The list was kept by Dabomb87 16:26, 31 October 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are no FLRCs. OK, there are several issues in here that make me believe this list is no longer a FL.
Cheetah
(talk)
04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
More comments may be added later.-- Cheetah (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comment - I'll see what I can do to help this list out. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - I think I've attended to the specifics above, with help from other contributors before I got here. Anything else? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments – Quite good, except for a couple minor issues I found during a reading.
Comments I'm still quite new at reviewing, but there's I guess there's only one way to learn:
Hope that helps, WFCforLife ( talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unconditional keep, although I would be grateful for an answer to my last question for future reference. WFCforLife ( talk) 12:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Looks fine now. Aaroncrick ( talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep – Good job by TRM to bring this one back to FL standard. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 16:26, 31 October 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the criteria. It should have been nominated when the merger occurred, but still better late than never.
-- Cheetah (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment – I added a couple inlines and another general reference, and plan on adding a few more cites when I get time. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment – Does anyone object to the multi-lining of dates to reduce the width of this table? I want to get specific line-by-line references in the table for each inductee. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment So how do we fix the percentages? We need to take those symbols out, but then a footnote goes in? Does that mess with the sorting? -- Muboshgu ( talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
OK, so I've considered the sourcing options. If we are indeed sourcing all of the individual rows to their HoF page (as we should), then the notes for percentage of voting do not need to be sourced. The rows source themselves. Thus, we can just put in the em-dashes in the blank cells with their footnotes and be done with that part. The second half of note 1 ("In some years, voting was done by order of preference, with one or more candidates receiving greater weight than others with the same number of votes; also, the committee would sometimes move to make a selection unanimous once the necessary number of votes was attained for a particular candidate.") is at this point unverifiable and unimportant. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Quick note: the cite tag is gone because I removed the part of the note that was uncited as false. Several of the vote totals were released, as a look at the newspaper refs I added confirms. I'm on Internet Explorer and the sorting works for me, so I won't be of much help with sorting on Safari. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 21:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 13:22, 3 October 2009 [4].
Fails criteria #6. I'm the main contributor of this page, so no need to leave myself a talk page message informing myself of the discussion I opened. :) iMatthew talk at 02:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Has WP:HOCKEY been notified? Obviously, I will have to close this FLRC, so I will mostly stay out of this FLRC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [5].
This list was brought up in a question during the recent FLRC delegate election, and it struck me as failing to meet modern FL standards. It has been nominated previously, and the FLRC resulted in a rare no-consensus decision. The primary issue there was the scope of the list, which is not my main concern. I have one comment on it below, but there are other pressing matters as well:
If you need a model, List of Birmingham City F.C. players looks like a good list to follow, though the inclusion criteria is different. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm about ready to close this FLRC—good work to all. Can reviewers double check to make sure this meets all criteria? Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep – Quickly checked the list again, and the criteria all appear to be met. Chris did a great job fixing the list up. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there is not a single chart position that is sourced, it includes b-sides, the music video directors do not have a single source and this article fails 2009 standards for a featured list. Mister sparky ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Issues: Chart positions, directors, a couple of unreleased songs arent't sourced. B-sides should be removed, and the lead needs to be expanded. Suede67 ( talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I believe the chart positions are cited, they're listed under "Chart positions" in the References section. It's just that they aren't inline cites. It shouldn't be more than an afternoon's work (for somebody who isn't offended by Mr. Blunt's music) to bring this up to snuff... indopug ( talk) 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Cheetah (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Lead needs expanding and recent bits in the table are not sourced. Aaroncrick ( talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [7].
Notified: WP:WikiProject Metal, WP:WikiProject Progressive Rock, User:Blackngold29.
3b. Only thing that will be added into the main article would be the timeline. As for everything else, it is already on the main article. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
(undent) No offense taken, I understand your argument. Just one more statement and I'll let the rest of the review process take place: I understand that this list doesn't meet the "community requirement of 10 items" for a FL, and that consensus on the "10 rule" arose after this list's FLC, but I don't think that it is in clear violation of rule 3b as it is written. I wrote this list because it was a way of improving the band's coverage on WP, although not having to take on the larger task of re-writing the main band's article (though I do hope to do that at some point, though not likely anytime soon). I think the list presents its info in a quality manor, and deleting the list because the band didn't have the trouble that others have had in finding the right lineup, because of no clear failure to meet any FL requirements isn't improving WP. If the consensus is that lists should have 10 items, then state that in the rule. Thanks. black ngold29 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 16:26, 31 October 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there are no FLRCs. OK, there are several issues in here that make me believe this list is no longer a FL.
Cheetah
(talk)
04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
More comments may be added later.-- Cheetah (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Comment - I'll see what I can do to help this list out. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment - I think I've attended to the specifics above, with help from other contributors before I got here. Anything else? The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments – Quite good, except for a couple minor issues I found during a reading.
Comments I'm still quite new at reviewing, but there's I guess there's only one way to learn:
Hope that helps, WFCforLife ( talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unconditional keep, although I would be grateful for an answer to my last question for future reference. WFCforLife ( talk) 12:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep - Looks fine now. Aaroncrick ( talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep – Good job by TRM to bring this one back to FL standard. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 20:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 16:26, 31 October 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails the criteria. It should have been nominated when the merger occurred, but still better late than never.
-- Cheetah (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment – I added a couple inlines and another general reference, and plan on adding a few more cites when I get time. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 20:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment – Does anyone object to the multi-lining of dates to reduce the width of this table? I want to get specific line-by-line references in the table for each inductee. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 12:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment So how do we fix the percentages? We need to take those symbols out, but then a footnote goes in? Does that mess with the sorting? -- Muboshgu ( talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
OK, so I've considered the sourcing options. If we are indeed sourcing all of the individual rows to their HoF page (as we should), then the notes for percentage of voting do not need to be sourced. The rows source themselves. Thus, we can just put in the em-dashes in the blank cells with their footnotes and be done with that part. The second half of note 1 ("In some years, voting was done by order of preference, with one or more candidates receiving greater weight than others with the same number of votes; also, the committee would sometimes move to make a selection unanimous once the necessary number of votes was attained for a particular candidate.") is at this point unverifiable and unimportant. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The Rambling Man ( talk) 13:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
|
Quick note: the cite tag is gone because I removed the part of the note that was uncited as false. Several of the vote totals were released, as a look at the newspaper refs I added confirms. I'm on Internet Explorer and the sorting works for me, so I won't be of much help with sorting on Safari. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 21:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 13:22, 3 October 2009 [4].
Fails criteria #6. I'm the main contributor of this page, so no need to leave myself a talk page message informing myself of the discussion I opened. :) iMatthew talk at 02:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Has WP:HOCKEY been notified? Obviously, I will have to close this FLRC, so I will mostly stay out of this FLRC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was kept by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [5].
This list was brought up in a question during the recent FLRC delegate election, and it struck me as failing to meet modern FL standards. It has been nominated previously, and the FLRC resulted in a rare no-consensus decision. The primary issue there was the scope of the list, which is not my main concern. I have one comment on it below, but there are other pressing matters as well:
If you need a model, List of Birmingham City F.C. players looks like a good list to follow, though the inclusion criteria is different. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm about ready to close this FLRC—good work to all. Can reviewers double check to make sure this meets all criteria? Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep – Quickly checked the list again, and the criteria all appear to be met. Chris did a great job fixing the list up. Giants2008 ( 17–14) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Comments
The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [6].
I am nominating this for featured list removal because there is not a single chart position that is sourced, it includes b-sides, the music video directors do not have a single source and this article fails 2009 standards for a featured list. Mister sparky ( talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Issues: Chart positions, directors, a couple of unreleased songs arent't sourced. B-sides should be removed, and the lead needs to be expanded. Suede67 ( talk) 05:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I believe the chart positions are cited, they're listed under "Chart positions" in the References section. It's just that they aren't inline cites. It shouldn't be more than an afternoon's work (for somebody who isn't offended by Mr. Blunt's music) to bring this up to snuff... indopug ( talk) 20:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Cheetah (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Lead needs expanding and recent bits in the table are not sourced. Aaroncrick ( talk) 20:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The list was removed by Dabomb87 01:24, 14 October 2009 [7].
Notified: WP:WikiProject Metal, WP:WikiProject Progressive Rock, User:Blackngold29.
3b. Only thing that will be added into the main article would be the timeline. As for everything else, it is already on the main article. -- [[ SRE.K.A.L.| L.A.K.ERS]] 21:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC) reply
(undent) No offense taken, I understand your argument. Just one more statement and I'll let the rest of the review process take place: I understand that this list doesn't meet the "community requirement of 10 items" for a FL, and that consensus on the "10 rule" arose after this list's FLC, but I don't think that it is in clear violation of rule 3b as it is written. I wrote this list because it was a way of improving the band's coverage on WP, although not having to take on the larger task of re-writing the main band's article (though I do hope to do that at some point, though not likely anytime soon). I think the list presents its info in a quality manor, and deleting the list because the band didn't have the trouble that others have had in finding the right lineup, because of no clear failure to meet any FL requirements isn't improving WP. If the consensus is that lists should have 10 items, then state that in the rule. Thanks. black ngold29 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply