The list was archived by SchroCat 07:53, 28 September 2014 [1].
Based on the articles, National Film Award for Best Actor and Best Actress, I have made it the way they are, the lists that are having the featured status presently. Apart from that the article is comprehensive, up to date and lastly meet all other FL criteria. FrankBoy (Buzz) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
§§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 14:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
All cleared up.-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from — Vensatry (ping) 06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from —
Vensatry
(ping)
— Vensatry (ping) 08:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 06:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply |
The list was archived by SchroCat 07:53, 28 September 2014 [2].
For several years I have been creating this list of public artworks (very broadly defined) in the City of Westminster, the borough of London which includes the official centre, where that city's most important concentrations of memorials can be found. All the major works and the lion's share of the more obscure ones have been covered with citations, images, co-ordinates, notes and sometimes Commons categories, so I feel that the page meets the criterion of comprehensiveness. Only architectural sculptures have had to be excluded due to the sheer size of this list; for them there is a separate article. I eagerly look forward to your comments. Ham ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I have no problem believing that this list is more comprehensive than any book. Hopefully you've been through all the major books on the topic making sure this is the case.
I've not reviewed a featured list before so may be applying too high a standard. My point of view is that I'm trying to review this list against a scope that has the possibility of being quite vague (What is art? What is public? What isn't architectural sculpture? What is permanent? etc) but against the criteria that the list should be of professional quality and attempt to include all items. So would I expect a professional quality list to include say just a photo from a user-generated website with no other info? No. Would I expect a list that is trying to be comprehensive to deliberately omit an item that verifiably belongs in that list? No. What I've been trying to do by suggesting various pictures from geograph etc is not to say that everything I've suggested needs to be in the list but that these things need further investigation because they may be evidence that the list isn't comprehensive. Is it 'practical' to investigate some of these? I'd say yes. So if there was info in a geograph page associated with an image that couldn't be found elsewhere then I'd email the photographer and ask where they got that info from etc.
Maybe I'm trying to apply the (professionally) well-researched criteria from FA when that isn't actually in the FL criteria? Anyway, I'm happy to believe that the really major items are included and that there probably aren't that many of the size of say ShackStack missing and that if you didn't add anything else to the list I wouldn't use that as a reason to oppose.
Some comments on the list rather than what isn't in the list:
External links/refs: I've tried to load every cited website that wasn't added recently.
Can we have some more redirects to this article please, currently there is only one. Things like 'List of statues in Westminster', 'Sculptures in the City of Westminster', 'Mosaics in Central London', 'Public Art in Westminster', 'Public sculpture in Westminster', 'Statuary of Westminster' and variations on those themes. I'm sure others can think of more terms people might try to search for. JMiall ₰ 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 10:15, 22 September 2014 [3].
This is my first attempt at FLC. The Hammond organ is a popular keyboard instrument used by a wide variety of artists. I have been steadily working on this list for about a year, trimming out questionable entries and ensuring it is comprehensive and properly sourced. I've recently tidied up the presentation to include images wherever possible, and after a short informal peer review I now believe it is a good introduction to the people who contributed to the Hammond's notability, and meets the standards for a formal FLC review.. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Quick comments
More later, The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment
The introduction outlines the instrument and its role in music, but, except for Smith, players are not mentioned. Since this list is about players, It would be of interest to the general reader to learn about some of the important figures associated with various styles, developments, techniques, etc. in different genres, time periods, etc. (something roughly similar to the
List of jazz bassists, but with refs). Maybe open with a general statement like, "Players in several different musical styles have contributed to the popular use of the Hammond organ. Beginning with jazz players in the 19XXs, such as..." Otherwise, the layout and use of images are visually appealing. The Associated acts (shorter is better, but see Booker T. entry) and Notes are informative and it appears that there is at least one ref per entry. I agree with the comment about the empty cells though—the Ms look unfinished. May include a popular song or album under Notes if nothing else. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:04, 21 September 2014 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe if fulfills all of the FL criteria:
Oppose I've only had a brief look over this article, but I can already see just too many manual of style errors for me to support. This was an ambitious article to improve, as there are really no other featured lists that cover a similar subject, and I'm sure that, when it does reach FL status, it will set the precedent for similar lists to follow. But, in its current state, I'm not sure that it is yet at FL standard.
<ref></ref>
?I think this article still needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish the participating editors all the best in improving it. A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 19:52, 14 September 2014 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this is a comprehensive list of the known leaders of Alderney. It also consists of a comprehensive background section that gives a breakdown of all the various guises of the leadership. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments (first round) Comments on List table
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 01:55, 12 September 2014 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it to the point where it comprehensively covers the subject matter. The article gives an overview on what the topic is, who the rushing champions are for each season, and also what major awards or honors they received. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 01:55, 12 September 2014 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh ( talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [8].
Alright, after two months that video game list is off the nominations page, so it's time we turn back to sci-fi/fantasy award lists! Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have my latest: the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this won't take another 2 months! -- Pres N 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list because these types of pre-professinal tennis era articles better qualify for a list format. They are basically compiled of vast series of reliable sources. We've started these lists a couple of years ago and it's the third edition of them and I feel it has been forged into a readable, well-formatted structure by now. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments
Table
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [10].
Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). As always I'll be watching this like a hawk to reply to any concerns as quickly as I can. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Minor comments - Haven't had a chance to look at prose in full (yet)
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because in the 76 edits I have made to the page, I have given it several thorough copyedits, added images and reorganized and do not think I can improve it any further. A recent peer review had little input, which I hope means that there were few issues. Bilorv (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 05:14, 5 September 2014 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because (fairly obviously) I feel this meets the requirements. Hopefully this will be third time lucky, the previous two nominations seem to follow a pattern: small issues are raised, I try and fix them, a large issue is raised, I try and fix it, then no-one else votes. I have done the things suggested in the previous FLCs (sort by currency rather than country, remove all sorts of things, and re-jig it). Now, I hope there is nothing too major needing doing. Third-time lucky? Thanks in advance, Mat ty. 007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 ( talk) 18:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply |
---|
Initial comments –
— Bloom6132 ( talk) 21:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply
More comments –
|
In the phenomenon known as 'dollarization', the U.S. dollar has been adopted as the official currency of several other countries;[6] but semi-dollarization also exists in a few other countries where the U.S. dollar is recognised as legal tender alongside another currency, and unofficial dollarization exists in many areas where the U.S. dollar is widely used and accepted-although it is not recognised as legal tender. Mattximus ( talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [13].
After quite some work I think this is a neat list. Let me know how can it be improved further. Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply
After all of these are addressed, unless I see something else, I will support. Only thing left is the age of 82 G. Eridani. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Changing to Support -- Pres N 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose Regretfully in this case. But several editors, myself included, have offered suggestions for improvement to this list candidate at its Talk page, basically on the grounds that the article's lead can and should be improved on WP:LEAD grounds, and that the article needs to be divided in to more sections. But the article's original author has rebuffed not only these attempts, but pretty much all attempts at discussing the issue, and is completely uninterested in any consensus-building on solutions. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Couple of issues:
77.57.25.250 ( talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I've removed the categories. The table should not be viewed as a categorization but as a data binning as used in a histogram. In the comment by 77.57.25.250 the Kepler-10b is presumably meant to be Kepler-10c - a Neptune-mass rocky planet. This page is getting difficult to follow with comments being inserted into the middle of other people's comments. Astredita ( talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Generally I agree with the central point of JonRichfield's comments. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article; basically there shouldn't be any new information there. It doesn't.
For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as ...– the article also seems to be based on significant original research. Wikipedia doesn't decide what an exoplanet it; it just reports what reliable (secondary) sources say. I certainly can't support it as a featured list. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Now, for the purpose of keeping this away from turing into some bashing, can you and other future reviewers please explain how to IMPROVE the current text with specific examples of problems and sensible solutions? Nergaal ( talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence, what reference will you add to support this statement? Answer: there isn't one. Why? Answer: because it's your statement that there are no follow-up papers, not that of a source. I know perfectly well how long it takes for there to be reliable reviews in secondary sources, but if there are no secondary sources supporting the existence of a particular exoplanet, why is it listed in the article? Answer: because you (not a referenced secondary source) decided that "unconfirmed" as applied to an exoplanet means "I know of only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, and no follow-up papers discussing its existence". I quote from WP:OR "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You are interpreting primary source material – a single report with no follow up – as meaning that you can list the exoplanet as "unconfirmed". Again from WP:OR, including the bold text: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You are are doing precisely what is proscribed there unless there is a reliable secondary source that lists exoplanets as "unconfirmed" on these criteria.
@ Nergaal: Choose the action and you choose the consequences. Get snitty, and you needn't expect much sympathy. Ignore counsel, and soon there is not much use asking for comments, much less sympathy. Let's get back to basics and forget whatever was getting up our respective and collective noses. This will require flexibility as well as restraint on both sides.
So let me try another tack. You said in effect "...less guidelining, more specific examples..." right? In my wall of text that you dismissed unread as unreadable, I told you precisely what to do; twice, counting what I, in my innocence, said on the talk page. A good start on your part would be to go through it systematically, apply the recommendations and see what you get. Then add any changes or improvements that occur to you, run it up the flagpole and count the salutes.
If that sounds too much like hard work, let me know and I'll do it for you (I have no difficulty reading what I wrote!) You need not of course commit to my changes, much less acknowledge them; I would recommend if you do take me up on it, that you most certainly make sure that you carry on after I have done, till you like the product; you won't wound my feelings, for sure! I have refrained so far, partly because this is not my subject, but largely because it is not often a good idea to fiddle with someone else's article (yes, yes, I know about possessiveness with articles!) while an RFC or other debate is under way.
Alternatively, and IMO, much better, see whether you can put up with another wall of text, but read and interpret it before continuing:
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [20].
The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active season in recorded history. With a large number of tropical cyclones, impact was widespread and there were some interesting systems. Felix threatened the East Coast of the United States once and Bermuda twice. Luis was a strong hurricane that brought destruction to the Lesser Antilles that rivaled Hurricane Hugo. Marilyn dealt similar amounts of damage to the Lesser Antilles as Luis. Opal brought severe impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Finally, Roxanne's bizarre path in the Gulf of Mexico allowed the storm to produce extensive flooding in Mexico. Personally, I believe this timeline satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Enjoy!-- 12george1 ( talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply
TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 07:53, 28 September 2014 [1].
Based on the articles, National Film Award for Best Actor and Best Actress, I have made it the way they are, the lists that are having the featured status presently. Apart from that the article is comprehensive, up to date and lastly meet all other FL criteria. FrankBoy (Buzz) 02:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
§§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 14:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
All cleared up.-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
FrankBoy (Buzz) 20:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from — Vensatry (ping) 06:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from —
Vensatry
(ping)
— Vensatry (ping) 08:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)-- FrankBoy (Buzz) 06:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply |
The list was archived by SchroCat 07:53, 28 September 2014 [2].
For several years I have been creating this list of public artworks (very broadly defined) in the City of Westminster, the borough of London which includes the official centre, where that city's most important concentrations of memorials can be found. All the major works and the lion's share of the more obscure ones have been covered with citations, images, co-ordinates, notes and sometimes Commons categories, so I feel that the page meets the criterion of comprehensiveness. Only architectural sculptures have had to be excluded due to the sheer size of this list; for them there is a separate article. I eagerly look forward to your comments. Ham ( talk) 19:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I have no problem believing that this list is more comprehensive than any book. Hopefully you've been through all the major books on the topic making sure this is the case.
I've not reviewed a featured list before so may be applying too high a standard. My point of view is that I'm trying to review this list against a scope that has the possibility of being quite vague (What is art? What is public? What isn't architectural sculpture? What is permanent? etc) but against the criteria that the list should be of professional quality and attempt to include all items. So would I expect a professional quality list to include say just a photo from a user-generated website with no other info? No. Would I expect a list that is trying to be comprehensive to deliberately omit an item that verifiably belongs in that list? No. What I've been trying to do by suggesting various pictures from geograph etc is not to say that everything I've suggested needs to be in the list but that these things need further investigation because they may be evidence that the list isn't comprehensive. Is it 'practical' to investigate some of these? I'd say yes. So if there was info in a geograph page associated with an image that couldn't be found elsewhere then I'd email the photographer and ask where they got that info from etc.
Maybe I'm trying to apply the (professionally) well-researched criteria from FA when that isn't actually in the FL criteria? Anyway, I'm happy to believe that the really major items are included and that there probably aren't that many of the size of say ShackStack missing and that if you didn't add anything else to the list I wouldn't use that as a reason to oppose.
Some comments on the list rather than what isn't in the list:
External links/refs: I've tried to load every cited website that wasn't added recently.
Can we have some more redirects to this article please, currently there is only one. Things like 'List of statues in Westminster', 'Sculptures in the City of Westminster', 'Mosaics in Central London', 'Public Art in Westminster', 'Public sculpture in Westminster', 'Statuary of Westminster' and variations on those themes. I'm sure others can think of more terms people might try to search for. JMiall ₰ 19:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 10:15, 22 September 2014 [3].
This is my first attempt at FLC. The Hammond organ is a popular keyboard instrument used by a wide variety of artists. I have been steadily working on this list for about a year, trimming out questionable entries and ensuring it is comprehensive and properly sourced. I've recently tidied up the presentation to include images wherever possible, and after a short informal peer review I now believe it is a good introduction to the people who contributed to the Hammond's notability, and meets the standards for a formal FLC review.. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Quick comments
More later, The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comment
The introduction outlines the instrument and its role in music, but, except for Smith, players are not mentioned. Since this list is about players, It would be of interest to the general reader to learn about some of the important figures associated with various styles, developments, techniques, etc. in different genres, time periods, etc. (something roughly similar to the
List of jazz bassists, but with refs). Maybe open with a general statement like, "Players in several different musical styles have contributed to the popular use of the Hammond organ. Beginning with jazz players in the 19XXs, such as..." Otherwise, the layout and use of images are visually appealing. The Associated acts (shorter is better, but see Booker T. entry) and Notes are informative and it appears that there is at least one ref per entry. I agree with the comment about the empty cells though—the Ms look unfinished. May include a popular song or album under Notes if nothing else. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
15:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:04, 21 September 2014 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe if fulfills all of the FL criteria:
Oppose I've only had a brief look over this article, but I can already see just too many manual of style errors for me to support. This was an ambitious article to improve, as there are really no other featured lists that cover a similar subject, and I'm sure that, when it does reach FL status, it will set the precedent for similar lists to follow. But, in its current state, I'm not sure that it is yet at FL standard.
<ref></ref>
?I think this article still needs a lot of work done to it, and I wish the participating editors all the best in improving it. A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 18:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 19:52, 14 September 2014 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this is a comprehensive list of the known leaders of Alderney. It also consists of a comprehensive background section that gives a breakdown of all the various guises of the leadership. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments (first round) Comments on List table
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 01:55, 12 September 2014 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it to the point where it comprehensively covers the subject matter. The article gives an overview on what the topic is, who the rushing champions are for each season, and also what major awards or honors they received. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 01:55, 12 September 2014 [7].
I am nominating this for featured list because after a failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. Thanks, Earthh ( talk) 13:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [8].
Alright, after two months that video game list is off the nominations page, so it's time we turn back to sci-fi/fantasy award lists! Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have my latest: the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this won't take another 2 months! -- Pres N 17:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list because these types of pre-professinal tennis era articles better qualify for a list format. They are basically compiled of vast series of reliable sources. We've started these lists a couple of years ago and it's the third edition of them and I feel it has been forged into a readable, well-formatted structure by now. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments
Table
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [10].
Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). As always I'll be watching this like a hawk to reply to any concerns as quickly as I can. Thanks in advance, guys. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Minor comments - Haven't had a chance to look at prose in full (yet)
The list was archived by SchroCat 08:03, 8 September 2014 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because in the 76 edits I have made to the page, I have given it several thorough copyedits, added images and reorganized and do not think I can improve it any further. A recent peer review had little input, which I hope means that there were few issues. Bilorv (Talk) (Contribs) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC) reply
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 05:14, 5 September 2014 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because (fairly obviously) I feel this meets the requirements. Hopefully this will be third time lucky, the previous two nominations seem to follow a pattern: small issues are raised, I try and fix them, a large issue is raised, I try and fix it, then no-one else votes. I have done the things suggested in the previous FLCs (sort by currency rather than country, remove all sorts of things, and re-jig it). Now, I hope there is nothing too major needing doing. Third-time lucky? Thanks in advance, Mat ty. 007 14:16, 5 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 ( talk) 18:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply |
---|
Initial comments –
— Bloom6132 ( talk) 21:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC) reply
More comments –
|
In the phenomenon known as 'dollarization', the U.S. dollar has been adopted as the official currency of several other countries;[6] but semi-dollarization also exists in a few other countries where the U.S. dollar is recognised as legal tender alongside another currency, and unofficial dollarization exists in many areas where the U.S. dollar is widely used and accepted-although it is not recognised as legal tender. Mattximus ( talk) 18:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Comments
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [13].
After quite some work I think this is a neat list. Let me know how can it be improved further. Thanks, Nergaal ( talk) 10:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply
After all of these are addressed, unless I see something else, I will support. Only thing left is the age of 82 G. Eridani. StringTheory11 ( t • c) 18:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Changing to Support -- Pres N 18:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Oppose Regretfully in this case. But several editors, myself included, have offered suggestions for improvement to this list candidate at its Talk page, basically on the grounds that the article's lead can and should be improved on WP:LEAD grounds, and that the article needs to be divided in to more sections. But the article's original author has rebuffed not only these attempts, but pretty much all attempts at discussing the issue, and is completely uninterested in any consensus-building on solutions. -- IJBall ( talk) 05:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Couple of issues:
77.57.25.250 ( talk) 20:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
I've removed the categories. The table should not be viewed as a categorization but as a data binning as used in a histogram. In the comment by 77.57.25.250 the Kepler-10b is presumably meant to be Kepler-10c - a Neptune-mass rocky planet. This page is getting difficult to follow with comments being inserted into the middle of other people's comments. Astredita ( talk) 14:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Generally I agree with the central point of JonRichfield's comments. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article; basically there shouldn't be any new information there. It doesn't.
For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as ...– the article also seems to be based on significant original research. Wikipedia doesn't decide what an exoplanet it; it just reports what reliable (secondary) sources say. I certainly can't support it as a featured list. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Now, for the purpose of keeping this away from turing into some bashing, can you and other future reviewers please explain how to IMPROVE the current text with specific examples of problems and sensible solutions? Nergaal ( talk) 11:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence, what reference will you add to support this statement? Answer: there isn't one. Why? Answer: because it's your statement that there are no follow-up papers, not that of a source. I know perfectly well how long it takes for there to be reliable reviews in secondary sources, but if there are no secondary sources supporting the existence of a particular exoplanet, why is it listed in the article? Answer: because you (not a referenced secondary source) decided that "unconfirmed" as applied to an exoplanet means "I know of only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, and no follow-up papers discussing its existence". I quote from WP:OR "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You are interpreting primary source material – a single report with no follow up – as meaning that you can list the exoplanet as "unconfirmed". Again from WP:OR, including the bold text: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." You are are doing precisely what is proscribed there unless there is a reliable secondary source that lists exoplanets as "unconfirmed" on these criteria.
@ Nergaal: Choose the action and you choose the consequences. Get snitty, and you needn't expect much sympathy. Ignore counsel, and soon there is not much use asking for comments, much less sympathy. Let's get back to basics and forget whatever was getting up our respective and collective noses. This will require flexibility as well as restraint on both sides.
So let me try another tack. You said in effect "...less guidelining, more specific examples..." right? In my wall of text that you dismissed unread as unreadable, I told you precisely what to do; twice, counting what I, in my innocence, said on the talk page. A good start on your part would be to go through it systematically, apply the recommendations and see what you get. Then add any changes or improvements that occur to you, run it up the flagpole and count the salutes.
If that sounds too much like hard work, let me know and I'll do it for you (I have no difficulty reading what I wrote!) You need not of course commit to my changes, much less acknowledge them; I would recommend if you do take me up on it, that you most certainly make sure that you carry on after I have done, till you like the product; you won't wound my feelings, for sure! I have refrained so far, partly because this is not my subject, but largely because it is not often a good idea to fiddle with someone else's article (yes, yes, I know about possessiveness with articles!) while an RFC or other debate is under way.
Alternatively, and IMO, much better, see whether you can put up with another wall of text, but read and interpret it before continuing:
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 06:51, 1 September 2014 [20].
The 1995 Atlantic hurricane season was the third most active season in recorded history. With a large number of tropical cyclones, impact was widespread and there were some interesting systems. Felix threatened the East Coast of the United States once and Bermuda twice. Luis was a strong hurricane that brought destruction to the Lesser Antilles that rivaled Hurricane Hugo. Marilyn dealt similar amounts of damage to the Lesser Antilles as Luis. Opal brought severe impact to the Gulf Coast of the United States. Finally, Roxanne's bizarre path in the Gulf of Mexico allowed the storm to produce extensive flooding in Mexico. Personally, I believe this timeline satisfies the requirements of a featured list. Enjoy!-- 12george1 ( talk) 04:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC) reply
TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply