The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 19:47, 28 June 2009 [1].
Kumioko beat me to the punch on the Presidents list, but here are the veeps.
Geraldk (
talk)
20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
My comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States/archive2 also apply to this list. i would like the two to be consistent because they are very close topics. The two of you nominators can decide which styles to implement for both. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some of the references are actually for the wrong vice presidents. The John Adams reference links to Jefferson, and the Jefferson reference links to Adams. I haven't looked through all of them, but it might be wise to check all the references for accuracy. -- Nomader ( Talk) 05:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Withdraw It's gonna take a while to work out these reference issues, and I'm on vacation, so I can't put in much work. Geraldk ( talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 04:02, 28 June 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because... the same reason as always. There have only been 9 reigns but there should be 10 soon. FIP are doing pretty good lately so I don't believe they will go under. I feel it is safe to say this could be an exception.--
Will
C
06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:15, 27 June 2009 [3].
I believe this article now meets the criteria. It was nominated once before, by Chris, who has continued to do exceptional work on it and deserves co-credit for the nomination. The previous nomination was withdrawn due to concerns about whether it was a content fork and simply replicated material from the main Olympic Games article. That article has now reached FA, is stable, and while it has some of the same information, the list on this page is much more detailed. This list also includes a couple of supplementary summary tables and now has an expanded lead. Geraldk ( talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
It's a good list, but it's still too redundant to Olympic Games#Host nations and cities, Summer Olympic Games#List of modern Summer Olympic Games, and Winter Olympic Games#List of Winter Olympic Games. However, I don't really see it being merged so I'll give it a review. Reywas92 Talk 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose – I would say that this fails 3b, since similar lists are included in the three main Olympics articles. The continent column is the only one from the primary table not in those articles. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Wow - OK, surprised by both of those oppositions. The two additional tables that do not exist in any of the main articles that are referenced aren't significantly different enough? My concern about Andrwsc's suggestion, and the reason I did not implement it, is that the bids include a huge amount of information. Adding five additional columns would make the list incredibly unwieldy. The alternative, turning the list into an episode-style summary list, would eliminate the sortability. Geraldk ( talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
===Summer Olympic Games host cities===
===Winter Olympic Games host cities===
Withdraw per above comments suggesting a major rewrite. Geraldk ( talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:21, 26 June 2009 [4].
This list was really interesting to make. It's based off the FL
List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama with some additions. The article is fully referenced and complete. There's differing information about each of the 37 sites, so tell me if any descriptions are too long or short. I'm sorry that a few images are missing, but I searched Commons, Flickr, Google, and NPS and couldn't find anything free.
Reywas92
Talk
18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
— Chris! c t 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support A great list. I don't find the border on the image to be a problem. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Support
Other than that, nice work. TheLeft orium 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment If you're still missing some photos that you're unable to take youself (Dont you live in Indiana? road trip!), I've found looking at other articles with photos in the same county can identify people who have no problem stopping by someplace for you. In Virginia, I left notes on I think 4 peoples talk pages and got all the photos I wanted. dm ( talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Comments from Doncram ( talk · contribs) You've done a great job developing this list-article from the version of June 30, 2008, at completion of a WikiProject NRHP drive to create complete NHL lists and to start an article for each separate NHL. My comments and questions:
Definitely nice work. doncram ( talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose by Nev1 ( talk · contribs)
I have only inspected the entries for 21 out of the 37 sites, but I think it's enough to highlight the problem this list suffers from. The sourcing is a serious concern for me at this point. While the list appears to have been well researched, it's disappointing that the sources which were probably used are not all listed. There's a lot of work to be done here. Nev1 ( talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I will be leaving Monday for Alaska for two weeks and don't have the time to add in those other refs. Anyway, I'm a good lister and want to make sure those links are also in the 37 listed articles. Therefore I withdraw this nom and will bring it back later. Reywas92 Talk 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 15:12, 26 June 2009 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet the qualifications of a featured list. Additionally, it was previously a featured list that was demoted in October of 2008. Since then it appears that users have dealt with all of the issues that where brought up. Although I am not currently a major contributor to this article but I have or have access too all of the references mentioned in it and will address any changes needed to get this list back up to FL status. --
Kumioko (
talk)
20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment
— Chris! c t 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
These also apply to the VP list.
Otherwise, these are very good lists. Reywas92 Talk 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose. As someone who for a while now has watchlisted and edited and reverted quite a bit of vandalism on this list I have concerns. Completely overhauling the table is a major change and not something that should be done during an FLC. It should be ready and in place before the FLC, only then can criteria like stability be assessed. I appreciate this is an important list and you want it to be recognised but FLC is not the place to make the list, it's a place for lists that are ready and just being tweaked. I suggest opening a peer review and getting input there, because if you are changing the list to a sortable one there my be other information that can be incorporated instead of having lots of different lists because there is a lot of repetition across them and I'm pretty sure much of this could be merged/condensed with sortable tables. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:32, 25 June 2009 [8].
I am nominating
List of Star Fox titles as I believe it meets all the requirements laid out in
WP:WIAFL. The list's format is extensively based off of two previous FLs,
List of Kirby media (which I guided through its FLC) and
List of Harvest Moon titles. --
Nomader (
Talk)
20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment I forgot to mention this in the Kirby FLC, but spaced en dashes should be used for list separators rather than em dashes per MOS. E.g., "1993—Super Nintendo Entertainment System"-->1993 – Super Nintendo Entertainment System Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose This list is too small; it could easily be merged into Star Fox (series). In fact it already is in a sense: this seperate article is really just a listy-version of the prose in the series' article. The general rule of thumb is that a list should have at least 10 entries to warrant its own page. That's not a hard and fast rule, but I see no reason why this list of 6 needs to be separated from the main page. Though there is alot of info per title, that's not a substitute for such a small amount of listed items. Drewcifer ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest withdrawal and a merge as well. I missed this on the first look through. The list fails the recently introduced criterion 3b, as well as the "unwritten" ten-item limit on FLCs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:54, 23 June 2009 [9].
(Note, the template did not work, when creating this nom)
I am nominating this for featured list because I am working on about 12 other lists for the SBOP and want to use this one as a model for the formatting. This one follows the basic model of the WSOP events that are now FLs. The lead is going to be standard on all 12 FLs.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:54, 23 June 2009 [10].
note: the template did not work while creating this nom
I am nominating this for featured list because I hope it meets the criteria for FL?---
Balloonman
NO! I'm Spartacus!
05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 20:47, 16 June 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list.
Gendralman (
talk)
21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Oppose from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco ( talk · contribs)
|
Oppose A decent list, but I have some content-issues I'd like to see addressed before I can support. First, when making discographies for individuals who have tended to work within other musical groups, it's usually best to stick just to solo projects, and leave separate band discographies to seperate lists. The Gwen Stefani discography is a good example of this, which clearly avoids listing No Doubt releases. As is Trent Reznor discography, which doesn't list Nine Inch Nails releases. Granted neither of these are Fls, but the concept still applies. So that said, the Strapping Lad stuff should be moved elsewhere. The list would still be fairly large and content-packed, so I think this would only help to focus the list. A link and a mention to a Strapping Lad discog would surely be helpful, but the actual list doesn't belong here.
So, given that change, the list would require a bit of a reorganization, namely splitting the list into sections rather than subsections within each group.
Secondly, the disclaimer "As archival policy varies, chart information may be incomplete." worries me. FLC requires a list to be complete, so this seems like a misstep right off the bat. One solution may be to specify which lists in particular have odd archival policies (via a footnote or something like that) and exactly what those peculiarities are, rather than a blanket disclaimer that puts all the charts into question. I'm not sure if this would fix the inherent problem of the list being incomplete, but some more transparency would be a step in the right direction.
I have a few more qualms and quibbles, but I'll hold off on the minor stuff until if and when the above is addressed. Drewcifer ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 16:25, 16 June 2009 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because I fancied a change. I haven't been able to set aside a lot of time to contribute more good content for a while, but things have changed, and when I saw the list in its
original state, I was determined to improve it. I've never ventured so far out of my comfort zone with the subject matter and would love to hear thoughts on whether this cuts the mustard. All comments will, as ever, be gratefully received and attended to as swiftly as humanly possible. Cheers!
The Rambling Man (
talk)
12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Support now with improvements to lead. Geraldk ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Material moved to talk page per request. [13] Ty 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I am surprised that there is no mention that the award is also enormously prestigious. The lead mentions that it is "the most controversial art award" and Prince Charles objections are also included - why no underscoring of the international prestige that generally accompanies the winner and the nominees and their subsequent careers?
Modernist (
talk)
11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
|
Sources look good. Note that the dead link checker shows a couple dead links that are actually working. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment
— Chris! c t 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Ty 11:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn per this. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 20:38, 9 June 2009 [19].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria, all the issues of its previous FLc have been adressed.
97198 and
Nergaal helped a lot with expanding the article. Thank you very much.--
Music
26/
11
14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) The prose isn't bad, but it needs a final copy-edit for polish. Please find someone uninvolved. I would ordinarily help out, but I'm swamped with requests already as well as real-life commitments.
Review by Truco ( talk · contribs)
Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 8 June 2009 [20].
I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete as far as having every city, town, and village in its subject, all columns are filled out (with the exception of some missing photos, though I hope that is expected and not held against the article) I believe the lead is concise, well-written, and informative. Any and all issues brought up can be addressed quickly I hope!
Camelbinky (
talk)
22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Comment - ref 3 is not formatted correctly— Chris! c t 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Camelbinky ( talk) 04:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Review by Truco ( talk · contribs)
Okay time for a second chance. I think your last post was out of line "you didn't look at the list enough to even warrent your opinions to be considered in the first place and probably shouldn't have posted them" is never an acceptable comment. We are all volunteers and here to help, and I'm sure you have made a mistake in the past, we're all human. I think there are crossed wires over that colour issue. I think Truco was suggesting that the yellowy orange column headers are changed to provide more contrast with the yellow cells. In the list you mentioned the column headers are blue, but I also think that giving them a colour is unnecessary. The years do need references, from WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and I am currently not able to verify the years. I also find the second paragraph a little unclear. I can't understand the difference (if there is one) between Poestenkill, New Scotland which are "Alb.-Sch.-Troy" and Albany etc. which are "Alb.-Sch.-Troy MSA". Finally, in your last post you said "[I] am now retracting the proposal for FL status". Some time has now passed so do you still wish to continue this nomination or have you withdrawn? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 23:22, 7 June 2009 [21].
Since I believe
the 2007 chart will be promoted on Wednesday, I hope this one won't have any issues, as all problems from the 2007 chart nomination has been resolved on this one. -- [[
SRE.K.A.L.|
L.A.K.ERS]]
05:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 6 June 2009 [22].
I am nominating this to become a featured list, because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It is fairly short, but I believe it is comprehensive for the topic at hand. Now, one thing that may be asked is why some life spans are omitted: this is due to lack of information regarding their life spans (which I have attempted to look for). The article on the person may even have info on their life span, but these dates appear to be
original research.
Hello32020 (
talk)
19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 19:47, 28 June 2009 [1].
Kumioko beat me to the punch on the Presidents list, but here are the veeps.
Geraldk (
talk)
20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
My comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Presidents of the United States/archive2 also apply to this list. i would like the two to be consistent because they are very close topics. The two of you nominators can decide which styles to implement for both. Thanks, Reywas92 Talk 23:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: Some of the references are actually for the wrong vice presidents. The John Adams reference links to Jefferson, and the Jefferson reference links to Adams. I haven't looked through all of them, but it might be wise to check all the references for accuracy. -- Nomader ( Talk) 05:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Withdraw It's gonna take a while to work out these reference issues, and I'm on vacation, so I can't put in much work. Geraldk ( talk) 19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 04:02, 28 June 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because... the same reason as always. There have only been 9 reigns but there should be 10 soon. FIP are doing pretty good lately so I don't believe they will go under. I feel it is safe to say this could be an exception.--
Will
C
06:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 11:15, 27 June 2009 [3].
I believe this article now meets the criteria. It was nominated once before, by Chris, who has continued to do exceptional work on it and deserves co-credit for the nomination. The previous nomination was withdrawn due to concerns about whether it was a content fork and simply replicated material from the main Olympic Games article. That article has now reached FA, is stable, and while it has some of the same information, the list on this page is much more detailed. This list also includes a couple of supplementary summary tables and now has an expanded lead. Geraldk ( talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
It's a good list, but it's still too redundant to Olympic Games#Host nations and cities, Summer Olympic Games#List of modern Summer Olympic Games, and Winter Olympic Games#List of Winter Olympic Games. However, I don't really see it being merged so I'll give it a review. Reywas92 Talk 02:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose – I would say that this fails 3b, since similar lists are included in the three main Olympics articles. The continent column is the only one from the primary table not in those articles. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Wow - OK, surprised by both of those oppositions. The two additional tables that do not exist in any of the main articles that are referenced aren't significantly different enough? My concern about Andrwsc's suggestion, and the reason I did not implement it, is that the bids include a huge amount of information. Adding five additional columns would make the list incredibly unwieldy. The alternative, turning the list into an episode-style summary list, would eliminate the sortability. Geraldk ( talk) 23:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
===Summer Olympic Games host cities===
===Winter Olympic Games host cities===
Withdraw per above comments suggesting a major rewrite. Geraldk ( talk) 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:21, 26 June 2009 [4].
This list was really interesting to make. It's based off the FL
List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama with some additions. The article is fully referenced and complete. There's differing information about each of the 37 sites, so tell me if any descriptions are too long or short. I'm sorry that a few images are missing, but I searched Commons, Flickr, Google, and NPS and couldn't find anything free.
Reywas92
Talk
18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
— Chris! c t 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support A great list. I don't find the border on the image to be a problem. — Charles Edward ( Talk | Contribs) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Support
Other than that, nice work. TheLeft orium 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment If you're still missing some photos that you're unable to take youself (Dont you live in Indiana? road trip!), I've found looking at other articles with photos in the same county can identify people who have no problem stopping by someplace for you. In Virginia, I left notes on I think 4 peoples talk pages and got all the photos I wanted. dm ( talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Comments from Doncram ( talk · contribs) You've done a great job developing this list-article from the version of June 30, 2008, at completion of a WikiProject NRHP drive to create complete NHL lists and to start an article for each separate NHL. My comments and questions:
Definitely nice work. doncram ( talk) 04:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose by Nev1 ( talk · contribs)
I have only inspected the entries for 21 out of the 37 sites, but I think it's enough to highlight the problem this list suffers from. The sourcing is a serious concern for me at this point. While the list appears to have been well researched, it's disappointing that the sources which were probably used are not all listed. There's a lot of work to be done here. Nev1 ( talk) 18:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I will be leaving Monday for Alaska for two weeks and don't have the time to add in those other refs. Anyway, I'm a good lister and want to make sure those links are also in the 37 listed articles. Therefore I withdraw this nom and will bring it back later. Reywas92 Talk 22:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 15:12, 26 June 2009 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet the qualifications of a featured list. Additionally, it was previously a featured list that was demoted in October of 2008. Since then it appears that users have dealt with all of the issues that where brought up. Although I am not currently a major contributor to this article but I have or have access too all of the references mentioned in it and will address any changes needed to get this list back up to FL status. --
Kumioko (
talk)
20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment
— Chris! c t 22:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
These also apply to the VP list.
Otherwise, these are very good lists. Reywas92 Talk 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Strong oppose. As someone who for a while now has watchlisted and edited and reverted quite a bit of vandalism on this list I have concerns. Completely overhauling the table is a major change and not something that should be done during an FLC. It should be ready and in place before the FLC, only then can criteria like stability be assessed. I appreciate this is an important list and you want it to be recognised but FLC is not the place to make the list, it's a place for lists that are ready and just being tweaked. I suggest opening a peer review and getting input there, because if you are changing the list to a sortable one there my be other information that can be incorporated instead of having lots of different lists because there is a lot of repetition across them and I'm pretty sure much of this could be merged/condensed with sortable tables. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:32, 25 June 2009 [8].
I am nominating
List of Star Fox titles as I believe it meets all the requirements laid out in
WP:WIAFL. The list's format is extensively based off of two previous FLs,
List of Kirby media (which I guided through its FLC) and
List of Harvest Moon titles. --
Nomader (
Talk)
20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment I forgot to mention this in the Kirby FLC, but spaced en dashes should be used for list separators rather than em dashes per MOS. E.g., "1993—Super Nintendo Entertainment System"-->1993 – Super Nintendo Entertainment System Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Oppose This list is too small; it could easily be merged into Star Fox (series). In fact it already is in a sense: this seperate article is really just a listy-version of the prose in the series' article. The general rule of thumb is that a list should have at least 10 entries to warrant its own page. That's not a hard and fast rule, but I see no reason why this list of 6 needs to be separated from the main page. Though there is alot of info per title, that's not a substitute for such a small amount of listed items. Drewcifer ( talk) 22:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest withdrawal and a merge as well. I missed this on the first look through. The list fails the recently introduced criterion 3b, as well as the "unwritten" ten-item limit on FLCs. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:54, 23 June 2009 [9].
(Note, the template did not work, when creating this nom)
I am nominating this for featured list because I am working on about 12 other lists for the SBOP and want to use this one as a model for the formatting. This one follows the basic model of the WSOP events that are now FLs. The lead is going to be standard on all 12 FLs.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:54, 23 June 2009 [10].
note: the template did not work while creating this nom
I am nominating this for featured list because I hope it meets the criteria for FL?---
Balloonman
NO! I'm Spartacus!
05:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 20:47, 16 June 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list.
Gendralman (
talk)
21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Oppose from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco ( talk · contribs)
|
Oppose A decent list, but I have some content-issues I'd like to see addressed before I can support. First, when making discographies for individuals who have tended to work within other musical groups, it's usually best to stick just to solo projects, and leave separate band discographies to seperate lists. The Gwen Stefani discography is a good example of this, which clearly avoids listing No Doubt releases. As is Trent Reznor discography, which doesn't list Nine Inch Nails releases. Granted neither of these are Fls, but the concept still applies. So that said, the Strapping Lad stuff should be moved elsewhere. The list would still be fairly large and content-packed, so I think this would only help to focus the list. A link and a mention to a Strapping Lad discog would surely be helpful, but the actual list doesn't belong here.
So, given that change, the list would require a bit of a reorganization, namely splitting the list into sections rather than subsections within each group.
Secondly, the disclaimer "As archival policy varies, chart information may be incomplete." worries me. FLC requires a list to be complete, so this seems like a misstep right off the bat. One solution may be to specify which lists in particular have odd archival policies (via a footnote or something like that) and exactly what those peculiarities are, rather than a blanket disclaimer that puts all the charts into question. I'm not sure if this would fix the inherent problem of the list being incomplete, but some more transparency would be a step in the right direction.
I have a few more qualms and quibbles, but I'll hold off on the minor stuff until if and when the above is addressed. Drewcifer ( talk) 05:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 16:25, 16 June 2009 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because I fancied a change. I haven't been able to set aside a lot of time to contribute more good content for a while, but things have changed, and when I saw the list in its
original state, I was determined to improve it. I've never ventured so far out of my comfort zone with the subject matter and would love to hear thoughts on whether this cuts the mustard. All comments will, as ever, be gratefully received and attended to as swiftly as humanly possible. Cheers!
The Rambling Man (
talk)
12:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
Support now with improvements to lead. Geraldk ( talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Material moved to talk page per request. [13] Ty 10:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I am surprised that there is no mention that the award is also enormously prestigious. The lead mentions that it is "the most controversial art award" and Prince Charles objections are also included - why no underscoring of the international prestige that generally accompanies the winner and the nominees and their subsequent careers?
Modernist (
talk)
11:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
|
Sources look good. Note that the dead link checker shows a couple dead links that are actually working. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment
— Chris! c t 04:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
Ty 11:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn per this. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 20:38, 9 June 2009 [19].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria, all the issues of its previous FLc have been adressed.
97198 and
Nergaal helped a lot with expanding the article. Thank you very much.--
Music
26/
11
14:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs) The prose isn't bad, but it needs a final copy-edit for polish. Please find someone uninvolved. I would ordinarily help out, but I'm swamped with requests already as well as real-life commitments.
Review by Truco ( talk · contribs)
Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 8 June 2009 [20].
I am nominating this for featured list because it is complete as far as having every city, town, and village in its subject, all columns are filled out (with the exception of some missing photos, though I hope that is expected and not held against the article) I believe the lead is concise, well-written, and informative. Any and all issues brought up can be addressed quickly I hope!
Camelbinky (
talk)
22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Oppose from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Comment - ref 3 is not formatted correctly— Chris! c t 00:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Camelbinky ( talk) 04:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Review by Truco ( talk · contribs)
Okay time for a second chance. I think your last post was out of line "you didn't look at the list enough to even warrent your opinions to be considered in the first place and probably shouldn't have posted them" is never an acceptable comment. We are all volunteers and here to help, and I'm sure you have made a mistake in the past, we're all human. I think there are crossed wires over that colour issue. I think Truco was suggesting that the yellowy orange column headers are changed to provide more contrast with the yellow cells. In the list you mentioned the column headers are blue, but I also think that giving them a colour is unnecessary. The years do need references, from WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and I am currently not able to verify the years. I also find the second paragraph a little unclear. I can't understand the difference (if there is one) between Poestenkill, New Scotland which are "Alb.-Sch.-Troy" and Albany etc. which are "Alb.-Sch.-Troy MSA". Finally, in your last post you said "[I] am now retracting the proposal for FL status". Some time has now passed so do you still wish to continue this nomination or have you withdrawn? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 23:22, 7 June 2009 [21].
Since I believe
the 2007 chart will be promoted on Wednesday, I hope this one won't have any issues, as all problems from the 2007 chart nomination has been resolved on this one. -- [[
SRE.K.A.L.|
L.A.K.ERS]]
05:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:03, 6 June 2009 [22].
I am nominating this to become a featured list, because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It is fairly short, but I believe it is comprehensive for the topic at hand. Now, one thing that may be asked is why some life spans are omitted: this is due to lack of information regarding their life spans (which I have attempted to look for). The article on the person may even have info on their life span, but these dates appear to be
original research.
Hello32020 (
talk)
19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
reply