The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [1].
Another anime episode list. Don't worry, this one's a lot shorter than season 9. -- Goodraise ( talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Goodraise, in the future, I wouldn't have multiple nominations running, especially when the first still needs some fine-tuning. While the writing in this one is a little better, there are still problems, as evidenced by my copy-edit of the first episode. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Review from NocturneNoir ( talk · contribs)
NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) I've no time to copy-edit; there are plenty of prose issues:
These are just examples, please find someone to look through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose I share the views above about is needing a thorough copyedit.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Taking a random sample of two episode summaries:
Out of interest are you familiar with the One Piece? If you are, it would be worth getting someone who isn't to take a look. Then they can give you an idea of what parts are missing context or are unclear. I realise you have done copyediting yourself but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
That's all I can think of right now, but there may be more. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: I apologize for my slow/non-existent replies. This FLC has been open for quiet a while and I currently don't have the time I had at the time of nomination. -- Goodraise ( talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [2].
I should probably explain the purpose of this list. The upper nobility of medieval England can best be compared to modern-day government cabinet members, except that they were much more important, because in addition to administrative duties, they were also politicians, generals, patrons of art and religion, and normally the wealthiest people in the country. A list of the nobility at any given time will almost inevitably be a list of the most important people in the realm – with the exception of the royal family and a few churchmen and courtiers.
Unlike cabinets, however, they were not changed at set periods, but came and went individually with the accidents of birth, death and forfeiture. This makes it more difficult to present them in a systematic manner. Lists of succession, like the list of Earls of Warwick can give a good vertical view, but for a horizontal view we need to take snapshots. At first I started making lists for individual years ending in 0, like the list of the Peerage of England and Ireland in 1310, but this way certain individuals could fall through the cracks. Then I got the idea from User:Ugen64, who had created several lists based on decades, such as the List of peers 1200–1209.
I have limited the list to the titled nobility, which at this point is only the earls, because if I should also include barons the list would become too long and unmanageable (the baronage was not very well defined at the time). Hopefully I've found a good formula which can serve as a model for further lists. Lampman ( talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
"The following is a list of the titled nobility of England and Ireland in the years" FLs don't start like this. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging opening sentences. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment If all the decades are going to have similar numbers of entries (with lots of overlap), i think this is still too finely divided. How many entries would 1300-1350 (or 1337) have? I think such lists only needed to be separated due to length reasons or historical reasons. This doesn't seem to have either. A 100 year range would be more useful to a reader, imo (or 50 year if 100 is too long for readability). Yobmod ( talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [3].
I have worked significantly on this list, adding references to every listing, greatly expanding the monument descriptions, and writing a lead. I'm not great with prose, so specific comments would be helpful, including any additions or changes to the lead I have forgot, as well as anything needing a reference. The biggest problem will surely be the images, so simply give me the name of the monument and I will fix or replace the image. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) I don't have time to go through the entire article; please find someone to proofread it.
Comments Oppose from
Nev1 (
talk ·
contribs)
There may be more issues, but this is enough for me to oppose I'm afraid. It's a reluctant oppose though, as clearly a lot of effort has gone into compiling the information. I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit. I've made a couple of changes to the article myself, and Reywas92 might like to check them over to check that I haven't changed the meaning of any sentences. Nev1 ( talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Reywas92, I see you added a reference to each description pointing to the main federal page for that monument. I'm not sure in all cases though that that page is actually a reference for all the points made in the lede. I worked on many of these articles back in September as well as reformating into the table with descriptions, dates, etc. I'm not sure I always used only the single reference to write the lede. Wherever possible, I used multiple references to build the articles. dm ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
NOTE: FLC comments corrected after this page was archived have been noted on this pages talk page.--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [4].
And another contribution from WP:Poker.---
I'm Spartacus!
PoppaBalloon
08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs) - prose, table, and references problems.
Quick comment- The word "results" in the article name should be lower case. I don't know if moving it during this process will break anything so I won't. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [5].
Seems to be complete, and obviously comprehensive. I reckon it meets all of the FL criteria. GARDEN 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Truco: Thanks for the feedback, but note that I was NOT using this as PR. I fully feel this list is ready, and do not agree with a number of your fixes. Sorry, but that opening comment really irritates me - I don't need patronised, thanks. GARDEN 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
|
I definitely agree with a lot of Truco's points above. These lists should be in perfect shape, and this article isn't there yet.
title
fields.
There are similar issues throughout the prose, which I haven't gone through completely. Gary King ( talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak support, all issues resolved. Will fully support when the final source issue is resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Oppose for now from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs) I don't want to get involved with the above situation (now moved to talk), but please don't take Truco's points personally. He is an experienced content writer and reviewer—especially with FLs—and is right when he says that these articles should be pretty close before FLC. That is all I will say. Now, for the comments:
Sources
|
Sources
Oppose Overall looks pretty good, but there's a few issues that I'd like to see addressed:
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
|
Comments
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from JD554 ( talk · contribs)
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [6].
I will fix all of these issues, and post this FLC again as soon as FLC has a better backlog. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
If you feel you too have worked on this article, please feel free to add yourself to the Nominators section.
I cleaned this up, mostly today, actually. Do you feel that this meets the FL Criteria? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NocturneNoir
|
---|
Review from NocturneNoir ( talk · contribs)
{| class = "wikitable" width = "98%" |- ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF" width="3%"| # ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF"| Title ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF" width="15%"| Original release
NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply |
Support. Finally completely cleaned up. Fixed the widths myself (TAKE THAT, SCORPION!). Good work! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
|
Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The nominator has withdrawn this candidate. [7] Please leave {{ FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [8].
I'll fix these errors, but I am going to withdraw this now until my other two are further down the list, to give you guys some additional breathing room. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
What would you do if 23 nuclear bombs went off in the United States?
Does this meet the Featured List criteria? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You have three FLCs going on, all of which have been nominated in the past two or three days. Please let up a bit. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
The nominator has withdrawn this candidate. [9] Please leave {{ FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [10].
Originally posted on top of the former FLC page
here. I have archived that one and started a new one here. Someone may need to add the things that the preload normally does.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk)
13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick-fail/Strongest Oppose. This isn't as bad as the others (as it is a Former Featured List), but still has many problems. The lack of references is very worrying. Epguide is not a reliable source, and none of the directors/writers are cited. We do not start lists like "The following is an episode list for" anymore. The whole lead is effectively uncited, with the exception of the "Kids' WB" channel is aired on. That source doesn't appear reliable either. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick fail for the reason that the same issues plague your other FLCs. Insufficient summaries, no refs for the episodes and airdates, and I am not sure what makes any of those sources reliable. I would advise to withdraw some or all of your FLCs and submit them to peer review one at a time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No problem. Hope to see you back soon! Don't remove the {{ FLC}} template from the talk pages. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 15:58, 19 February 2009 [11].
These are the previous FLC's of this when the article was under difrent names. 1st FLC, 2nd FLC and 3rd FLC -- 129.25.31.103 ( talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it qualifies and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing up the page. Thanks in advance.
The
Scare
crow
.
.
.
08:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick fail. This still has old tags for cleanup that have been there since April 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail Sorry, but if articles have cleanup banners, those issues should be taken care of before FLC. One- and two-sentence episode summaries do not suffice. The tone is not always encyclopedic, and there is a section full of original research. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Closing note. This candidate was withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{ FLC}} template on the articles talk page until it is archived automatically. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet shte criteria and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing the page as it looked very messy before I begun editing it. Thanks.
The
Scare
crow
.
.
.
08:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick fail. This still has request for expansion tag from November 2008 and cites no references at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick fail No references, insufficient episode summaries, the lead isn't large enough and there is an expansion tag. I will also that it is bad form to nominate two FLCs in quick succession, please consider giving at least a day in between. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This nomination has been withdrawn; don't remove the {{ FLC}} template from the talk page. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [13].
This list is well structured, illustrated and includes references to all entries. I believe it deserves to be featured. Silin2005 ( talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail
You have not made a single
contribution to this list and are therefore not a significant contributor. You do not appear to have consulted any of the significant contributors either. Aditionally this list has quite a few flaws. All references are missing publishers, the lead seems too short. For the image of the seal you uploaded, did you make the seal? If not then surely you are not the author and cannot release it into the public domain. This also needs an image review for bad/incomplete licenses (e.g.
File:Skovoroda.jpg).
Rambo's Revenge
(talk)
17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [14].
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all of the qualifications and I have made improvements to the article based on a recent peer review session. I believe I corrected all concerns raised during PR, except that I left the 13 chart columns on the album discography (I do not think it is excessive, and according to MOS:DISCOG approximately 10 charts are suggested; 13 is close to 10).
Also, it was suggested that the Operas section be deleted, though I would like to get additional feedback regarding that request. I realize this is a Discography, and the opera has not yet been recorded and distributed as an album. However, this is a major work and I still wonder if it is worth listing. At the same time, I am more than willing to remove the section if consensus reveals it should be eliminated from the list. Perhaps a list of composition could be created, since Wainwright has composed other pieces as well? If there is a "List of compositions" template or example I could follow, I'd be interested.
Sorry so long. Anyways, I think that apart from the aforementioned concern, this is an informational, highly-referenced list that I would love to see join the other FL discographies. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance. - Another Believer ( talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
I have another question. This is a compilation album compiled of songs CHOSEN by Wainwright. He does not perform on the album. It is a collection of songs he likes, plus two of his songs performed by a string quartet ("Hometown Waltz" and "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk"). Does this belong anywhere on the list? - Another Believer ( talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Very thorough, but I do have a few complaints that I hope you can address.
I have some other more minor style-based complaints, but those are my two main ones. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, so I'll save those for if and when the other two are addressed. Drewcifer ( talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [15].
I'm nominating this because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It's comprehensive and cited with reliable sources. Pyrrhus 16 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't it be: "List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson"? Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments: Frcm1988 ( talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
-- TRU CO 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) There are some basic errors that result from not having an outside editor looking through it with a detailed eye. Luckily, the problems aren't large; a twenty-minute proofread by someone new to the article should suffice. A larger problem is that lack of description for awards. Examples:
Those were only examples; please find somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Comments
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Has there been any progress? I still have not heard a reason for why many awards have no descriptions. Language concerns still – "Bravo is the largest teen magazine within the German-language sphere." Why such a jargony and vague word like "sphere"? "Its membership comprises hundreds of music companies including" Comma after "companies". "a weekly publication devoted to the music and coin-operated machine industries which was published from July " "which"-->that. "Jackson was awarded with a humanitarian award, from the Crenshaw Community Youth & Arts Foundation, in 1994.[14]" Repetition of "award" and the comma is not necessary. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [16].
previous FLC (23:14, 20 January 2009) Rambo's Revenge notified
I have addressed all the issues that caused the list to fail last time including copyediting and finding sources that were requested. じん ない 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
This list had definately improved from last time, however I still have some issues with it and so will not support just yet.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Right, it might be easier for you (and FL directors) if I summarise my thoughts on the above. Currently I'm going to have to oppose again. You have done some good work, and been prompt in addressing many of my concerns, however I still have one major objections which is:
Sorry, but if this is not resolved I cannot support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [17].
I am nominating this list because i believe it meets all FL criteria and also the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG. Myself and two other editors have been working on the list, so i felt there was no need for a peer review. Thanks. k-i-a-c ( hitmeup - the past) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
|
Oppose very good work overall, but there's a few issues that keep me from supporting. The first comment is the main one, while the others are just less-important minor stuff I noticed in no particular order.
Oppose from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs) Contrary to what you said, the article would have benefited from a peer review. Problems with prose and sourcing:
Sources
Should promotional music videos be included in the list? Also, how would i go about verifying the likes of Undercover as reliable?
k-i-a-c (
hitmeup -
the past)
06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose, fail with the criteria numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, in
WP:FL?
Canniba
loki
02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Looks like this is going to need another complete revision since Cannibaloki thought it necessary to chop and change the entire lead. I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process. Every reviewer has different opinions, there's no clarity, you guys have your own opinions (which is alright), just that something that could be completely ambiguous to one person - another comes along and it's suddenly a massive problem. There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. k-i-a-c ( hitmeup - the past) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment My earlier issues have been addressed, but in light of the recent major revisions and the oppose from Drewcifer, I will not support yet. Has someone contacted Drewcifer? I will try to copy-edit the lead some in the next two days. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments I am very sorry to hear that you are disillusioned with the FLC process. Nevertheless, the fact that you have treated FLC like some sort of Peer review may have something to do with it. So you can't be bothered to post it there; [19] what if we couldn't be bothered to review it? It shows a lack of respect for the people who spend their time here. The fact that this has had so many comments, some of which you feel are conflicting (I don't see too many conflicting comments), shows to me at least that it wasn't FL ready when it was nominated. Now you seem to be complaining that people have actually taken the time to give it an extensive review, but you don't like that because it's still too much bother. [20]
With regards to that second quote, all articles should be verified through reliable sources. That is especially true for Featured content. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb is questioning the reliability of the sources to make sure they meet this policy. The onus is on the nominator to make sure or prove that they do, and correct them if they do not -- not the reviewer.
We are aware that some lists do not meet current standards. Last summer the WP:Featured list criteria were updated, and not all the Featured lists have gone through WP:FLRC yet. Some of the discogs you have referenced were promoted before the criteria was updated. Aside from anything else, consensus (and standards) can change, so something that was deemed okay three months ago may not be okay today. For example, just because http://www.mvdbase.com "has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists", this may have been before WP:RS deemed it unreliable. I certainally haven't seen it used in recent Featured discogs.
As for other FLC ettiquette, per Template:FLC-instructions which is transcluded at WP:FLC (and WP:TPG), please do not strike out comments, even if you feel they have been addressed. You may say "done", "not done", etc instead. Leave it for the reviewer to strike, cap, or otherwise state that his concern has been addressed to his satisfaction.
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Check the toolbox, there is still one disambiguation link left. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [21].
I believe this list meets criteria and follow the same style as similar FLs. -- Gman124 talk 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) The writing in this article is better, but it is still not at FL quality yet. If I feel up to it, I might do some copy-editing myself. Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Those are most of the issues from the lead through the first episode summary. Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [22].
Despite there being a shedload of discography FLs, there is something of a dearth of ones pertaining to record labels. This, I hope, is sufficient to meet the bar. Seegoon ( talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose/Commentsfrom
Truco (
talk ·
contribs) - fails
FL Cr 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Looks pretty good. A few suggestions/comments, mostly based on Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography:
If you can take care of these, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer ( talk) 10:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [23].
Well written, and has pictures and citations. If you have concerns, please address them. And, I will fix them as soon as possible. Thanks. miranda 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held. Also, not to be a bother, but, your sig is over the signature limit. Could you please change the length? Thanks. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
No. :) miranda 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
←Someone has replied to the effect that WikiFur has no reliability and the direct citation should be used whenever possible. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Comment I probably won't get around to a full review today, but please check the article for MOS and prose glitches:
The dates should NOT be in ISO, but following this format. miranda 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments
{{
sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email)
On a more general note, The Lede is well written, but the convention descriptions need work. Are they supposed to be reviews, summaries, or what? Many of them are extremely flowery and read like advertisements.
I'm unhappy about the number of primary sources for the conventions, especially those WP:SPS hosted on sites such as Geocities, LiveJournal, etc. There are also a number of references that still point to WikiFur, which has been determined at WP:RS as an unreliable source. The list should establish notability for each and every convention by use of reliable sources as Dabomb87 described above. If they haven't been covered by reliable secondary parties, they're probably not notable enough for inclusion, just as they're not notable enough for an article (I presume, otherwise they would have articles). Further to that, notability isn't inherited, and so even those conventions with articles should use secondary sources in this list to establish notability, rather than expecting the reader to click on the link to see if that article does it. Right now the page looks like Wikipedia is providing notability for the conventions, and it shouldn't be that way. I understand that this may be difficult based on the subject, but Featured status is not something that is easily attained either.
Secondly, it appears as if the authors wish to provide a guide for furry fans or potentioal convention attendees. I come to this based on the flowery, advert-type descriptions and what the nominator said above, "The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held." Same as with our episode lists which are also subject to fan attention, the list should not pander to this audience, but provide encyclopedic information to any potential reader such as one who may click on Special:Random.
The specific concerns should be fairly easy to address, but my other concerns I think may be more problematic. I hope you're not too disappointed, but at the moment I don't think it's ready. Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
{{
sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}
" Perhaps the way to satisfy people is to just give the date of the last convention, not the date of the forthcoming one. Again, referencing TV shows, unaired episodes rarely get articles until very close to the airdate and FL episode/season lists do not list episodes until they have aired. Same with FL discogs -- unreleased albums and singles are disallowed, even if the release date is confirmed. A
wikt:convention, is a meeting or a gathering of people. If the people haven't gathered yet, the convention hasn't happened.I partly agree with USER:Matthewedwards. I expected a list at this title to be a list of notable and/or recurring conventions, but this seems more of a guide to this years & upcoming conventions. As it can be expected to double (at least) in size each year with the current format, I think that it would be best refocussed on notable/recurring conventions, and seperate lists made for 2008/2009 (although they may fail WP:NOTDIR). I suspect that this is also the reason there have been lots of comments, but not supports/opposes - the whole focus of the list seems wrong for a FL. I think that such a drastic overhall would be too much work, considering it is already in the "urgently needs revies" box. So i'm going to say oppose at this time, with no predudice agains a list of recurring/notable conventions in the future. Yobmod ( talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [24].
Meets the criteria and is up to par with other lists that follow the same topic (List of New York Jets first-round draft picks, List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, etc.) --Pbroks13 talk? 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
We don't start lists as "This is a list of ... " Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose/Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [25].
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Oppose Doesn't meet criterion 1 (professional standards of writing) of the FL criteria. Examples from the lead alone:
Resolved comments from Otto4711
|
---|
|
Strong Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have struck some comments, but still oppose as I still feel this list is below featurable quality.
I realise there was there are only 5 episodes but the whole thing (lead, reception section) just seem a bit short. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose I think an article that only lists 5 things is really not a FLC. It should be reviewed as a normal article. The criteria for FL are to address specific challenges in the wrting of encylopedic lists, that this article doesn't face. I know the "at least 10 items" is unoffical, but this article shows why it exists. Eg. We don't consider a 5 book series to need a list. Yobmod ( talk) 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [30].
All right, I think this one is ready. Let's see how it fares. All comments are welcome. (And yes, I am in the Wikicup, if that matters at all.) jj137 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Comment - I fixed the issues with games managed and the references (see above), but I think the list should reflect League Championships (e.g., 1970 and 1972) in addition to World Series Championships. Rlendog ( talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
-- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment This FLC seems to have stagnated; the nominator has not edited since January 27. Dabomb87 ( talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:27, 8 February 2009 [31].
I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. My goal is to bring it and its four sibling lists to FL status in the near future. Many thanks to
User:Ruhrfisch for his usual good job in peer reviewing the list.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN - clearly I am not going to be able to satisfy the nit-pickery without completely stripping out the images and I am unwilling to do so since in my view they are fully and completely and obviously well within even the ridiculously over-restrictive image use policy that is designed to discourage some editors who want to actually improve the project and empower others whose preference is to diminish it by playing image police. Every time I nominate something for featured status it's because I've forgotten the level of petty criticism that's attendant in the process and without fail I'm well reminded of it by the time the process is over. If anyone ever sees my sig on a featured nomination again, please call a psychiatrist because certainly it will mean that I've gone insane.
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Images I struck the support above because I just noticed that the article uses four non-free images. Please be more detailed in the fair use rationales than "for illustration and critical commentary". Judging by the consensus on a peer review for a similar article, there should not be so many. Dabomb87 ( talk) 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose—on images—true, pure numbers of non-free images is not a reason to oppose based on image criteria. But WP:NFCC has several bits that undermine your defense. First, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So for example, if you wanted to use File:Tcjones.jpg, File:Tc jones 1965.jpg would be better as it's a free image (you could argue the transvestite thing, but that's a different argument altogether. File:Gayplant.jpg is frankly a crappy image that does zero to increase my understanding of the topic, "significantly" per NFCC or otherwise. The other images are just actors, meaning that it's conceivable free shots would suffice to represent the same content; either way, images of them is not significant to reader understanding, and the FUR are weak. If you had historians talking about how pivotal the role was, and some element of their appearance, then you would have a more defensible case. In addition, there's a lack of citations throughout, leading to blatant original research. Who says " Turnabout Intruder" has LGBT themes? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Oppose - I have a real problem with the images. Not their rationales, but their placement in the article. They stretch the table horribly and make it look completely unprofessional. Can something be done with them - perhaps merge them into single composite image at the top of the article?
Skinny87 (
talk)
14:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Note This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{ FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [32].
Asides from minor cleanup, I believe this list is ready to be featured. Constructive comments are welcomed. Nergaal ( talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Comment Please fix the dabs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm in the process of replacing fansites and Last.fm refs, but else do you suggest in the intro? I picked that format to add notes on tour events, specially because not all tours have their pages. igordebraga ≠ 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I've improved the prose of the notes significantly. Please give specific suggestions for the introduction, because I have no idea what is missing right now. Nergaal ( talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Gary King ( talk) 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Done all but two - the original source for the Damage Inc. photo is a dead site, so I can't find the location (but expanded the captions a bit), and need to know what could be done in the lead. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I will review fully tomorrow, but what makes http://www.rockthebayou.com/Bio.aspx?id=27 a reliable source? Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
It's a festival website. If it's not written by the organizers, it's a press release from the band. Either way doesn't fail WP:RS. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick question: is this site reliable: http://www.ilikethat.com/metallica/ ? Nergaal ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [33].
An anime episode list. -- Goodraise ( talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak support from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Needs a copy-edit. Depending on whether I can take care of my other real-life and wiki obligations, I may return to look at the prose again.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:37, 4 February 2009 [34].
Please note that peer reviews should be closed before coming to FLC... I closed it for you this time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
(outdent) Yes. Do not remove the FLC template or withdraw this nomination yet. Let the FLC director take care of it. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
For article history purposes, it would be better to close this one, then start a new one for the List of wind farms in Romania. This one is closed. Mario1987, you can create a nom for the new list whenever you are ready. -- Scorpion 0422 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 15:14, 28 February 2009 [1].
Another anime episode list. Don't worry, this one's a lot shorter than season 9. -- Goodraise ( talk) 20:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Goodraise, in the future, I wouldn't have multiple nominations running, especially when the first still needs some fine-tuning. While the writing in this one is a little better, there are still problems, as evidenced by my copy-edit of the first episode. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Review from NocturneNoir ( talk · contribs)
NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) I've no time to copy-edit; there are plenty of prose issues:
These are just examples, please find someone to look through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose I share the views above about is needing a thorough copyedit.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Taking a random sample of two episode summaries:
Out of interest are you familiar with the One Piece? If you are, it would be worth getting someone who isn't to take a look. Then they can give you an idea of what parts are missing context or are unclear. I realise you have done copyediting yourself but sometimes a fresh pair of eyes is better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply
That's all I can think of right now, but there may be more. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 01:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Note: I apologize for my slow/non-existent replies. This FLC has been open for quiet a while and I currently don't have the time I had at the time of nomination. -- Goodraise ( talk) 00:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [2].
I should probably explain the purpose of this list. The upper nobility of medieval England can best be compared to modern-day government cabinet members, except that they were much more important, because in addition to administrative duties, they were also politicians, generals, patrons of art and religion, and normally the wealthiest people in the country. A list of the nobility at any given time will almost inevitably be a list of the most important people in the realm – with the exception of the royal family and a few churchmen and courtiers.
Unlike cabinets, however, they were not changed at set periods, but came and went individually with the accidents of birth, death and forfeiture. This makes it more difficult to present them in a systematic manner. Lists of succession, like the list of Earls of Warwick can give a good vertical view, but for a horizontal view we need to take snapshots. At first I started making lists for individual years ending in 0, like the list of the Peerage of England and Ireland in 1310, but this way certain individuals could fall through the cracks. Then I got the idea from User:Ugen64, who had created several lists based on decades, such as the List of peers 1200–1209.
I have limited the list to the titled nobility, which at this point is only the earls, because if I should also include barons the list would become too long and unmanageable (the baronage was not very well defined at the time). Hopefully I've found a good formula which can serve as a model for further lists. Lampman ( talk) 21:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
"The following is a list of the titled nobility of England and Ireland in the years" FLs don't start like this. See recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging opening sentences. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment If all the decades are going to have similar numbers of entries (with lots of overlap), i think this is still too finely divided. How many entries would 1300-1350 (or 1337) have? I think such lists only needed to be separated due to length reasons or historical reasons. This doesn't seem to have either. A 100 year range would be more useful to a reader, imo (or 50 year if 100 is too long for readability). Yobmod ( talk) 10:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [3].
I have worked significantly on this list, adding references to every listing, greatly expanding the monument descriptions, and writing a lead. I'm not great with prose, so specific comments would be helpful, including any additions or changes to the lead I have forgot, as well as anything needing a reference. The biggest problem will surely be the images, so simply give me the name of the monument and I will fix or replace the image. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 22:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) I don't have time to go through the entire article; please find someone to proofread it.
Comments Oppose from
Nev1 (
talk ·
contribs)
There may be more issues, but this is enough for me to oppose I'm afraid. It's a reluctant oppose though, as clearly a lot of effort has gone into compiling the information. I think the article would benefit from a thorough copy edit. I've made a couple of changes to the article myself, and Reywas92 might like to check them over to check that I haven't changed the meaning of any sentences. Nev1 ( talk) 21:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Reywas92, I see you added a reference to each description pointing to the main federal page for that monument. I'm not sure in all cases though that that page is actually a reference for all the points made in the lede. I worked on many of these articles back in September as well as reformating into the table with descriptions, dates, etc. I'm not sure I always used only the single reference to write the lede. Wherever possible, I used multiple references to build the articles. dm ( talk) 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply
NOTE: FLC comments corrected after this page was archived have been noted on this pages talk page.--- I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [4].
And another contribution from WP:Poker.---
I'm Spartacus!
PoppaBalloon
08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs) - prose, table, and references problems.
Quick comment- The word "results" in the article name should be lower case. I don't know if moving it during this process will break anything so I won't. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 01:00, 25 February 2009 [5].
Seems to be complete, and obviously comprehensive. I reckon it meets all of the FL criteria. GARDEN 20:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Truco: Thanks for the feedback, but note that I was NOT using this as PR. I fully feel this list is ready, and do not agree with a number of your fixes. Sorry, but that opening comment really irritates me - I don't need patronised, thanks. GARDEN 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
|
I definitely agree with a lot of Truco's points above. These lists should be in perfect shape, and this article isn't there yet.
title
fields.
There are similar issues throughout the prose, which I haven't gone through completely. Gary King ( talk) 23:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak support, all issues resolved. Will fully support when the final source issue is resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Oppose for now from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs) I don't want to get involved with the above situation (now moved to talk), but please don't take Truco's points personally. He is an experienced content writer and reviewer—especially with FLs—and is right when he says that these articles should be pretty close before FLC. That is all I will say. Now, for the comments:
Sources
|
Sources
Oppose Overall looks pretty good, but there's a few issues that I'd like to see addressed:
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
|
Comments
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from JD554 ( talk · contribs)
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [6].
I will fix all of these issues, and post this FLC again as soon as FLC has a better backlog. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
If you feel you too have worked on this article, please feel free to add yourself to the Nominators section.
I cleaned this up, mostly today, actually. Do you feel that this meets the FL Criteria? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NocturneNoir
|
---|
Review from NocturneNoir ( talk · contribs)
{| class = "wikitable" width = "98%" |- ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF" width="3%"| # ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF"| Title ! bgcolor="#CCCCFF" width="15%"| Original release
NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 02:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply |
Support. Finally completely cleaned up. Fixed the widths myself (TAKE THAT, SCORPION!). Good work! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 04:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
|
Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The nominator has withdrawn this candidate. [7] Please leave {{ FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 19:36, 20 February 2009 [8].
I'll fix these errors, but I am going to withdraw this now until my other two are further down the list, to give you guys some additional breathing room. NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
What would you do if 23 nuclear bombs went off in the United States?
Does this meet the Featured List criteria? NuclearWarfare ( Talk) 03:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
You have three FLCs going on, all of which have been nominated in the past two or three days. Please let up a bit. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
The nominator has withdrawn this candidate. [9] Please leave {{ FLC}} on the articles talk page until the bot processes it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [10].
Originally posted on top of the former FLC page
here. I have archived that one and started a new one here. Someone may need to add the things that the preload normally does.
Rambo's Revenge
(talk)
13:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick-fail/Strongest Oppose. This isn't as bad as the others (as it is a Former Featured List), but still has many problems. The lack of references is very worrying. Epguide is not a reliable source, and none of the directors/writers are cited. We do not start lists like "The following is an episode list for" anymore. The whole lead is effectively uncited, with the exception of the "Kids' WB" channel is aired on. That source doesn't appear reliable either. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick fail for the reason that the same issues plague your other FLCs. Insufficient summaries, no refs for the episodes and airdates, and I am not sure what makes any of those sources reliable. I would advise to withdraw some or all of your FLCs and submit them to peer review one at a time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No problem. Hope to see you back soon! Don't remove the {{ FLC}} template from the talk pages. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 15:58, 19 February 2009 [11].
These are the previous FLC's of this when the article was under difrent names. 1st FLC, 2nd FLC and 3rd FLC -- 129.25.31.103 ( talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it qualifies and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing up the page. Thanks in advance.
The
Scare
crow
.
.
.
08:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick fail. This still has old tags for cleanup that have been there since April 2008! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail Sorry, but if articles have cleanup banners, those issues should be taken care of before FLC. One- and two-sentence episode summaries do not suffice. The tone is not always encyclopedic, and there is a section full of original research. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Closing note. This candidate was withdrawn by the nominator. Please leave the {{ FLC}} template on the articles talk page until it is archived automatically. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 04:11, 19 February 2009 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meet shte criteria and I have put in a lot of effort in fixing the page as it looked very messy before I begun editing it. Thanks.
The
Scare
crow
.
.
.
08:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Quick fail. This still has request for expansion tag from November 2008 and cites no references at all. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick fail No references, insufficient episode summaries, the lead isn't large enough and there is an expansion tag. I will also that it is bad form to nominate two FLCs in quick succession, please consider giving at least a day in between. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This nomination has been withdrawn; don't remove the {{ FLC}} template from the talk page. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [13].
This list is well structured, illustrated and includes references to all entries. I believe it deserves to be featured. Silin2005 ( talk) 13:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick-fail
You have not made a single
contribution to this list and are therefore not a significant contributor. You do not appear to have consulted any of the significant contributors either. Aditionally this list has quite a few flaws. All references are missing publishers, the lead seems too short. For the image of the seal you uploaded, did you make the seal? If not then surely you are not the author and cannot release it into the public domain. This also needs an image review for bad/incomplete licenses (e.g.
File:Skovoroda.jpg).
Rambo's Revenge
(talk)
17:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [14].
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all of the qualifications and I have made improvements to the article based on a recent peer review session. I believe I corrected all concerns raised during PR, except that I left the 13 chart columns on the album discography (I do not think it is excessive, and according to MOS:DISCOG approximately 10 charts are suggested; 13 is close to 10).
Also, it was suggested that the Operas section be deleted, though I would like to get additional feedback regarding that request. I realize this is a Discography, and the opera has not yet been recorded and distributed as an album. However, this is a major work and I still wonder if it is worth listing. At the same time, I am more than willing to remove the section if consensus reveals it should be eliminated from the list. Perhaps a list of composition could be created, since Wainwright has composed other pieces as well? If there is a "List of compositions" template or example I could follow, I'd be interested.
Sorry so long. Anyways, I think that apart from the aforementioned concern, this is an informational, highly-referenced list that I would love to see join the other FL discographies. Thank you so much for your time, consideration, and assistance. - Another Believer ( talk) 20:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
I have another question. This is a compilation album compiled of songs CHOSEN by Wainwright. He does not perform on the album. It is a collection of songs he likes, plus two of his songs performed by a string quartet ("Hometown Waltz" and "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk"). Does this belong anywhere on the list? - Another Believer ( talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Very thorough, but I do have a few complaints that I hope you can address.
I have some other more minor style-based complaints, but those are my two main ones. I don't have time to do a full review at the moment, so I'll save those for if and when the other two are addressed. Drewcifer ( talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [15].
I'm nominating this because I believe it meets all FL criteria. It's comprehensive and cited with reliable sources. Pyrrhus 16 13:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Shouldn't it be: "List of awards and nominations received by Michael Jackson"? Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments: Frcm1988 ( talk) 18:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
-- TRU CO 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) There are some basic errors that result from not having an outside editor looking through it with a detailed eye. Luckily, the problems aren't large; a twenty-minute proofread by someone new to the article should suffice. A larger problem is that lack of description for awards. Examples:
Those were only examples; please find somebody to go through the whole text. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Comments
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Has there been any progress? I still have not heard a reason for why many awards have no descriptions. Language concerns still – "Bravo is the largest teen magazine within the German-language sphere." Why such a jargony and vague word like "sphere"? "Its membership comprises hundreds of music companies including" Comma after "companies". "a weekly publication devoted to the music and coin-operated machine industries which was published from July " "which"-->that. "Jackson was awarded with a humanitarian award, from the Crenshaw Community Youth & Arts Foundation, in 1994.[14]" Repetition of "award" and the comma is not necessary. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:45, 18 February 2009 [16].
previous FLC (23:14, 20 January 2009) Rambo's Revenge notified
I have addressed all the issues that caused the list to fail last time including copyediting and finding sources that were requested. じん ない 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
This list had definately improved from last time, however I still have some issues with it and so will not support just yet.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Right, it might be easier for you (and FL directors) if I summarise my thoughts on the above. Currently I'm going to have to oppose again. You have done some good work, and been prompt in addressing many of my concerns, however I still have one major objections which is:
Sorry, but if this is not resolved I cannot support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [17].
I am nominating this list because i believe it meets all FL criteria and also the guidelines of MOS:DISCOG. Myself and two other editors have been working on the list, so i felt there was no need for a peer review. Thanks. k-i-a-c ( hitmeup - the past) 08:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
|
Oppose very good work overall, but there's a few issues that keep me from supporting. The first comment is the main one, while the others are just less-important minor stuff I noticed in no particular order.
Oppose from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs) Contrary to what you said, the article would have benefited from a peer review. Problems with prose and sourcing:
Sources
Should promotional music videos be included in the list? Also, how would i go about verifying the likes of Undercover as reliable?
k-i-a-c (
hitmeup -
the past)
06:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose, fail with the criteria numbers 1, 2, 3 and 6, in
WP:FL?
Canniba
loki
02:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Looks like this is going to need another complete revision since Cannibaloki thought it necessary to chop and change the entire lead. I'm really not liking WP's promotion to FL process. Every reviewer has different opinions, there's no clarity, you guys have your own opinions (which is alright), just that something that could be completely ambiguous to one person - another comes along and it's suddenly a massive problem. There should be some kind of set standard because this is just not working for us here. k-i-a-c ( hitmeup - the past) 03:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment My earlier issues have been addressed, but in light of the recent major revisions and the oppose from Drewcifer, I will not support yet. Has someone contacted Drewcifer? I will try to copy-edit the lead some in the next two days. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments I am very sorry to hear that you are disillusioned with the FLC process. Nevertheless, the fact that you have treated FLC like some sort of Peer review may have something to do with it. So you can't be bothered to post it there; [19] what if we couldn't be bothered to review it? It shows a lack of respect for the people who spend their time here. The fact that this has had so many comments, some of which you feel are conflicting (I don't see too many conflicting comments), shows to me at least that it wasn't FL ready when it was nominated. Now you seem to be complaining that people have actually taken the time to give it an extensive review, but you don't like that because it's still too much bother. [20]
With regards to that second quote, all articles should be verified through reliable sources. That is especially true for Featured content. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb is questioning the reliability of the sources to make sure they meet this policy. The onus is on the nominator to make sure or prove that they do, and correct them if they do not -- not the reviewer.
We are aware that some lists do not meet current standards. Last summer the WP:Featured list criteria were updated, and not all the Featured lists have gone through WP:FLRC yet. Some of the discogs you have referenced were promoted before the criteria was updated. Aside from anything else, consensus (and standards) can change, so something that was deemed okay three months ago may not be okay today. For example, just because http://www.mvdbase.com "has been accepted in a dozen plus featured lists", this may have been before WP:RS deemed it unreliable. I certainally haven't seen it used in recent Featured discogs.
As for other FLC ettiquette, per Template:FLC-instructions which is transcluded at WP:FLC (and WP:TPG), please do not strike out comments, even if you feel they have been addressed. You may say "done", "not done", etc instead. Leave it for the reviewer to strike, cap, or otherwise state that his concern has been addressed to his satisfaction.
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 07:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Check the toolbox, there is still one disambiguation link left. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [21].
I believe this list meets criteria and follow the same style as similar FLs. -- Gman124 talk 02:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) The writing in this article is better, but it is still not at FL quality yet. If I feel up to it, I might do some copy-editing myself. Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Those are most of the issues from the lead through the first episode summary. Dabomb87 ( talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [22].
Despite there being a shedload of discography FLs, there is something of a dearth of ones pertaining to record labels. This, I hope, is sufficient to meet the bar. Seegoon ( talk) 12:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose/Commentsfrom
Truco (
talk ·
contribs) - fails
FL Cr 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Looks pretty good. A few suggestions/comments, mostly based on Dischord Records discography and Load Records discography:
If you can take care of these, I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer ( talk) 10:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 00:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 00:02, 15 February 2009 [23].
Well written, and has pictures and citations. If you have concerns, please address them. And, I will fix them as soon as possible. Thanks. miranda 02:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held. Also, not to be a bother, but, your sig is over the signature limit. Could you please change the length? Thanks. miranda 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
No. :) miranda 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
←Someone has replied to the effect that WikiFur has no reliability and the direct citation should be used whenever possible. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Comment I probably won't get around to a full review today, but please check the article for MOS and prose glitches:
The dates should NOT be in ISO, but following this format. miranda 18:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Comments
{{
sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}
Matthewedwards (
talk •
contribs •
email)
On a more general note, The Lede is well written, but the convention descriptions need work. Are they supposed to be reviews, summaries, or what? Many of them are extremely flowery and read like advertisements.
I'm unhappy about the number of primary sources for the conventions, especially those WP:SPS hosted on sites such as Geocities, LiveJournal, etc. There are also a number of references that still point to WikiFur, which has been determined at WP:RS as an unreliable source. The list should establish notability for each and every convention by use of reliable sources as Dabomb87 described above. If they haven't been covered by reliable secondary parties, they're probably not notable enough for inclusion, just as they're not notable enough for an article (I presume, otherwise they would have articles). Further to that, notability isn't inherited, and so even those conventions with articles should use secondary sources in this list to establish notability, rather than expecting the reader to click on the link to see if that article does it. Right now the page looks like Wikipedia is providing notability for the conventions, and it shouldn't be that way. I understand that this may be difficult based on the subject, but Featured status is not something that is easily attained either.
Secondly, it appears as if the authors wish to provide a guide for furry fans or potentioal convention attendees. I come to this based on the flowery, advert-type descriptions and what the nominator said above, "The date column is relevant to the conventions, to show the reader, or anyone who is interested in going to the conventions, when they would be held." Same as with our episode lists which are also subject to fan attention, the list should not pander to this audience, but provide encyclopedic information to any potential reader such as one who may click on Special:Random.
The specific concerns should be fairly easy to address, but my other concerns I think may be more problematic. I hope you're not too disappointed, but at the moment I don't think it's ready. Regards, Matthewedwards ( talk • contribs • email) 23:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) reply
{{
sort|2008-11-01|1 November 2008}}
" Perhaps the way to satisfy people is to just give the date of the last convention, not the date of the forthcoming one. Again, referencing TV shows, unaired episodes rarely get articles until very close to the airdate and FL episode/season lists do not list episodes until they have aired. Same with FL discogs -- unreleased albums and singles are disallowed, even if the release date is confirmed. A
wikt:convention, is a meeting or a gathering of people. If the people haven't gathered yet, the convention hasn't happened.I partly agree with USER:Matthewedwards. I expected a list at this title to be a list of notable and/or recurring conventions, but this seems more of a guide to this years & upcoming conventions. As it can be expected to double (at least) in size each year with the current format, I think that it would be best refocussed on notable/recurring conventions, and seperate lists made for 2008/2009 (although they may fail WP:NOTDIR). I suspect that this is also the reason there have been lots of comments, but not supports/opposes - the whole focus of the list seems wrong for a FL. I think that such a drastic overhall would be too much work, considering it is already in the "urgently needs revies" box. So i'm going to say oppose at this time, with no predudice agains a list of recurring/notable conventions in the future. Yobmod ( talk) 09:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [24].
Meets the criteria and is up to par with other lists that follow the same topic (List of New York Jets first-round draft picks, List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks, etc.) --Pbroks13 talk? 00:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
We don't start lists as "This is a list of ... " Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose/Comments from Truco ( talk · contribs)
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [25].
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Oppose Doesn't meet criterion 1 (professional standards of writing) of the FL criteria. Examples from the lead alone:
Resolved comments from Otto4711
|
---|
|
Strong Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have struck some comments, but still oppose as I still feel this list is below featurable quality.
I realise there was there are only 5 episodes but the whole thing (lead, reception section) just seem a bit short. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose I think an article that only lists 5 things is really not a FLC. It should be reviewed as a normal article. The criteria for FL are to address specific challenges in the wrting of encylopedic lists, that this article doesn't face. I know the "at least 10 items" is unoffical, but this article shows why it exists. Eg. We don't consider a 5 book series to need a list. Yobmod ( talk) 12:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [30].
All right, I think this one is ready. Let's see how it fares. All comments are welcome. (And yes, I am in the Wikicup, if that matters at all.) jj137 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Comment - I fixed the issues with games managed and the references (see above), but I think the list should reflect League Championships (e.g., 1970 and 1972) in addition to World Series Championships. Rlendog ( talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from --
SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.
24
[c]
-- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment This FLC seems to have stagnated; the nominator has not edited since January 27. Dabomb87 ( talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 18:27, 8 February 2009 [31].
I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. My goal is to bring it and its four sibling lists to FL status in the near future. Many thanks to
User:Ruhrfisch for his usual good job in peer reviewing the list.
Otto4711 (
talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN - clearly I am not going to be able to satisfy the nit-pickery without completely stripping out the images and I am unwilling to do so since in my view they are fully and completely and obviously well within even the ridiculously over-restrictive image use policy that is designed to discourage some editors who want to actually improve the project and empower others whose preference is to diminish it by playing image police. Every time I nominate something for featured status it's because I've forgotten the level of petty criticism that's attendant in the process and without fail I'm well reminded of it by the time the process is over. If anyone ever sees my sig on a featured nomination again, please call a psychiatrist because certainly it will mean that I've gone insane.
Otto4711 (
talk)
17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Images I struck the support above because I just noticed that the article uses four non-free images. Please be more detailed in the fair use rationales than "for illustration and critical commentary". Judging by the consensus on a peer review for a similar article, there should not be so many. Dabomb87 ( talk) 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose—on images—true, pure numbers of non-free images is not a reason to oppose based on image criteria. But WP:NFCC has several bits that undermine your defense. First, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So for example, if you wanted to use File:Tcjones.jpg, File:Tc jones 1965.jpg would be better as it's a free image (you could argue the transvestite thing, but that's a different argument altogether. File:Gayplant.jpg is frankly a crappy image that does zero to increase my understanding of the topic, "significantly" per NFCC or otherwise. The other images are just actors, meaning that it's conceivable free shots would suffice to represent the same content; either way, images of them is not significant to reader understanding, and the FUR are weak. If you had historians talking about how pivotal the role was, and some element of their appearance, then you would have a more defensible case. In addition, there's a lack of citations throughout, leading to blatant original research. Who says " Turnabout Intruder" has LGBT themes? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Oppose - I have a real problem with the images. Not their rationales, but their placement in the article. They stretch the table horribly and make it look completely unprofessional. Can something be done with them - perhaps merge them into single composite image at the top of the article?
Skinny87 (
talk)
14:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Note This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{ FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dabomb87 ( talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [32].
Asides from minor cleanup, I believe this list is ready to be featured. Constructive comments are welcomed. Nergaal ( talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Truco ( talk · contribs)
Comment Please fix the dabs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm in the process of replacing fansites and Last.fm refs, but else do you suggest in the intro? I picked that format to add notes on tour events, specially because not all tours have their pages. igordebraga ≠ 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC) reply
I've improved the prose of the notes significantly. Please give specific suggestions for the introduction, because I have no idea what is missing right now. Nergaal ( talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Gary King ( talk) 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Done all but two - the original source for the Damage Inc. photo is a dead site, so I can't find the location (but expanded the captions a bit), and need to know what could be done in the lead. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I will review fully tomorrow, but what makes http://www.rockthebayou.com/Bio.aspx?id=27 a reliable source? Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
It's a festival website. If it's not written by the organizers, it's a press release from the band. Either way doesn't fail WP:RS. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick question: is this site reliable: http://www.ilikethat.com/metallica/ ? Nergaal ( talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [33].
An anime episode list. -- Goodraise ( talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Weak support from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Needs a copy-edit. Depending on whether I can take care of my other real-life and wiki obligations, I may return to look at the prose again.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:37, 4 February 2009 [34].
Please note that peer reviews should be closed before coming to FLC... I closed it for you this time. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
(outdent) Yes. Do not remove the FLC template or withdraw this nomination yet. Let the FLC director take care of it. Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
For article history purposes, it would be better to close this one, then start a new one for the List of wind farms in Romania. This one is closed. Mario1987, you can create a nom for the new list whenever you are ready. -- Scorpion 0422 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply