The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [1]. reply
Next from the Laureus family, small and neat, the Sport for Good award. As always, your comments, suggestions and support are all welcomed, and I will do whatever it takes to address them in a timely fashion. Cheers all! The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 22:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
Thanks as always Ian, for both your tidy-up and your comments here. I believe I've addressed these issues, but please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see adjusted. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments by MWright96 –
Another fine list you've created here TRM. Just the minor queries from me on this one. MWright96 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 20:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC) [2]. reply
Another aviation list (my current thing) but quite a small one this one. Yes, I know I have other FLCs running, they all have at least three supports and a couple are waiting for closure, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Support – I'll offer my support now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Support with minor comments –
Otherwise this is one of your better lists that you written. Could not any issues with the prose. Good work! MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi TRM, mostly just suggestions this time...
Prose
Table
Refs
Other
That's it I reckon. JennyOz ( talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi again, looking good, just a few more minor niggles...
That's it! JennyOz ( talk) 02:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
PresN, Giants2008, this is good for a source review and hopefully promotion now, any chance of a look? The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Source review – Just a couple of formatting tweaks needed.
Giants2008, responses above, cheers! The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 20:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC) [3]. reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replyI am nominating this for featured list because as a I feel that if this list gets featured it will be a giant step towards ccountering systemic bias on Wikipedia-To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
11:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replyYashthepunisher ( talk) 17:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
replyOppose too much needs to be addressed for this to be supported at this time.
Not done. Out of 17, 12 presidents will have 5 years, only 5 others will have varied number of years
Not done .Denotes Punjab state of India (Not of Pakistan)
All done
Both Not Done, Please clarify what you want, I didn't find any thing wrong with them
The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replyTo ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man-I have done most of the edits suggested. Please take a look at the article and the notes above-To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replyJust noting that I may be unavailable to make any major changes to the article for this ensuing week due to heavy meat-space workload, that being said I will certainly keep track of changes to this nomination and be rest assured that I will respond to any improvements/suggestions (informing if I will have enough time to make those changes) within 96 hours. Thanks — comment added by
Force Radical (
talk •
contribs)
04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
reply
Source review – Found a couple issues to look at, but it shouldn't be too much work.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) [4]. reply
This is a list that caps this project, which documents the twenty protected cruisers built for Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these ships saw action during the Italo-Turkish War of 1912, and some were active during World War I. I finished writing the list over a year ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at the beginning of the year. I finally have time to take on an FL review, so here we are. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
In §References, all sources are listed using cs1 templates. Except for four of them. Why is that? Shouldn't they all be one style?
On a whim, I clicked the oclc link from the first one:
That link sends the reader to the associated WorldCat page where one finds a link to a google preview. The citation says 1902; WorldCat doesn't state a year; google preview shows a preview of the Report from 1921. Perhaps a better citation might be:
{{cite book |title=Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902 |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |date=1902 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=1up;seq=10 |page=4}}
I have not looked at the others that depend on WorldCat oclc identifiers but if this one is suspect, the perhaps others are as well.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
{{
cite journal}}
has a specific meaning in cs1. From its documentation page (first sentence): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." Annual Reports of the Navy Department is none of those. Rather, it is a report, or in this case, given its length, a book. As an 'annual' it is a 'periodical' because a new issue is/was published yearly but this does not make it a scientific or academic journal.{{cite journal |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=1up;seq=688 |title=Notices of Books |journal=Journal of the Royal United Service Institution |volume=XLVII |issue=303 |page=624 |date=May 1903}}
{{cite encyclopedia |last=Huntington |first=Frank |title=Brazil |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/99/mode/1up |encyclopedia=Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896 |volume=XXXVI |location=New York |publisher=D Appleton and Company |date=1897}}
...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site.My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.
Navy and Army Illustrated is listed in §References but not referred to from §Notes. Also, Cernuschi & O'Hara are listed in §Notes but do not have a matching citation in §References.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
{{cite magazine |editor-last=Robinson |editor-first=Charles N. |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069276362;view=2up;seq=532 |title=The Venezuela Blockade |magazine=Navy and Army Illustrated |date=10 January 1903 |volume=XV |issue=310}}
{{cite magazine |last=Kunz |first=George Frederick |date=October 1909 |title=The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PqUVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317 |journal=The Popular Science Monthly |publisher=The Science Press |location=New York |volume=LXXV |issue=4 |pages=313–337}}
{{cite book |last=May |first=W. A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot |chapter=The Battle of Chemulpho |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iWmKygAACAAJ&pg=PA140 |location=London |publisher=The Westminster Press |date=1904}}
{{cite book |last=Reeve |first=A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008439873;view=2up;seq=10 |year=1904 |publisher=The Westminster Press |location=London}}
|url=
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=2up;seq=6
and |page=4
should be removed|url=
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up
|url=
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=2up;seq=686
and |page=624
should change to |pages=623–625
Comments Support –
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [5]. reply
Who does not know "The King of Cool"? Steve McQueen was probably one of the most badass personalities to have ever walked this Earth. He enjoyed a success like no other actor could have. From making it on the small screen to becoming the highest paid actor in the world, he's seen it all. His body of work encompasses 20-odd films. He was in the industry for 27 years. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Rest is fine. Yashthepunisher ( talk) 13:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
That's all i got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I think the prose could still do with smartening up before this is promoted. It's a bit repetitive in places. Also given that he was supposed to have been the highest paid actor at one point, it's not clear how he would have gone bankrupt for Le Mans unless he was producing it and putting up most of the funding. I'll try to look more into this later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I will be focusing my review on the lead so my comments are completely focused on prose and will not address anything relating to source use or reliability:
Great work with this list. Once my comments are completed, then I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day and wonderful job with all of your recent FLCs. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Jimknut ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from Jimknut
Intro
Films
Televison
Notes
References
|
Two extra comments:
Support – Looks good. Jimknut ( talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Otherwise, neat work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Just one concern, really: TV.com is actually a user-generated database, which WP:UGC warns editors generally not to use as a source. Please change 'em with a reliable, high-quality source. Otherwise, great list. Slightly mad 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Source review – The sources all appear to be reliable enough, and the link-checker shows no problems. There are a couple of small formatting issues I see. First, the second link in ref 2 has "LIFE" in improper all caps. Second, refs 46 and 56 are from print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Spot-checks of refs 41, 59, and 67 show one minor verifiability issue: ref 67 shows that episode title as being "Human Interest Story", not "The Human Interest Story". Our episode list on the show goes with the TV Guide title, for what it's worth. Overall, this list is a few small tweaks away from passing the source review.
Giants2008 (
Talk)
02:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this. Krish | Talk 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Great work with the list. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing. I will have to watch this show one of these days lol. Anyway, I will support this for promotion (on the basis of prose) once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 ( talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Source review passed (made some minor tweaks). Promoting. -- Pres N 17:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 19:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC) [7]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because... this is a comprehensive list of all of Steps songs. Same vein as many of my previous song list nominations. As they were most active between 1997-2001, it's been difficult to source some info but I've tried my best to make do with the relatively little there is compared to 2012-2017. I believe it a smart, presentable, clean cut list worthy of being featured. — Calvin999 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply |
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 04:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Other than that I got nothing. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 18:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Thank you. — Calvin999 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC) [8]. reply
My other FLC is already far in the process so I'm going to nominate this one. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and has the ability to become featured. If not, I'm open to any suggestions on how to improve it so it does meet the criteria to become featured. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|website=
, instead of |publisher=
and wikilink
Official Charts. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replyResolved comments from FrB.TG ( talk) 20:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments
Interesting list. I'll admit I have an ulterior motive, that I hope you might consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Beyoncé videography/archive1. – FrB.TG ( talk) 20:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
@ Giants2008 PresN There's multiple supports and a source review has already been done. This one good to go? BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [11]. reply
I genuinely loved doing this list. A fascinating early history and some amazing individuals throughout. I gave it the TRM treatment, so MOS compliance should be there, lots of good refs, and some images for good measure. Thanks in advance to any of you interested enough to comment, much appreciated. I know I have a handful of other FLCs but they have at least three supports each, so "it's all okay"! The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got right now. Great job! Can't wait for more. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 07:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
An interesting list on a topic I know nothing about (so I have learned from it). A few minor queries:
I have to dive out now but will look in more detail later.— Rod talk 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Very nice work on the list TRM! I've checked high and low on the prose, the deadlinks checker, and categories this article is pretty much flawless. I do have one question regarding this sentence: "A subsidiary award, the Segrave Medal, may also be given." The sentence is not clear on what the medal is given for. Is it an assistance award or an award to the designer of the vehicles?
Erick (
talk)
21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;
That's all the issues I found during my read-through. Good work so far! MWright96 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Support Comments from JennyOz
Info box -
Prose
starting on table now... JennyOz ( talk) 06:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi again, all above is great thanks. Not sure you're going to be 'delighted' now though:) It's taken a bit longer than i anticipated to finish looking at the table as i kept coming up against conflicts of info - not your doing but errors in refs and, as we saw for 1969 medals, the RAC site itself has info missing. I just hope you can understand my notes.
Table
Refs
That's it I reckon. JennyOz ( talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
That's me done! JennyOz ( talk) 09:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Giants2008, PresN, this now has six unqualified supports, no outstanding issues, could one of you do the honours if you're happy with sourcing (although Jenny usually goes through them all anyway). The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 22:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [14]. reply
I had nominated this list over a year ago, but it had to be closed due to lack of comments. Now it's all new and updated, and hopefully gets more attention. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yashthepunisher ( talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
That's all I got. Very well-written. My comment is very minor I'll support it now. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [15]. reply
A list on music videos, films and commercials directed by Mark Romanek, based on other featured lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo ( talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Nice work. Sorry that this hasn't attracted any interest so far. I hope that you also consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Beyoncé videography/archive1. FrB.TG ( talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Here are some more:
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [16]. reply
This is the latest in my nominations of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLCs such as Northamptonshire and Suffolk. I trust that this list will also be found to be of FLC standard. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Another nice list and comments from previous FLC nominations have been taken into account. Just a couple of minor questions:
As usual - minor quibbles.— Rod talk 09:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
That's all I have, a typically excellent piece of work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [17]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, nominations by someone who only started editing the article the same day generally don't go so well, but I like the idea of this list, so: I'm not going to do an in-depth review yet, but just skimming I'm seeing a lot of ending sentences and paragraphs that don't have citations. That... needs to get fixed if this has a chance. Additionally, those charts in the "Launch statistics" section sure are pretty but I have a very low percentage belief that they meet WP:ACCESS at all, both in terms of "can a screen reader parse these graphs" and the first one being just shades of blue. Actually, there's a lot of ACCESS work to do- pulled up the tables in the section after that and there's no scopes being applied; the formatting of the whole thing is also just a bit... off, in addition to the seemingly random font size changes in the text. None of the tables are sortable seemingly only so that you can have pseudo-headings within the table, which I'm not buying, and I'm going to stop there.
Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --
Pres
N
20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
@ PresN and RexxS: The article has been stable for a while. Any chance for you to move the review forward or pass the buck to other volunteers? — JFG talk 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.
More once we're making progress on this lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Not all of the launches are made by national entities. In my view, the national flags of nation-state governments should only be used to represent government customers. They should not reflect the "Customer" or the many payloads who are launched by
private companies. Private companies are not creatures of the
nation-state they reside in, except in a few countries.
Now if we did not try to munge the entire row into some sort of national flag symbol, the flag icon might make sense if we had a column for "Country that issued the launch license", as that would always be a nation state. But using the national flag of a country for some private payload doesn't really make sense; we ought to reserve flags for government payloads, and not use them for private payloads. Or just get rid of the flag icons completely, and not put them on any payloads. Cheers. N2e ( talk)
Most people will recognise a few flags but not all of them. Where people don't recognise a flag but immediately next to it the customer says Thaicom or BulgariaSat or Turkmenistan NSA then there is little need to look up the flag. I think this reduces the problem and I agree that some use to some people is better than nothing for anyone. crandles ( talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply WP:MOSFLAG says to use the flags only to represent the country or nation. So they work if the payload is a government payload of the country. They simply should not be used to represent private payloads 'cause they happen to have been assembled in some particular country. The list isn't ready to be a Featured list with the overuse, and inappropriate use, of these flag symbols. N2e ( talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems there are no objections to my removal of the flags. As this discussion seems complete, I am capping it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
@ PresN and The Rambling Man: Looks like all of the issues you pointed out have been resolved. What do we need to do to move forward with the review and hopefully reach Featured List status soon? — JFG talk 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This list is pretty sharp, lets try to not let it linger any longer... -- Pres N 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|website=Space.com
would still be better. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments – Interesting list. Here are several comments from my read-through, which I enjoyed:
|
@ PresN: What is the procedure for a source review? -- mfb ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to take a stab at fixing some of these formatting issues this afternoon, since this has dragged on so long, but I'd like it if y'all did some too. -- Pres N 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [18]. reply
This list has been in the making for a long time. I originally had the list based on the RIAA certifications, but Billboard has come out with an actual bestselling Latin albums in the US of all-time last month (which can be found here and it thoroughly sourced in the list). The article was peer reviewed by A Thousand Doors, who made List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom a FL and is the basis for this article, and Esprit15d who made significant improvements to the article as well. I look forward to your feedback, thanks! Erick ( talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 21:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from Hameltion
The table's really great; nice list. -- Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 19:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
That's my lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 22:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [19]. reply
The Tree of Life is a 2011 drama film that shows the origins of the universe and life on Earth as well as the meaning of life through the eyes of a middle-aged architect. The film is notable for receiving several awards and nominations for its director, Terrence Malick, as well as its cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and Jessica Chastain's performance. It is my eleventh attempt at an accolades FLC and my second attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yashthepunisher ( talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I've made a couple of tweaks to the lead, and can now support on prose. Good job! :) -- Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 16:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Subject to these nitpicks, the list looks almost ready to go. FrB.TG ( talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Source review –
Support on prose I didn't see any issues with the prose.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [20]. reply
Next up, the team list. This is a tiny bit different as pertinent images are few and far between so instead of embedding them sporadically within the list, they adopt a rather more tradional "alongside" positioning. As ever, my undying gratitude to anyone prepared to keep the Laureus ball rolling and I'll get to any and all matters as soon as I can. Yes, I have other FLCs but all have at least three supports, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Comments by Dudley
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [22]. reply
Based off the similar Laureus World Sports Award for Sportswoman of the Year, which is well on its way to becoming a FL, this list honours those disabled athletes who have excelled. I have an open FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize in Mathematics/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding comments. Harrias talk 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Other than that looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 02:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
Harrias and
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Resolved comments from MWright96 ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
* Comments from MWright96 – Hello TRM and Harrias. Please have a look at the queries I have put to you below:
Apart from the minor issues, the list is in pretty good shape. MWright96 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Support Comments from JennyOz
Hi TRM and Harrias, here are my first comments/questions.
Am starting on tables now:) Regards, JennyOz ( talk) 11:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Part 2...
(Not sure why Laureus has Petushkov as Nordic skiing. In Sochi 2014 he won 3 gold in each of cross country and biathlon. Not our problem though.)
That's me done. Thanks both, JennyOz ( talk) 10:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [23]. reply
Next up from the Laureus World Sports Awards stable, the comeback award. Very similar in nature to those that have already passed or are already enjoying considerable support. As ever, my thanks to anyone who has the time and interest to contribute, review etc, and I will endeavour to get to any and all comments as soon as I am able. Yes, I know I have two other noms open, one has two supports, one has three, so it's all ok! The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Oscars is not a euphemism, it is a widely known and accepted name; see http://www.oscars.org/, http://oscar.go.com/. None of your three sources use it that way because it's unnecessary and they do not aid comprehension – nor do euphemisms generally require quotation marks anyway. Reywas92 Talk 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! Can't wait for the rest of the awards. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi TRM, I am nearly finished this list but this needs quick fix first
more to come, regards JennyOz ( talk) 12:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
(Why do Laureus use Great Britain for someone like Wilkinson when his achievements were in playing for club and England?)
That's me done. Good job! JennyOz ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Another fine list. Thanks! Happy to sign support. JennyOz ( talk) 05:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Support I'm struggling to find anything that needs fixing on this list, any issues would seem to have been dealt with in previous reviews. No issues with layout, grammar or accessibility. Happy to support. Kosack ( talk) 09:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Giants2008, PresN, any chance of a source review on this one? Five supports and one oppose thusfar, probably judgement time. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Giants2008, PresN, this appears to have stalled on the five supports and one oppose right now, any chance of moving it on? Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
PresN did you miss this? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [24]. reply
My second list on women's cricket, this one is based on similar ones: South Africa women's national cricket team record by opponent and Pakistan national women's cricket team record by opponent. As always, look for constructive feedback. — Vensatry (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments pretty good, as I'd expect.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
Vensatry, please find below my comments:
|
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [25]. reply
The latest in a series of lists of Grade II* listed buildings in Somerset following the format of Grade II* listed buildings in Taunton Deane, Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor and Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it meets the criteria but would welcome any comments.— Rod talk 09:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got right now. Might be more to come. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
That's all I have right now. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Comments by Dudley
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [28]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I have rebuilt the page from scratch to convert the original article into a league only record inline with the standard layout for club result pages and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Kosack ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Support on style and comprehensiveness. Minor quibbles:
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Overall, a good piece of work, with just minor quibbles really. Harrias talk 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 22:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [29]. reply
This is the counterpart to the Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award list. I believe this list to be of equal quality. Lizard ( talk) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments quick ones since this nom appears to have been overlooked for a month now...
|
Sources look good on a spot check to me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [30]. reply
Another rugby list but this time about the best players in the world. Despite the distinct lack of Australians on the list, I'm still hoping that my antipodean review crew will still participate! I know I have two open noms, but one has substantial support at this time, and the other is unrelated to this topic so everything's fine! The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Resolved comments from Harrias talk 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from
Harrias
talk
Harrias, thanks for the comments and quick response, replied inline above, let me know what you think. Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi TRM, a few comments on another fine sports list...
Main table
All columns, years, images, winner, country, flags, positions, wlinks and refs checked
Statistics tables
I'm off to sign up a few thousand twitter accounts:) 2017 winner will be announced any minute, will check back when you've added winner updates. Regards JennyOz ( talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi again, sorry to be your worst nightmare - it's payback for me having to click on that rotten Independent ref 16 and see that rotten big photo of that rotten sailing ball... broke my heart all over again:)
I reckon that's all now. Thanks! JennyOz ( talk) 04:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
PresN, Giants2008 I think all this needs is a source check and it's good to go? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [31]. reply
This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It follows the format of FLs Essex Wildlife Trust and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, and I believe that it also meets the criteria. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Using your other lists for reference, I think you have a featured list right here! The only thing I see is remove the space between the period and ref 73. Honestly other than that I have nothing. Fantastic job!
Harrias talk 15:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Otherwise great work as usual. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Most of the things I might have spotted seem to have already been identified and addressed.
No other issues I can spot at present.— Rod talk 09:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [32]. reply
Moneyball is a 2011 sports drama film about the general manager of a baseball team trying to build it by using a statistical, sabermetric approach to selecting players and the results he gets through his methods. The film is notable for garnering its lead actor, Brad Pitt, several awards and nominations. It is my tenth attempt at an accolades FLC and my first attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Hope these comments help you out. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Thank you for asking me for help, it has been longgg. I am sure none of my concenrs and very serious, and can be addressed easily. Great work on the list as always. Good luck with you first Hollywood list Ssven2! Numerounovedant Talk 18:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Aoba47 ( talk) 02:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from Aoba47
Great work with the list. My review focuses entirely on the prose of the lead as I will be leaving any potential issues with the references to the user doing the source review. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Hi Sven, good to see you back. Just a few comments, I can really only deal with the prose.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [1]. reply
Next from the Laureus family, small and neat, the Sport for Good award. As always, your comments, suggestions and support are all welcomed, and I will do whatever it takes to address them in a timely fashion. Cheers all! The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 22:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
Thanks as always Ian, for both your tidy-up and your comments here. I believe I've addressed these issues, but please let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see adjusted. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments by MWright96 –
Another fine list you've created here TRM. Just the minor queries from me on this one. MWright96 (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 20:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC) [2]. reply
Another aviation list (my current thing) but quite a small one this one. Yes, I know I have other FLCs running, they all have at least three supports and a couple are waiting for closure, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Support – I'll offer my support now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Support with minor comments –
Otherwise this is one of your better lists that you written. Could not any issues with the prose. Good work! MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi TRM, mostly just suggestions this time...
Prose
Table
Refs
Other
That's it I reckon. JennyOz ( talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi again, looking good, just a few more minor niggles...
That's it! JennyOz ( talk) 02:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
PresN, Giants2008, this is good for a source review and hopefully promotion now, any chance of a look? The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Source review – Just a couple of formatting tweaks needed.
Giants2008, responses above, cheers! The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 20:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC) [3]. reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replyI am nominating this for featured list because as a I feel that if this list gets featured it will be a giant step towards ccountering systemic bias on Wikipedia-To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
11:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replyYashthepunisher ( talk) 17:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
08:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
replyOppose too much needs to be addressed for this to be supported at this time.
Not done. Out of 17, 12 presidents will have 5 years, only 5 others will have varied number of years
Not done .Denotes Punjab state of India (Not of Pakistan)
All done
Both Not Done, Please clarify what you want, I didn't find any thing wrong with them
The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replyTo ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
The Rambling Man-I have done most of the edits suggested. Please take a look at the article and the notes above-To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
To ping
me add {{ping|
Force Radical}} OR [[
User:Force Radical]]
09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replyJust noting that I may be unavailable to make any major changes to the article for this ensuing week due to heavy meat-space workload, that being said I will certainly keep track of changes to this nomination and be rest assured that I will respond to any improvements/suggestions (informing if I will have enough time to make those changes) within 96 hours. Thanks — comment added by
Force Radical (
talk •
contribs)
04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
reply
Source review – Found a couple issues to look at, but it shouldn't be too much work.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) [4]. reply
This is a list that caps this project, which documents the twenty protected cruisers built for Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these ships saw action during the Italo-Turkish War of 1912, and some were active during World War I. I finished writing the list over a year ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at the beginning of the year. I finally have time to take on an FL review, so here we are. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy ( talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC) reply
In §References, all sources are listed using cs1 templates. Except for four of them. Why is that? Shouldn't they all be one style?
On a whim, I clicked the oclc link from the first one:
That link sends the reader to the associated WorldCat page where one finds a link to a google preview. The citation says 1902; WorldCat doesn't state a year; google preview shows a preview of the Report from 1921. Perhaps a better citation might be:
{{cite book |title=Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902 |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |date=1902 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=1up;seq=10 |page=4}}
I have not looked at the others that depend on WorldCat oclc identifiers but if this one is suspect, the perhaps others are as well.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply
{{
cite journal}}
has a specific meaning in cs1. From its documentation page (first sentence): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." Annual Reports of the Navy Department is none of those. Rather, it is a report, or in this case, given its length, a book. As an 'annual' it is a 'periodical' because a new issue is/was published yearly but this does not make it a scientific or academic journal.{{cite journal |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=1up;seq=688 |title=Notices of Books |journal=Journal of the Royal United Service Institution |volume=XLVII |issue=303 |page=624 |date=May 1903}}
{{cite encyclopedia |last=Huntington |first=Frank |title=Brazil |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/99/mode/1up |encyclopedia=Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896 |volume=XXXVI |location=New York |publisher=D Appleton and Company |date=1897}}
...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site.My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.
Navy and Army Illustrated is listed in §References but not referred to from §Notes. Also, Cernuschi & O'Hara are listed in §Notes but do not have a matching citation in §References.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
{{cite magazine |editor-last=Robinson |editor-first=Charles N. |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069276362;view=2up;seq=532 |title=The Venezuela Blockade |magazine=Navy and Army Illustrated |date=10 January 1903 |volume=XV |issue=310}}
{{cite magazine |last=Kunz |first=George Frederick |date=October 1909 |title=The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PqUVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317 |journal=The Popular Science Monthly |publisher=The Science Press |location=New York |volume=LXXV |issue=4 |pages=313–337}}
{{cite book |last=May |first=W. A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot |chapter=The Battle of Chemulpho |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iWmKygAACAAJ&pg=PA140 |location=London |publisher=The Westminster Press |date=1904}}
{{cite book |last=Reeve |first=A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008439873;view=2up;seq=10 |year=1904 |publisher=The Westminster Press |location=London}}
|url=
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=2up;seq=6
and |page=4
should be removed|url=
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up
|url=
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=2up;seq=686
and |page=624
should change to |pages=623–625
Comments Support –
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [5]. reply
Who does not know "The King of Cool"? Steve McQueen was probably one of the most badass personalities to have ever walked this Earth. He enjoyed a success like no other actor could have. From making it on the small screen to becoming the highest paid actor in the world, he's seen it all. His body of work encompasses 20-odd films. He was in the industry for 27 years. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Rest is fine. Yashthepunisher ( talk) 13:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
That's all i got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I think the prose could still do with smartening up before this is promoted. It's a bit repetitive in places. Also given that he was supposed to have been the highest paid actor at one point, it's not clear how he would have gone bankrupt for Le Mans unless he was producing it and putting up most of the funding. I'll try to look more into this later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I will be focusing my review on the lead so my comments are completely focused on prose and will not address anything relating to source use or reliability:
Great work with this list. Once my comments are completed, then I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day and wonderful job with all of your recent FLCs. Aoba47 ( talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Jimknut ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from Jimknut
Intro
Films
Televison
Notes
References
|
Two extra comments:
Support – Looks good. Jimknut ( talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Otherwise, neat work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Just one concern, really: TV.com is actually a user-generated database, which WP:UGC warns editors generally not to use as a source. Please change 'em with a reliable, high-quality source. Otherwise, great list. Slightly mad 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Source review – The sources all appear to be reliable enough, and the link-checker shows no problems. There are a couple of small formatting issues I see. First, the second link in ref 2 has "LIFE" in improper all caps. Second, refs 46 and 56 are from print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Spot-checks of refs 41, 59, and 67 show one minor verifiability issue: ref 67 shows that episode title as being "Human Interest Story", not "The Human Interest Story". Our episode list on the show goes with the TV Guide title, for what it's worth. Overall, this list is a few small tweaks away from passing the source review.
Giants2008 (
Talk)
02:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
reply
Promoting. -- Pres N 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC) [6]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this. Krish | Talk 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Great work with the list. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing. I will have to watch this show one of these days lol. Anyway, I will support this for promotion (on the basis of prose) once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 ( talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Source review passed (made some minor tweaks). Promoting. -- Pres N 17:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 19:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC) [7]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because... this is a comprehensive list of all of Steps songs. Same vein as many of my previous song list nominations. As they were most active between 1997-2001, it's been difficult to source some info but I've tried my best to make do with the relatively little there is compared to 2012-2017. I believe it a smart, presentable, clean cut list worthy of being featured. — Calvin999 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply |
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 04:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Other than that I got nothing. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 18:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Thank you. — Calvin999 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC) [8]. reply
My other FLC is already far in the process so I'm going to nominate this one. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and has the ability to become featured. If not, I'm open to any suggestions on how to improve it so it does meet the criteria to become featured. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|website=
, instead of |publisher=
and wikilink
Official Charts. —
Ojorojo (
talk)
17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
replyResolved comments from FrB.TG ( talk) 20:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments
Interesting list. I'll admit I have an ulterior motive, that I hope you might consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Beyoncé videography/archive1. – FrB.TG ( talk) 20:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
@ Giants2008 PresN There's multiple supports and a source review has already been done. This one good to go? BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [11]. reply
I genuinely loved doing this list. A fascinating early history and some amazing individuals throughout. I gave it the TRM treatment, so MOS compliance should be there, lots of good refs, and some images for good measure. Thanks in advance to any of you interested enough to comment, much appreciated. I know I have a handful of other FLCs but they have at least three supports each, so "it's all okay"! The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got right now. Great job! Can't wait for more. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 07:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
An interesting list on a topic I know nothing about (so I have learned from it). A few minor queries:
I have to dive out now but will look in more detail later.— Rod talk 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Very nice work on the list TRM! I've checked high and low on the prose, the deadlinks checker, and categories this article is pretty much flawless. I do have one question regarding this sentence: "A subsidiary award, the Segrave Medal, may also be given." The sentence is not clear on what the medal is given for. Is it an assistance award or an award to the designer of the vehicles?
Erick (
talk)
21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;
That's all the issues I found during my read-through. Good work so far! MWright96 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Support Comments from JennyOz
Info box -
Prose
starting on table now... JennyOz ( talk) 06:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi again, all above is great thanks. Not sure you're going to be 'delighted' now though:) It's taken a bit longer than i anticipated to finish looking at the table as i kept coming up against conflicts of info - not your doing but errors in refs and, as we saw for 1969 medals, the RAC site itself has info missing. I just hope you can understand my notes.
Table
Refs
That's it I reckon. JennyOz ( talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
That's me done! JennyOz ( talk) 09:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Giants2008, PresN, this now has six unqualified supports, no outstanding issues, could one of you do the honours if you're happy with sourcing (although Jenny usually goes through them all anyway). The Rambling Man ( talk) 15:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 22:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [14]. reply
I had nominated this list over a year ago, but it had to be closed due to lack of comments. Now it's all new and updated, and hopefully gets more attention. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Yashthepunisher ( talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
That's all I got. Very well-written. My comment is very minor I'll support it now. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [15]. reply
A list on music videos, films and commercials directed by Mark Romanek, based on other featured lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo ( talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Nice work. Sorry that this hasn't attracted any interest so far. I hope that you also consider reviewing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Beyoncé videography/archive1. FrB.TG ( talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Here are some more:
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 11:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [16]. reply
This is the latest in my nominations of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLCs such as Northamptonshire and Suffolk. I trust that this list will also be found to be of FLC standard. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Another nice list and comments from previous FLC nominations have been taken into account. Just a couple of minor questions:
As usual - minor quibbles.— Rod talk 09:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
That's all I have, a typically excellent piece of work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [17]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere ( or here) 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Well, nominations by someone who only started editing the article the same day generally don't go so well, but I like the idea of this list, so: I'm not going to do an in-depth review yet, but just skimming I'm seeing a lot of ending sentences and paragraphs that don't have citations. That... needs to get fixed if this has a chance. Additionally, those charts in the "Launch statistics" section sure are pretty but I have a very low percentage belief that they meet WP:ACCESS at all, both in terms of "can a screen reader parse these graphs" and the first one being just shades of blue. Actually, there's a lot of ACCESS work to do- pulled up the tables in the section after that and there's no scopes being applied; the formatting of the whole thing is also just a bit... off, in addition to the seemingly random font size changes in the text. None of the tables are sortable seemingly only so that you can have pseudo-headings within the table, which I'm not buying, and I'm going to stop there.
Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --
Pres
N
20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
@ PresN and RexxS: The article has been stable for a while. Any chance for you to move the review forward or pass the buck to other volunteers? — JFG talk 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.
More once we're making progress on this lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Not all of the launches are made by national entities. In my view, the national flags of nation-state governments should only be used to represent government customers. They should not reflect the "Customer" or the many payloads who are launched by
private companies. Private companies are not creatures of the
nation-state they reside in, except in a few countries.
Now if we did not try to munge the entire row into some sort of national flag symbol, the flag icon might make sense if we had a column for "Country that issued the launch license", as that would always be a nation state. But using the national flag of a country for some private payload doesn't really make sense; we ought to reserve flags for government payloads, and not use them for private payloads. Or just get rid of the flag icons completely, and not put them on any payloads. Cheers. N2e ( talk)
Most people will recognise a few flags but not all of them. Where people don't recognise a flag but immediately next to it the customer says Thaicom or BulgariaSat or Turkmenistan NSA then there is little need to look up the flag. I think this reduces the problem and I agree that some use to some people is better than nothing for anyone. crandles ( talk) 12:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC) reply WP:MOSFLAG says to use the flags only to represent the country or nation. So they work if the payload is a government payload of the country. They simply should not be used to represent private payloads 'cause they happen to have been assembled in some particular country. The list isn't ready to be a Featured list with the overuse, and inappropriate use, of these flag symbols. N2e ( talk) 02:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply
It seems there are no objections to my removal of the flags. As this discussion seems complete, I am capping it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 22:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
@ PresN and The Rambling Man: Looks like all of the issues you pointed out have been resolved. What do we need to do to move forward with the review and hopefully reach Featured List status soon? — JFG talk 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
This list is pretty sharp, lets try to not let it linger any longer... -- Pres N 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|website=Space.com
would still be better. --
RexxS (
talk)
19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments – Interesting list. Here are several comments from my read-through, which I enjoyed:
|
@ PresN: What is the procedure for a source review? -- mfb ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
I'm going to take a stab at fixing some of these formatting issues this afternoon, since this has dragged on so long, but I'd like it if y'all did some too. -- Pres N 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [18]. reply
This list has been in the making for a long time. I originally had the list based on the RIAA certifications, but Billboard has come out with an actual bestselling Latin albums in the US of all-time last month (which can be found here and it thoroughly sourced in the list). The article was peer reviewed by A Thousand Doors, who made List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom a FL and is the basis for this article, and Esprit15d who made significant improvements to the article as well. I look forward to your feedback, thanks! Erick ( talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 20:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 21:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from Hameltion
The table's really great; nice list. -- Hameltion ( talk, contribs) 01:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Thanks, A Thousand Doors ( talk | contribs) 19:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Comments
That's my lot. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 22:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [19]. reply
The Tree of Life is a 2011 drama film that shows the origins of the universe and life on Earth as well as the meaning of life through the eyes of a middle-aged architect. The film is notable for receiving several awards and nominations for its director, Terrence Malick, as well as its cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and Jessica Chastain's performance. It is my eleventh attempt at an accolades FLC and my second attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Yashthepunisher ( talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
I've made a couple of tweaks to the lead, and can now support on prose. Good job! :) -- Krimuk2.0 ( talk) 16:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Subject to these nitpicks, the list looks almost ready to go. FrB.TG ( talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Source review –
Support on prose I didn't see any issues with the prose.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 22:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [20]. reply
Next up, the team list. This is a tiny bit different as pertinent images are few and far between so instead of embedding them sporadically within the list, they adopt a rather more tradional "alongside" positioning. As ever, my undying gratitude to anyone prepared to keep the Laureus ball rolling and I'll get to any and all matters as soon as I can. Yes, I have other FLCs but all have at least three supports, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Comments by Dudley
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [22]. reply
Based off the similar Laureus World Sports Award for Sportswoman of the Year, which is well on its way to becoming a FL, this list honours those disabled athletes who have excelled. I have an open FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize in Mathematics/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding comments. Harrias talk 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Other than that looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 02:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
Harrias and
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Resolved comments from MWright96 ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
---|
* Comments from MWright96 – Hello TRM and Harrias. Please have a look at the queries I have put to you below:
Apart from the minor issues, the list is in pretty good shape. MWright96 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Support Comments from JennyOz
Hi TRM and Harrias, here are my first comments/questions.
Am starting on tables now:) Regards, JennyOz ( talk) 11:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Part 2...
(Not sure why Laureus has Petushkov as Nordic skiing. In Sochi 2014 he won 3 gold in each of cross country and biathlon. Not our problem though.)
That's me done. Thanks both, JennyOz ( talk) 10:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [23]. reply
Next up from the Laureus World Sports Awards stable, the comeback award. Very similar in nature to those that have already passed or are already enjoying considerable support. As ever, my thanks to anyone who has the time and interest to contribute, review etc, and I will endeavour to get to any and all comments as soon as I am able. Yes, I know I have two other noms open, one has two supports, one has three, so it's all ok! The Rambling Man ( talk) 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Oscars is not a euphemism, it is a widely known and accepted name; see http://www.oscars.org/, http://oscar.go.com/. None of your three sources use it that way because it's unnecessary and they do not aid comprehension – nor do euphemisms generally require quotation marks anyway. Reywas92 Talk 21:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got. Great job! Can't wait for the rest of the awards. BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi TRM, I am nearly finished this list but this needs quick fix first
more to come, regards JennyOz ( talk) 12:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
(Why do Laureus use Great Britain for someone like Wilkinson when his achievements were in playing for club and England?)
That's me done. Good job! JennyOz ( talk) 17:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Another fine list. Thanks! Happy to sign support. JennyOz ( talk) 05:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Support I'm struggling to find anything that needs fixing on this list, any issues would seem to have been dealt with in previous reviews. No issues with layout, grammar or accessibility. Happy to support. Kosack ( talk) 09:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Giants2008, PresN, any chance of a source review on this one? Five supports and one oppose thusfar, probably judgement time. Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Giants2008, PresN, this appears to have stalled on the five supports and one oppose right now, any chance of moving it on? Cheers. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
PresN did you miss this? The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [24]. reply
My second list on women's cricket, this one is based on similar ones: South Africa women's national cricket team record by opponent and Pakistan national women's cricket team record by opponent. As always, look for constructive feedback. — Vensatry (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments pretty good, as I'd expect.
The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
Vensatry, please find below my comments:
|
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [25]. reply
The latest in a series of lists of Grade II* listed buildings in Somerset following the format of Grade II* listed buildings in Taunton Deane, Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor and Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset. I believe it meets the criteria but would welcome any comments.— Rod talk 09:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 21:07, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
That's all I got right now. Might be more to come. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 15:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
That's all I have right now. The Rambling Man ( talk) 20:21, 3 December 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Comments by Dudley
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot ( talk) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [28]. reply
I am nominating this for featured list because I have rebuilt the page from scratch to convert the original article into a league only record inline with the standard layout for club result pages and I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Kosack ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC) reply
Support on style and comprehensiveness. Minor quibbles:
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 07:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 10:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Overall, a good piece of work, with just minor quibbles really. Harrias talk 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Giants2008 ( Talk) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments –
|
Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N 20:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot ( talk) 22:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [29]. reply
This is the counterpart to the Associated Press NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award list. I believe this list to be of equal quality. Lizard ( talk) 02:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments quick ones since this nom appears to have been overlooked for a month now...
|
Sources look good on a spot check to me. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [30]. reply
Another rugby list but this time about the best players in the world. Despite the distinct lack of Australians on the list, I'm still hoping that my antipodean review crew will still participate! I know I have two open noms, but one has substantial support at this time, and the other is unrelated to this topic so everything's fine! The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
:Hi
TRM, please find my comments below:
|
Resolved comments from Harrias talk 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from
Harrias
talk
Harrias, thanks for the comments and quick response, replied inline above, let me know what you think. Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:25, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
Support Comments by JennyOz
Hi TRM, a few comments on another fine sports list...
Main table
All columns, years, images, winner, country, flags, positions, wlinks and refs checked
Statistics tables
I'm off to sign up a few thousand twitter accounts:) 2017 winner will be announced any minute, will check back when you've added winner updates. Regards JennyOz ( talk) 11:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Hi again, sorry to be your worst nightmare - it's payback for me having to click on that rotten Independent ref 16 and see that rotten big photo of that rotten sailing ball... broke my heart all over again:)
I reckon that's all now. Thanks! JennyOz ( talk) 04:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
PresN, Giants2008 I think all this needs is a source check and it's good to go? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [31]. reply
This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It follows the format of FLs Essex Wildlife Trust and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, and I believe that it also meets the criteria. Dudley Miles ( talk) 14:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Using your other lists for reference, I think you have a featured list right here! The only thing I see is remove the space between the period and ref 73. Honestly other than that I have nothing. Fantastic job!
Harrias talk 15:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 12:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Otherwise great work as usual. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Most of the things I might have spotted seem to have already been identified and addressed.
No other issues I can spot at present.— Rod talk 09:56, 2 December 2017 (UTC) reply
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot ( talk) 23:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC) [32]. reply
Moneyball is a 2011 sports drama film about the general manager of a baseball team trying to build it by using a statistical, sabermetric approach to selecting players and the results he gets through his methods. The film is notable for garnering its lead actor, Brad Pitt, several awards and nominations. It is my tenth attempt at an accolades FLC and my first attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 16:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from BeatlesLedTV
Hope these comments help you out. Great job! BeatlesLedTV ( talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Thank you for asking me for help, it has been longgg. I am sure none of my concenrs and very serious, and can be addressed easily. Great work on the list as always. Good luck with you first Hollywood list Ssven2! Numerounovedant Talk 18:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Aoba47 ( talk) 02:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC) reply |
---|
;Comments from Aoba47
Great work with the list. My review focuses entirely on the prose of the lead as I will be leaving any potential issues with the references to the user doing the source review. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 ( talk) 22:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
|
Hi Sven, good to see you back. Just a few comments, I can really only deal with the prose.