The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [1].
Ok, another cricket list off the factory line, but hopefully worthy of inclusion here. I think I've checked all dablinks, all external links, alt text, MOS, etc, etc. I'd love for some of cricketing reviewers to get dirty with the detail, and for some of our non-cricketing reviewers to say "what the heck does that mean?" if necessary. All the best, and, as ever, thanks in advance for your time.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment – Why is his first name repeated throughout the lead? Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Shouldn't the title be "list of five-wicket hauls in international cricket by Wasim Akram"? It just seems to flow better. Nev1 ( talk) 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment leaning towards Support
Just a few of comments, but the first is easily sorted and the second might not even be worth mentioning. Nev1 ( talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [4].
This sub-list of Victoria Cross recipients has gone through a recent peer review, which has hopefully readied it for FL candidature.
User:AustralianRupert did much of the work on this article, including the difficult referencing and table work, and much of my contributions have been in the way of tweaking, slight expansions and alt text. AustralianRupert is on board with this nomination, per his statement at the peer review. I believe that this article meets the featured list criteria and look forward to everyone's comments. Thanks in advance!
Dana boomer (
talk)
21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Just quickly passing through:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
I'm sorry not to have posted these observations during the peer review, but I think it's only where I've not looked at the article in a while that has allowed me to spot these things! Anyway, here goes:
The Victoria Cross (VC) is a military decoration that may be bestowed upon members of the British or Commonwealth armed forces for acts of valour or gallantry performed in the face of the enemy. Within the British honours system and those of many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award a soldier can receive for actions in combat. [1] It was established in 1856 and since then has been awarded xxxx times.
The British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers, has been a part of the Army since 1815. When raised it originally focused on conflicts in the Far East, but the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese hands necessitated that the brigade move its base to the UK. A battalion is still maintained in Brunei and as of 2009, units serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans. [2]
Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times. [3] The first award was made in 1858 to a British officer of the Gurkhas during the campaigns that followed the Indian Rebellion of 1857, while the first award to a native Gurkha was in 1915 during the First World War. When the Victoria Cross was initially established, Gurkhas, along with all other native troops of the British East India Company Army or the British Indian Army, were not eligible for it and as such up until 1911 all of the Gurkha recipients of the award were British officers who were attached to Gurkha regiments. [4] Until that time the highest award that Gurkhas were eligible for was the Indian Order of Merit. Since 1911 however, of the 16 VCs awarded to men serving with Gurkha regiments, 13 have been bestowed upon native Gurkhas. [3] The most recent award was made in 1965, during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. [3]
In 1950, when India became a republic, Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army lost their eligibility for the Victoria Cross and they are now covered under the separate Indian honours system. Under this system the Param Vir Chakra (PVC), which is India's highest military decoration for valour, [5] is considered to be equivalent to the Victoria Cross. As such only those serving in the Gurkha units of the British Army remain eligible for the Victoria Cross.
Just an idea. Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve ( talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Support Comments – nice list, well cited and illustrated, but a few things before I can support:
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [6].
Very loosely based on two other featured lists about books (
List of Lambda Literary Awards winners and nominees for science fiction, fantasy and horror,
List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best novel) and using the style as seen on
BAFTA Award for Best Film, i believe this list covers the subject to the full. I opted for the BAFTA style list because i feel it identifies the seperate years more clearly, however i am open to changing the format to the Gaylactic and Lambda styles if table sorting is an issue.
Salavat (
talk)
16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
— Chris! c/ t 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Quick comments –
Support Mm40 ( talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Mm40 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Mm40 (
talk ·
contribs)
After these issues are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 22:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
Comments Support
I like the lead, it reads well and the sources are appropriate (ie: the awards website for the technicalities, outside sources for praise). The tables are straightforward and user friendly. Once these issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Nev1 ( talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [7].
I have based this list on the current FLs:
List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons,
List of Maryland Terrapins football seasons,
List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons and
List of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons. I feel it now meets the
featured list criteria after a
peer review help to clean up several minor problems and I am now nominating the list for FL.
NThomas (
talk)
19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Overall I think is a very well put together list. -- Voltin ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Support from Voltin ( talk) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC). While I am not a contributor to the article, it should be noted that I am a member of WikiProject Texas Tech University and WikiProject Big 12 Conference. Both Wikiprojects' scope include this article. reply
Support with the same caveats listed by Voltin. I have not contributed to the article but am a member of the two related WikiProjects. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
Comments
date
- perhaps just convert that to ISO (per ref 15) and I think all will be well.The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 23:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a companion to the featured lists
List of new churches by John Douglas and
List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas. Its lead is similar to the other lists, suitably modified for this list of houses. The table is similar apart from one major change: as the proportion of images is less than the other lists, they have been included in a separate strip, rather than integrated as a column within the list, in order to avoid too much white space.
Peter I. Vardy (
talk)
17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Check "disambig links" in the toolbox. bamse ( talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Wizardman 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Comment: I would like to see a key added for the article, to distinguish between I and II, as well as the three colors. It's mentioned in one of the paragraphs, but that can be turned into the key, as at 5 paragraphs the lead is quite lengthy (the two final ones could be combined afterwards.
Wizardman
00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
Resolved comments from
Hassocks5489
|
---|
Comments from Hassocks
Lead
Table
Refs
Alt text
I have placed this FLC on my watch list. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support and follow-up Thanks for making these changes, and for your other clarifications. I have made two edits: one on Eaton Boat, where my original comment had a typo which rendered it meaningless (sorry!)—I have changed "they" to "these"; and one addition of coordinates. My technique for finding coordinates, in the absence of accurate grid references or other data to base these on, is a bit time-consuming but usually works in the end: using the Images of England photo and address description (or any other available address info), I search on Google Maps satellite view for the building. I did this for Abbotsford and found it on a small lane off Warrington Road. Obviously it helps if the building has a distinctive roofline, and it can get frustrating! You can then confirm the coordinates by converting them back into a grid reference and comparing them with a map or with the basic coordinates given on the IoE listing. (For IoE listings where the full grid reference is quoted, which is usually the case in Sussex, I convert that into coordinates using www.nearby.org.uk) This might help with West Lodge and Green Farmhouse. I accept your rationale for demolished buildings and the lack of definitive evidence. The rewritten sentence in the lead looks much clearer; everything else is fine as well. Hope you can find the other two coordinates I referred to, but it's not a problem if you can't. Support accordingly – Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [9].
Another centuries list, and the first Sri Lankan one. This is based on the already existing ones of Ponting, Sehwag etc. My first list of this type, so your comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈
Chamal
talk
¤
11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from - Spaceman Spiff 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments – Seems mostly solid. Just found a couple of little nit-picks:
Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a wonderful list which features the singles and the song released by a veteran artist, whose catalogue is really huge and is one of the greatest artists of all time. I believe this discography deserves featured list as it is the most complete discography you can find.
--Legolas
(talk2me)
06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Jimknut ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Some suggestions:
Hope these suggestions help. Jimknut ( talk) 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
Support — The information seems complete and the sources look good. Jimknut ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support - Looks great anyhow, Haven't gone through sources however. Aaroncrick ( talk) Review me! 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick comments –
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. This list is more similar to
List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers than the other Opening Day starting pitcher FLs because, like the Phillies list, this list goes back to the 19th century, and less information is available for the 19th century and early 20th century (and the sources do not summarize the data as usefully) than more recent data.
Rlendog (
talk)
16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Looks good to me. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
— NMajdan• talk 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
To add one note on the new Fred Goldsmith photo, the licensing is incorrect. The uploader couldn't have placed this into the public domain, unless she was around in the late 1880s and took the photo (unlikely). This image was published before 1923, so it should have that template instead, and the source should mention the newspaper. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after the last nomination I feel I have made the page a vast improvement since then.
Marcus Bowen (
talk)
20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support and I've replied to a few comments.
Mm40 (
talk)
Mm40 (
talk)
14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Mm40 ( talk) Mm40 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Mm40 (
talk)
Pretty good overall, after these are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Comments/Support from Dt128 ( talk · contribs) Hi!
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Support Looks solid to me. Only one complaint: some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer ( talk) 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [13].
This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the
Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback.
Arsenikk
(talk)
13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.— Chris! c/ t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - Looks good, but some questions:
Support, all questions have been addressed.
bamse (
talk)
15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to
History of Oslo Metro lines?
bamse ( talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.
Boissière ( talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife
Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.
Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife ( talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Support. WFCforLife ( talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière ( talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [14].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it properly covers the topic and meets the featured list criteria. This is my first FL nomination, so I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for your reviews. --
Big
Dom
12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments hey BigDom, welcome to FLC, hope you enjoy your visit and will return with more good lists!
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
— NMajdan• talk 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife
I think this is a subtle reminder that I need to pull my socks up and get involved with my own club's equivalent.
Hope those help, WFCforLife ( talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
Resolved comments from Struway2 ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
*
FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I know
some of us go a bit over the top where annotations are concerned, but is there really nothing even remotely interesting, quirky, or needing explanation?
cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support. List now meets criteria. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [15].
I am nominating this for featured list because the only objection from the last FLC has been fixed. The problem was that one of the sites I used went down so reviewers couldn't confirm the data or that the site was a reliable source. I only use alphacharts as a source to show the general performance of a song; raw data is taken from the hung median charts. The list is complete and well-sourced.
EA Swyer
Talk
Contributions
21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [16].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the FL criteria. Remember me? Yeah, I'm back. Been a while since I nominated a list, but finally got another finished. As usual all comments will be fixed as soon as I become aware of them. I expanded this thing fully. From the old bad format to a newer cleaner better sourced look. Was pretty annoying considering the history of changes is unsure at times, but I believe I have gotten it to be correct.--
Will
C
04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Hopefully these comments get you started.— NMajdan• talk 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support.— NMajdan• talk 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Support Mm40 ( talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Mm40 ( talk) Mm40 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Mm40 (
talk)
I've got to go for now, but hopefully I'll finish the review at some point in the near future. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Pretty good, I'll support once these issues are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [17].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the
FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions.
Pyrrhus
16
17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:
-- Lightlowemon ( talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done.
Hope those help! WFCforLife ( talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife:
At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife ( talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support. WFCforLife ( talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense.
|
Support. bamse ( talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick comments –
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [18].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from
User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement.
Trevor
MacInnis
contribs
05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
— Chris! c/ t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11...
Interjectory note: This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Interjectory note: The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Interjected note: I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."
Georgejdorner ( talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife:
Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife ( talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
I'm happy to support. WFCforLife ( talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.
In answer to Ian Rose's concerns: The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?
Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.
Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Self-correction: All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.
George, to take your responses in order:
Ian, old cobber,
Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.
I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.
When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.
I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.
And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:
Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick comments –
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [21].
Very detailed medal table that can be compared to the Featured Olympic similars.
Felipe Menegaz
19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Just one quick comment I noticed in a drive-by: the legend is ambiguous. Does "First medal in the Pan American Games" mean that the country earned its first medal in the Games (ever?), or does it mean that the country earned the first medal in these particular games? Likewise for the "First medal in the Pan American Games". KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The legend for the table (i.e. host nation, first ever medal, etc.) seems to contain two legends per subject--the numerical superscript/note, and the color coding. Maybe this can be simplified by removing one or the other. Personally, I prefer removing the numerical superscript, since that gives the idea that there is are notes at the bottom of the table/page worth considering, which is not the case. Joey80 ( talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Also, to support Geraldk's comments, it might be better to also include images of athletes of varying nationalities other than Brazilian. Joey80 ( talk) 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The ALT text needs work. For the pictures of athletes, you shouldn't mention their name in the ALT text because a non-expert can't see that just be looking at the picture. Instead, describe what the athletes look like, what they're wearing, etc. See Wikipedia:ALT#Verifiability. Also, for the map at top, there's no need to describe the colors, just describe what you would take from it. Maybe something like: "The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. received at least one gold medal" and continue that going over most countries (see Wikipedia:ALT#Maps). Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from Giants2008
Mostly of the picky variety, since the list is very good overall. Regarding the images, I would like to see one or two that represent a country other than Brazil. Having four Brazilian photos and none with athletes from other countries could be seen by some as introducing bias. I also have a hard time believing no alternatives are avaliable, because the Brazilian agency where the existing photos come from has such friendly policies for our purposes; surely they didn't photograph just Brazilian athletes. Any of the team-sport finals photos in particular would make an ideal addition to the list, and are still strongly related to the medal count. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [22].
I am nominating my first tallest buildings list and I think it fulfills the FL criteria. —
Chris!
c/
t
22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Looking over the history of the article, User:Hydrogen Iodide should also get credit for this nomination, as he was also a primary contributor to the article. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Comments
— NMajdan• talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support.— NMajdan• talk 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments from WFCforLife
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
* "Tallest building in the 1900s" could do with a footnote to disambiguate between the decade and the century. I know it's a bit picky, but sort by year and you will see why this could potentially cause confusion.
I'll leave it there for now. As an aside I absolutely love the panoramic shot. WFCforLife ( talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments: Good article, but some questions.
bamse ( talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply two more questions:
|
Support. bamse ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - "feet (m)" should be "feet (meters)" or "ft (m)". --[[
SRE.K.A.L.|
L.A.K.ERS]]
23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [23].
Another cricket list, but this time not an Australian... I hope I got the basics right, sortability, dabs, live ext links, alt text, MOS-compliance, and hope that the list meets with the approval of the community. I look forward to any and all comments, thanks in advance for your time and reviews.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from - Spaceman Spiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Comment -- Really good to see Dravid here! Shouldn't the 180 in the
Second Test, 2000–01 Border-Gavaskar Trophy find mention in the lead? While he's scored better, this innings has received a lot of coverage, although it wasn't the highest score in that game. -
Spaceman
Spiff
16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [25].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's Test matches are not played that regularly. This is laid out in the same format as the current FL (
List of India women Test cricketers and I have read and used the comments from that FLC when creating this list. All comments and questions are welcome, happy reviewing!
Harrias (
talk)
11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from - Spaceman Spiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
cheers, - Spaceman Spiff 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Image needs alt text, no? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments –
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [26].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready. This is my first award list in a while. —
Chris!
c/
t
05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Geraldk
|
---|
Comments: Did a quick c/e for spelling and grammar issues hope you don't mind, but also had these:
Geraldk ( talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from
Jan Kameníček
|
---|
Comments. Generally, I like the list, and have just a few comments:
I was thinking about the article a little more and have a few more questions:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Otherwise, looks in good shape. Bencherlite Talk 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support, issues resolved (I reworded prize 1 and prize 2 as "one of the prizes" and "the other"). Bencherlite Talk 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [27].
Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—
Chris!
c/
t
01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Staxringold |
---|
|
Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them.
List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b?
Giants2008 (
17–14)
20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk ( talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me.
WFCforLife (
talk)
01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are:
I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife ( talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:
Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife ( talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:
Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [28].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles
List of Indiana state symbols,
List of Kentucky state symbols, and
List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks!
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - lead is a bit short— Chris! c/ t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 ( talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. -- Esprqii ( talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) -- Esprqii ( talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from
Geraldk
|
---|
|
Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk ( talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92 Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --
Another Believer (
Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --
Another Believer (
Talk)
20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Retracted idea about combining columns from
YBG
|
---|
(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG ( talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:
Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from
YBG
|
---|
Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG ( talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG ( talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
OK, here's a couple more ideas:
(a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted'
(b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted
YBG (
talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
What do you think?
YBG (
talk)
07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from
YBG and column width
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours.
As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG ( talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [29].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for
Big Brother and
Project Runway, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed.
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
No, I think that would be a good idea to include why they are celebrities. Reywas92 Talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [30].
I have nominated this list after working on it for a long time, both the copyedit and the red link criteria. I've created articles for
Jack O'Brien (wrestler),
Alberto Muñoz,
Kung Fu (wrestler),
Américo Rocca,
Franco Columbo,
El Supremo (wrestler),
Mocho Cota,
Chamaco Valaguez,
Águila Solitaria,
Ciclón Ramírez,
Fantasma de la Quebrada,
El Salsero,
Nygma (wrestler),
El Torero,
Karloff Lagarde, Jr.,
Tigre Blanco,
Doctor X (wrestler),
Valiente (wrestler) and I now believe it fulfils all FL criterias.
The remaining names on the list are not linked, I could not find much information on them in general, the only notable thing seems to be winning this title and no other titles. I left them unliked as I don't think it's realistic that anyone could find enough information to establish much in the way of notability. It follows the pattern and format of all the other wrestling championship lists I've brought to FL status.
Any and all comments are welcome. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover
|
---|
Give review tomorrow hopefully. At the moment, it seems fine from just skiming it, but never know.-- Will C 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Fixed and yes I think it should be. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply Two more things I found during a second look:
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [1].
Ok, another cricket list off the factory line, but hopefully worthy of inclusion here. I think I've checked all dablinks, all external links, alt text, MOS, etc, etc. I'd love for some of cricketing reviewers to get dirty with the detail, and for some of our non-cricketing reviewers to say "what the heck does that mean?" if necessary. All the best, and, as ever, thanks in advance for your time.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
16:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment – Why is his first name repeated throughout the lead? Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 22:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Shouldn't the title be "list of five-wicket hauls in international cricket by Wasim Akram"? It just seems to flow better. Nev1 ( talk) 21:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment leaning towards Support
Just a few of comments, but the first is easily sorted and the second might not even be worth mentioning. Nev1 ( talk) 21:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [4].
This sub-list of Victoria Cross recipients has gone through a recent peer review, which has hopefully readied it for FL candidature.
User:AustralianRupert did much of the work on this article, including the difficult referencing and table work, and much of my contributions have been in the way of tweaking, slight expansions and alt text. AustralianRupert is on board with this nomination, per his statement at the peer review. I believe that this article meets the featured list criteria and look forward to everyone's comments. Thanks in advance!
Dana boomer (
talk)
21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 09:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Just quickly passing through:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
I'm sorry not to have posted these observations during the peer review, but I think it's only where I've not looked at the article in a while that has allowed me to spot these things! Anyway, here goes:
The Victoria Cross (VC) is a military decoration that may be bestowed upon members of the British or Commonwealth armed forces for acts of valour or gallantry performed in the face of the enemy. Within the British honours system and those of many Commonwealth nations it is considered to be the highest award a soldier can receive for actions in combat. [1] It was established in 1856 and since then has been awarded xxxx times.
The British Army's Brigade of Gurkhas, a group of units composed of Nepalese soldiers, has been a part of the Army since 1815. When raised it originally focused on conflicts in the Far East, but the transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese hands necessitated that the brigade move its base to the UK. A battalion is still maintained in Brunei and as of 2009, units serve in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Balkans. [2]
Since the VC was introduced it has been awarded to Gurkhas or British officers serving with Gurkha regiments 26 times. [3] The first award was made in 1858 to a British officer of the Gurkhas during the campaigns that followed the Indian Rebellion of 1857, while the first award to a native Gurkha was in 1915 during the First World War. When the Victoria Cross was initially established, Gurkhas, along with all other native troops of the British East India Company Army or the British Indian Army, were not eligible for it and as such up until 1911 all of the Gurkha recipients of the award were British officers who were attached to Gurkha regiments. [4] Until that time the highest award that Gurkhas were eligible for was the Indian Order of Merit. Since 1911 however, of the 16 VCs awarded to men serving with Gurkha regiments, 13 have been bestowed upon native Gurkhas. [3] The most recent award was made in 1965, during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation. [3]
In 1950, when India became a republic, Gurkhas serving in the Gurkha regiments of the Indian Army lost their eligibility for the Victoria Cross and they are now covered under the separate Indian honours system. Under this system the Param Vir Chakra (PVC), which is India's highest military decoration for valour, [5] is considered to be equivalent to the Victoria Cross. As such only those serving in the Gurkha units of the British Army remain eligible for the Victoria Cross.
Just an idea. Merry Christmas, Ranger Steve ( talk) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Support Comments – nice list, well cited and illustrated, but a few things before I can support:
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:24, 29 December 2009 [6].
Very loosely based on two other featured lists about books (
List of Lambda Literary Awards winners and nominees for science fiction, fantasy and horror,
List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best novel) and using the style as seen on
BAFTA Award for Best Film, i believe this list covers the subject to the full. I opted for the BAFTA style list because i feel it identifies the seperate years more clearly, however i am open to changing the format to the Gaylactic and Lambda styles if table sorting is an issue.
Salavat (
talk)
16:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
— Chris! c/ t 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Quick comments –
Support Mm40 ( talk) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Mm40 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Mm40 (
talk ·
contribs)
After these issues are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 22:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
Comments Support
I like the lead, it reads well and the sources are appropriate (ie: the awards website for the technicalities, outside sources for praise). The tables are straightforward and user friendly. Once these issues are addressed, I'll be happy to support. Nev1 ( talk) 22:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [7].
I have based this list on the current FLs:
List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons,
List of Maryland Terrapins football seasons,
List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons and
List of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons. I feel it now meets the
featured list criteria after a
peer review help to clean up several minor problems and I am now nominating the list for FL.
NThomas (
talk)
19:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Overall I think is a very well put together list. -- Voltin ( talk) 23:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Support from Voltin ( talk) 15:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC). While I am not a contributor to the article, it should be noted that I am a member of WikiProject Texas Tech University and WikiProject Big 12 Conference. Both Wikiprojects' scope include this article. reply
Support with the same caveats listed by Voltin. I have not contributed to the article but am a member of the two related WikiProjects. → Wordbuilder ( talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
Comments
date
- perhaps just convert that to ISO (per ref 15) and I think all will be well.The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 23:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:40, 26 December 2009 [8].
I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a companion to the featured lists
List of new churches by John Douglas and
List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas. Its lead is similar to the other lists, suitably modified for this list of houses. The table is similar apart from one major change: as the proportion of images is less than the other lists, they have been included in a separate strip, rather than integrated as a column within the list, in order to avoid too much white space.
Peter I. Vardy (
talk)
17:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Check "disambig links" in the toolbox. bamse ( talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Wizardman 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Comment: I would like to see a key added for the article, to distinguish between I and II, as well as the three colors. It's mentioned in one of the paragraphs, but that can be turned into the key, as at 5 paragraphs the lead is quite lengthy (the two final ones could be combined afterwards.
Wizardman
00:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
Resolved comments from
Hassocks5489
|
---|
Comments from Hassocks
Lead
Table
Refs
Alt text
I have placed this FLC on my watch list. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support and follow-up Thanks for making these changes, and for your other clarifications. I have made two edits: one on Eaton Boat, where my original comment had a typo which rendered it meaningless (sorry!)—I have changed "they" to "these"; and one addition of coordinates. My technique for finding coordinates, in the absence of accurate grid references or other data to base these on, is a bit time-consuming but usually works in the end: using the Images of England photo and address description (or any other available address info), I search on Google Maps satellite view for the building. I did this for Abbotsford and found it on a small lane off Warrington Road. Obviously it helps if the building has a distinctive roofline, and it can get frustrating! You can then confirm the coordinates by converting them back into a grid reference and comparing them with a map or with the basic coordinates given on the IoE listing. (For IoE listings where the full grid reference is quoted, which is usually the case in Sussex, I convert that into coordinates using www.nearby.org.uk) This might help with West Lodge and Green Farmhouse. I accept your rationale for demolished buildings and the lack of definitive evidence. The rewritten sentence in the lead looks much clearer; everything else is fine as well. Hope you can find the other two coordinates I referred to, but it's not a problem if you can't. Support accordingly – Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [9].
Another centuries list, and the first Sri Lankan one. This is based on the already existing ones of Ponting, Sehwag etc. My first list of this type, so your comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈
Chamal
talk
¤
11:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from - Spaceman Spiff 04:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
cheers. - Spaceman Spiff 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments – Seems mostly solid. Just found a couple of little nit-picks:
Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [10].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a wonderful list which features the singles and the song released by a veteran artist, whose catalogue is really huge and is one of the greatest artists of all time. I believe this discography deserves featured list as it is the most complete discography you can find.
--Legolas
(talk2me)
06:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Jimknut ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Some suggestions:
Hope these suggestions help. Jimknut ( talk) 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
Support — The information seems complete and the sources look good. Jimknut ( talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support - Looks great anyhow, Haven't gone through sources however. Aaroncrick ( talk) Review me! 10:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick comments –
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:30, 22 December 2009 [11].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. This list is more similar to
List of Philadelphia Phillies Opening Day starting pitchers than the other Opening Day starting pitcher FLs because, like the Phillies list, this list goes back to the 19th century, and less information is available for the 19th century and early 20th century (and the sources do not summarize the data as usefully) than more recent data.
Rlendog (
talk)
16:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Looks good to me. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 00:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
— NMajdan• talk 15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
To add one note on the new Fred Goldsmith photo, the licensing is incorrect. The uploader couldn't have placed this into the public domain, unless she was around in the late 1880s and took the photo (unlikely). This image was published before 1923, so it should have that template instead, and the source should mention the newspaper. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [12].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after the last nomination I feel I have made the page a vast improvement since then.
Marcus Bowen (
talk)
20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support and I've replied to a few comments.
Mm40 (
talk)
Mm40 (
talk)
14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Mm40 ( talk) Mm40 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Mm40 (
talk)
Pretty good overall, after these are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 03:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Comments from Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs)
Sources
Comments/Support from Dt128 ( talk · contribs) Hi!
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
Support Looks solid to me. Only one complaint: some general references would be helpful, a la The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer ( talk) 12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 19 December 2009 [13].
This is a new flavor of list that shows the ten lines of the
Oslo Metro in chronological order. It includes the service numbers and lengths and opening dates of all expansions. I believe it meets the FL criteria, and hope the vultures agree. I am more than happy to improve the article further if need be, and will respond to any feedback.
Arsenikk
(talk)
13:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - What is the difference between the lines and the service numbers? Are the service number lines, too? I am sure that there is a difference, but at the moment I am a little confused about this.— Chris! c/ t 20:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - Looks good, but some questions:
Support, all questions have been addressed.
bamse (
talk)
15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 11:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
#Looking at the table it appears that the article is rather about the history of Oslo Metro lines. Did you consider to move it to
History of Oslo Metro lines?
bamse ( talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
This is a good list which I have given a very light copy edit to tidy some of the (very few) language oddities. There are a few further things which I wasn't quite sure about.
Boissière ( talk) 20:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife
Original lists. That's what I like to see. Apologies for my lack of understanding of rail systems in general, but hopefully these will be of some use.
Hope those help for now. I have a few other ideas, but I'd rather make sure I understand what I can currently see first. WFCforLife ( talk) 06:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Support. WFCforLife ( talk) 12:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Apologies for not coming back to this sooner but I now support this list. Boissière ( talk) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [14].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it properly covers the topic and meets the featured list criteria. This is my first FL nomination, so I look forward to your comments, and thanks in advance for your reviews. --
Big
Dom
12:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments hey BigDom, welcome to FLC, hope you enjoy your visit and will return with more good lists!
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
— NMajdan• talk 14:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife
I think this is a subtle reminder that I need to pull my socks up and get involved with my own club's equivalent.
Hope those help, WFCforLife ( talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
Resolved comments from Struway2 ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
*
FL criterion #3a suggests that "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I know
some of us go a bit over the top where annotations are concerned, but is there really nothing even remotely interesting, quirky, or needing explanation?
cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 12:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support. List now meets criteria. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 10:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:30, 15 December 2009 [15].
I am nominating this for featured list because the only objection from the last FLC has been fixed. The problem was that one of the sites I used went down so reviewers couldn't confirm the data or that the site was a reliable source. I only use alphacharts as a source to show the general performance of a song; raw data is taken from the hung median charts. The list is complete and well-sourced.
EA Swyer
Talk
Contributions
21:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [16].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the FL criteria. Remember me? Yeah, I'm back. Been a while since I nominated a list, but finally got another finished. As usual all comments will be fixed as soon as I become aware of them. I expanded this thing fully. From the old bad format to a newer cleaner better sourced look. Was pretty annoying considering the history of changes is unsure at times, but I believe I have gotten it to be correct.--
Will
C
04:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Hopefully these comments get you started.— NMajdan• talk 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support.— NMajdan• talk 01:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Support Mm40 ( talk) 13:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Mm40 ( talk) Mm40 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Mm40 (
talk)
I've got to go for now, but hopefully I'll finish the review at some point in the near future. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Pretty good, I'll support once these issues are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 04:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [17].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the
FL criteria. I welcome any comments and suggestions.
Pyrrhus
16
17:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments; I'm new to the voting process, so I may be incorrect, but I have some comments:
-- Lightlowemon ( talk) 11:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
* I don't like the third paragraph in the lead. It's very vague and seems more a token attempt to list his discography. I think there is scope for talking about his albums, but I don't like the way it's been done.
Hope those help! WFCforLife ( talk) 23:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments from WFCforLife:
At this point I would consider myself neutral. Of my two remaining comments, one is a small thing that I'm not really too bothered about, and have left it on the off chance that someone else has an opinion. But the clarification about Jackson 5 songs is what is keeping me from supporting. IMO they should either be removed, or the lead should explicitly state that released Jackson 5 material is included, with an explanation as to why they are considered unreleased for the purposes of this list. Covers are a slightly different kettle of fish, but with Jackson 5 strictly speaking Jackson has released the material. WFCforLife ( talk) 16:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support. WFCforLife ( talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments: I am not familiar with the subject (apart from having heard of Michael Jackson), so please ignore if my comments don't make sense.
|
Support. bamse ( talk) 00:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick comments –
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:50, 12 December 2009 [18].
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much work (with major help from
User:Georgejdorner), I believe it qualifies. I have checked the FL criteria and it seems to hold up. A recent peer review offered some comment, which I used to improve the list, but such little comment that it may have not needed much improvement.
Trevor
MacInnis
contribs
05:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments
— Chris! c/ t 21:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
(Bump) Have I addressed all the problems above, or have i missed anything? - Trevor MacInnis contribs 00:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments - very interesting subject, especially as we head towards 11/11...
Interjectory note: This site lists its link to references in the left hand sidebar on the home page. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Interjectory note: The World War I aviation historians who run the site have listed their sources under the misleading heading of "Links". The Aerodrome Links can be found at http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/. The link to references is found on that page; it is http://www.theaerodrome.com/links/index.php?ax=list&cat_id=9. Georgejdorner ( talk) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 01:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Interjected note: I was not aware of the significance of Mentioned in Dispatches when I was doing the data entry on this list. In the future, I will keep this in mind. Thank you for the information. As the saying goes, "It's a good day when you learn something."
Georgejdorner ( talk) 07:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from WFCforLife:
Overall, looking very good. WFCforLife ( talk) 03:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
I'm happy to support. WFCforLife ( talk) 00:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments Given this nom is for Featured status I have concerns about the presentation and, more importantly, about the verifiability of the information here, but will refrain from opposing outright until I've had a response just in case I've missed anything.
In answer to Ian Rose's concerns: The Aerodrome is run by the same aviation historians we also rely on in print. So why are they unacceptable online, and acceptable in print (I ask for the zillionth time)? If online information cannot be deemed to be accurate, then what are we doing building Wikipedia?
Nor do I understand Ian's preference for older books as being better sources than newer ones. Especially if they are being written by the same authors. Don't you think that the authors may have learned a bit more in the intervening years? The Aerodrome forums reflect the fact that the research continues.
Lastly, I do not believe there is any other listing as complete as The Aerodrome's listing of aces. Except for ours. Certainly, without The Aerodrome, we would be bereft of most or all of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces. Now I realize some of these nationalities do not show on this particular list, but there are eight more lists on this subject.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Self-correction: All nationalities of aces do show on this table. However, without the aerodrome, I do not know how we would gather lists of the Austro-Hungarian, Italian, Belgian, Russian, and Australian aces.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Trevor/George, first off, the above responses don't address my question of why the individual claims are not directly cited in some fashion, either one-by-one or by using an overarching source with exceptions noted. WP requires citations for information that is contentious or may be challenged, and aces' claims certainly fit those categories. One of WP's pillars is verifiability, not truth, and at the moment I can't even verify the presumed sources of truth employed for the numbers presented. Again, if I've missed something, then pls let me know.
George, to take your responses in order:
Ian, old cobber,
Thank you for answering questions I have been asking for many a moon. And I must confess, when I look at what I thought was the sources for the Aerodrome, I find I have been deceived.
I made the remark about the books you mentioned because they are all older than the Osprey releases. I do believe you are the one who mentioned they were by the same authors; I must confess, I did not check for myself.
When I started populating this list 14 months ago, as a brand new contributor to Wikipedia, I worked off the Aerodrome master list because I could find no other. I thought I had cited it at that time. Of course, that was many many iterations ago, before it was divided in nine because of its size.
I've hung around the Aerodrome long enough to have a pretty good idea of whom to trust. The guy who writes the forum asking, What color was the Red Baron's plane? is obviously unreliable. However, I have learned that Greg Van Wyngarten and Adrian Hellwig are both contributors, under the screen names Greg Wyn and Breguet. Dan-San Abbot has written extensively for "Cross and Cockade, and has interviewed more aces than anyone alive. There are many more contributors whose screen names I have not penetrated, but seem reliable, such as rammjaeger.
And, Ian, I don't expect anything of mine to get preferential treatment. I do what I can, and it gets rated however it gets rated. I've become rather unconcerned about that end of Wikipedia. I am only concerned about doing the best, most objective research and writing that I can.
Georgejdorner ( talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Okay, a great deal of work has been done citing individual entries per my request so I am close to supporting, there are just a few items I'd still liked actioned:
Thanks for the hard work, if you can just take care of the above, I'll be happy to throw in my support. This'll be a great source of concise info not just for the general public but for those of us working on WP bios of the individual aces. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Quick comments –
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [21].
Very detailed medal table that can be compared to the Featured Olympic similars.
Felipe Menegaz
19:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Just one quick comment I noticed in a drive-by: the legend is ambiguous. Does "First medal in the Pan American Games" mean that the country earned its first medal in the Games (ever?), or does it mean that the country earned the first medal in these particular games? Likewise for the "First medal in the Pan American Games". KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 20:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The legend for the table (i.e. host nation, first ever medal, etc.) seems to contain two legends per subject--the numerical superscript/note, and the color coding. Maybe this can be simplified by removing one or the other. Personally, I prefer removing the numerical superscript, since that gives the idea that there is are notes at the bottom of the table/page worth considering, which is not the case. Joey80 ( talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Also, to support Geraldk's comments, it might be better to also include images of athletes of varying nationalities other than Brazilian. Joey80 ( talk) 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The ALT text needs work. For the pictures of athletes, you shouldn't mention their name in the ALT text because a non-expert can't see that just be looking at the picture. Instead, describe what the athletes look like, what they're wearing, etc. See Wikipedia:ALT#Verifiability. Also, for the map at top, there's no need to describe the colors, just describe what you would take from it. Maybe something like: "The United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, etc. received at least one gold medal" and continue that going over most countries (see Wikipedia:ALT#Maps). Cheers, Mm40 ( talk) 13:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from Giants2008
Mostly of the picky variety, since the list is very good overall. Regarding the images, I would like to see one or two that represent a country other than Brazil. Having four Brazilian photos and none with athletes from other countries could be seen by some as introducing bias. I also have a hard time believing no alternatives are avaliable, because the Brazilian agency where the existing photos come from has such friendly policies for our purposes; surely they didn't photograph just Brazilian athletes. Any of the team-sport finals photos in particular would make an ideal addition to the list, and are still strongly related to the medal count. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:27, 8 December 2009 [22].
I am nominating my first tallest buildings list and I think it fulfills the FL criteria. —
Chris!
c/
t
22:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Looking over the history of the article, User:Hydrogen Iodide should also get credit for this nomination, as he was also a primary contributor to the article. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 22:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Comments
— NMajdan• talk 15:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support.— NMajdan• talk 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments from WFCforLife
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
* "Tallest building in the 1900s" could do with a footnote to disambiguate between the decade and the century. I know it's a bit picky, but sort by year and you will see why this could potentially cause confusion.
I'll leave it there for now. As an aside I absolutely love the panoramic shot. WFCforLife ( talk) 07:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from bamse ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments: Good article, but some questions.
bamse ( talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply two more questions:
|
Support. bamse ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - "feet (m)" should be "feet (meters)" or "ft (m)". --[[
SRE.K.A.L.|
L.A.K.ERS]]
23:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
reply
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [23].
Another cricket list, but this time not an Australian... I hope I got the basics right, sortability, dabs, live ext links, alt text, MOS-compliance, and hope that the list meets with the approval of the community. I look forward to any and all comments, thanks in advance for your time and reviews.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
11:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from - Spaceman Spiff 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
*Comment -- Really good to see Dravid here! Shouldn't the 180 in the
Second Test, 2000–01 Border-Gavaskar Trophy find mention in the lead? While he's scored better, this innings has received a lot of coverage, although it wasn't the highest score in that game. -
Spaceman
Spiff
16:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
|
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [25].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's Test matches are not played that regularly. This is laid out in the same format as the current FL (
List of India women Test cricketers and I have read and used the comments from that FLC when creating this list. All comments and questions are welcome, happy reviewing!
Harrias (
talk)
11:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from - Spaceman Spiff 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
cheers, - Spaceman Spiff 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Image needs alt text, no? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comments –
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:33, 5 December 2009 [26].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's ready. This is my first award list in a while. —
Chris!
c/
t
05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from
Geraldk
|
---|
Comments: Did a quick c/e for spelling and grammar issues hope you don't mind, but also had these:
Geraldk ( talk) 12:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from
Jan Kameníček
|
---|
Comments. Generally, I like the list, and have just a few comments:
I was thinking about the article a little more and have a few more questions:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Otherwise, looks in good shape. Bencherlite Talk 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support, issues resolved (I reworded prize 1 and prize 2 as "one of the prizes" and "the other"). Bencherlite Talk 08:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [27].
Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—
Chris!
c/
t
01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Staxringold |
---|
|
Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them.
List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b?
Giants2008 (
17–14)
20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk ( talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me.
WFCforLife (
talk)
01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comments from WFCforLife ( talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are:
I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife ( talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:
Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife ( talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:
Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [28].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles
List of Indiana state symbols,
List of Kentucky state symbols, and
List of Maryland state symbols, all of which have FL status. Currently, the list has no disambiguation links, all external links are functional, and all images contain alt text. Thanks!
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Comment - lead is a bit short— Chris! c/ t 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Note that Esprqii also mentioned that he would prefer a single sortable table (it's not a !vote, but might be leaning towards a consensus) and that I'm not going to arbitrarily change it to that format while someone is working on it, without discussion. Cheers, Katr67 ( talk) 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment Confirming my preference for a sortable table. I just think people might want to sort by date of adoption or name of the item. Really nice job on the descriptions. -- Esprqii ( talk) 23:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support - I was initially skeptical of this article's nomination, but I'm really pleased with how it turned out and impressed with the nominator's willingness to work hard and extremely courteously for consensus. (Disclosure: I did a small amount of work on the article prior to its nomination, and somewhat more after the FL nomination.) -- Esprqii ( talk) 00:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from
Geraldk
|
---|
|
Support - Rey makes a decent argument, but I'm ok supporting whether or not they are combined. Geraldk ( talk) 01:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I would rather the tables not be combined. Really, I don't think a state's symbols are the kind of thing one would want to sort. I believe the current layout is great as it is. You just need a longer lead. Reywas92 Talk 22:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Questions: Should 1854 be displayed in the Year column for the motto, as opposed to 1987? 1854 was when the motto was originally used, as mentioned in the lead, though 1987 is when the most current motto (which happens to be the same as the original) was adopted. The same question applies to the seal, which has a somewhat complicated history. --
Another Believer (
Talk) 00:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) (Edit: Issues addressed) --
Another Believer (
Talk)
20:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Retracted idea about combining columns from
YBG
|
---|
(Outdent) I've boldly reduced the number of columns by two -- first merging 'Notes' into 'Year adopted' and then 'Image' into 'Symbol', resulting, I believe, in a better appearing table. Please feel free to object to and/or revert one or both of these changes! Cheers. YBG ( talk) 09:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
(Outdent) Here's a few additional ideas to mull over:
Discussion of the above now retracted or resolved ideas from
YBG
|
---|
Though I could implement these ideas unilaterally, they are much easier to visualize than the changes I did with the columns, where I thought a picture was worth 1000 words. So I offer these ideas for your consideration and possible implementation. By the way, I really do like the tabular format with descriptions much better than the previous bulleted list with section headings. Great collaboration, folks! YBG ( talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Note: I've changed the lists above and below from bullets to numbers for ease in cross-referencing YBG ( talk) 06:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
OK, here's a couple more ideas:
(a) √ Change column header from 'Year adopted' to 'Adopted'
(b) Combine 'Note' into 'Symbol' column -- eliminates a column, but still evident that the note applies to the entire row. (Retracted
YBG (
talk) 05:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC))
What do you think?
YBG (
talk)
07:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
reply
Discussion of these retracted/resolved ideas from
YBG and column width
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(Outdent) I can readily appreciate your frustration with excess white space. That was one of my problems with the previous version -- the way the table was laid out, on my browser, the description column was unnecessarily narrow, creating an excess of white space in the other columns, with the result that you couldn't see very many of the symbols simultaneously. I have put back in some percentages that seem to work on my browser, but you'll have to let me know how it appears on yours.
As you can see, the previous percentages added up to 122%, but the ones I used add up to 100%. I intentionally made some of the percentages too small in order to avoid putting any extra white space into those columns. My browser at least expands them. Is this any improvement? Any comments about left-justifying the description column or changing the column order? YBG ( talk) 04:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comment I'm happy with the rejected symbols being discussed in prose rather than a bullet point list. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [29].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for
Big Brother and
Project Runway, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed.
Another Believer (
Talk)
18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
No, I think that would be a good idea to include why they are celebrities. Reywas92 Talk 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 04:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 December 2009 [30].
I have nominated this list after working on it for a long time, both the copyedit and the red link criteria. I've created articles for
Jack O'Brien (wrestler),
Alberto Muñoz,
Kung Fu (wrestler),
Américo Rocca,
Franco Columbo,
El Supremo (wrestler),
Mocho Cota,
Chamaco Valaguez,
Águila Solitaria,
Ciclón Ramírez,
Fantasma de la Quebrada,
El Salsero,
Nygma (wrestler),
El Torero,
Karloff Lagarde, Jr.,
Tigre Blanco,
Doctor X (wrestler),
Valiente (wrestler) and I now believe it fulfils all FL criterias.
The remaining names on the list are not linked, I could not find much information on them in general, the only notable thing seems to be winning this title and no other titles. I left them unliked as I don't think it's realistic that anyone could find enough information to establish much in the way of notability. It follows the pattern and format of all the other wrestling championship lists I've brought to FL status.
Any and all comments are welcome. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Wrestlinglover
|
---|
Give review tomorrow hopefully. At the moment, it seems fine from just skiming it, but never know.-- Will C 06:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
Fixed and yes I think it should be. MPJ-DK (36,6% Done) Talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC) reply Two more things I found during a second look:
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 ( 27 and counting) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 ( talk) |
---|
Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|