The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [1].
Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1934–1939. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, -- TIAYN ( talk) 08:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Abbreviations used | |
---|---|
K | "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys. |
All | Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo. |
Pol | Politburo member. |
Sec | Secretariat member. |
Org | Orgburo member. |
Pol(Cand), Org(Cand) | "Cand" refers to "Candidate member" |
Keys | |
Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family. | |
Natural | Indicates that the individual died of natural causes. |
Suicide | Indicates that the individual committed suicide. |
Murder | Indicates that the individual was murdered. |
Arrested | Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat. |
Removed | Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee. |
Expelled | Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938. [1] |
Elevated | Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member. |
@ Thisisnotatest: The table is to big; we use symbols so that they don't take much space. The "Keys" section is there so that people can go back and forward. There is no need for the changes you're calling for. Its normal, other FLs do the same, for instance List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches, List of Indianapolis Colts seasons, List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games, List of Silver Slugger Award winners at catcher (I could go on forever). No need. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Trust Is All You Need: There are plenty of other things in the table that take space. The table needs to be accessible and easily usable. One advantage of making each symbol a template as that it would also mouseover so that someone wouldn't have to scroll back up to the key. The fact that many pages use this system doesn't make it accessible or usable or that the featured list program ought to excuse it in the future. If you're concerned about space, then at least an abbreviation for each term would still be more usable than what is there now.
Abbreviations used | |
---|---|
K | "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys. |
All | Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo. |
Pol | Politburo member. |
Sec | Secretariat member. |
Org | Orgburo member. |
Pol(C), Org(C) | "C" refers to "Candidate member" |
Keys | |
Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family. | |
Nat | Indicates that the individual died of natural causes. |
Sui | Indicates that the individual committed suicide. |
Murd | Indicates that the individual was murdered. |
Arr | Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat. |
Rem | Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee. |
Exp | Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938. [1] |
Elev | Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member. |
Thisisnotatest ( talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after viewing several history text timelines and after taking a look at the archived discussion of this article's unsuccessful 2008 "FLC" I set about revamping the page. There are now inline citations, more key events are noted, and more information given about those events. Also, the article now has a good introduction and helpful organizational headings. Drdpw ( talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
First of all, congratulations on the reformat. It looks soooooo much better without the table.
Oppose—there are many lines in this timeline with no inline citation. I would have expected at least one inline citation for each entry on the timeline. – Grondemar 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Maile66:@ Grondemar: Every entry in the TL now has at least one inline citation. Drdpw ( talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has also won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Cowlibob ( talk) 14:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To expand further on the referencing
I'll just stop there. Could you fix these and check for each film that all the details in the table are verified. Cowlibob ( talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, it looks better since Cowlibob last reviewed.
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 18:08, 19 November 2015 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because Sahitya Akademi Award is considered one of the most significant and prestigious literary award in India. And the returning of such a valuable award is currently the most important subject among Indian veteran writers. I've tried my best to satisfy FL criteria, I appreciate constructive criticism in a polite manner. Cheers! Jim Carter 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC). reply
Another cricket list. Currently has eight entries, but it will certainly grow. This one follows the same format as similar lists. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. — Vensatry (ping) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, at this point 2 delegates including myself have expressed concern that this is a 3b violation, and one editor has opposed over it. The fact remains that this list could be easily included in the list of players scoring a century on debut list, either as a table or as a simple footnote, and as such is a 3b violation. I'm going to close this list as not passed, rather than leave it open to just remain stalled. -- Pres N 22:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC). reply
This article was previously promoted to Featured list status in December 2006 (and subsequently became part of a Featured topic in January 2007). However, earlier this year, in April 2015, this article was delisted as a Featured list due to its lack of inline citations, out-of-date referencing, and MOS-type problems with its table-lists (e.g. not adhering to WP:SALORDER, and antiquated table coding, etc.). I have spent the last few weeks attempting to resolve those issues, and I believe this article is now ready to be relisted as a Featured list, so I am (re-)nominating this article for Featured list status. (Most of the other Canadian provincial elections lists articles have also been delisted as FL's, outside of List of Alberta general elections which is still a Featured list, and I hope to fix those other articles, and renominate those over the next couple of months... But I am starting with the British Columbia article, as the one closest to being completely renovated enough for WP:FL status.) I look forward to working through this process. Thank you! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just some drive-by comments, no time for a full review yet.
I think this section of the source pretty much confirms the first paragraph of the 'Elections prior to provincial political parties' section, as well some of what's asserted in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph in the lede. However, it's certainly possible that both of these can be worded better to align them more closely with the quoted text from the source, above. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply...Before 1903 lines were drawn between Government supporters, grouped around the Premier, and the Opposition, grouped around one or more Opposition leaders. Candidates declared themselves as one or the other, or as Independents. There was no formal selection process for the most part so it was not uncommon for Government (or Opposition) candidates to be running against another Government (or Opposition) candidate... After an election, and not infrequently during the life of a Parliament, the position of Government and Opposition was often reversed. From 1871 to 1903 there were eight parliaments and fifteen governments; the seventh and eight Parliaments accounted for six of those governments. Allegiances shifted frequently depending on the issue, there was little to no discipline. In 1886 separate Labour candidates first appeared and in 1900 a Socialist candidate was nominated. The 1900 general election is also significant in that although the traditional division of Government and Opposition was still present, party groupings were beginning to play a role and it foreshadowed the election of 1903 along full party lines.2
It's definitely improved since it was demoted thanks to your efforts, but there is still quite a bit of work to get it back to featured status. Mattximus ( talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Round two:
Looking close to a support! Mattximus ( talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Round Three: Looks much better overall than before, I think my nitpicking is complete. If you do get a chance to change that opening graph, in addition to making the background white, I would also remove the horizontal lines as they weave in and out of the bars making it quit distracting. The only part preventing me from supporting is the unsourced last paragraph. It contains interesting stuff, but it needs to be sourced. Mattximus ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. -- Pres N 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC). reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an interesting stats page that passes all the FL?. Last time it failed because of lack of reviewer interest, which I hope will not be the case this time. Nergaal ( talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Few more quick quibbles before a proper review, I wish WP:PR was still functional these days....
The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sure, there are some things I can still see that need to be addressed.
So that's half-way through the lead, I'll give more feedback once these issues are addressed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Oh, and as for player's names, I didn't mean the ref titles, I meant their usage in the article itself. Make things like (right) into (right) in image captions. spell Ernst Wilimowski correctly, explain what "Goal average" means (we know this, but why should a layman get it?), I'm also not seeing how the up arrow is adequately referenced, e.g. Tim Cahill's link doesn't demonstrate that he played for Australia within the past twelve months (and surely that will age really quickly, you need a different way of explaining this....) The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nergaal ( talk) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
A few more thoughts on the next portion of the lead:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What makes sporting99.com a reliable source? I can't see any evidence that it meets our requirements. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Tintin1107 and The Rambling Man:. Nergaal ( talk) 03:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. -- Pres N 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC). reply
This was a featured list from September 2007 to this May, when it was rightly delisted for having an old format and poorly sourced information. After getting back into the governor list groove, I've taken the time to upgrade the format to include a term column (much superior to the previous style of percentages to indicate shared terms) and a portrait column (since we now have enough portraits to fill most of it out).
I also was bold and removed the living governor list (I can speak only for myself but I see this as excessive trivia that has no real world import) and the 'other high offices held' list, which I found to be difficult to maintain. It requires a bit of clunky prose, and ends up being a bit subjective. My personal rules were: Congressional offices, high executive offices, cabinet, district court or higher appointments, and ambassadorships. However, this would leave out certain things that people would be perhaps better known for, like commissioner of baseball or mayor of large cities. I will argue against replacing the living governor list, but I can easily go along with replacing the other high office list if people think it makes sense to keep.
Finally, the reason this was delisted: Data. Turns out that the best available sources on when Arkansas' governors took office disagree by a day or two for much of the state's history, so extensive verification and logical thinking had to be done to come up with the list as it is. Everything should be properly sourced now. Also, I discovered a new governor, Thomas Fletcher, which is not a sentence that often makes sense, but here we are.
It's been years since I've brought a list to FLC, so I expect my old standards are lacking, so I look forward to learning what new hotness I need to employ in this. Thank you! -- Golbez ( talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments by Dudley
It's been 2 months without sufficient support, so closing this nomination as not passed. -- Pres N 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [1].
Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1934–1939. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, -- TIAYN ( talk) 08:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Abbreviations used | |
---|---|
K | "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys. |
All | Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo. |
Pol | Politburo member. |
Sec | Secretariat member. |
Org | Orgburo member. |
Pol(Cand), Org(Cand) | "Cand" refers to "Candidate member" |
Keys | |
Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family. | |
Natural | Indicates that the individual died of natural causes. |
Suicide | Indicates that the individual committed suicide. |
Murder | Indicates that the individual was murdered. |
Arrested | Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat. |
Removed | Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee. |
Expelled | Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938. [1] |
Elevated | Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member. |
@ Thisisnotatest: The table is to big; we use symbols so that they don't take much space. The "Keys" section is there so that people can go back and forward. There is no need for the changes you're calling for. Its normal, other FLs do the same, for instance List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches, List of Indianapolis Colts seasons, List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games, List of Silver Slugger Award winners at catcher (I could go on forever). No need. -- TIAYN ( talk) 13:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Trust Is All You Need: There are plenty of other things in the table that take space. The table needs to be accessible and easily usable. One advantage of making each symbol a template as that it would also mouseover so that someone wouldn't have to scroll back up to the key. The fact that many pages use this system doesn't make it accessible or usable or that the featured list program ought to excuse it in the future. If you're concerned about space, then at least an abbreviation for each term would still be more usable than what is there now.
Abbreviations used | |
---|---|
K | "K" is an abbreviation of the word Keys. |
All | Individual membership in the Politburo, Secretariat and Orgburo. |
Pol | Politburo member. |
Sec | Secretariat member. |
Org | Orgburo member. |
Pol(C), Org(C) | "C" refers to "Candidate member" |
Keys | |
Indicates that the individual was born into a Jewish family. | |
Nat | Indicates that the individual died of natural causes. |
Sui | Indicates that the individual committed suicide. |
Murd | Indicates that the individual was murdered. |
Arr | Indicates that the individual was arrested by Soviet authorities while holding a Central Committee seat. |
Rem | Indicates that the individual was removed from the Central Committee. |
Exp | Indicates that the individual was expelled on 8 December 1937, but that the expulsion was confirmed later by the 13th Plenary Session on 20 January 1938. [1] |
Elev | Indicates that the individual was elevated from candidate to full member. |
Thisisnotatest ( talk) 00:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after viewing several history text timelines and after taking a look at the archived discussion of this article's unsuccessful 2008 "FLC" I set about revamping the page. There are now inline citations, more key events are noted, and more information given about those events. Also, the article now has a good introduction and helpful organizational headings. Drdpw ( talk) 21:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
First of all, congratulations on the reformat. It looks soooooo much better without the table.
Oppose—there are many lines in this timeline with no inline citation. I would have expected at least one inline citation for each entry on the timeline. – Grondemar 23:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Maile66:@ Grondemar: Every entry in the TL now has at least one inline citation. Drdpw ( talk) 20:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 13:22, 27 November 2015 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Raveena Tandon is one of Bollywood's most popular actresses. She has received critical acclaim for portraying strong women in several films and has also won the National Film Award for Best Actress. Looking forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 19:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Cowlibob ( talk) 14:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC) reply
To expand further on the referencing
I'll just stop there. Could you fix these and check for each film that all the details in the table are verified. Cowlibob ( talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Otherwise, it looks better since Cowlibob last reviewed.
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
The list was withdrawn by Giants2008 18:08, 19 November 2015 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because Sahitya Akademi Award is considered one of the most significant and prestigious literary award in India. And the returning of such a valuable award is currently the most important subject among Indian veteran writers. I've tried my best to satisfy FL criteria, I appreciate constructive criticism in a polite manner. Cheers! Jim Carter 11:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC). reply
Another cricket list. Currently has eight entries, but it will certainly grow. This one follows the same format as similar lists. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. — Vensatry (ping) 12:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, at this point 2 delegates including myself have expressed concern that this is a 3b violation, and one editor has opposed over it. The fact remains that this list could be easily included in the list of players scoring a century on debut list, either as a table or as a simple footnote, and as such is a 3b violation. I'm going to close this list as not passed, rather than leave it open to just remain stalled. -- Pres N 22:05, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC). reply
This article was previously promoted to Featured list status in December 2006 (and subsequently became part of a Featured topic in January 2007). However, earlier this year, in April 2015, this article was delisted as a Featured list due to its lack of inline citations, out-of-date referencing, and MOS-type problems with its table-lists (e.g. not adhering to WP:SALORDER, and antiquated table coding, etc.). I have spent the last few weeks attempting to resolve those issues, and I believe this article is now ready to be relisted as a Featured list, so I am (re-)nominating this article for Featured list status. (Most of the other Canadian provincial elections lists articles have also been delisted as FL's, outside of List of Alberta general elections which is still a Featured list, and I hope to fix those other articles, and renominate those over the next couple of months... But I am starting with the British Columbia article, as the one closest to being completely renovated enough for WP:FL status.) I look forward to working through this process. Thank you! -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Just some drive-by comments, no time for a full review yet.
I think this section of the source pretty much confirms the first paragraph of the 'Elections prior to provincial political parties' section, as well some of what's asserted in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph in the lede. However, it's certainly possible that both of these can be worded better to align them more closely with the quoted text from the source, above. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply...Before 1903 lines were drawn between Government supporters, grouped around the Premier, and the Opposition, grouped around one or more Opposition leaders. Candidates declared themselves as one or the other, or as Independents. There was no formal selection process for the most part so it was not uncommon for Government (or Opposition) candidates to be running against another Government (or Opposition) candidate... After an election, and not infrequently during the life of a Parliament, the position of Government and Opposition was often reversed. From 1871 to 1903 there were eight parliaments and fifteen governments; the seventh and eight Parliaments accounted for six of those governments. Allegiances shifted frequently depending on the issue, there was little to no discipline. In 1886 separate Labour candidates first appeared and in 1900 a Socialist candidate was nominated. The 1900 general election is also significant in that although the traditional division of Government and Opposition was still present, party groupings were beginning to play a role and it foreshadowed the election of 1903 along full party lines.2
It's definitely improved since it was demoted thanks to your efforts, but there is still quite a bit of work to get it back to featured status. Mattximus ( talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Round two:
Looking close to a support! Mattximus ( talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Round Three: Looks much better overall than before, I think my nitpicking is complete. If you do get a chance to change that opening graph, in addition to making the background white, I would also remove the horizontal lines as they weave in and out of the bars making it quit distracting. The only part preventing me from supporting is the unsourced last paragraph. It contains interesting stuff, but it needs to be sourced. Mattximus ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. -- Pres N 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC). reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an interesting stats page that passes all the FL?. Last time it failed because of lack of reviewer interest, which I hope will not be the case this time. Nergaal ( talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Few more quick quibbles before a proper review, I wish WP:PR was still functional these days....
The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Sure, there are some things I can still see that need to be addressed.
So that's half-way through the lead, I'll give more feedback once these issues are addressed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Oh, and as for player's names, I didn't mean the ref titles, I meant their usage in the article itself. Make things like (right) into (right) in image captions. spell Ernst Wilimowski correctly, explain what "Goal average" means (we know this, but why should a layman get it?), I'm also not seeing how the up arrow is adequately referenced, e.g. Tim Cahill's link doesn't demonstrate that he played for Australia within the past twelve months (and surely that will age really quickly, you need a different way of explaining this....) The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nergaal ( talk) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
A few more thoughts on the next portion of the lead:
The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC) reply
What makes sporting99.com a reliable source? I can't see any evidence that it meets our requirements. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Tintin1107 and The Rambling Man:. Nergaal ( talk) 03:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. -- Pres N 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply
The list was not promoted by Pres N 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC). reply
This was a featured list from September 2007 to this May, when it was rightly delisted for having an old format and poorly sourced information. After getting back into the governor list groove, I've taken the time to upgrade the format to include a term column (much superior to the previous style of percentages to indicate shared terms) and a portrait column (since we now have enough portraits to fill most of it out).
I also was bold and removed the living governor list (I can speak only for myself but I see this as excessive trivia that has no real world import) and the 'other high offices held' list, which I found to be difficult to maintain. It requires a bit of clunky prose, and ends up being a bit subjective. My personal rules were: Congressional offices, high executive offices, cabinet, district court or higher appointments, and ambassadorships. However, this would leave out certain things that people would be perhaps better known for, like commissioner of baseball or mayor of large cities. I will argue against replacing the living governor list, but I can easily go along with replacing the other high office list if people think it makes sense to keep.
Finally, the reason this was delisted: Data. Turns out that the best available sources on when Arkansas' governors took office disagree by a day or two for much of the state's history, so extensive verification and logical thinking had to be done to come up with the list as it is. Everything should be properly sourced now. Also, I discovered a new governor, Thomas Fletcher, which is not a sentence that often makes sense, but here we are.
It's been years since I've brought a list to FLC, so I expect my old standards are lacking, so I look forward to learning what new hotness I need to employ in this. Thank you! -- Golbez ( talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Comments by Dudley
It's been 2 months without sufficient support, so closing this nomination as not passed. -- Pres N 21:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply