The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards required. Ironholds ( talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Hope these brief comments help. Perhaps more later. Bencherlite Talk 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
OK, it's looking a bit better now. Further suggestions:
|
Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Otherwise, good list. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Sorry not to revisit the list after your improvements. I think that the photographs and the notes column are useful improvements; two minor points are that I think you need to confirm that your references verify the additional notes, for completeness, and as it's a sortable list, the offices e.g. LCJ need to be wikilinked each time. I think I mentioned on your talk page that I've got Denning's biography, which has some comments about the role of the MR (or at least the way Denning treated the office), which might interest you.
You may have missed it, but there was a big kerfuffle about red-linked items in lists recently, which ended up with the existing wording "a minimal proportion of red links" being kept. As I agitated against the removal of that criterion there, I suppose I ought to raise the issue here lest I be accused of favouritism! As Masters of the Rolls, all of the names would pass the notability threshold in principle, I would have thought. I know that the missing names don't have biographies in the ODNB, but do you know whether the missing names are completely unknown biographically, or could something be written from somewhere else? Bencherlite Talk 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Good raise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from
Goodraise (
talk ·
contribs)
Good raise 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I have thoroughly reviewed the nominated list and can now weakly support its promotion. (Will fully support once the above two issues are resolved.) Good raise 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Supporting after all my issues have been resolved. I'd like to note that I've thoroughly reviewed the list, in particular for prose quality, source formating, source reliability, image copyright status, image alt text, and general compliance with MOS pages. Right now, the only way I see to further improve the article is by adding more images and removing the red links. Good work! Good raise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
*In
File:LordLindley cropp.jpg, the link to a source is broken.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards required. Ironholds ( talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Hope these brief comments help. Perhaps more later. Bencherlite Talk 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
OK, it's looking a bit better now. Further suggestions:
|
Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
Otherwise, good list. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
Sorry not to revisit the list after your improvements. I think that the photographs and the notes column are useful improvements; two minor points are that I think you need to confirm that your references verify the additional notes, for completeness, and as it's a sortable list, the offices e.g. LCJ need to be wikilinked each time. I think I mentioned on your talk page that I've got Denning's biography, which has some comments about the role of the MR (or at least the way Denning treated the office), which might interest you.
You may have missed it, but there was a big kerfuffle about red-linked items in lists recently, which ended up with the existing wording "a minimal proportion of red links" being kept. As I agitated against the removal of that criterion there, I suppose I ought to raise the issue here lest I be accused of favouritism! As Masters of the Rolls, all of the names would pass the notability threshold in principle, I would have thought. I know that the missing names don't have biographies in the ODNB, but do you know whether the missing names are completely unknown biographically, or could something be written from somewhere else? Bencherlite Talk 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from Good raise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments from
Goodraise (
talk ·
contribs)
Good raise 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I have thoroughly reviewed the nominated list and can now weakly support its promotion. (Will fully support once the above two issues are resolved.) Good raise 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Supporting after all my issues have been resolved. I'd like to note that I've thoroughly reviewed the list, in particular for prose quality, source formating, source reliability, image copyright status, image alt text, and general compliance with MOS pages. Right now, the only way I see to further improve the article is by adding more images and removing the red links. Good work! Good raise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
*In
File:LordLindley cropp.jpg, the link to a source is broken.