Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2007: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) |
List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Dubai}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Dubai}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography}} |
||
Revision as of 20:29, 22 December 2007
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 20:29, 22 December 2007.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. BomBom (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am self-nominating this list because I think it complies with all the Featured list criteria :
- (a) It is useful : the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format.
- (b) It is comprehensive : the list includes everything that needs to be known about the films (their original title, their submitting country, their director, the languages used in their dialogue track).
- (c) It is factually accurate : the list is fully referenced. The names of the winners and nominees are taken directly from the official Academy website.
- (d) It is uncontroversial : films have either been nominated for the Award or haven't. There's not much to argue about.
- (e) It is stable : the list only needs to be updated twice a year.
- (f) It is well-constructed : it has taken a lot of effort to turn this list into a fully functionable sortable table. The list is now very easy to navigate, and allows the user to group the films as he pleases (i.e. by chronological order, by country, by language...).
- It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style :
- (a) a well-written, useful and concise lead section ;
- (b) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
- It is illustrated with the image of an Oscar statuette and a useful map showing the countries that have been nominated for and/or won the Award. BomBom (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Commment The table looks much better than it did before. Although it would be nice to see an image of an actual Oscar, rather than a graphic. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that positive comment ! I replaced the graphic image with that of an actual Oscar statuette. BomBom (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good overall; there are just a couple of small WP:MOS issues to address. There should be no space before colons and semicolons, and all numbers less than ten should be spelled out (see footnote #3, for instance). Once those are cleaned up, I'm happy to support! MeegsC | Talk 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done ! I hope more people will post their comments. If the nomination is successful and the list is promoted, I will use its layout to improve other Academy Awards lists. BomBom (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support—very nice job. One more thing that should be cleaned up: the sentence that currently reads "[...] the names of the other languages are written in small and between brackets". This reads awkwardly. Something like "[...] the names of the other languages are written in smaller typesize and placed between brackets" might be better! : ) MeegsC | Talk 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! One more thing I meant to say—you might put something in the map caption indicating what the various colors are for. I know they're included in the map file description, but it's nice not to have to click on the map to find out what they mean. MeegsC | Talk 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! Your two comments have been addressed. I have rephrased the sentence you mentioned and Circeus has added a color legend below the map. BomBom (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! One more thing I meant to say—you might put something in the map caption indicating what the various colors are for. I know they're included in the map file description, but it's nice not to have to click on the map to find out what they mean. MeegsC | Talk 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support—very nice job. One more thing that should be cleaned up: the sentence that currently reads "[...] the names of the other languages are written in small and between brackets". This reads awkwardly. Something like "[...] the names of the other languages are written in smaller typesize and placed between brackets" might be better! : ) MeegsC | Talk 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not sure the change in layout to gain sortability was necessary, but still very featurable. Circeus (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support and thanks for adding the color legend below the map ! I have read the List of tallest buildings in Dubai nomination discussion in which you took part, and agree that using letters for notes and numbers for citations is a good idea. Therefore, I split the "Notes and references" section in the List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, and changed the notes from numbers to letters. BomBom (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: with one or two minor requests:
- I wish I could figure out how to get The Walls of Malapaga to be in the right place when you sort by "Submitting country". Maybe put "co-production" after the two flags?
- I already thought about this, and I found that the best solution was to put {co-production} before the names of the countries. Of course, it's perfectly possible to make the film appear in the regular list and not at the bottom of the table when one sorts by Submitting country. However, we would be facing a real problem in determining "the right place" of the film: should we make it figure with films submitted by France or with films submitted by Italy? If we make it figure with the rest of French entries, then we would be giving France more credit for the film, and this would be quite "unfair" towards Italy. If we make it figure with the rest of Italian entries, we would be facing exactly the same problem. The only way to make The Walls of Malapaga appear with both French films and Italian films would be to include it twice in the table (once as a French submission and once as an Italian one), but that would be really awkward and quite confusing. Therefore, I believe that putting {co-production} before the names of the countries is the best thing to do, since it prevents a single country from taking sole credit for the film when the list is sorted by Submitting country. (I have applied exactly the same solution for films with multiple directors.) BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very good point - I didn't even think of that :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I already thought about this, and I found that the best solution was to put {co-production} before the names of the countries. Of course, it's perfectly possible to make the film appear in the regular list and not at the bottom of the table when one sorts by Submitting country. However, we would be facing a real problem in determining "the right place" of the film: should we make it figure with films submitted by France or with films submitted by Italy? If we make it figure with the rest of French entries, then we would be giving France more credit for the film, and this would be quite "unfair" towards Italy. If we make it figure with the rest of Italian entries, we would be facing exactly the same problem. The only way to make The Walls of Malapaga appear with both French films and Italian films would be to include it twice in the table (once as a French submission and once as an Italian one), but that would be really awkward and quite confusing. Therefore, I believe that putting {co-production} before the names of the countries is the best thing to do, since it prevents a single country from taking sole credit for the film when the list is sorted by Submitting country. (I have applied exactly the same solution for films with multiple directors.) BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd kinda like a key someplace. I know that second section details what the blue and teal are, but I looked around for a key before reading that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean by "key". Does "key" mean "explanation"? In any case, I have added a color legend before the table, but I'm not sure whether this is what you were referring to. Please tell me if this satisfies your request. If it doesn't, then please explain to me what you mean by "key". BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - key, legend - yes, they're the same thing. List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks has an example, but yours looks good too :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean by "key". Does "key" mean "explanation"? In any case, I have added a color legend before the table, but I'm not sure whether this is what you were referring to. Please tell me if this satisfies your request. If it doesn't, then please explain to me what you mean by "key". BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Nation of Ulysses discography
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.
Completed list of twenty founders, but someone is trying to delete them in order to make a point and to disrupt the encyclopedia. I have been working on this list for over two months or so, and just completed writing the last founder. Miranda 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- The section about the song is way too early in the article and way too short to warrant its own section.
- I moved the poem down and the idea of this article is to list names, not a lot of prose.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with moving the poem, I think it should be a more national poem (i.e And God Said..) because every chapter uses it and it's on quite a bit of ParaphernaliaKnicksfan4ever (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Same with the section about presidents - that would be served best with an actual list, I think, rather than an out-of-place template.
- there's a similar list in the APA brothers, and adding all these names to the article will just make the article more lenthy.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like some of the blacklinks to be redlinks, especially in 'politics' - these folks are notable enough for articles, they simply haven't been written yet.
- The redlinks were objected during the FA review for the APA brothers list, so I'm cocerned that if added, they will be objected here. The fact that there is no article doesn't mean the person is not notable or that they're not a member of AKA. Can you let this slide also since it seems POV.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment any further unless you can explain how my objection is "POV". --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- sorry for the confusion. Redlinks were objected when I used them on the APA brothers so I had to remove them. You're requesting redlinks in this article. I'm concerned that the contributor opposed to redlinks will object and not support. I thought both views/objections were POV because I wasn't aware of the presence or non-presence of redlinks was a wikipedia. I will defer to your knowledge of wikipedia and add the redlinks. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment any further unless you can explain how my objection is "POV". --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The redlinks were objected during the FA review for the APA brothers list, so I'm cocerned that if added, they will be objected here. The fact that there is no article doesn't mean the person is not notable or that they're not a member of AKA. Can you let this slide also since it seems POV.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Finally, I'd like more information on "unknown" - why is this in quotes, is the reference saying that specifically?
- It looks like the same style is used on the APA brothers page. That doesn't mean I like it, but I can let it slide.
- Otherwise, it looks well on its way. Please don't let the AFD get to you - if it truly is a point nom, then the community will probably see that and deal accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Done
- The section about the song is way too early in the article and way too short to warrant its own section.
- Support: My concern was the second paragraph of the intro, but I have rewritten.--Ccson (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - List is well done and all entries have references. Great job! -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: In particular, excellent job on the footnotes.-RoBoTamice 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support This list includes some very notable women who have made an impact on American Society, Culture and HistoryKnicksfan4ever (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - This is one of the best looking lists I have seen....--Cometstyles 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you go over the citations, please? There seems to be a couple of errors. Plus, why are you sorting the references column? I don't think it's useful.--Crzycheetah 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- A member recently added members without standardizing the template. We are doing that now. Miranda 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Refs column is default due to template. See List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. Miranda 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, do you mean to say that this list is not complete yet? Are you completing this list now? Sounds like this nomination is premature. As for the refs column, I still think that you should "unsort" it and preferably in the "brothers" list as well. I mean no one is going to sort that column, right? --Crzycheetah 06:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, the list is completed with notable members (that I know of), but a member of the sorority is adding other members, which is good. New members get initiated all of the time. But the main parts are completed.
I will work on the reference sorting, that should be minor.Sorry, but that's just part of the template syntax.Miranda 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- Support All right, the list looks great. I made the refs column unsortable.--Crzycheetah 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Refs column is default due to template. See List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. Miranda 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the list looks great the way it is, however, I think the article does not have to look identical to the List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. It should have it's on twist, identity, etc., let me think of some ideas. IMHO, this list can stand alone and is worthy of being featured in it's own right. Unlike Zeta Phi Beta Sigma, the two organizations beyond early influence are not directly connected, except by obvious strong support and mutual respect for one anotherKnicksfan4ever (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. this has nothing to do with Alphas and AKAs, Omega and Delta, Sigma and Zetas being siblings, or that Kappa has no sisters because they love all. Both Alpha and AKA articles are "coincidentally" using the same wikipedia template (Template:FratMember) and that caused a sorting issue, in fact, the List of Alpha brothers probably had the same problem, but now that Crzycheetah has fixed the template that both employ, both Alpha and AKA no longer sort the list based on the reference field. Any other group using the template to create a list will sort the same whether they love, dispise or respect other greek groups. Thanks for your support above.--Ccson (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Got it now, didn't realize there was a template, so it's all good. I hope it gets featuredKnicksfan4ever 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.
This list "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed," has a good lead, and a free and useful image.(No longer used) This list was created using the basis from prior lists from Category:Lists of first-round draft picks by NFL team. This list is the longest of any list created like itself, properly sourced, and very thorough. Thus I think it deserves FL status. I can and will address any concerns or comments. Thank you for your time. Please note this is a self-nom
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the other similar lists do this, but perhaps you could use colour coding to note which players still play for the Packers? -- Scorpion0422 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- They don't but do you mean currently active players that are still on the team? If so then there are only 5 players on the list who qualify, so it would be pretty easy to implement with a color box like the ones used to show HoFs and overall #1 picks.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - See the articles history, I implemented what you suggested and reverted my changes. Tell me what you think (Oh and the color can be about anything if this one doesnt suit).
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)- It looks good. I have no further quolms. -- Scorpion0422 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- They don't but do you mean currently active players that are still on the team? If so then there are only 5 players on the list who qualify, so it would be pretty easy to implement with a color box like the ones used to show HoFs and overall #1 picks.
- Support This nomination caught my eye when I promoted it to the main page in the DYK section. My only comment is to consider adding another color (especially a different shade of yellow like a lighter yellow) for players in the Packers Hall of Fame. Royalbroil 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done although I chose blue cause yellow just looked weird :-)
- Comments. First off, great work! I too saw it on DYK. I'll likely support, but I have a question: What is n-c-systems.com, and what makes it a reliable source? --Fang Aili talk 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an overview of what N-C-systems does when it refers to drafts. They have worked on completing full draft histories for basketball, football, baseball, and hockey. It seems that they are a software company, and it seemed to be an experiment on completing the draft history of basketball, and the site was well-received, so they decided to expand it. When compared with the official draft history found at NFL.com, I have yet to find a mistake. The site is sourced on most if not all of the articles pertaining to the first-round picks for each team. Here is their home-page, which has a link for contacting them if you feel like confirming their respectability. So combined with the good-standing of the company, the use of the site as a source on other pages on Wikipedia (precedence), and the fact that I have yet to find a flaw in any of their info, I believe this is a very solid source to cite. Hope this answers your question, feel free to elaborate if you I haven't answered it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- I believe that satisfies WP:RS ("reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Thanks for the explanation. --Fang Aili talk 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Only possible improvement I can think of is adding a picture or two. --Fang Aili talk 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah Ive been looking for one, but me being in Arizona, it is difficult to get a picture of anything in Wisconsin, I will try though, hopefully the Packers will come to AZ next year and I can grab some photos. Thanks for the comments!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- I got one [1] of Nick Barnett. I'm not at home, so I can't do photo editing at this time. Give me 12 to 24 hours. If you ask a few flickr people, you are bound to quickly find a decent (but not professional) photo after trying a few people. Royalbroil 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- AWESOME!! Thanks, I actually havent tried Flickr, but thanks for the work!! Thats a great addition!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- The Barnett image has been added. Please resize/relabel as needed. The same source also relicensed an image of A. J. Hawk to a free image, so it might be added by the time your read this. Royalbroil 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- AWESOME!! Thanks, I actually havent tried Flickr, but thanks for the work!! Thats a great addition!
- I got one [1] of Nick Barnett. I'm not at home, so I can't do photo editing at this time. Give me 12 to 24 hours. If you ask a few flickr people, you are bound to quickly find a decent (but not professional) photo after trying a few people. Royalbroil 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Meets WP:FLC, and it is structured identically to a number of other FLs like List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks and List of New York Jets first-round draft picks. Good work! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.
Another football team seasons list following the format of such existing FLs as Gillingham F.C. seasons and Ipswich Town F.C. seasons, please let me know what you think!
Cheers, ChrisTheDude 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support based on the fact you'll sort out whether to use hyphens or en-dashes in the key...! The Rambling Man 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - no idea what was up there, but sorted anyway.... ChrisTheDude 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support
subject to considering the two points below.cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)- Note (currently) 17 says They continued to field a team in the Kent League, and the league placed a requirement on the club to field its strongest team. I'm assuming the league refers to Kent, but could you clarify.
- Your lead says It details the club's achievements in all competitions, and the top scorers for each season. However after 1989 it doesn't detail the club's achievements in all competitions, because source material is lacking. Perhaps you could qualify the lead sentence somehow?
- Done both points addressed, hopefully satisfactorily ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- This reader's instant reaction was 'what's he mean, most minor comps'. Perhaps ref it to existing footnote 39. (I know, I'm being picky now, but it's uncomfortable having nothing to criticise ;-) cheers, [[User:Struway2|
- Support although under the 77-78 season, I wouldnt put two question marks, just place the reference tag, the "??" doesn't look that good. Other than that, great job!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done changed it there and also the other two places it was used :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good :-)
- Support although have a couple of points.
- I can't work out if most recent completed season or if it should be most recently completed season.
- The entry for other competitions is gold or silver when the club wins one of the trophies, even though there are up to three in some of the boxes. Is there any way to correct this info.
Otherwise good work Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.
I believe this list fulfils the criteria as well as being consistent with the five other featured lists covering different areas. Self nomination. Thanks Suicidalhamster 20:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sefton Coast in currently a useless redirect, if that could be fixed, it'd be a good thing. I'd personally like something that made the intro more than a cute-and-paste job. Maybe mention where is Merseyside (not everybody is British), and possible about the relevant (if any) geographical/geological or ecological peculiarities of this Area of Search? Circeus 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sefton Coast is now a stub. I have also added some information on Merseyside and some of its characteristics (very basic at the moment). Do you think more should be added? Suicidalhamster 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The extra context is a greater improvement than it might look. Support. Circeus 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sefton Coast is now a stub. I have also added some information on Merseyside and some of its characteristics (very basic at the moment). Do you think more should be added? Suicidalhamster 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support with a minor issue - you have capitalization issues in the header of the table. A really minor thing, but... "Site name" "Grid reference" vs "Reason for Designation" "Biological Interest". Choose one or the other? Otherwise I agree with Circeus - the expanded lede is great and the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have changed the header to lower case for the second words. Thanks for spotting that. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Fixed a typo in Lead. Other than that, looks good. Woody (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very thorough, good job, I especially like the use of
in the table. Overall good job!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of YuYu Hakusho episodes
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Self Re-nomination Came so close to an agreement 3 Support, 1 Oppose (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks/archive1). Still think this list is close to/has met Featured list criteria. I also believe that it is up to par with the other lists of Pro Football First Round picks (see List of Minnesota Vikings first-round draft picks and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks). It also has references and is well set out. Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies for closing it when it was so close, but an editor clearly had issues with the page and it had been there 23 days with few comments, so I figured a new nom would bring fresh comments. -- Scorpion0422 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. Jwalte04 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fantastically annotated, free of POV, complete, and referenced. -Drdisque (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks great, meats up to all the other FL articles of this same subject, amazingly referenced!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Weak OpposeSupport: At the moment, I see a couple things that would greatly enhance the list:- The white-space to the right of the list is just too big. Can pictures of the stadium, players, the team's logo, something be put in that space? Or the table be widened to 100%? I know the other FLs you mentioned above have the same problem, but IMO there shouldn't be that much space.
- The header column "National Football League, Early Era (1936–1969)" adds nothing. There's no corresponding "Modern Era (1970-Present)", there's no indication of why that is important.
- If the Redskins started in '32 and since there's no "List of Boston Redskins first-round draft picks", could the table be extended back to '32? I'm assuming you included '36 because that took place for the '37 season?
- Year, Player, Position, and College could all be sortable.
- Ernie Davis' note needs to be clarified as to why it's on this list. Searching for his name showed me he was a Redskin player, but that should be explicit. Additionally, the third "Notable First" strikes me as trivial, bordering on OR.
- Overall, well sourced (though is [thehogs.net TheHogs.net] a RS?), and looks complete. Nice work. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- 1.
Not done Okay, I will work on it. Done Added picture of Darrell Green.
- Yeh, that's a picture, though I was thinking more along the lines of how this list does it :)
- I would do that, but frankly there arent enough usable pictures of people that are on this list.
- Yeh, that's what I thought was the case. Not a show-stopper, in my opinion, just a nice-to-have.
- I would do that, but frankly there arent enough usable pictures of people that are on this list.
- Yeh, that's a picture, though I was thinking more along the lines of how this list does it :)
- 2. Done added Modern Era Header, its important to the history because it was 1970 was the first draft after the merger.
- 3. Done I have it starting in 1936 because thats when the first draft took place.
- 4. Not done I dont know how to do this, so if there is an agreement on this, can someone tell me how? thanks.
- I'm not sure it's worth it, but (IMO) it would make the table better. First, the "Modern Era" and "Early Era" cells spanning the whole table messes up the sorting, as does the very first cell (which is redundant anyway). The "No Draft Picks" also messes it up. So I've put together a start at Wikipedia:Sandbox/sb2 to take a look at. Your call if you want to put that much effort into it - and what do others think?
- I personally dont really like it, but if there are others that do and think that it will improve the article, then I am on board.
- I guess this is probably a "nice-to-have" as well. Unless others chime in that sortable is better, I won't press it :)
- I personally dont really like it, but if there are others that do and think that it will improve the article, then I am on board.
- I'm not sure it's worth it, but (IMO) it would make the table better. First, the "Modern Era" and "Early Era" cells spanning the whole table messes up the sorting, as does the very first cell (which is redundant anyway). The "No Draft Picks" also messes it up. So I've put together a start at Wikipedia:Sandbox/sb2 to take a look at. Your call if you want to put that much effort into it - and what do others think?
- 5. Done Clarified that Ernie Davis was a Redskins pick and lost the third notable fact.
Thanks for the help/suggestions! Jwalte04 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/IWGP World Tag Team Championship
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into this list and I believe it meets the FLC.
It is useful and comprehensive in that it is a clear-defined set of topics (all aired episodes and Shada), and is factually accurate, having contained no uncited information for quite some time. While it does have the current TV template, it is stable; DWM is only released monthly, and barring that, there is little that can change "day-to-day", and even with a DWM release during the months where they're teasing the new season, little makes it to the list (guest stars and episode titles). Will (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
I have three major issues that need resolving before any detail can be hammered out:All my concerns addressed now.
originalconcerns
Headers in the table- Link in headers
- Can you suggest an alternate place? Will (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Normally, such links can be integrated into section text, which happens to be "missing" here. Adding some buffer text to describe important feature of every "era" is the best option. Another possibility is to group all the subsections' text there. This could allow in-table non-wiki headers like those of List of Anuran families, but removing individual season editing might make the article unwieldy to edit. The whole thing has something of a catch-22 quality given that the cell sizes are now wildly different from a section to the other, even under a single doctor. Gyah... Circeus (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to make it consistent between the tables. Will (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Will (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to make it consistent between the tables. Will (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Normally, such links can be integrated into section text, which happens to be "missing" here. Adding some buffer text to describe important feature of every "era" is the best option. Another possibility is to group all the subsections' text there. This could allow in-table non-wiki headers like those of List of Anuran families, but removing individual season editing might make the article unwieldy to edit. The whole thing has something of a catch-22 quality given that the cell sizes are now wildly different from a section to the other, even under a single doctor. Gyah... Circeus (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can you suggest an alternate place? Will (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Displaced ToC without a good justification.- It'd look like this without calling the template. Will (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that redlinks in the other columns are not a disqualification factor, especially as there aren't that many and they seem reasonably well-linked outside this list.
- Maybe instead of {{Edit-top-section}}, you should consider installing the existing user script. Trust me, you rapidly find it essential.
- Done Will (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to butt in here... This has nothing to do with FLC requirements. I'm putting that one back in, as it works for any editor, not only those that have some user script installed. That link is there only for everyone's convenience. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- An image, if any appropriate enough can be located, would be nice, but given the media nature, it's unlikely.
- You're right. I doubt there's a scene, other than the diary in Human Nature, that can accurately sum up all 44 years.
Won't fix. Will (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. I doubt there's a scene, other than the diary in Human Nature, that can accurately sum up all 44 years.
- The only reason I still oppose. Those template notes should be labeled with letters (otherwise you have 2 different notes #1...) and have a proper target: you have notes marker, but no notes for them anywhere! Circeus 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Will (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can't have red links. Buc (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - says who? All the individual titles have articles. There are very few red links compared with wiki-links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the pages fault that the articles don't exist - and it's not in the required criteria anyway. StuartDD contributions 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And also take in note that red link can also be caused be grammar error. for example Looney Tunes vs Loonay Tunes.The Tramp 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the pages fault that the articles don't exist - and it's not in the required criteria anyway. StuartDD contributions 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - says who? All the individual titles have articles. There are very few red links compared with wiki-links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support A well-structured, well-referenced list. Made me quite nostalgic to read it, too! BencherliteTalk 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support with minor concerns: a) Is "Fire on the Set really necessary on this list? b) The lettered note "c" doesn't work, though all the other lettered notes do. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am submitting this list for featured status as I believe it meets all the required criteria. The list has been through the Peer Review process, the results of which can be found here. All comments will be dealt with as promptly as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay 01:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Having seen this at PR, I will immediately Support on one minor proviso, which I can't believe wasn't picked up a PR- Everything now fully in order, this was already excellent at PR stage. So fully Support. Peanut4 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I presume the spells for Matt Busby, 1945-1969 and 1970-1971 in the lead ought to have endashes. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. Cheers for pointing those out. – PeeJay 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from That Ramblin' Guy
- Comments
- Still not sure why you have [11] and [23] references next to manager names when you have a reference column. It'd look neater to keep all references in one place would it not?
- Not done Because they're footnotes rather than references, i.e. they're just little asides that it wouldn't have been appropriate to include in the main text.
- Hmm. Footnotes/references all appear in the same section. Why distinguish? Why put a footnote next to the name rather than in the ref column? Little aside or not it looks odd putting them next to the name, seems inconsistent to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Done – PeeJay 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- Hmm. Footnotes/references all appear in the same section. Why distinguish? Why put a footnote next to the name rather than in the ref column? Little aside or not it looks odd putting them next to the name, seems inconsistent to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- What happened to the club between Sept and Oct 10, 1903, and Aug 21, 1912 & Oct 12, 1912?
- Done There is no information on who was manager from September 1903 to October 1903, so I think we should just assume that the club was managerless for this period. As for August to October 1912, I found a mention of a T. J. Wallworth who was the club's acting secretary from September to October 1912.
- Why not specify exactly which league championships/FA Cups won by each manager?
- Not done Because I feel it would take up too much space for the more successful managers. However, if you think it would be a good idea to include them anyway, please say.
- I think, perhaps, you have a unique situation where you have one or two VERY successful managers and not a lot else, and this would result in it taking up a lot of space. I won't fall on my sword for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- MUFC manager template says Albut started 1892. The table says (n/a). Consistency required.
- Done Yeah, I've changed that in the table, and I've also changed the lead to reflect the fact that no-one seems to know who the manager/secretary was from 1878 to 1892.
- Fergie won Charity Shields and Community Shields. Needs reflecting.
- Done Added a footnote to reflect this, but it could do with a rewrite. I drew a blank when writing it, so I don't think it reads too well.
- "...a feat that no other manager has yet achieved with the same club. " is uncited.
- Done Found a reference for that. Even though it's a few years old, I think it's still good.
- Still not sure why you have [11] and [23] references next to manager names when you have a reference column. It'd look neater to keep all references in one place would it not?
Hope these make sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded to your comments. Looking forward to your replies. – PeeJay 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good stuff thus far, just one more thing, Wallworth's nationality is blank. Surely either (n/a) or the real thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - consider making sure that you don't wikilink the same subject twice in a short space e.g. Manchester United F.C. linked in both paras 1 & 2 of the lead-in. And I always find it unnecessary to double-link external links, in fact it borders on promotional - if they want to access the homepage of the external site, they can do it from the link itself, e.g.
- Otherwise, very good article/list. Ref (chew)(do) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorted those things out. Cheers for the support, bud. – PeeJay 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The footnote for Wallworth states that his record is unknown, but exact dates are given in his entry. Presumably the record of matches played between these dates is known, so which is it? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
subject to considering two matters arising.
- Can you say in 1945–1969? would from 1945 to 1969 be more grammatical?
- Yes, perhaps it would. Done – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps it would.
- This page of your general reference MUFCInfo seems to imply that Albut was in charge of the team for the 1892-93 season. Assuming that's a reliable source, which presumably it is or you wouldn't be referencing it, then you could add in his stats as well (FCHD gives league finishes, Test match scores and FA Cup results). If you're uncomfortable with there being no official confirmation of his exact start date, cite the page I've mentioned, remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and spare a thought for those of us whose club's entire official records were burnt down along with their main stand in 1942.
- Like you say, I'm not that comfortable with extrapolating Albut's record, as he may have taken charge before the end of the 1891-92 season, and we don't even know when in 1900 he was replaced. I mean, I could work backwards from James West's record, going back 113 games from his final match in charge to find when Albut was replaced, but wouldn't that count as WP:OR? – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if the end date is doubtful as well, it probably would be an extrapolation too far. Thanks for clarifying the matter. Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Like you say, I'm not that comfortable with extrapolating Albut's record, as he may have taken charge before the end of the 1891-92 season, and we don't even know when in 1900 he was replaced. I mean, I could work backwards from James West's record, going back 113 games from his final match in charge to find when Albut was replaced, but wouldn't that count as WP:OR? – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good work, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work. Mattythewhite 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article, no issues that I can see ChrisTheDude 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Another list in the tradition of WP:FOOTBALL's continual push for excellence in all things list-like. I took an already relatively comprehensive list and turned it into something slightly better, with a lead, plenty of citations from the best sources possible for each manager and even a nice little photo of David Moyes. I'd be delighted to hear from the community, and, as always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support All issues I raised at the PR were addressed, another excellent contribution form TRM, one of our very best Wikipedians ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- "one of"? Lol I refer you to WP:WEASEL :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support My fiddly concerns already dealt with. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
CommentSupport Not too keen on the footnote stating Theo Kelly was the first true manager of the club. A little explanation of the difference between the roles of secretary and manager would be useful. If included, it would make matters clearer and render this footnote unnecessary. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)- Ok. I'll do my best to re-English and expand the point. Tomorrow! The Rambling Man (talk)
- Done Footnote removed, really was already redundant as there was a note in the text. I have expanded the text a bit and added another citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
*Comment just a few (very) minor points, otherwise I will undoubtedly support this.Everyone tip-top now. Support Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Everton's first season in the newly founded Football League. Would this be better with a season attached to those unaware of when the league was founded? Though Football League is wikilinked so that may prove good enough.
- Done with the league success punctuated by another FA Cup triumph Perhaps successes rather than success.
- Done March, 1997 ought to be March 1997 without the comma.
- Done Howard Kendall initially proved to be unpopular. Do you have a reference for this? Peanut4 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You.... you.... okay, all good points. As above with Senor El Paso's issues, I'll deal with tomorrow. Pffuff. But by then I'm hoping to be England Coach... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Cuff and Catterick, who form relative clauses like this one, require commas
afterbefore the who. Catterick might need re-phrasing slightly. English isn't my strongest subject, so if I'm wrong on this then I apologise! --Jameboy (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)- Not sure. If you mean a comma before the who, as you have in your comment, then I can see why, but not after... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's not fullproof but running the Word grammar checker across the sentences doesn't throw up any problems either, so I think I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that was what you meant! Anyway, as I said, the grammar checks out fine as far as I can see so I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Commentnow Support- Done Despite relegation to the... sentence, take out win (you can't win two successful appearances in the Charity Shield).
- Done The club returned to the top tier... They finished 2nd, not 3rd; and it'd say what you mean if you turned it round After finishing second ..., the club returned to the top tier of English football, the level at which ....
- Done Kendall, reckoned by some... Who? your reference only says many within the game, which is just as weaselly.
- Done proved unpopular with the Goodison crowd... Reference? and needs a comma, or the sentence split into two.
- Done He would return is conditional, not past. Just he returned is fine.
- Done Split Walter Smith sentence ...his first three seasons. Facing relegation... (or with a semicolon)
- Done Lose comma before David Moyes (or put another one after him).
- You reference manager stats to Soccerbase, as there are well-recognised problems with Soccerbase figures, have you cross-checked against any other source? I ask specifically because several managers' stats differ from those on the Everton website. Why choose Soccerbase ahead of Everton FC, where there is a choice? And why Everton FC for Carey?
- I selected Soccerbase for the early management as they are the only source available on-line, even the club doesn't seem to have those records available. Everton FC stats were selected in every case where the records exceeded those on Soccerbase. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies on that one, for some reason I had misread the footnotes and thought there were some more recent ones where you'd gone with Soccerbase. Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I selected Soccerbase for the early management as they are the only source available on-line, even the club doesn't seem to have those records available. Everton FC stats were selected in every case where the records exceeded those on Soccerbase. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Did Everton play between Carey and Catterick?
- Yes, three matches, but I can find no record of who was caretaker if indeed there was one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have a smallish screen at 1024x768, any greater resolution on this screen and I can't see the small writing, let alone read it :-) For me, McIntosh's Honours column entry occupies ten lines and Howard Kendall's twelve, with no more than 3 words on each. Do you need to write in full Caretaker (and, particularly, Player-manager/caretaker) in the notes column, rather than either having a footnote or writing Caretaker in small under the manager's name? Or if you must, at least put a space after the slash in Player-manager/caretaker, so it can wrap.
- Done Do you need the almost-invisible dashes to denote no honours won? If you're sure you do, then Gordon Lee deserves one as well.
Sorry I missed the very brief peer review or this lot could have been sorted before ever reaching this stage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry you missed it too. No big deal, I appreciate the comments wherever they're placed. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- That really is a tremendous improvement, thanks. Have changed to Support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any problems with it. All the fiddly things seem to have been dealt with. If Struway can't find a problem then there probably isn't one. The only thing I could find was that the managers template was missing a link to the list. I have added it now. Looks good. Well done (again). Oh and Support Woodym555 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Can't find anything wrong with this article at all, but I have a notoriously poor eye for items that need referencing, etc. Seriously, though, great article. KUTGW. – PeeJay 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The dates for Royle and Watson overlap. For the early managers where Soccerbase is the source, it might be better to just put the month with no day - Soccerbase uses the first of the month when the exact day is not known, which barring an extreme coincidence looks to be the case here. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's weird isn't it? But both dates are sourced from Everton's official website, so this looks like a case of verifiability over truth. Unless we can find another source...? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's not always reliable but soccerbase has Joe Royle leaving March 27 here. Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- This from the Independent confirms he resigned on soccerbase's date. Watson's start date per Everton would appear to be the date of the next match they played, and Royle's end date per Everton would appear to be a typo for the date of the last match they played while he was manager, 22 March (not April) 1997. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Carey's end date per Everton is 15 April, not 1 April (so the answer to my question above as to whether anyone played between Carey and Catterick should have been no ;-) You may want to give the rest a quick proofread. EFChistory's managers page is quite helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed both Royle and Carey, added a new ref for Royle. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Following on from this, you may want to explain somewhere that the from/to dates as taken from Everton F.C. are all dates of first/last games played under that manager rather than dates of appointment.
- Also, there seems to be a 12-month gap between McIntosh and Kelly. cheers, Struway2 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- God bless Soccerbase. Not sure why any of us use it! Oh well, fixed again and in the main text. And a note added re use of Everton's own website. Despite even that being problematic it appears! The Rambling Man 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed both Royle and Carey, added a new ref for Royle. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's not always reliable but soccerbase has Joe Royle leaving March 27 here. Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)