The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has a complete content and is an unprecedented list.
Felipe Menegaz
03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment Is this a list? There are several tables, but there are not sets of listed items. I think this is an article. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I asked the good people at GAN about whether this is a list or an article. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment The way information should be organized in Wikipedia is to maximize value for the reader and certainly not in order to jump through hoops in content review/recognition processes. This same article could be copied and pasted with virtually identical content in order to serve as "Evaluation of SomeOtherPlace bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics" ... we'd end up with many articles that basically convey exactly the same information. This would be a nightmare for readers to navigate. Please stop and think about all of the information Wikipedia provides on 2016 bid evaluations, and how that content should be organized across articles. Don't think about "which content evaluation process will give us the nicest result, and therefore how should we target this article at reviewers", think about where readers will expect to go in order to find certain information, what information they would like to see presented at each location, and how it would most usefully be presented (too many tables makes for poor reading, but some information is best presented in tables, for instance). Bear in mind the need to avoid redundancy between articles. Readers will certainly benefit from editors thinking holistically rather than focussing purely on getting one specific article through a content recognition process. TheGrappler ( talk) 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone a peer review and I feel that, with a few improvements, it could be promoted to FL. Thanks.
03
md
10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment Oppose
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
— Chris! c t 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
*For future reference, don't use wikilinks in alt text. Also, avoid referring to a person by name since a person who can't see wouldn't be able to verify this or draw any conclusions from the name. For example, in this article, instead of "Tennis player Pete Sampras holds...", you would use "A tennis player holds..." (I already fixed this, but keep in mind for future reference)
|
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Glad to see a tennis list over here, but issues need to be worked out.
Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
-- Truco 503 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 17–14) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Comment Is there any reason this is "number 1" rather than "number-one"? Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Don Lope ( talk · contribs)
# | Country | Player | Start date | End date | Number of weeks | Accumulated total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ROU | Ilie Năstase | August 23, 1973 | June 2, 1974 | 40 | 40 |
2 | AUS | John Newcombe | June 3, 1974 | July 28, 1974 | 8 | 8 |
3 | USA | Jimmy Connors | July 29, 1974 | August 22, 1977 | 160 | 160 |
4 | SWE | Björn Borg | August 23, 1977 | August 29, 1977 | 1 | 1 |
USA | Jimmy Connors | August 30, 1977 | April 8, 1979 | 84 | 244 | |
SWE | Björn Borg | April 9, 1979 | May 20, 1979 | 6 | 7 | |
USA | Jimmy Connors | May 21, 1979 | July 8, 1979 | 7 | 251 | |
SWE | Björn Borg | July 9, 1979 | March 2, 1980 | 34 | 41 | |
5 | USA | John McEnroe | March 3, 1980 | March 23, 1980 | 3 | 3 |
-- Don Lope ( talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I have checked the article and I feel that it meet FLC criteria. Also I have made sure that the issues put up in my previous FLCs are addressed.
An
ha
mi
rak
16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment Images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Also, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Support Meets Criteria.
Leave Message,
Yellow Evan home
:::I will finish the locations later today when I can get back on my desktop. --
An
ha
mi
rak
14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
OK.
Leave Message,
Yellow Evan home
reply
–
Juliancolton |
Talk 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
:Comment- What do you mean by 1997 eastern and central pacific hurricane seasons end? --
An
ha
mi
rak
20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all FL criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk)
14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Disclosure - Im a particpant in the Amazing Race Wikipedia. Jason Rees ( talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comment A couple of the images need
alternative text per criterion 5b.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments from
Rambo's Revenge (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Oppose/More Comments
I realise quite a few of hurricane timelines have got through before, but this is the first one I've reviewed and I consider all these things as legitimate (possibly serious) concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I'm now off wiki so I won't be able to stike any outstanding comments I have. I trust that the FL directors/delegate will consider my remaining concerns, check if they have been resolved and in-/exclude as appropriate when the candidacy is closed. Sorry for the inconvenience and good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm afraid the use of (current) reference 7 is very troubling. It means absolutely nothing to just about anyone, I would imagine. The references we use, along with supporting text if needed, should be able to be accessible to the general public and right now, that swathe of numbers is anything but. Is there a way in which alternative references (which are human-readable) could be used, or is there any kind of explanation that could be offered as to how someone with zero understanding (e.g. me) of this reference can go from those numbers to, say, "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."? The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
We will use Tropical Depression 14 Tracks as an Example
0000UTC 0600UTC 1200UTC 1800UTC
(outdent) Obviously, this requires a WikiProject-wide discussion. One idea is to create a reader-friendly guide to the source, much as Template:Railway line legend is used for railway line diagrams. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I know that I said otherwise, but as the guidelines on alt text have developed, it turns out we need alt text for every image. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:40, 30 July 2009 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all criteria of a featured list.
NatureBoyMD (
talk)
19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list because...it has already received a Peer Review which I have responded to and corrected queries. I want to take this list to FLC as the first of a set (including Popstars, X Factor and Pop Idol releases). Thanks.
03
md
10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Note to reviewers I can see alot of these types of lists going through WP:FLC in the future, please take the time to review it properly and reach consensus. Thanks! Alex Douglas ( talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
-- Tru co 503 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Tru co 503 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply |
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Several prose issues, but I'm opposing mainly for verification reasons and because I'm unsure if ChartStats is reliable.
Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Matthewedwards : Chat 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Please note that Young Divas has only charted in Australia. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. The music video director's name(s) have not been found in reliable sources. They are not on the liner notes to the singles or any of her subsequent releases. Unless,
consensus has changed, a previous
precedent made in the
successful featured list candidacy of
Paul Kelly discography and upheld recently in the
successful featured list candidacy of
Paulini Curuenavuli discography stands that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating that the "Director name for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." The most recent reliable sources have been referenced in regard to members working on upcoming solo studio albums. The only source that cites that DeAraugo is working on her second studio album is a YouTube video. The only source that cites that Williams is working on her debut studio album is used. I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks!
Alex Douglas (
talk)
08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Weak Oppose A decently constructed list, but I have some issues with it. Namely, it's size is borderline, I think. Technically there are 12 distinct items, but 4 of those are music videos, which are basically just repackaging of the singles. It's no coincidence that the singles table has the exact same four items as the music videos table. So, what we really have here is 8 items, below the rule-of-thumb 10. Granted, the total is based on how you look at it, whether you count the music videos or not, but it is definitely borderline. Such a small list could easily be merged into the main Young Divas page, especially since the massive lead would no longer be necessary. And since it seems the group is currently on hiatus, it doesn't look like the list is going to grow anytime soon.
Speaking of which, the lead is huge, especially compared to the small list following it. I could see such a huge lead fitting the Metallica discog or something like that, but 6 paragraphs for a group that has released two albums within a year's time is overkill.
Beyond that, I also have an issue with the un-sourced music video directors. Previous examples of FLCs getting by or not (see WP:WAX), that does not make a set-in-stone rule/allowance that all other FL candidates can also get away with. A true consensus would be something that is, say, brought up at MOS:DISCOG and discussed amongst the greater DISCOG community, rather than isolated to a few FLCs, which may or may not get everyone's attention. (I was absent from both of those FLCs, for example, and I surely would have contested such omissions). Unsourced information is still unsourced information.
I have some other smaller content/style issues, but I'll wait on those until the above is resolved/adressed. Drewcifer ( talk) 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Oppose since the list is extremely short. I strongly suggest merging this with the band's article which is really short anyways. Nergaal ( talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a great page and I think that it could be on featured list.
Matthew Riva (
talk)
09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [12].
Another medal from moi. Disclaimer: this is being submitted as part of the
Amazing Race.
Ironholds (
talk)
23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
pages=
instead of page=
for a single page reference. The former gives you pp.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1, this list may be excessively using copyrighted text.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [14].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The lead (and rest of the article) was modeled off of
List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, a FL. I am leaving on Wednesday, and
Juliancolton has agreed to deal with any issues that come up after I leave.
Mm40 (
talk)
02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Uhh... Shouldn't User:Blackwatch21 also get the nomination credit? From the article history, it looks obvious that he is the initial contributor. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
503 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
*"a season where"-->a season in which
|
Oppose Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
Sources
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [15].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meats the criteria.
Res
Mar
19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
— Chris! c t 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Comments
-- ErgoSum• talk• trib 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
not have the period before the quotes.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fellows of the Royal Society may, however, not be aware that Count Rumford made at the same time an identical gift of $5ooo to the Honorable John Adams, President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, to be devoted in the same manner to the authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands . . .
The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
1915||Charles Greeley Abbot||Washington, DC||for his research on solar radiation.
<unquote>
I know I'm going with the minority here, but I do not think this is not a copyright infringment. The descriptions given are the original citations given by the Academy. Although I can certainly modify it to the fields of work, it wouldn't be the same. To Masem, this article has gone through so many changes and shifts, but at the point of nomination it did in fact have
a citation for each year, person, and date, in a Notes column. It was seen as too bulky, so the
notes was removed and replaced with a single citation under General. Then the column itself was
removed as it seemed too big for the few scattered notes within.
This kind of sucks to tell you the truth, I started this as a side project playing second fiddle to Loihi, but it's made the bottom of the list...my first FLC made the bottom of the list...now that's an acomplishment. Res Mar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [18].
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria.
Kumioko (
talk)
19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [19].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is as comprehensive as its gonna get. I have been heavily editing the list for the past month or so, and all the definitions are referenced.
ErgoSum•
talk•
trib
05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - the lead is too short IMO. Perhaps adding a paragraph about the background of some of those trucking terms. (also not sure if this violates 3b as merging this with Trucking industry in the United States is doable in my opinion)— Chris! c t 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
The list was not promoted by Truco 20:05, 10 July 2009 [20].
I am nominating this for featured list because it should meet the FLC criteria.
iMatthew
talk at
16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - You know...this can be a good article if the history section was expanded more. Some sentences like which draft had the most hall of famers, all-stars, etc. can be added onto the article. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Crzy cheetah 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Possible source, although it might be a bit outdated (I don't know) Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Truco 19:59, 10 July 2009 [21].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the necessary criteria or is at least quite close to meeting them. --
Cybercobra (
talk)
07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment I think this article still needs a lot of work. The lead needs expansion, there are absolutely no references, and what is the inclusion criteria for this? See recently promoted lists or even other lists in the FLC list for examples of lists that are up to standard, or at least closer. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 12:07, 9 July 2009 [22].
This filmography was significantly improved during its last FLC. The current revision should address any remaining concerns of the FLC.
Ibaranoff24 (
talk)
00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment My concerns were resolved last FLC, but I'd like to see if any other reviewers have suggestions before I support. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Could this not be merged into the main article seeing as it is not that long and it would put everything together (i.e. the lead here will repeat stuff stated in that article). I realise there are FAC ambitions for the Ralph Bakshi article, so I've asked there too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Since nominator has turned the list into a redirect after the above discussion I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 05:40, 8 July 2009 [23].
I am nominating this for featured list because...My article has a clear, understandable opening paragraph. The information completely relates to the subject. References have been sited, as well as external links, categories all relate. Birth Place, Name, Birth Date, Age, Residence, and some Notes on most of the veterans are listed. User:NickOrnstein
Nick Ornstein (
talk)
16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
"The following is a list of verified living Band of Brothers veterans (1942-1945) of whom have served during World War II." FLs don't begin like this; see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose and perhaps combine with main article. The list is self-deleting. See List of surviving veterans of World War I ( FLRC). I suggest making a list of all members of the E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), since there were only 139/162 according to the article. Reywas92 Talk 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:17, 6 July 2009 [24].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria quite well. It is fully referenced and is presented and laid out to Wikipedia standards.
Samgibbs (
talk)
17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:17, 6 July 2009 [25].
I am nominating this for featured list because am working to elevate their standard that quality. Since now, I thank anyone who devotes a little time to give me suggestions on this discography.
Dear87 (
talk)
12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Suggest withdrawal The nominator is not a significant contributor, and the article is clearly not ready for FLC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - A peer review would be much more appropriate for an article to this standard. It has many, many issues. I'll see what I can do to help out if you start a PR. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 10:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Now the page is okay, right? I improved the page and now it can be on featured list.-- Matthew Riva ( talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:45, 6 July 2009 [26].
I am renominating this for featured list. The
first nomination didn't get very far, but I think the article's been improved quite a bit since I originally nominated it. I'd like to give this another shot.
Gendralman (
talk)
00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
{{DEFAULTSORT:Devin Townsend Discography}}
" What does that do? —
Gendralman (
talk)
13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose for now—Only releases issued under the moniker "Devin Townsend" should be listed in this discography. The Strapping Young Lad stuff should go (that's meant for the SYL discography). indopug ( talk) 06:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - SYL discography should be separate, the mention of the band in the lead is enough to show his involvement. No sources for music videos, Other collaborations or Production credits and involvement on other albums sections. All Notes sections are entirely unsourced - of course some don't really require sources, such as the band's release name. If you went for a SYL discography FLC, you'd have a better chance in my opinion. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Just to put this in perspective, an SYL article would only have 17 entries, and List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts (a featured list with 24 entries) was delisted and merged for being too short. I'm totally willing to split it off, but I need an argument a little more substantial than "that's the way it should be". If I split off an SYL discography, I'm going to take that to FLC too, and I'd like to be reassured that it's not going to be deleted six months later like the Sam Roberts list was. — Gendralman ( talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:54, 24 July 2009 [27].
I've done some work on the four Grand Slam men's singles champions pages, adding leads, refs, reorganizing all the tables, and adding plenty of images. I've based my work on golf majors champions FL like
List of The Open Championship champions or
List of PGA Championship champions. The tennis project doesn't really have any Featured content, and it would nice to start with these four important lists.
Don Lope (
talk)
13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
Obviously, the same applies to all your tennis lists. (I am not adding the same comments to all nomination pages)— Chris! c t 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
— Chris! c t 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Oppose This article has many problems (refer to my edits, most of which were reverted by the nominator). Chidel ( talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
To be clear about everything, Chidel has left me this message :
"I think you should study
WP:Own because repeatedly and summarily reverting others' edits just because they don't agree with the version you created in your sandbox is not a valid reason. The reverts are disruptive and counter-productive."
I have answered with this:
"No need to get testy. Re-read
Wikipedia:Consensus : "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages". As
User:Chrishomingtang told you, in the case of a GA, FA of FL reviews, "it is conventional for reviewers to list issues [on the review page], so that the nominators can try to deal with them." You should go through the
featured list candidates page to see how the process works. Continuing to make major edits (including the removal of sources) while ignoring the review and/or refusing to take part in reviews or discussions as you did is counter-productive. Now, since you refuse to follow conventions and list your issues with the article on the review, I'll try to address your edit summaries, but we will get nowhere, and certainly won't be able to improve the article unless you accept to participate in a regular review/discussion process."
I don't know if he will eventually take part in the review, but I'm going to address
his edits anyway.
First I have to point out that Chidel's edits are inconsistent, as he has
changed the wording of some sentences first, before
removing them altogether. He also
removed some
references, and hasn't addressed that in his edit summaries.
I'm going to write "OK" where I have no problems with the edits, and add comments elsewhere: --
Don Lope (
talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Apart from the removal of big parts of the text at (17), Chidel's issues are not extremely severe, so he has yet to say why he thinks the list is "far below featured article quality". I believe Chidel should have been the one listing his own problems with the list here. I did it in his place only because I want this candidature to move forward and his refusal to take part in the discussion while continuing to edit the page was counter-productive for this FLC process. I hope we can make progress from here. --
Don Lope (
talk)
12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
(2) Really don't need "London, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom".
(3) "First week of July", not the "first of July".
(4) Fix various comma problems.
(6 (no No. 5)) Eliminate ambiguities resulting from imprecise usage of "between" and "to".
(7) Grammatical problems with usage of "due to".
(8) Grammatical problem with "constitute".
(10) Fix awkward phrasing concerning the abolishment of the challenge round.
(11) Clarify the chronological order of the Grand Slam tournaments.
(12) Fix another comma problem.
(13) It's "tiebreak" or "tiebreaker", not "tie-break".
(15) Fix very convoluted sentence concerning the introduction of the tiebreak.
(15-again) Fix awkwardly phrased last paragraph
(18) Delete extra quotation mark.
(20) The table needs to specify which score the table is talking about, e.g., "Score in final".
(22) The prize money sentence needs to be simplified to read as follows: "The gentlemen's singles winner in 2009 received prize money of 850,000 pounds sterling."
I tried a more subdued color choice. I kept your hues and simply cut the saturation by 75%. It looks more professional and easy on the eyes to me but after taking a look revert it back (or not) and comment. Otherwise on first pass I do like your work. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Tru co 503 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
A couple of points:
Apologies if I have repeated anything above, but it fell under WP:TLDR.
|
Okay I've capped my initial comments. All stuff now from me should be minor and easy to fix. Good work so far, because you've been give alot to deal with at this candidacy.
More Comments from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
format=PDF
in the citation template.There might be a tiny bit more tweaking needed to the lead's wording but other than that it is looking really good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Andrwsc ( talk · contribs)
Oppose for now, as long as "British Isles" (and the invented country code of "BRI") appear on the page. Yes, I see that the Wimbledon web page uses those terms, but I have never seen "British Isles" listed as a nation anywhere else. I think that either "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is acceptable, with an explanatory footnote that lists the totals for the UK of GB&I and UK of GB&NI periods. As for the other country codes (per comments above), I am certain that tennis is a sport that consistently uses IOC codes (e.g. SUI instead of CHE), so I am comfortable with those (including historic codes for URS, FRG, TCH, YUG, etc.) — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Another comment: I think it would be better to swap the player name and country columns in the main table (name first), as currently there is more emphasis on the country, but these are individual players. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|British Isles]]
, with an appropriate explanatory footnote, if those totals must be kept distinct from the current "GBR" totals. But as written now, showing "British Isles" as a "Former country ¤", is entirely inappropriate. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Challenge round win |
Active player + |
Former country ¤ |
Country | Amateur era | Open era | Combined | First title | Last title |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 18 | 15 | 33 | 1920 | 2000 |
British Isles ¤ | 32 | 0 | 32 | 1877 | 1909 |
United Kingdom | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1934 | 1936 |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 17–14) 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
(ec)
|
Alright, I'm going to ask for a withdrawal of this nomination, per suggestion by The Rambling Man, only to restart the process immediately and give a new boost to this list's review. -- Don Lope ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has a complete content and is an unprecedented list.
Felipe Menegaz
03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment Is this a list? There are several tables, but there are not sets of listed items. I think this is an article. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I asked the good people at GAN about whether this is a list or an article. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment The way information should be organized in Wikipedia is to maximize value for the reader and certainly not in order to jump through hoops in content review/recognition processes. This same article could be copied and pasted with virtually identical content in order to serve as "Evaluation of SomeOtherPlace bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics" ... we'd end up with many articles that basically convey exactly the same information. This would be a nightmare for readers to navigate. Please stop and think about all of the information Wikipedia provides on 2016 bid evaluations, and how that content should be organized across articles. Don't think about "which content evaluation process will give us the nicest result, and therefore how should we target this article at reviewers", think about where readers will expect to go in order to find certain information, what information they would like to see presented at each location, and how it would most usefully be presented (too many tables makes for poor reading, but some information is best presented in tables, for instance). Bear in mind the need to avoid redundancy between articles. Readers will certainly benefit from editors thinking holistically rather than focussing purely on getting one specific article through a content recognition process. TheGrappler ( talk) 19:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone a peer review and I feel that, with a few improvements, it could be promoted to FL. Thanks.
03
md
10:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment Oppose
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
— Chris! c t 18:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
*For future reference, don't use wikilinks in alt text. Also, avoid referring to a person by name since a person who can't see wouldn't be able to verify this or draw any conclusions from the name. For example, in this article, instead of "Tennis player Pete Sampras holds...", you would use "A tennis player holds..." (I already fixed this, but keep in mind for future reference)
|
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Glad to see a tennis list over here, but issues need to be worked out.
Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
-- Truco 503 02:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 17–14) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Comment Is there any reason this is "number 1" rather than "number-one"? Dabomb87 ( talk) 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Don Lope ( talk · contribs)
# | Country | Player | Start date | End date | Number of weeks | Accumulated total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ROU | Ilie Năstase | August 23, 1973 | June 2, 1974 | 40 | 40 |
2 | AUS | John Newcombe | June 3, 1974 | July 28, 1974 | 8 | 8 |
3 | USA | Jimmy Connors | July 29, 1974 | August 22, 1977 | 160 | 160 |
4 | SWE | Björn Borg | August 23, 1977 | August 29, 1977 | 1 | 1 |
USA | Jimmy Connors | August 30, 1977 | April 8, 1979 | 84 | 244 | |
SWE | Björn Borg | April 9, 1979 | May 20, 1979 | 6 | 7 | |
USA | Jimmy Connors | May 21, 1979 | July 8, 1979 | 7 | 251 | |
SWE | Björn Borg | July 9, 1979 | March 2, 1980 | 34 | 41 | |
5 | USA | John McEnroe | March 3, 1980 | March 23, 1980 | 3 | 3 |
-- Don Lope ( talk) 21:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I have checked the article and I feel that it meet FLC criteria. Also I have made sure that the issues put up in my previous FLCs are addressed.
An
ha
mi
rak
16:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment Images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Also, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Support Meets Criteria.
Leave Message,
Yellow Evan home
:::I will finish the locations later today when I can get back on my desktop. --
An
ha
mi
rak
14:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
OK.
Leave Message,
Yellow Evan home
reply
–
Juliancolton |
Talk 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
:Comment- What do you mean by 1997 eastern and central pacific hurricane seasons end? --
An
ha
mi
rak
20:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all FL criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome.
Cyclonebiskit (
talk)
14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Disclosure - Im a particpant in the Amazing Race Wikipedia. Jason Rees ( talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comment A couple of the images need
alternative text per criterion 5b.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs) |
---|
Comments from
Rambo's Revenge (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Oppose/More Comments
I realise quite a few of hurricane timelines have got through before, but this is the first one I've reviewed and I consider all these things as legitimate (possibly serious) concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, I'm now off wiki so I won't be able to stike any outstanding comments I have. I trust that the FL directors/delegate will consider my remaining concerns, check if they have been resolved and in-/exclude as appropriate when the candidacy is closed. Sorry for the inconvenience and good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm afraid the use of (current) reference 7 is very troubling. It means absolutely nothing to just about anyone, I would imagine. The references we use, along with supporting text if needed, should be able to be accessible to the general public and right now, that swathe of numbers is anything but. Is there a way in which alternative references (which are human-readable) could be used, or is there any kind of explanation that could be offered as to how someone with zero understanding (e.g. me) of this reference can go from those numbers to, say, "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."? The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
We will use Tropical Depression 14 Tracks as an Example
0000UTC 0600UTC 1200UTC 1800UTC
(outdent) Obviously, this requires a WikiProject-wide discussion. One idea is to create a reader-friendly guide to the source, much as Template:Railway line legend is used for railway line diagrams. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I know that I said otherwise, but as the guidelines on alt text have developed, it turns out we need alt text for every image. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:40, 30 July 2009 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all criteria of a featured list.
NatureBoyMD (
talk)
19:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list because...it has already received a Peer Review which I have responded to and corrected queries. I want to take this list to FLC as the first of a set (including Popstars, X Factor and Pop Idol releases). Thanks.
03
md
10:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Note to reviewers I can see alot of these types of lists going through WP:FLC in the future, please take the time to review it properly and reach consensus. Thanks! Alex Douglas ( talk) 01:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
-- Tru co 503 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Tru co 503 16:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply |
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) Several prose issues, but I'm opposing mainly for verification reasons and because I'm unsure if ChartStats is reliable.
Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Matthewedwards : Chat 09:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:23, 25 July 2009 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Please note that Young Divas has only charted in Australia. I'm willing to address all concerns and will check this candidacy several times a day. The music video director's name(s) have not been found in reliable sources. They are not on the liner notes to the singles or any of her subsequent releases. Unless,
consensus has changed, a previous
precedent made in the
successful featured list candidacy of
Paul Kelly discography and upheld recently in the
successful featured list candidacy of
Paulini Curuenavuli discography stands that a list can become featured, if it does not contain the music video director's name(s) for up to two music videos, by using a footnote stating that the "Director name for these music videos has not been found in reliable sources." The most recent reliable sources have been referenced in regard to members working on upcoming solo studio albums. The only source that cites that DeAraugo is working on her second studio album is a YouTube video. The only source that cites that Williams is working on her debut studio album is used. I ask you to consider, all of the above, before reviewing this discography. Thanks!
Alex Douglas (
talk)
08:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Weak Oppose A decently constructed list, but I have some issues with it. Namely, it's size is borderline, I think. Technically there are 12 distinct items, but 4 of those are music videos, which are basically just repackaging of the singles. It's no coincidence that the singles table has the exact same four items as the music videos table. So, what we really have here is 8 items, below the rule-of-thumb 10. Granted, the total is based on how you look at it, whether you count the music videos or not, but it is definitely borderline. Such a small list could easily be merged into the main Young Divas page, especially since the massive lead would no longer be necessary. And since it seems the group is currently on hiatus, it doesn't look like the list is going to grow anytime soon.
Speaking of which, the lead is huge, especially compared to the small list following it. I could see such a huge lead fitting the Metallica discog or something like that, but 6 paragraphs for a group that has released two albums within a year's time is overkill.
Beyond that, I also have an issue with the un-sourced music video directors. Previous examples of FLCs getting by or not (see WP:WAX), that does not make a set-in-stone rule/allowance that all other FL candidates can also get away with. A true consensus would be something that is, say, brought up at MOS:DISCOG and discussed amongst the greater DISCOG community, rather than isolated to a few FLCs, which may or may not get everyone's attention. (I was absent from both of those FLCs, for example, and I surely would have contested such omissions). Unsourced information is still unsourced information.
I have some other smaller content/style issues, but I'll wait on those until the above is resolved/adressed. Drewcifer ( talk) 17:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources
Oppose since the list is extremely short. I strongly suggest merging this with the band's article which is really short anyways. Nergaal ( talk) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a great page and I think that it could be on featured list.
Matthew Riva (
talk)
09:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [12].
Another medal from moi. Disclaimer: this is being submitted as part of the
Amazing Race.
Ironholds (
talk)
23:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
pages=
instead of page=
for a single page reference. The former gives you pp.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment per the discussion at
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1, this list may be excessively using copyrighted text.
Dabomb87 (
talk)
21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [14].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The lead (and rest of the article) was modeled off of
List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, a FL. I am leaving on Wednesday, and
Juliancolton has agreed to deal with any issues that come up after I leave.
Mm40 (
talk)
02:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Uhh... Shouldn't User:Blackwatch21 also get the nomination credit? From the article history, it looks obvious that he is the initial contributor. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 02:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
503 22:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
*"a season where"-->a season in which
|
Oppose Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
Sources
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 08:08, 18 July 2009 [15].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meats the criteria.
Res
Mar
19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
— Chris! c t 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Comments
-- ErgoSum• talk• trib 18:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
not have the period before the quotes.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fellows of the Royal Society may, however, not be aware that Count Rumford made at the same time an identical gift of $5ooo to the Honorable John Adams, President of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, to be devoted in the same manner to the authors of discoverie's in any part of the Continent of America, or in any of the American islands . . .
The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
1915||Charles Greeley Abbot||Washington, DC||for his research on solar radiation.
<unquote>
I know I'm going with the minority here, but I do not think this is not a copyright infringment. The descriptions given are the original citations given by the Academy. Although I can certainly modify it to the fields of work, it wouldn't be the same. To Masem, this article has gone through so many changes and shifts, but at the point of nomination it did in fact have
a citation for each year, person, and date, in a Notes column. It was seen as too bulky, so the
notes was removed and replaced with a single citation under General. Then the column itself was
removed as it seemed too big for the few scattered notes within.
This kind of sucks to tell you the truth, I started this as a side project playing second fiddle to Loihi, but it's made the bottom of the list...my first FLC made the bottom of the list...now that's an acomplishment. Res Mar 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [18].
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria.
Kumioko (
talk)
19:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Oppose from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose until alternative text for images is added. Dabomb87 ( talk) 01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 19:06, 11 July 2009 [19].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is as comprehensive as its gonna get. I have been heavily editing the list for the past month or so, and all the definitions are referenced.
ErgoSum•
talk•
trib
05:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - the lead is too short IMO. Perhaps adding a paragraph about the background of some of those trucking terms. (also not sure if this violates 3b as merging this with Trucking industry in the United States is doable in my opinion)— Chris! c t 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
The list was not promoted by Truco 20:05, 10 July 2009 [20].
I am nominating this for featured list because it should meet the FLC criteria.
iMatthew
talk at
16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - You know...this can be a good article if the history section was expanded more. Some sentences like which draft had the most hall of famers, all-stars, etc. can be added onto the article. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 05:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Crzy cheetah 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Possible source, although it might be a bit outdated (I don't know) Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Truco 19:59, 10 July 2009 [21].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the necessary criteria or is at least quite close to meeting them. --
Cybercobra (
talk)
07:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment I think this article still needs a lot of work. The lead needs expansion, there are absolutely no references, and what is the inclusion criteria for this? See recently promoted lists or even other lists in the FLC list for examples of lists that are up to standard, or at least closer. Dabomb87 ( talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 12:07, 9 July 2009 [22].
This filmography was significantly improved during its last FLC. The current revision should address any remaining concerns of the FLC.
Ibaranoff24 (
talk)
00:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment My concerns were resolved last FLC, but I'd like to see if any other reviewers have suggestions before I support. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Could this not be merged into the main article seeing as it is not that long and it would put everything together (i.e. the lead here will repeat stuff stated in that article). I realise there are FAC ambitions for the Ralph Bakshi article, so I've asked there too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Since nominator has turned the list into a redirect after the above discussion I'm going to withdraw this nomination. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Matthewedwards 05:40, 8 July 2009 [23].
I am nominating this for featured list because...My article has a clear, understandable opening paragraph. The information completely relates to the subject. References have been sited, as well as external links, categories all relate. Birth Place, Name, Birth Date, Age, Residence, and some Notes on most of the veterans are listed. User:NickOrnstein
Nick Ornstein (
talk)
16:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
"The following is a list of verified living Band of Brothers veterans (1942-1945) of whom have served during World War II." FLs don't begin like this; see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose and perhaps combine with main article. The list is self-deleting. See List of surviving veterans of World War I ( FLRC). I suggest making a list of all members of the E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), since there were only 139/162 according to the article. Reywas92 Talk 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:17, 6 July 2009 [24].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria quite well. It is fully referenced and is presented and laid out to Wikipedia standards.
Samgibbs (
talk)
17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:17, 6 July 2009 [25].
I am nominating this for featured list because am working to elevate their standard that quality. Since now, I thank anyone who devotes a little time to give me suggestions on this discography.
Dear87 (
talk)
12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Suggest withdrawal The nominator is not a significant contributor, and the article is clearly not ready for FLC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - A peer review would be much more appropriate for an article to this standard. It has many, many issues. I'll see what I can do to help out if you start a PR. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 10:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Now the page is okay, right? I improved the page and now it can be on featured list.-- Matthew Riva ( talk) 23:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man (
talk)
17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 01:45, 6 July 2009 [26].
I am renominating this for featured list. The
first nomination didn't get very far, but I think the article's been improved quite a bit since I originally nominated it. I'd like to give this another shot.
Gendralman (
talk)
00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
{{DEFAULTSORT:Devin Townsend Discography}}
" What does that do? —
Gendralman (
talk)
13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose for now—Only releases issued under the moniker "Devin Townsend" should be listed in this discography. The Strapping Young Lad stuff should go (that's meant for the SYL discography). indopug ( talk) 06:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose - SYL discography should be separate, the mention of the band in the lead is enough to show his involvement. No sources for music videos, Other collaborations or Production credits and involvement on other albums sections. All Notes sections are entirely unsourced - of course some don't really require sources, such as the band's release name. If you went for a SYL discography FLC, you'd have a better chance in my opinion. k.i.a.c ( talktome - contribs) 13:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Just to put this in perspective, an SYL article would only have 17 entries, and List of awards and nominations received by Sam Roberts (a featured list with 24 entries) was delisted and merged for being too short. I'm totally willing to split it off, but I need an argument a little more substantial than "that's the way it should be". If I split off an SYL discography, I'm going to take that to FLC too, and I'd like to be reassured that it's not going to be deleted six months later like the Sam Roberts list was. — Gendralman ( talk) 14:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:54, 24 July 2009 [27].
I've done some work on the four Grand Slam men's singles champions pages, adding leads, refs, reorganizing all the tables, and adding plenty of images. I've based my work on golf majors champions FL like
List of The Open Championship champions or
List of PGA Championship champions. The tennis project doesn't really have any Featured content, and it would nice to start with these four important lists.
Don Lope (
talk)
13:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
Obviously, the same applies to all your tennis lists. (I am not adding the same comments to all nomination pages)— Chris! c t 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC) reply
— Chris! c t 20:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Oppose This article has many problems (refer to my edits, most of which were reverted by the nominator). Chidel ( talk) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
To be clear about everything, Chidel has left me this message :
"I think you should study
WP:Own because repeatedly and summarily reverting others' edits just because they don't agree with the version you created in your sandbox is not a valid reason. The reverts are disruptive and counter-productive."
I have answered with this:
"No need to get testy. Re-read
Wikipedia:Consensus : "When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on article talk pages". As
User:Chrishomingtang told you, in the case of a GA, FA of FL reviews, "it is conventional for reviewers to list issues [on the review page], so that the nominators can try to deal with them." You should go through the
featured list candidates page to see how the process works. Continuing to make major edits (including the removal of sources) while ignoring the review and/or refusing to take part in reviews or discussions as you did is counter-productive. Now, since you refuse to follow conventions and list your issues with the article on the review, I'll try to address your edit summaries, but we will get nowhere, and certainly won't be able to improve the article unless you accept to participate in a regular review/discussion process."
I don't know if he will eventually take part in the review, but I'm going to address
his edits anyway.
First I have to point out that Chidel's edits are inconsistent, as he has
changed the wording of some sentences first, before
removing them altogether. He also
removed some
references, and hasn't addressed that in his edit summaries.
I'm going to write "OK" where I have no problems with the edits, and add comments elsewhere: --
Don Lope (
talk) 12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Apart from the removal of big parts of the text at (17), Chidel's issues are not extremely severe, so he has yet to say why he thinks the list is "far below featured article quality". I believe Chidel should have been the one listing his own problems with the list here. I did it in his place only because I want this candidature to move forward and his refusal to take part in the discussion while continuing to edit the page was counter-productive for this FLC process. I hope we can make progress from here. --
Don Lope (
talk)
12:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
(2) Really don't need "London, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom".
(3) "First week of July", not the "first of July".
(4) Fix various comma problems.
(6 (no No. 5)) Eliminate ambiguities resulting from imprecise usage of "between" and "to".
(7) Grammatical problems with usage of "due to".
(8) Grammatical problem with "constitute".
(10) Fix awkward phrasing concerning the abolishment of the challenge round.
(11) Clarify the chronological order of the Grand Slam tournaments.
(12) Fix another comma problem.
(13) It's "tiebreak" or "tiebreaker", not "tie-break".
(15) Fix very convoluted sentence concerning the introduction of the tiebreak.
(15-again) Fix awkwardly phrased last paragraph
(18) Delete extra quotation mark.
(20) The table needs to specify which score the table is talking about, e.g., "Score in final".
(22) The prize money sentence needs to be simplified to read as follows: "The gentlemen's singles winner in 2009 received prize money of 850,000 pounds sterling."
I tried a more subdued color choice. I kept your hues and simply cut the saturation by 75%. It looks more professional and easy on the eyes to me but after taking a look revert it back (or not) and comment. Otherwise on first pass I do like your work. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Tru co 503 16:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC) reply
A couple of points:
Apologies if I have repeated anything above, but it fell under WP:TLDR.
|
Okay I've capped my initial comments. All stuff now from me should be minor and easy to fix. Good work so far, because you've been give alot to deal with at this candidacy.
More Comments from Rambo's Revenge ( talk · contribs)
format=PDF
in the citation template.There might be a tiny bit more tweaking needed to the lead's wording but other than that it is looking really good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose from Andrwsc ( talk · contribs)
Oppose for now, as long as "British Isles" (and the invented country code of "BRI") appear on the page. Yes, I see that the Wimbledon web page uses those terms, but I have never seen "British Isles" listed as a nation anywhere else. I think that either "United Kingdom" or "Great Britain" is acceptable, with an explanatory footnote that lists the totals for the UK of GB&I and UK of GB&NI periods. As for the other country codes (per comments above), I am certain that tennis is a sport that consistently uses IOC codes (e.g. SUI instead of CHE), so I am comfortable with those (including historic codes for URS, FRG, TCH, YUG, etc.) — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Another comment: I think it would be better to swap the player name and country columns in the main table (name first), as currently there is more emphasis on the country, but these are individual players. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 17:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) reply
{{flagicon|United Kingdom}} [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|British Isles]]
, with an appropriate explanatory footnote, if those totals must be kept distinct from the current "GBR" totals. But as written now, showing "British Isles" as a "Former country ¤", is entirely inappropriate. —
Andrwsc (
talk ·
contribs)
18:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
reply
Challenge round win |
Active player + |
Former country ¤ |
Country | Amateur era | Open era | Combined | First title | Last title |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
United States | 18 | 15 | 33 | 1920 | 2000 |
British Isles ¤ | 32 | 0 | 32 | 1877 | 1909 |
United Kingdom | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1934 | 1936 |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 17–14) 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
(ec)
|
Alright, I'm going to ask for a withdrawal of this nomination, per suggestion by The Rambling Man, only to restart the process immediately and give a new boost to this list's review. -- Don Lope ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) reply