 1)), and if you compare that page to this page you get a stark difference in format and information. This page, which includes something that I generally don't agree with or think is necesssary, takes things that could easily be presented in list format and puts them in sentences. In other words, when you read stuff like "Production", what you really find is a list of the people and studios involved in making the show (mainly that first paragraph). One thing I mentioned to Cornucopia on their talk page is the reusing of information from page to page. Why do we need to introduce the same series regulars with such detail on every Office related page? This is a daughter article of a larger parent article, and the parent article should be identifying characters. Anyone coming to season four's page is likely to know who the characters are. Unless the characters are new this season, the section is really unnecessary and seems to be used to bloat the page's size. Lastly, why are the episodes the last thing on the page? The page is about these episodes, so it would beg the idea that they should be first. I don't know why there was a restructing of season pages to have the episodes listed last, but it seems counterproductive to the concept of what the page is about (and that is the episodes of this season). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Bignole here, although I'm struggling to see what the thing is that he finds unnecessary. This is a list. The "prose" could easily be presented in list format, it just isn't. As for putting the actual list of episodes first, I haven't seen that in any FL, only in the Smallville FA. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- What I find to be unnecessary is the repetative issuing of information in each of the pages (and sometimes within the page itself). Do I need to know there were 11 different directors that worked this season (even listing them out), when all I have to do is scroll down and count for myself? It seems like we're treating the reader like an invalid that cannot discern particular information for themselves. Does the reader need a reminder of who the same series regulars have been for four seasons? Stating who is a series regular can be done in the lead. The detail about who they are is covered in multiple pages that act as a parent to this one. Why are we repeating information from the main article about where the show is filmed? So much information is being repeated over and over again on each page, it's unnecessary. Unless there is something special about this season, there is no need to repeat yourself. The first two paragraphs of "Production" are repititious to the primary article, and that is what I'm calling "unnecessary". The Writers' Strike stuff is good, and should be kept most definitely. It's the stuff before that that is needless. If someone is reading each of the season pages, why would they want read the same stuff over and over again each time they move on to the next page.
- As for the format of the page. As I said, I don't know why editors started putting the episode table at the bottom, it makes no sense when the page is supposed to be about the episodes of this season. Once it started it seemed to become an epidemic because more editors wanted to get season articles created and to FL so they just followed suit with what the first one did. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- One of the main issues with this would be an ever-divided opinion on what is "Comprehensive", as loosely defined by the FL criteria. Because of the many FLs that include wide sections of prose on cast and production, many would believe that removing these would prevent the article from being Comprehensive. I must say that I follow this opinion also. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is comprehensive for the season that you are trying to attain, not comprehensive for the entire show. Comprehensive means "covers all major aspects", but that isn't the same as "repeats the same information on 5 pages". It's fluff, that's what it is. Why people feel the need to add "fluff" to pages is beyond me. What is relevant and comprehensive to season four of this topic is the reception of the topic, what the topic is about, and if there were any changes during this season. Restating the same tired information over and over again has nothing to do with comprehensiveness of season four of this show. You're attributing generalized information about the show to this specific season, and you shouldn't be doing that. Articles should be comprehensive but succinct. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm quite sure most do not treat the season pages as articles of a series. I feel that it's to the ease of the reader to keep each of the sections in, and then let the reader select what they wish to or don't wish to read. I understand completely what you mean, and I too feel that it can be a bit repetitive, but It's not as if the reader is "forced" to read any part. Mastrchf (t/c) 22:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is comprehensive for the season that you are trying to attain, not comprehensive for the entire show. Comprehensive means "covers all major aspects", but that isn't the same as "repeats the same information on 5 pages". It's fluff, that's what it is. Why people feel the need to add "fluff" to pages is beyond me. What is relevant and comprehensive to season four of this topic is the reception of the topic, what the topic is about, and if there were any changes during this season. Restating the same tired information over and over again has nothing to do with comprehensiveness of season four of this show. You're attributing generalized information about the show to this specific season, and you shouldn't be doing that. Articles should be comprehensive but succinct. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- One of the main issues with this would be an ever-divided opinion on what is "Comprehensive", as loosely defined by the FL criteria. Because of the many FLs that include wide sections of prose on cast and production, many would believe that removing these would prevent the article from being Comprehensive. I must say that I follow this opinion also. Mastrchf (t/c) 13:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with Bignole here, although I'm struggling to see what the thing is that he finds unnecessary. This is a list. The "prose" could easily be presented in list format, it just isn't. As for putting the actual list of episodes first, I haven't seen that in any FL, only in the Smallville FA. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- As Cornucopia pointed out, this page matches the typical list format of the season pages. There is only one season article to my knowledge that is FA (Smallville (season 1)), and if you compare that page to this page you get a stark difference in format and information. This page, which includes something that I generally don't agree with or think is necesssary, takes things that could easily be presented in list format and puts them in sentences. In other words, when you read stuff like "Production", what you really find is a list of the people and studios involved in making the show (mainly that first paragraph). One thing I mentioned to Cornucopia on their talk page is the reusing of information from page to page. Why do we need to introduce the same series regulars with such detail on every Office related page? This is a daughter article of a larger parent article, and the parent article should be identifying characters. Anyone coming to season four's page is likely to know who the characters are. Unless the characters are new this season, the section is really unnecessary and seems to be used to bloat the page's size. Lastly, why are the episodes the last thing on the page? The page is about these episodes, so it would beg the idea that they should be first. I don't know why there was a restructing of season pages to have the episodes listed last, but it seems counterproductive to the concept of what the page is about (and that is the episodes of this season). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude or harsh, it's just that I'm confused. :-) Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 00:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Question: of all 4 of you guys commenting here, mind voting pro or against the present state of the list? Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Opinion has not been decided. FLs, just like FAs, are discussions and not votes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but this is the 3rd nomination and while I believe all the comments have been solved, editors still stay away from voting...... Nergaal (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Opinion has not been decided. FLs, just like FAs, are discussions and not votes. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Thought I disagree with the structure and the repetition, I recognize that this is an issue with all of these similar pages, that should not hinder any single upcoming page that is modeling them. It's well sourced and written. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Walter A. Brown Trophy
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Bloc Party
- 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 User:Matthewedwards 22:08, 8 November 2008 [49].
I am nominating this list because I believe it fulfills the featured list status.—Chris! ct 23:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Review by SrX
- In mid-2003, extension to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae was completed, bringing BART further south into the San Mateo County. - how about In mid-2003, extensions to San Francisco International Airport and Millbrae were completed, which brung BART further south into the San Mateo County. Per tenses.
- Fixed, though I use brought instead of brung.—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- In additions, BART connects its Coliseum/Oakland Airport station to the Oakland International Airport with AirBART, a shuttle bus service. - addition not additions in this context.
- The majority of stations are located in the Alameda County with 19. - how about The majority of stations, 19, are located in the Alameda County.
- 10 stations are in the Contra Costa County while eight are in the City and County of San Francisco. - comma after Contra Costa County.
- Six stations are in the San Mateo County, though it is not part of the BART district. - elaboration about what "not part of the Bart district" means?
- The term "Bart district" is explained in the first paragraph—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- The footnotes don't work properly, when I click the [b] for the daily ridership, it doesn't redirect me to the footnote. Same thing for the [a].
- All ridership statistics are daily average exits on weekday from April 2008 to June 2008. - weekday should be plural.
- Why do you link weekday in note C versus doing it in note b?
--SRX 23:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- The system currently has a total of 43 stations: 15 surface, 13 elevated and 15 subway. - now as a reader who knows nothing about subways, what does elevated mean? Also a comma should be after elevated. Also, wouldn't it be "15 on surface" and "subways" not "subway"?
- Partially fixed. Though I don't think I can explain "elevated" more clearly. Any suggestions?—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well first of all, what does elevated mean? Plus, a comma is needed after elevated.--SRX 02:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- It means elevated metro station—Chris! ct 03:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added a link for elevated station. Hopefully that makes the term clearer to readers.—Chris! ct 06:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay that helps, but why pipelink to the glossary when you can pipe to elevated railway?--SRX 15:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Elevated railway redirect to rapid transit. I guess it could work if that page explains what "elevated" is.—Chris! ct 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay that helps, but why pipelink to the glossary when you can pipe to elevated railway?--SRX 15:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I added a link for elevated station. Hopefully that makes the term clearer to readers.—Chris! ct 06:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- It means elevated metro station—Chris! ct 03:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well first of all, what does elevated mean? Plus, a comma is needed after elevated.--SRX 02:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Partially fixed. Though I don't think I can explain "elevated" more clearly. Any suggestions?—Chris! ct 02:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - review addressed to meet WP:WIAFL, Good Work.--SRX 23:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Resolved issues by Goodraise (talk · contribs)
- The references lack publisher info.
- I just checked. Every ref has publisher info.—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Removed—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Image captions are unnecessarily wordy. "View of" and "The" are often not needed.
- View of station platform of the MacArthur station. Is not a complete sentence.
- Comments and thoughts:
- You might want to apply the background colors in the table to whole lines instead of only the first field.
- I don't know the difference between "Official transfer stations" and "Terminals". Should I have to click the links to find out, or could you explain it right there?
- The terms are clear to me so I am not sure how to make them more clear. Any suggestion?—Chris! ct 02:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- The image in the lead seems a bit too large.
- How about reshaping the "Citations" and "Bibliography" sections into looking like the "References" section of List of Bleach episodes (season 5)? You might also fit in the "Notes" to make it a "References and Notes" section.
- Why are the names of the Official transfer stations bolded in addition to the background color? This might be too much formating.
- -- Goodraise (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Issues brought up after support was declared:
- The lead sections Image needs a more descriptive caption, as the current one is useless without the actual image.
- The Wikimedia Commons template might waste less space if it were placed higher in the section.
- Both addressed —Chris! ct 05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support: MOS appears to be adhered to. Footnotes look good. Overall appearance is pleasing. Lead section goes into sufficient detail. Supporting materials are rich yet not overwhelming. Image captions are suitable
(with exception mentioned above). In my judgement, the nomination meetsFL criteria one through sixevery FL criteria. Therefore I'm now supporting this nomination. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Boissière
Another rail list - good work. Just a few Comments
- "...in California consisted of three counties..." - Do you mean "consisting"?
- Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- "fifth largest rapid transit systems" - should be singular.
- Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that the "Lines" column should be sortable as each cell can contain multiple entries. This seems to be the rule in other FLs.
- Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand the "Authority" bit in the City/Authority column. Presumably it is because of the airport station but I don't understand why it is different (i.e. why isn't the city containing the airport not put here?).
- The reason I didn't use the city is that the airport is within another county, not in San Francisco. But since it is generally considered San Francisco, I've change it to San Francisco.—Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that future stations (even if they are fairly certain) should be in the main list. One problem is that the West Dublin/Pleasanton station slightly screws up the Year opened and Ridership sorting - it always appears first. Either add it in when it opens or maybe have a small "Stations under construction" list after the main one. If you choose to leave it in in some form then, in the description, please replace the colloquial "slated" with "due".
- Fixed —Chris! ct 00:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
All my comments seem to have been addressed - Support Boissière (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:20, 4 November 2008 [53]. I am nominating this page as a featured list candidate because I believe it meets the standards for a Featured list. It was long overdue also :) All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
I will support once definite work is done to the article. Good luck.Mitch32(UP) 22:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 21:43, 1 November 2008 [55]. My second for the FL Contest. I will address any concerns left. iMatthew (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SrX
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang Comments from Chrishomingtang (talk · contribs)
More comments
—Chris! ct 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
day5was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "United States Academic Decathlon : International Academic Decathlon". United States Academic Decathlon. Retrieved 2008-10-22.
- ^ Foster, Catherine (1989-04-26). "Decathlon for Mental Gymnasts". Christian Science Monitor. p. 13 (Ideas).