The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [1]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is comprehensive enough. — Nicholas Michael Halim ( talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead.
!scope=rowgroupinstead of
!scope=row.
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [2]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because, after several months and years of work, I believe it has reached a level of quality where it can be nominated here. TeenAngels1234 ( talk) 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Closing, good luck at GAN! -- Pres N 13:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [3]. reply
My first FLC, though not the first list article I have worked extensively on. Having worked on the film article this awards list relates to (and, more specifically, having had a news alert for that), I know it is a comprehensive list of all accolades received which are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia list article. It has been in draft until yesterday because of a simmering but ongoing discussion over the color of certain awards results boxes - the main issue being over "pending" and, with the last pending awards for this film announced yesterday, that is no longer an issue. I hope that the perceived newness (it has been a public draft, and other editors have contributed if just by adding and updating the awards table on the film article, which this replaces) does not work against the FLC, but understand if it does. In keeping with featured lists of the same scope, the prose is all in the lead, with some notes throughout the sectioned tables. I believe this prose to be well-written and properly sourced, but welcome comments for improvement. Similarly, any comments to improve the sectioning, too, are welcome. The ref formatting is a style derived from harv refs which I began using a few years ago, and which has been warmly welcomed by others as a style particularly helpful to readers looking for refs, but I of course also welcome feedback on this (including if the sub-headers "News", "Web", etc. should indeed by sub-headers rather than bold text). Kingsif ( talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Great work with this list. I have heard a lot about this film, mostly from film critics who believe this movie should have received attention from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but I have not actually watched it. I get what the Vulture citation is saying about why it did not receive major nomination, but in my opinion, it more so boils down to that it was not picked up by a major distributor and did not get the awards campaign that other films did. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 ( talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead. You actually sort of have a caption with that header bar, so just change it to be a standard caption instead.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
! ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''
becomes !scope=row | ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''
. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead.
| rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]]becomes
!scope=row rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]]- note the change to use a ! instead of a | at the beginning, that's what makes it a "header" cell instead of a regular one. -- Pres N 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I am still getting used to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.
Those are my thoughts on the prose. Z1720 ( talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
about the film winning the award- (continued in next point, about the same part)
Please ping when ready. Z1720 ( talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The way you're doing sources is technically fine, but legitimately horrifying. It's twice as long for no reason, makes it impossible to go from a source to what it's citing (as opposed to the other way around), and requires you to misuse date fields like "(October 7, 2021b)" so that the sfn links work. Like I said, it's technically fine, though, so, actual issues:
legitimately horrifyingI mean, okay. Your reasons aren't really detrimental and a big benefit is that it's a more visual-fronted system that aids readers, but whatever.
For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.- so, no? I've never seen wins doubled up as a nom count, and this note clearly says to assume every win was previously nom, so suggests that not doubling up is how it should be done. Kingsif ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Indagate ( talk) 07:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Kingsif: This article has had outstanding comments/opposes for almost a month, and if there's no replies soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. -- Pres N 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Okay, since the nominator is unwilling to continue this nomination and there's an unaddressed oppose, I'm going to have to close it. Feel free to renominate it at some point if anything changes. -- Pres N 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC) [4]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because this page has failed a featured list candidate nomination before (in 2011). Since then, it has been substantially improved, now at the standard other lists for first-round draft picks of NFL teams (such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks). In addition, this page simplifies the code in other, already featured lists, by utilizing a key with position links and a central 'align="center"' function. Debartolo2917 ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year
becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year
.!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
| [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]]
becomes !scope=row | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]]
.|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead.
That's all I have on a quick blast. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) [5]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because after its peer review I think it may comply with all of the FL criteria without major edits and a timeline for the history of the crusader state in Palestine is useful for our readers. Thank your for your review. Borsoka ( talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If you're interested in a detailed review, I'll be happy to do it in whatever format you like (edits, list of comments, etc.) Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for starting your review. I would be grateful if you could continue it because your knowledge on the subject is immense and extraordinary. May I ask you to write your suggestion in a more structured way to facilitate me to comment them? (I edited your above suggestions.) Borsoka ( talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what you mean by more structured, but I'll try again on the Hospitaller issue. Here are the current entries:
Before 1071. Merchants from Amalfi establish the Benedictine Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey in Jerusalem. Years later, a hospital, dedicated to Saint John, is founded for male pilgrims as the abbey's dependency.
1099. c. July 15. The Saint John Hospital becomes independent of the Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey.
In my view, the establishment of the abbey is not a significant event, but at any rate the correct timeline is 1063 – before 1070 (according to Riley-Smith). The hospital is the significant event but no one knows precisely when it was established. Riley-Smith again says before 1071. Knights Hospitaller is not ever spelled out or linked. The independence of the two again is not significant. Note 1 to the second sentence is debatable and not necessary at this level. John the Almsgiver is not even discussed in the detailed Hospitaller article (nor does John the Almsgiver reference the Hospitallers). Here's how I would replace these, with a single entry:
Before 1071. The Hospital of Saint John founded as a dependency of Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey. This would later form the basis of the Knights Hospitaller.
The next mention of the Hospitaller is:
1113. Pope Paschal II confirms the autonomy of the monks of the Jerusalemite Saint John Hospital (or Hospitallers).
This is a awkward way of saying:
1113. 15 February. Paschall II issues the papal bull Pie postulatio voluntatis which recognized the Knights Hospitaller and confirmed its independence from lay authorities.
"Pope" doesn't need to be repeated since "Pope Paschall II" has already been used. I also would recommend adding the death of Urban II and election of Paschall II as significant events.
I haven't looked at every entry but the timeline seems generally correct and the issues I have are ones of presentation. For example, the Second Crusade is not mentioned in the timeline. Rather it is paraphrased as "new crusade." Baron's Crusade is also not mentioned rather paraphrased. There is one that I couldn't understand:
1100. February 2. Daimber receives the fourth of Jaffa from Godfrey.
I have no idea what this means.
If you think these suggestions are good, I'll continue. But I don't want to build a big list that's going to go nowhere.
Dr. Grampinator (
talk)
22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
I'm sorry, but the level of nitpicking going on has lessened my interest in reviewing this article. Other than a typo (which was just partially fixed), all of my suggested changes were rejected. Of the many statements above, the following stands out:
After that, I just gave up. Based on this criteria, what must we do with the following timeline entries, which would now be rendered false:
The view expressed on "Knights Hospitaller" is also curious and contrary to the literature. The three entries on the subject are incorrect and insufficient given their seminal role in the kingdom. Clearly any changes that I might propose will be met with an argument, many of which defy usual conventions.
I will be happy to offer some thoughts to anyone who might be reviewing the timeline, including its omissions and errors, but my proposing changes seems counter-productive at this point. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps we should accept the reliable sources' approach when presenting the development of the order from a nursing confraternity (established before 1070) to a military order (around 1135). Borsoka ( talk) 13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
By continuing this line of logic, the Fourth Crusade, Fifth Crusade, etc., must be similarly caveated. And the statement about the First Crusade can also be regarded as incorrect. And I stand by my statement that each of the three references to the "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect, the 1113 entry grievously so. By the way, the term "Saint John Hospital" only appears here, no where else on Wikipedia or otherwise. The discussion above is interesting, but not reflected in the timeline. The Hospitaller certainly had a military arm before 1121 and likely as early as 1099 as stated above. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
These are interesting quotes but particularly irrelevant to the discussion about the article since the Knights Hospitaller are not referenced there. As I have said several times, the three references to "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect and seem to be getting worse with each edit. Other areas of the timeline that are incomplete, incorrect or misrepresented are (1) kings and queens of Jerusalem; (2) relevant popes and papal bulls; (3) Crusades and their battles; and (4) Military orders. There is a lot of good work in the timeline but it needs a careful scrub. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
This is just a red herring. Nobody was talking about when the Knights Hospitaller were militarized. The standard convention is to refer to them as such after the First Crusade because their ranks did include knights. Even later, they included both knights and non-knights. Wikipedia recognizes it and redirects Order of St. John to Knights Hospitaller. Riley-Smith wrote a book on it: The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c.1070-1309. Enough. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Recent edits on the article do not improve it, so I withdraw this nomination. Borsoka ( talk) 02:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ FLC director and delegates: I am seeking the coordinators' assistance to withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka ( talk) 03:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC) [1]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is comprehensive enough. — Nicholas Michael Halim ( talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead.
!scope=rowgroupinstead of
!scope=row.
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC) [2]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because, after several months and years of work, I believe it has reached a level of quality where it can be nominated here. TeenAngels1234 ( talk) 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Closing, good luck at GAN! -- Pres N 13:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC) [3]. reply
My first FLC, though not the first list article I have worked extensively on. Having worked on the film article this awards list relates to (and, more specifically, having had a news alert for that), I know it is a comprehensive list of all accolades received which are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia list article. It has been in draft until yesterday because of a simmering but ongoing discussion over the color of certain awards results boxes - the main issue being over "pending" and, with the last pending awards for this film announced yesterday, that is no longer an issue. I hope that the perceived newness (it has been a public draft, and other editors have contributed if just by adding and updating the awards table on the film article, which this replaces) does not work against the FLC, but understand if it does. In keeping with featured lists of the same scope, the prose is all in the lead, with some notes throughout the sectioned tables. I believe this prose to be well-written and properly sourced, but welcome comments for improvement. Similarly, any comments to improve the sectioning, too, are welcome. The ref formatting is a style derived from harv refs which I began using a few years ago, and which has been warmly welcomed by others as a style particularly helpful to readers looking for refs, but I of course also welcome feedback on this (including if the sub-headers "News", "Web", etc. should indeed by sub-headers rather than bold text). Kingsif ( talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Great work with this list. I have heard a lot about this film, mostly from film critics who believe this movie should have received attention from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but I have not actually watched it. I get what the Vulture citation is saying about why it did not receive major nomination, but in my opinion, it more so boils down to that it was not picked up by a major distributor and did not get the awards campaign that other films did. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 ( talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead. You actually sort of have a caption with that header bar, so just change it to be a standard caption instead.
!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
! ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''
becomes !scope=row | ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''
. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroupinstead.
| rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]]becomes
!scope=row rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]]- note the change to use a ! instead of a | at the beginning, that's what makes it a "header" cell instead of a regular one. -- Pres N 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I am still getting used to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.
Those are my thoughts on the prose. Z1720 ( talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC) reply
about the film winning the award- (continued in next point, about the same part)
Please ping when ready. Z1720 ( talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The way you're doing sources is technically fine, but legitimately horrifying. It's twice as long for no reason, makes it impossible to go from a source to what it's citing (as opposed to the other way around), and requires you to misuse date fields like "(October 7, 2021b)" so that the sfn links work. Like I said, it's technically fine, though, so, actual issues:
legitimately horrifyingI mean, okay. Your reasons aren't really detrimental and a big benefit is that it's a more visual-fronted system that aids readers, but whatever.
For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.- so, no? I've never seen wins doubled up as a nom count, and this note clearly says to assume every win was previously nom, so suggests that not doubling up is how it should be done. Kingsif ( talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Indagate ( talk) 07:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Kingsif: This article has had outstanding comments/opposes for almost a month, and if there's no replies soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. -- Pres N 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Okay, since the nominator is unwilling to continue this nomination and there's an unaddressed oppose, I'm going to have to close it. Feel free to renominate it at some point if anything changes. -- Pres N 19:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 00:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC) [4]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because this page has failed a featured list candidate nomination before (in 2011). Since then, it has been substantially improved, now at the standard other lists for first-round draft picks of NFL teams (such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks). In addition, this page simplifies the code in other, already featured lists, by utilizing a key with position links and a central 'align="center"' function. Debartolo2917 ( talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC) reply
!scope=colto each header cell, e.g.
! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year
becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year
.!scope=rowto each primary cell, e.g.
| [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]]
becomes !scope=row | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]]
.|+ caption_textas the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting
|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}instead.
That's all I have on a quick blast. The Rambling Man ( Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 12:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) [5]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because after its peer review I think it may comply with all of the FL criteria without major edits and a timeline for the history of the crusader state in Palestine is useful for our readers. Thank your for your review. Borsoka ( talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
If you're interested in a detailed review, I'll be happy to do it in whatever format you like (edits, list of comments, etc.) Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you for starting your review. I would be grateful if you could continue it because your knowledge on the subject is immense and extraordinary. May I ask you to write your suggestion in a more structured way to facilitate me to comment them? (I edited your above suggestions.) Borsoka ( talk) 03:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure what you mean by more structured, but I'll try again on the Hospitaller issue. Here are the current entries:
Before 1071. Merchants from Amalfi establish the Benedictine Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey in Jerusalem. Years later, a hospital, dedicated to Saint John, is founded for male pilgrims as the abbey's dependency.
1099. c. July 15. The Saint John Hospital becomes independent of the Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey.
In my view, the establishment of the abbey is not a significant event, but at any rate the correct timeline is 1063 – before 1070 (according to Riley-Smith). The hospital is the significant event but no one knows precisely when it was established. Riley-Smith again says before 1071. Knights Hospitaller is not ever spelled out or linked. The independence of the two again is not significant. Note 1 to the second sentence is debatable and not necessary at this level. John the Almsgiver is not even discussed in the detailed Hospitaller article (nor does John the Almsgiver reference the Hospitallers). Here's how I would replace these, with a single entry:
Before 1071. The Hospital of Saint John founded as a dependency of Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey. This would later form the basis of the Knights Hospitaller.
The next mention of the Hospitaller is:
1113. Pope Paschal II confirms the autonomy of the monks of the Jerusalemite Saint John Hospital (or Hospitallers).
This is a awkward way of saying:
1113. 15 February. Paschall II issues the papal bull Pie postulatio voluntatis which recognized the Knights Hospitaller and confirmed its independence from lay authorities.
"Pope" doesn't need to be repeated since "Pope Paschall II" has already been used. I also would recommend adding the death of Urban II and election of Paschall II as significant events.
I haven't looked at every entry but the timeline seems generally correct and the issues I have are ones of presentation. For example, the Second Crusade is not mentioned in the timeline. Rather it is paraphrased as "new crusade." Baron's Crusade is also not mentioned rather paraphrased. There is one that I couldn't understand:
1100. February 2. Daimber receives the fourth of Jaffa from Godfrey.
I have no idea what this means.
If you think these suggestions are good, I'll continue. But I don't want to build a big list that's going to go nowhere.
Dr. Grampinator (
talk)
22:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
I'm sorry, but the level of nitpicking going on has lessened my interest in reviewing this article. Other than a typo (which was just partially fixed), all of my suggested changes were rejected. Of the many statements above, the following stands out:
After that, I just gave up. Based on this criteria, what must we do with the following timeline entries, which would now be rendered false:
The view expressed on "Knights Hospitaller" is also curious and contrary to the literature. The three entries on the subject are incorrect and insufficient given their seminal role in the kingdom. Clearly any changes that I might propose will be met with an argument, many of which defy usual conventions.
I will be happy to offer some thoughts to anyone who might be reviewing the timeline, including its omissions and errors, but my proposing changes seems counter-productive at this point. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Perhaps we should accept the reliable sources' approach when presenting the development of the order from a nursing confraternity (established before 1070) to a military order (around 1135). Borsoka ( talk) 13:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
By continuing this line of logic, the Fourth Crusade, Fifth Crusade, etc., must be similarly caveated. And the statement about the First Crusade can also be regarded as incorrect. And I stand by my statement that each of the three references to the "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect, the 1113 entry grievously so. By the way, the term "Saint John Hospital" only appears here, no where else on Wikipedia or otherwise. The discussion above is interesting, but not reflected in the timeline. The Hospitaller certainly had a military arm before 1121 and likely as early as 1099 as stated above. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC) reply
These are interesting quotes but particularly irrelevant to the discussion about the article since the Knights Hospitaller are not referenced there. As I have said several times, the three references to "Saint John Hospital" are incorrect and seem to be getting worse with each edit. Other areas of the timeline that are incomplete, incorrect or misrepresented are (1) kings and queens of Jerusalem; (2) relevant popes and papal bulls; (3) Crusades and their battles; and (4) Military orders. There is a lot of good work in the timeline but it needs a careful scrub. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply
This is just a red herring. Nobody was talking about when the Knights Hospitaller were militarized. The standard convention is to refer to them as such after the First Crusade because their ranks did include knights. Even later, they included both knights and non-knights. Wikipedia recognizes it and redirects Order of St. John to Knights Hospitaller. Riley-Smith wrote a book on it: The Knights Hospitaller in the Levant, c.1070-1309. Enough. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) reply
Recent edits on the article do not improve it, so I withdraw this nomination. Borsoka ( talk) 02:28, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply
@ FLC director and delegates: I am seeking the coordinators' assistance to withdraw my nomination. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka ( talk) 03:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC) reply