Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 6 |
. |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Polar Music Prize/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Polar Music Prize/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Brett Lee/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Brett Lee/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Songs and |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Awake episodes/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Awake episodes/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes/archive3}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes/archive3}} |
Revision as of 01:35, 5 August 2012
- 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 by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the requirements for becoming a featured list. It is a list of some of the greatest musicians of the 20th and 21st centuries.GoPTCN 17:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a quick one, I think the "reason" quotes border on copyvios since many of them have a vast amount of directly reproduced text. It may be worth asking someone who knows about these sorts of things (e.g. User:Moonriddengirl is extremely helpful) to have a look. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I shortened the quotes as far as I could. Moonriddengirl meant that they are ok as long as they are shorter. Regards--GoPTCN 09:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked here whether the quotes are acceptable, and I was told that they are. As long as I correctly attribute the sources to a reliable site it is right. Regards.--GoPTCN 13:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What Moonriddengirl said was that she was "uneasy with using that much non-free content from a single source in an article". I don't see any change so far, there are hundreds of words copied in this list that are unnecessary. You could make the quotes briefer. The list currently seems to be a collection of copied quotes and nothing much else. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked here whether the quotes are acceptable, and I was told that they are. As long as I correctly attribute the sources to a reliable site it is right. Regards.--GoPTCN 13:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"Laureates are awarded 1 million kr.[5][5]" Ref 5 is duplicated twice at the end of this sentence. Only one is needed.Change "Ref(s)" –> "Refs", since there are 2+ sources for each year."USA" should be wikilinked in the 1993 row rather than the 1994 one (i.e. wikilink the first mention of a subject).- As previously mentioned, quotes under "Reason" column need to be a bit shorter (i.e. only keep what is needed and essential).
—Bloom6132 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done everything except the last. This is not easy to shorten the quotes =/ Thanks for your comments. Regards --GoPTCN 19:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – All but one point addressed sufficiently. I'll let the last point go, since it is important to include the full reason as to why the award was bestowed (i.e. you'd rather err on the side of caution by making it detailed than to leave out the essential points). Looks like this list meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support –
- I've come here as a result of the request at MoS. I think the quotes are far too extensive, amounting to a copyvio and going against WP:QUOTE:
- Using the original words from something like a prize citation is responsible and we can argue that such a citation was written in order to be quoted. These citations are however rather verbose and in some cases there is a long justification for the prize but no separate citation (right hand column of the web page under the photo if present). Long quotes from every prize description page on the site undiluted by any original content are in my view addressed by: "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited." (WP:NFCCEG, policy).
- Although there is "no need for an arbitrary limit" (WP:QUOTEFARM, essay), "Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose" (WP:LONGQUOTE, essay). If you argue that this is a list so we don't expect lots of original prose, the counter is that we don't expect lots of text in a list, whether quote or original, it's a list.
- The entries for Lutosławski, Quincy Jones and Springsteen are fine, at part of a sentence from the original source. I think you should present the other entries at that sort of length, for example: "...his achievements encompass almost four decades of constantly changing modes of creativity, ..." is enough for Dylan.
- On the other hand, the entry for Jarrett does not say enough. Here the source has lots of text but no citation as a separate entity, so I think you need a short entry in original words. Perhaps something like: "The prize was awarded for Jarrett's outstanding musical contributions in fields as diverse as classical interpretation and jazz improvisation."
-- Mirokado (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree. I now removed many useful content describing the reason of the awarding. Also it would have been better to respond not so late. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that looks much better now (from my point of view, sorry you disagree, and apologies for responding a bit late). I have tweaked a bit and changed to support. Just one point which I will make without the pressure of formally opposing: each Reason entry consists of a bulleted list with a single entry. This adds little to the visual display and means that the user of a screen reader has a redundant level of structure to navigate. Please consider removing those bullets. --Mirokado (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and support. I removed the bullets. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick response. I've tweaked again and another question: Kinnarps is a redlink in the references. Perhaps better to unlink that unless you are intending to create an article "soon"? The redlink is not currently adding value to the reference. --Mirokado (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and support. I removed the bullets. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that looks much better now (from my point of view, sorry you disagree, and apologies for responding a bit late). I have tweaked a bit and changed to support. Just one point which I will make without the pressure of formally opposing: each Reason entry consists of a bulleted list with a single entry. This adds little to the visual display and means that the user of a screen reader has a redundant level of structure to navigate. Please consider removing those bullets. --Mirokado (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree. I now removed many useful content describing the reason of the awarding. Also it would have been better to respond not so late. Regards.--GoPTCN 08:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose lots of little things....
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- One more note from checking the replies: B.B. King still appears to be sorting by first name, as opposed to last. Everything else from my end looks resolved at this point. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Prior to this nomination it underwent a peer review and improvements have been implemented. It is based upon existing FL, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Anil Kumble —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you may wish to update the lead as a result of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"and his first five-wicket haul came in the second Test of the series; a match which Australia won." Semi-colon should probably be a regular old comma instead.The "as of 2012" in the third paragraph was fine when the FLC started, but now that he has apparently retired there is no longer a need to have it.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ZiaKhan 05:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
ZiaKhan 18:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Meets the standards. ZiaKhan 05:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – peer reviewed the article, happy it meets the FL standards. Harrias talk 11:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Gimmetoo 01:35, 5 August 2012 [4].
We are nominating this for featured list because... having successfully promoted Dan Leno to featured article status we have now completed this list of his recordings and sketches using all of the major sources about this subject. We believe that it now satisfies the criteria for Feature List status as the article has completed a peer review where issues were raised and addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers. The subject, Dan Leno, was a leading music hall comedian who was also a notable actor in Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We hope that you enjoy reading this exhaustive list as much as we have enjoyed researching and writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions -- CassiantoTalk 07:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I participated at the Peer Review and the two issues which hindered its promotion were resolved. --GoPTCN 08:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and your helpful comments at peer review! -- CassiantoTalk 21:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. :-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and your helpful comments at peer review! -- CassiantoTalk 21:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Oh, and the title isn't right because the list also includes monologues.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We are reluctant to have such a long title. On the other hand, I don't think "works" is correct, as I believe that Leno wrote some longer pieces that are not included here (Cassianto, please confirm), and "short works" sounds kinda silly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that's correct. Leno's pieces ran between a few minutes to over an hour. These longer pieces are not included. "Works" to me doesn't sound right. It's ambiguous IMO. I also disagree with a name change to incorporate "monologues". Way too long. -- CassiantoTalk 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the current name is incorrect, so you need to come to a compromise! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's "incorrect", although it is arguably incomplete (one might consider that "sketches" also covers monologues. See comedy sketch.) Perhaps other commentators have a better suggestion or opinions on this item? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you're right, it's not simply "incorrect", but it doesn't adequately describe the contents of the list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it's "incorrect", although it is arguably incomplete (one might consider that "sketches" also covers monologues. See comedy sketch.) Perhaps other commentators have a better suggestion or opinions on this item? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the current name is incorrect, so you need to come to a compromise! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that's correct. Leno's pieces ran between a few minutes to over an hour. These longer pieces are not included. "Works" to me doesn't sound right. It's ambiguous IMO. I also disagree with a name change to incorporate "monologues". Way too long. -- CassiantoTalk 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We are reluctant to have such a long title. On the other hand, I don't think "works" is correct, as I believe that Leno wrote some longer pieces that are not included here (Cassianto, please confirm), and "short works" sounds kinda silly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, The Rambling Man, for all of these corrections! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on sorting from RexxS
Looking at the Discography table, the values in the "Recording number" do not have an intrinsic order. (By the way using "Recording<br> number" as a heading is not so good for screen readers as they will announce the line break - we don't need to force that and really ought to let the browser set column widths.)
The JavaScript sorting function will treat the "recording numbers" as numbers as far as it can, so they will range from 1066 to 1129; then 3222 to 3496; followed by 43 to 50; and finally 23117. An easy fix is to make the script see the 43 to 50 as bigger numbers. I've done a demo edit which adds a hidden "40" onto the 43 to 50 series making them appear as 4043 to 4050 to the sorting script. However, the entries are still not in order of recording number as 'Spiritualism' (3462/3) is listed later than 'The Shopwalker' (3478/9) and 'The Muffin Man' (3480/1). As a result, the usual sorting will not restore the order that we first see them in (although reloading the page will). If there is no particular reason for the position of 'Spiritualism', I'd suggest placing it before 'The Shopwalker'. You should also check the recording number of the 'The Lecturer' (showing as 3484/5), as it is the same as that given for 'Wait Till I'm His Father'.
If you can check the accuracy of the recording numbers, and make any changes if necessary, I'd be happy to return to this and make the sorting work for you. Did you really want to sort on 'Issue number'? If so, make sure that the order you have is correct and I'll use the {{sort}} template to set a usable sort order for you. I should warn you that Safari browsers prior to version 4.1 won't sort properly with values containing en dashes, but we can deal with that if we set a full sort key. (Incidentally, I've replaced the html entities – with actual – (endash character) as it's so much easier to read and in line with the advice about Character encodings in HTML, but you can revert that if you don't like it.) --RexxS (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. The duplicated recording number has been altered as per Brandreth. All other's have been checked too. Some can be found here for those who would wish to check on further accuracy. I agree with the en dashes character rather than the formatted version. -- CassiantoTalk 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as always, for the advice RexxS. I'm using Safari 5.1.7 for what it's worth, and the sorting is definitely out of whack on that right now. I was using IE earlier and it wasn't quite so odd but still not correct... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks RexxS, so a non-technical explanation would be to sort the Recording numbers into numerical order? -- CassiantoTalk 18:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Done. -- CassiantoTalk 19:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Discography table seems to work as expected now. Check with TRM. I've applied a full sort key to the "Year performed" in the Unrecorded songs, sketches and monologues table and it seems to work ok with all the browsers I have available to test with. I think Gimmetoo and Ucucha have copies of Safari 4.0, and you could ask them if you want to check the worst case. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work! Your input here has been truely invaluable. TRM does this satisfy your concerns? -- CassiantoTalk 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, RexxS! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, now all you need to fix as far as I'm concerned is the title of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Renamed to "Songs, sketches and monologues of Dan Leno". -- CassiantoTalk 19:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work! Your input here has been truely invaluable. TRM does this satisfy your concerns? -- CassiantoTalk 21:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that I've contributed a little too much to have my !vote counted, but I'm sure the closer will take into account that I would support the promotion of this list, as I feel it satisfies all of my concerns regarding accessibility and usability. --RexxS (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your advice during this article has been tremendous RexxS. Your ability to not blur the line between advisor and contributor, has helped me understand lists and tables so much better. Thanks for the support. -- CassiantoTalk 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by User:Indopug
- All the song titles should in quotes.
- Done. -- CassiantoTalk 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the song titles must be in quotes, then so must the sketch and monologue titles. See WP:MOSTITLE. I've done the rest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- CassiantoTalk 11:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Capitalisation of the titles isn't done properly. For eg: The Tower Of London → "The Tower of London". I am Waiting For Him Tonight → "I Am Waiting for Him Tonight". Refer MOS:CT.
- Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting by Title: should The Bandit, The Detective and The Jap be sorted by B, D and J respectively, instead of T?
- Sorry in advance for my lack of knowledge on "sorting" issues. Would that mean de-capitalising "The" and leaving caps on for "B" "D" "J"? -- CassiantoTalk 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't de-capitalize the "The" - just ignore "The" and "A" in sorting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have completed this on both tables. Indopug, can you check to see if this is now correct and let me know here if it's not? -- CassiantoTalk 14:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, don't de-capitalize the "The" - just ignore "The" and "A" in sorting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry in advance for my lack of knowledge on "sorting" issues. Would that mean de-capitalising "The" and leaving caps on for "B" "D" "J"? -- CassiantoTalk 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments, User:Indopug. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support all my concerns have been resolved.—indopug (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): TBrandley 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I, personally, think it now meets FL criteria. After a peer review, and a copy-edit from Wikipedia's wonderful editors, I now think it is ready. Thanks, TBrandley 09:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The description for "Turtles All the Way Down" seems quite jumbled. A nice copyedit would be good. Guy546(Talk) 15:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Comment: Prose is a bit choppy, an example: "It was well received by television critics, who praised it storylines" should be 'prasied its storylines'. I agree with Guy546 that this could use a bit of copyediting. TRLIJC19 (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Comment: I agree that the page is in need of some serious copy editing. How about starting with the word 'Michael', which is spelled Micheal at least five times on the page? Many of the episode descriptions are choppy and have ambiguous parts. I'm not about to list examples here so that you can just add a "done" check mark. Get another copy editor to go over the page with a fine-toothed comb before considering FL. Honestly, if you cannot notice that you spelled criteria wrong in your nomination above (creitia), you don't have the eye for it. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After a little bit of copy-editing, I'll be willing to support this list. Will put the article on my watchlist to keep an eye on it. Otherwise, good job. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pending this fix: I still see "Michael" misspelled twice. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is fine now. Just make sure to work on the rest of the episodes after this ;). Guy546(Talk) 13:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing :) TBrandley 13:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Paper Luigi (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support - with one final comment: the "1" in the Nielsen ratings box is a broken wikilink. Paper Luigi T • C 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks! TBrandley 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
That's what I found rather quickly, I am sure there is more. Like I said above, I still think it needs a once-over by a good editor. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Note this is the first time I'm ever doing this; I couldn't really find anything except ref #11 Metacritic should not be in italics its a website. Further no issues. Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on your comment: the {{cite web}} template automatically displays whatever is in the "work" parameter (the parameter for the name of the website) in italics. It's supposed to be like that. Paper Luigi T • C 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I would have said :) Thanks for noting, Paper Luigi, and thanks for voting, AdabowtheSecond! TBrandley 03:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on your comment: the {{cite web}} template automatically displays whatever is in the "work" parameter (the parameter for the name of the website) in italics. It's supposed to be like that. Paper Luigi T • C 02:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Copyedit's done, and now I believe meets the criteria. Nice work, TBrandley. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 14:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! TBrandley 14:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still more comments from Logical Fuzz.
- "Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" were particularly praised"....for what specifically?
- Done. It was for the main storylines.
- That's not what I meant. Yes, it is the storylines, which are mentioned in the previous sentence. But what about the storylines was so good? What specifically was praised?
- Yeah, now its done.
- That's not what I meant. Yes, it is the storylines, which are mentioned in the previous sentence. But what about the storylines was so good? What specifically was praised?
- Done. It was for the main storylines.
- In the ep summaries, when you first mention the main character for an episode, you refer to him in various ways: Michael, Michael Britten, Detective Michael Britten, Detective Britten. Other than in the first ep (when you are introducing the character), I think you need some consistency with this.
- Done
- Well, for sure I'd call that "partly done", but it is better than it was. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Now, it is fully done.
- Well, for sure I'd call that "partly done", but it is better than it was. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Thanks for checking again! Have addressed new issues. TBrandley 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also commented under "Episode 4" in Giants2008's second round of comments. You missed that.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, still not done correctly.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: The article looks good to me. (Un)fortunately, I didn't find any issue ;-). --Sofffie7 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments minor as I've helped out in a previous review and a PR.
|
- Can you confirm where production codes are referenced?
- Thanks for you comments. Think I have fixed most issues, expect for the ref. for production codes. Other article do not have refs. Thanks again ! TBrandley 03:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Simpsons episodes is a FL, and it cites the production codes under "Episodes- Key". List of Lost episodes is also a FL, and doesn't include the production codes at all. So my opinion is to reference them or remove them completely, because if you leave them there uncited; there is no way to confirm that they are not made up. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the episode, and you'll see that is very true. Thanks, TBrandley 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Seinfeld episodes also references production codes. Is there no way you can find something that references these codes? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I use http://epguides.com. It is used for Seinfeld Season 9 on that article. TBrandley 04:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's fine. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have listed at WP:HD to make sure! TBrandley 04:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure about the site and have questioned it in the past. Will be interested to see what the response to it is. Also, the one uncapped issue I have is still a problem, along with the grammar issue created by subsequent editing that has been noted. How six people can be supporting this with something as blatantly problematic as that prose error, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants, can you explain what the prose error is? I'll try to fix it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am not completely certain of what the issue is, I think I may have resolved it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was one of the two issues. The phrase "run in" should be made into "run ins", which is what I originally asked for. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the issue. The "runs into" from before was correct, and is now incorrect. The issue I had was in "tries to make sense of his run in with these two very different versions of the same woman"; the "run in" should be "run ins" instead. It's disturbing that every time I bring this up, a change is made that makes things worse and doesn't fix the original issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sorry for us getting it wrong. But, anyway, Thanks! TBrandley 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Giants, in the future, if you specifically know the issue, and it is unclear to other users what you are asking for, how about you just fix the issue. After all, this site is a community effort and the primary goal is to help out Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people like Giants taking an enormous amount of their own time to help you understand what needs to be fixed. Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I did not intend to come off as rude. I think it's typically appropriate for the reviewer to leave comments, and not fix the issues themselves, but since it appeared multiple users could not figure out the meaning, I think it would have been better for Giants to have fixed the minor issue. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In an ideal world we could all understand every nuance of everything we say to each other so nothing subjective remains. That doesn't happen. Giants works hard here to help all nominations progress and I'm certain he would avoid ambiguity wherever possible in any comments he makes. He (and other reviewers) really want to help and that means helping nominators and other reviewers understand what we're looking for at FLC. This is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you are saying; please understand that I did not intend to express rudeness with my comment. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. We're all doing the best we can. Hopefully we can get this list promoted soon and encourage you and other editors to keep up the great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That being said, are there anymore issues to be addressed? Thanks, TBrandley 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. We're all doing the best we can. Hopefully we can get this list promoted soon and encourage you and other editors to keep up the great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you are saying; please understand that I did not intend to express rudeness with my comment. TRLIJC19 (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In an ideal world we could all understand every nuance of everything we say to each other so nothing subjective remains. That doesn't happen. Giants works hard here to help all nominations progress and I'm certain he would avoid ambiguity wherever possible in any comments he makes. He (and other reviewers) really want to help and that means helping nominators and other reviewers understand what we're looking for at FLC. This is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I did not intend to come off as rude. I think it's typically appropriate for the reviewer to leave comments, and not fix the issues themselves, but since it appeared multiple users could not figure out the meaning, I think it would have been better for Giants to have fixed the minor issue. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not up to any one person to fix issues in a nomination. Because if we don't help nominators understand where issues need to be fixed, how would we help improve nominations when presented here? The community effort comes from people like Giants taking an enormous amount of their own time to help you understand what needs to be fixed. Please don't assume that we're all here to fix issues which we see day in day out, that's not our job. We're all volunteers, but instead of just assuming we'll fix your issues, please know that we'd rather help you understand what needs fixing. "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Giants, in the future, if you specifically know the issue, and it is unclear to other users what you are asking for, how about you just fix the issue. After all, this site is a community effort and the primary goal is to help out Wikipedia. TRLIJC19 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sorry for us getting it wrong. But, anyway, Thanks! TBrandley 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not the issue. The "runs into" from before was correct, and is now incorrect. The issue I had was in "tries to make sense of his run in with these two very different versions of the same woman"; the "run in" should be "run ins" instead. It's disturbing that every time I bring this up, a change is made that makes things worse and doesn't fix the original issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, TRLIJC19 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was one of the two issues. The phrase "run in" should be made into "run ins", which is what I originally asked for. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I am not completely certain of what the issue is, I think I may have resolved it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants, can you explain what the prose error is? I'll try to fix it. TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure about the site and have questioned it in the past. Will be interested to see what the response to it is. Also, the one uncapped issue I have is still a problem, along with the grammar issue created by subsequent editing that has been noted. How six people can be supporting this with something as blatantly problematic as that prose error, I will never know. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have listed at WP:HD to make sure! TBrandley 04:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's fine. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could I use http://epguides.com. It is used for Seinfeld Season 9 on that article. TBrandley 04:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Seinfeld episodes also references production codes. Is there no way you can find something that references these codes? TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the episode, and you'll see that is very true. Thanks, TBrandley 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of The Simpsons episodes is a FL, and it cites the production codes under "Episodes- Key". List of Lost episodes is also a FL, and doesn't include the production codes at all. So my opinion is to reference them or remove them completely, because if you leave them there uncited; there is no way to confirm that they are not made up. TRLIJC19 (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on Lead: Regarding the last paragraph of the lead, where you are mentioning critics/commentators. It appears to me that you need additional sources in order to use the plural critics and commentators.
The sentence: Episodes "Pilot" and "Say Hello to My Little Friend" in particular have received positive reviews from commentators for their "heart wrenching" storylines.
- This is cited to just one critical review. Has more than one critic called these heart-wrenching?
- Done
- The review you are citing is talking only about "Say Hello", it does not mention "Pilot".
- Done. I have removed. It said it was the best since the pilot
The sentence: Various cast members have also been praised by critics, particularly Isaacs' performance as Michael Britten.
- Again, the use of plural "critics", despite one source.
- I don't see where in the given source the praise for "various cast members", just Isaacs.
- Done. Added two more ref., now with 3 in all.
- I wouldn't call that done. Three refs, so what? Ref 15 gives no praise of any of the cast except Isaacs, and all Ref 16 says is "well acted". Not what I was hoping for. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. IGN praises the main cast, and The Washington Post praised BD Wong and Cherry Jones.
- I wouldn't call that done. Three refs, so what? Ref 15 gives no praise of any of the cast except Isaacs, and all Ref 16 says is "well acted". Not what I was hoping for. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Added two more ref., now with 3 in all.
Either more refs are needed, or the sentences need to be rewritten and in singular form {a critic, a commentator).--Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those have been properly addressed. Thanks! TBrandley 23:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly, see above.--Logical Fuzz (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more note from another look at the list: in "'Say Hello to My Little Friend' was generally considered the best episode of the series since pilot by commentators", "the" needs to be placed directly before "pilot". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 11:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of hard work has been put into this list and I believe it meets the criteria now. Khanassassin ☪ 11:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Ed, Edd n Eddy is an award-winning 131-episode animated television series" - is that 131 stand-alone episodes or 131 segments?
- "Segments", but there considered to be episodes. --Khanassassin ☪ 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead section seems lacking somewhat. Could more be added about awards, the series end, or its history on CN?
- Added a bit of history and awards info. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 08:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The series overview table also looks a little bare. Not sure what you could add, though.
- Added a bit of DVD release dates, similar style as in List of Family Guy episodes. So, done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the sixth season really need its own article?
- I don't want it to be a black sheep. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Big Picture Show is wikilinked to itself.
- Not anymore. Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No production codes for the specials?
- Sadly, there not listed anywhere. They are at TVRage, but that page is unreliable black-listed on Wikipedia. --Khanassassin ☪ 07:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FLCR requires that a featured list be well-illustrated and include images.
- Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 09:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paper Luigi T • C 20:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. I also touched up a few things like hyphens, commas, etc. just now. The last sentence of the intro doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, though, but that's all I noticed. As for the production codes, where did you find the ones for the other episodes? Paper Luigi T • C 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find it in the "General" sources: The Addic7ed source. It has been named as a reliable source recently at a discussion at the talk pag of WikiProject Television. :) The last sentence isn't really needed, but is not a real problem either. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Epguides.com as a source for the other PCs? I checked out TVRage and they seem to match. Paper Luigi T • C 20:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find it in the "General" sources: The Addic7ed source. It has been named as a reliable source recently at a discussion at the talk pag of WikiProject Television. :) The last sentence isn't really needed, but is not a real problem either. --Khanassassin ☪ 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing, the lead closely mirrors the one on the main EEnE page. Think you could re-word it a bit so it doesn't look blatantly copied? Paper Luigi T • C 21:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the Epguide source and codes. I also changed the lead slightly; Not perfect, but it's the best I can do. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Ok, a few more things I noticed:
- The article could use an external links section.
- "All specials written by..." could those names be incorporated into the table?
- The series overview table says that S3 has 25 episodes, but I count 26.
- It also says that S4 has 25 episodes, but I count 24.
Paper Luigi T • C 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The episode-count was my mistake, sorry. Taken care of. I don't know if including the writers' names in the Specials table would be the best idea, as the writers are the same for each episode. :/ - They could be added, but maybe not the best idea. :) Totally forgot about the external links, sorry. Added. So... Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. No further comments. I support. Paper Luigi T • C 21:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. The episode-count was my mistake, sorry. Taken care of. I don't know if including the writers' names in the Specials table would be the best idea, as the writers are the same for each episode. :/ - They could be added, but maybe not the best idea. :) Totally forgot about the external links, sorry. Added. So... Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I've been hard on certain issues with this list before, and don't want the nominator to feel like I'm on their case too much, so I'm leaving others to check for close paraphrasing/plagarism. Please, someone check the film summary while this is here; typing a few random bits into Google should be sufficient for our purposes. Now that that's addressed...
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Alt text for the lead image would be nice.
|
Let it be noted that I checked a couple of short passages from the movie summary, which was the area I was most concerned about. Aside from a couple of Wikipedia mirror sites I'm not concerned about, there were no matches with other sites. I know I said I'd let someone else do it, but since no one did a check I wanted to get that out of the way, and am happy that no issues were detected. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment: Per WP:TVLEAD, "It is not recommended that the phrase "award-winning" be used in the first sentence of the lead: it provides insufficient context to the reader, and subsequent paragraphs in the lead can detail the major awards or nominations received by the television show." TRLIJC19 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 11:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I believe this list now meets the featured list criteria. TRLIJC19 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support. Great work! TBrandley 16:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comments:
- "Antonucci decided to produce ... would be produced" - avoid using the same verb twice in one sentence.
- Done. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "go in his own direction" - feels a bit too informal, might be just me
- Meh, seems good to me... not sure what the replacement could be, though. --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "A first full to seasons" - what does this mean? Is it an industry term for DVD releases? Consider replacing with a less specialized term
- Sorry, should have been "full first two". :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you considered using the transclusion trick found in List of Bleach episodes to generate episode name tables by transcluding the season pages? It might save time down the line when you're improving the season pages. Also, it's really cool.
- I agree it's very cool, however, a user in the previous FLC noted that the season lists are not featured, meaning they can not be transcluded... sadly. :/ --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that. I don't see that listed anywhere in the FL criteria... Well, it looks like you've had that setup in the past so it should not be difficult to revive it if/when you get the individual season lists up to FL. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's very cool, however, a user in the previous FLC noted that the season lists are not featured, meaning they can not be transcluded... sadly. :/ --Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by Giants2008 19:09, 4 August 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another list of warships of Germany - these are the eight protected cruisers built by the Imperial Navy in the 1880s and 90s. This list is the capstone to this Good Topic, and is the third of four components for this massive project. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose many issues, mostly minor...
- Don't we normally use a {{lang}} template for things like "Kaiserliche Marine"?
- [Note: TRM and I are actually both arguing about the {{lang-de}} template here, the one that begins "German:". Psychic, or daft? Your call!] It's redundant to say "German" twice in the same sentence. People sometimes get a bug up their ass about the "semantic web", and if we could get some solid support from Google, possibly through their Wikidata project, I'd be all in favor of helping them make it work. But I'm not going to champion bad prose in the meantime, just because they're promising to get to work on that semantic web, oh, any day now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was thinking about WP:ACCESS for blind people or screen readers etc, not about people with "a bug up their ass" whatever that means. Of course, no need to say thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question is: no, we don't, if the name of the language is already nearby, because it would be redundant, per any style guide you can name. Certainly not at Milhist, and not that I've noticed at FAC. WP:ACCESS has been a haven for bad copyediting advice for years. (If the screen reader is making wild guesses about pronunciation, even when given clues like "German" and italics and words that occur in German but not English dictionaries, it's time to upgrade, not kowtow to the whims of the screen reader.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't wish this list to comply with WP:ACCESS then, is that what you're saying? (And by the way, I thought the template would link to German language, not just say "German" as you assert)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you insist that the article should begin, "The German Imperial Navy (German ..."? [with a link]. I don't drop by FLC enough to know Giants' position on that; I'd be interested. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really see an issue with that at all since the German link goes to the German language, no-one loses out and people who need to use accessibility software to browse Wikipedia will have an enhanced experience. I can't see why you'd prejudice against those readers, but you seem dead set against it so I guess further discussion here with you is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [Some bits deleted.] Let me see if there's a parameter to that template that will fix what I see as the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, oops! The lang template you requested is fine, as long as we don't have to repeat it every time. The template I meant to object to, in this context at least, is {{lang-de}}. I'll make the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [Some bits deleted.] Let me see if there's a parameter to that template that will fix what I see as the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really see an issue with that at all since the German link goes to the German language, no-one loses out and people who need to use accessibility software to browse Wikipedia will have an enhanced experience. I can't see why you'd prejudice against those readers, but you seem dead set against it so I guess further discussion here with you is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you insist that the article should begin, "The German Imperial Navy (German ..."? [with a link]. I don't drop by FLC enough to know Giants' position on that; I'd be interested. - Dank (push to talk) 11:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't wish this list to comply with WP:ACCESS then, is that what you're saying? (And by the way, I thought the template would link to German language, not just say "German" as you assert)... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to your question is: no, we don't, if the name of the language is already nearby, because it would be redundant, per any style guide you can name. Certainly not at Milhist, and not that I've noticed at FAC. WP:ACCESS has been a haven for bad copyediting advice for years. (If the screen reader is making wild guesses about pronunciation, even when given clues like "German" and italics and words that occur in German but not English dictionaries, it's time to upgrade, not kowtow to the whims of the screen reader.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was thinking about WP:ACCESS for blind people or screen readers etc, not about people with "a bug up their ass" whatever that means. Of course, no need to say thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [Note: TRM and I are actually both arguing about the {{lang-de}} template here, the one that begins "German:". Psychic, or daft? Your call!] It's redundant to say "German" twice in the same sentence. People sometimes get a bug up their ass about the "semantic web", and if we could get some solid support from Google, possibly through their Wikidata project, I'd be all in favor of helping them make it work. But I'm not going to champion bad prose in the meantime, just because they're promising to get to work on that semantic web, oh, any day now. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "starting with the two ships of the Irene class in the 1880s." not sure you need to repeat "in the 1880s".
- Removed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's a "fleet scout"?
- A scout...for a fleet? Shouldn't this be obvious?
- Is there a link for it? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the general reconnaissance article, no.
- I see both sides, actually. Changed "fleet scouts" to "scouts for the fleet". - Dank (push to talk)
- "and a greater number of" what's wrong with "and more"?
- I like to be wordy :P
- Parsec changed it. - Dank (push to talk)
- I like to be wordy :P
- Lead image could be expanded, and that nasty Warships of Germany navbox could be relegated (it looks terrible in the lead).
- Sometimes I forget that I have my preferences set to 300px. As for the navbox, where do you suggest it go?
- Parsec expanded to 300px.
- Sometimes I forget that I have my preferences set to 300px. As for the navbox, where do you suggest it go?
- "Irene in 1894" well, not really, it's an artistic vision of what she looked like in 1894 isn't it?
- I suppose so.
- Parsec added "Painting of".
- I suppose so.
- AG Vulcan or AG Vulcan Stettin?
- It's commonly referred to simply as AG Vulcan (since there isn't an AG Vulcan Bremen, for instance).
- Guess we should move our article then... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are of course free to request the move...
- Please stop linking me to pages you know I'm well aware, it is somewhat patronising. I just wondered why it wouldn't be entitled by its common name. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please stop making daft comments. Plenty of things have more than one frequently used name, especially for institutions that were around for a hundred years and had several official names. It's perfectly fine to have an article at one location and be referred to by another name elsewhere.
- Oh, "daft comments". Okay, I'll refrain from making any comments on your lists in future, that'll probably make both of our lives a lot easier. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then please stop making daft comments. Plenty of things have more than one frequently used name, especially for institutions that were around for a hundred years and had several official names. It's perfectly fine to have an article at one location and be referred to by another name elsewhere.
- Please stop linking me to pages you know I'm well aware, it is somewhat patronising. I just wondered why it wouldn't be entitled by its common name. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are of course free to request the move...
- Can we just agree that this entire thread is daft? TRM, I think I'm going to side with Parsec on this one, on the theory that I'm being nice to you, me, and reviewers everywhere by rejecting the "I refuse to fix this article until you fix that one" argument. That is, I'm not interested in what people are doing over at AG Vulcan Stettin, I'm only interested in whether AG Vulcan is a common name for the company, and my understanding is that it is. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess we should move our article then... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's commonly referred to simply as AG Vulcan (since there isn't an AG Vulcan Bremen, for instance).
- Stettin is now Szczecin, for consideration to others, perhaps consider a note that says that Stettin is modern-day Szczecin in Poland?
- It's already linked; for the average reader, who doesn't know Szczecin from Szechuan, that should suffice.
- Assuming that no English-language name is relevant, this question can be a really tough one, in general. If the connection between the old town and the new town is weak (for any number of reasons ... because the town is small or has shifted slightly or because people have been actively trying to distance themselves from the history, for a long time), then I'm fine with not mentioning the modern name. Otherwise, I prefer to mention the local name, which is more or less the position of WP:NCGN.
- It's already linked; for the average reader, who doesn't know Szczecin from Szechuan, that should suffice.
- What's a "goldmark"?
- Linked
- What version of English is this article written in? I see "maneuvred" but then I see "armoured". Needs logical internal consistency.
- 'Muhrican - I don't know how that "armoured" slipped in.
- "21-centimeter (8.3 in) guns and eight 15 cm guns" consistency with hyphens, conversions etc.
- Hyphens are only used with spelled out units, abbreviations don't get them. Conversions are also usually only appropriate at the first use of the measurement.
- You relink "East Asia squadron" a couple of times, but then you don't later. What's the rationale for over linking in some place but not others Where?
- Mainly because I'm incompetent :P
- Parsec delinked one. - Dank (push to talk)
- Mainly because I'm incompetent :P
- While you're fixing the above, suggest you fix Annapolis to link to Annapolis, Maryland.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, just via a redirect, which isn't a problem. Thanks for reviewing the list and identifying these issues. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm well aware of that, that's why I said "while you're fixing the above". Silly to know about redirects and not just taking one second to fix them when you're making other fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline seems to support Parsec's take on this, TRM, and I don't even remember (much) controversy over this point before. I hope we've dealt with your points to your satisfaction. Thanks kindly for this review and all your reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On this last point, we may just be misunderstanding each other, TRM, but WP:LINK#Piped links also recommends against what you're asking for, at least in this particular case: "do not use a piped link where it is possible to use a redirected term that fits well within the scope of the text". - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline seems to support Parsec's take on this, TRM, and I don't even remember (much) controversy over this point before. I hope we've dealt with your points to your satisfaction. Thanks kindly for this review and all your reviews. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm well aware of that, that's why I said "while you're fixing the above". Silly to know about redirects and not just taking one second to fix them when you're making other fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, just via a redirect, which isn't a problem. Thanks for reviewing the list and identifying these issues. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TRM's last edit was in June, and I can't tell which if any of these points he feels haven't been addressed. I've pinged him. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - some of these are a bit warship-geeky, but, hey, that's what I'm here for. ;-)- Support - happy now. :-) The Land (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First sentence. Why did the German Navy bother building these ships - what was their role? A sentence or two about this would make a lot of difference here.
- See the 4th sentence - overseas work and fleet scouts.
- First sentence. Why did the German Navy bother building these ships - what was their role? A sentence or two about this would make a lot of difference here.
- I think it would make more sense putting this in the first and second sentences - would read better that way.
- The summary information for each ship could be a little more detailed, for instance
- Guns - I'd prefer to see links to the individual gun types (even if redlinks). Giving only the calibre obscures the improvements between marks.
- Done.
- Any reason why the number of torpedo tubs isn't mentioned in the armament? They're just as important as the gun armament.
- In these lists, I've generally limited the armament description to the primary offensive battery and left out secondary guns and torpedo armaments.
- I think that for a protected cruiser of the period, torpedo tubes are just as important as guns.
- In these lists, I've generally limited the armament description to the primary offensive battery and left out secondary guns and torpedo armaments.
- Machinery. Can we have the manufacturers of the engines noted, and also the horsepower.
- In the tables or the text? The machinery boxes already have more info than the others - I don't really want to cram more into them.
- Horsepower is quite important, in my view. Perhaps I'm an unusual reader caring about the power of a ship's engines, rather that just her speed, but it's useful information for the well-informed reader and deserves to be in the summary...
- Alright, I've added the ihp figures. Parsecboy (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Horsepower is quite important, in my view. Perhaps I'm an unusual reader caring about the power of a ship's engines, rather that just her speed, but it's useful information for the well-informed reader and deserves to be in the summary...
- In the tables or the text? The machinery boxes already have more info than the others - I don't really want to cram more into them.
- What was the thickness of the armoured decks and how much of the length did they run?
- Added thickness, but I don't have figures for the length of the hull protected.
- Guns - I'd prefer to see links to the individual gun types (even if redlinks). Giving only the calibre obscures the improvements between marks.
- Otherwise great work, look forward to supporting. :-) The Land (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing the list :) Parsecboy (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- I deleted the redundant link to Imperial German Navy and Kaiserlich Marine in the beginning of the first class description.
- I would oppose any further info added to the ship descriptions; they're purposely kept very sparse. See any of the FL-class ship lists at WP:OMT; they lack most everything you're asking for, except, possibly shaft or indicated horsepower. All of my more substantive comments were addressed at the ACR.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine by me on the link, and thanks for reviewing the list again. Parsecboy (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the following edits: - Dank (push to talk)
- "due to": because of (modifying the clause, not a noun)
- "They were built between 1886 and 1889 at the AG Vulcan and Germaniawerft shipyards in Stettin and Kiel, respectively. The class comprised two ships, Irene and Prinzess Wilhelm": Built between 1886 and 1889 at the AG Vulcan shipyard in Stettin and the Germaniawerft shipyard in Kiel, the class comprised two ships, Irene and Prinzess Wilhelm. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria for a featured list. The lede is engaging, albeit a bit long, and the coverage of the topic is comprehensive. Toa Nidhiki05 02:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Early comments – oppose
|
- Support can't see any major issues now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Commments –
|
- What makes Jesus Freak Hideout (refs 1, 26–31, and 39–41) a reliable source? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed issues 1-6. As for the seventh, there are numerous reasons - their 'About Us' page notes that they adhere to journalistic standards. They have an editorial board and have enough standing in the community to get interviews with some of the bigger acts in the Christian music industry, such as Third Day, Skillet, Switchfoot, and Michael W. Smith. Toa Nidhiki05 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more thing I saw: the second Billboard 200 link in the lead should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to consider. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Sufur222
Looks mostly fine, with just a few issues:
|
- Support: Looks fine now. Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have one small observation, though, you have a dash note on "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" but the sole album did chart. Seems superfluous, inconsistent. – Lionel (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was a holdover from when another column was included, removed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [9].
- Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Earthh (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. TBrandley 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Athough, I am not sure it's a complete list. We are never sure about these lists being complete anyway. As for this list, good work!--Cheetah (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk)[reply]
I am a little hesitant to nominate this list after the warm reception that List of battleships of Greece received, but I welcome discussion as to if this is really a stand-alone list or if it has sufficient items to qualify for FLC's unwritten length criteria or if it's really an article in list disguise. In format it matches the other WP:Ships FLs like List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy or List of battlecruisers of Germany with a paragraph or two explaining the class history and the notable activities of the ships. I believe that it meets all the FL criteria as given. This is a co-nomination with Dank (talk).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I jumped in at the A-class review to help with language and organization, and I'm happy to help here too. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – First off, great to see Dank helping out at an FLC. Welcome aboard!
- Ahoy! - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To get the major comment out of the way, as a critic of the Greece list, I think this one has enough entries to justify having a list. It's much closer to the other similar lists in terms of number of entries than the Greece one, and I have no 3b concerns myself.
- Glad to hear it. But I think that a minimum size ought to be specified to avoid any further incidents like that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, from Alaska-class: "and she was scrapped with her sisters in 1960 and 1961." The table says the Hawaii was scrapped in 1959, not 1960.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Good catch; she was sold for scrap in 59, but the actual process began the following year. I've rewritten that bit to clarify that it refers to the sale date.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- I don't know why I didn't catch this at the ACR, but right now, the lead implies that the Japanese had battlecruisers at Tsushima; they used armored cruisers as the fast wing of the battle line.
- Maybe worth spelling out that the WNT was an arms limitation treaty - this is clear to us, but probably not to the average reader.
- Maybe specify that the Alaskas were decommissioned two years after the end of WWII, not a vague "several years later" (which implies a longer duration, at least to me).
- Is the "Found using Google Scholar" thing really necessary on the last entry in the further reading section? Parsecboy (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thanks for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. I fixed the lead photo/navbox problem, and added a "see-also" link to List of battlecruisers, btw. Parsecboy (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Thanks for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments This isn't the venue for another 3b/minimum items discussion. As was said beforehand, it entirely depends on the list/article in question. This is just about sufficient to be a "list" as opposed to an article with a couple of tables in it, so it's fine to be here. I'll comment accordingly.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - I've made a couple of small tweaks to the list; please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed any meanings. Overall a very nice little list, no concerns in my mind with regard to criteria 3.b. One minor comment, that does not change my support:
- Why are there a couple of works duplicated between the References and Further reading sections?
Other than this, everything looks great, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes look great, thanks for your support! I generally defer to Sturm on anything in the end-sections, although I'm wondering the same thing as you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, no duplication. Look more closely, one is Friedman's carrier book and the other is the cruiser book. Much the same with two different volumes of Conways. Thanks for the fixes and the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes look great, thanks for your support! I generally defer to Sturm on anything in the end-sections, although I'm wondering the same thing as you. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as it meets all the criteria, but the gigantic whitespace caused by the U.S. Navy ship types box is really distracting (see where the {{clear right}} is). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Okay, you're not talking about the space to the right of "Key", right? Is it vertical space between the first and second paragraph? In Firefox on a 13" laptop, I have to drop down to a microscopic font to get that. - Dank (push to talk) 09:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's between the second and third paragraphs. I've sent you and Sturm a screenshot via email. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I see it. The problem is that the US Navy template is long, and sits above the next image, which sits above the next table; pushing the template down makes thing look wrong further down, in a variety of font sizes. I haven't done a formal survey, but anecdotally, most people have smaller screens and/or use a bigger font than you're using, Ed, and any larger font size makes that little bit of white space disappear. Do you have anything that solves all the problems at the same time? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I despecified the Alaska picture size, which helps a little bit, but I'm not sure what to do unless we can somehow get some of the lede to fill in to the right of the key.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I see it. The problem is that the US Navy template is long, and sits above the next image, which sits above the next table; pushing the template down makes thing look wrong further down, in a variety of font sizes. I haven't done a formal survey, but anecdotally, most people have smaller screens and/or use a bigger font than you're using, Ed, and any larger font size makes that little bit of white space disappear. Do you have anything that solves all the problems at the same time? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's between the second and third paragraphs. I've sent you and Sturm a screenshot via email. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Okay, you're not talking about the space to the right of "Key", right? Is it vertical space between the first and second paragraph? In Firefox on a 13" laptop, I have to drop down to a microscopic font to get that. - Dank (push to talk) 09:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides a fascinating snapshot of he history of this highly coveted rank, and indeed of the British Army itself. My hope and aim is that even people with little interest in military ranks or military history will find this article to be a good read, and will find something interesting or amusing in it!
Hat tips are due to (in no particular order), Jack Merridew, RexxS, Courcelles, Opera hat, and the MilHist A-Class reviewers. Thanks for reading. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from RexxS
- A fascinating read. Congratulations on the most appropriate set of alt texts that I've seen on images for a long time. A couple of minor points:
- I think the table would probably be improved by a caption (something as simple as 'Field marshals of the British Army', perhaps?). Its distance from the nearest navigable text (the section heading) indicates that a caption would be a convenience for anyone using a screen reader such as JAWS, since they could jump directly to the table on subsequent visits. Also, a caption makes the table a complete entity in itself, and therefore more useful to our re-users.
- You've already sold me on the value of a caption. Could you explain how I add one? You've probably told me before and I'm just being thick. --HJM
- In the prose of the first paragraph of the section List of field marshals there are multiple occurrences of a count of the number of field marshals. You have followed the general guidance in WP:NUMERAL that 0-9 are words and 10+ rendered as numerals, as well as remembering not to start a sentence with a numeral. However, the switching around does jar with me a bit and contravenes the second common exception in that guidance: "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." It's not crucial, but have a think about the 'comparable quantities' and see if you can find room for improvement.
- That seems eminently sensible now you raise it. Given the number of dates as figures, it's probably best to switch all the numbers of field marshals to figures. --HJM
- In any case, neither of these issues should be construed as making the article unsuitable to be considered as one of Wikipedia's best lists. Excellent work! --RexxS (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review (although I haven't done a lot here). No objection to changing "eight" to "8"; does that work for you, RexxS? This is one of those problems where no one approach seems to make everyone happy all the time; all we can do is respond individually. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" style="margin-right: 0;" |+ Field marshals of the British Army |- ! scope="col" | Name and style{{efn|Titles and styles are those held by the field marshal when they died, or those currently held in the case of living field marshals; in most cases, these are not the same as the titles and styles held by an officer upon their promotion to the rank, nor (in the case of operational field marshals) those held when the officer retired from active service. All post-nominal letters, with the exception of "VC" (denoting the [[Victoria Cross]]) are omitted.}} ! scope="col" | Regiment{{efn|The regiment given is the regiment into which the field marshal was commissioned. This is not necessarily the regiment the officer first joined, nor is it necessarily the regiment in which the officer spent most of his career. A "—" indicates either that the officer did not lead a career in the British Army or that the officer was not initially commissioned into a formal regiment.}} ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Image ! scope="col" | Born ! scope="col" | Died ! scope="col" style="width: 10em;" | Date of promotion{{sfn|Heathcote|loc=Table 1|pp=320–326}} |- | ... |}
Produces:
Name and style[a] | Regiment[b] | Image | Born | Died | Date of promotion[1] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
... |
- ^ Titles and styles are those held by the field marshal when they died, or those currently held in the case of living field marshals; in most cases, these are not the same as the titles and styles held by an officer upon their promotion to the rank, nor (in the case of operational field marshals) those held when the officer retired from active service. All post-nominal letters, with the exception of "VC" (denoting the Victoria Cross) are omitted.
- ^ The regiment given is the regiment into which the field marshal was commissioned. This is not necessarily the regiment the officer first joined, nor is it necessarily the regiment in which the officer spent most of his career. A "—" indicates either that the officer did not lead a career in the British Army or that the officer was not initially commissioned into a formal regiment.
HTH --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Jack beat me to it, but I'll know for next time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments hesitant as I am to delve into another MILHIST list (note, list) for fear of MILHIST reprisals because we're not the same as FAC when it comes to WP:ACCESS etc, I offer the following remarks. Of course, they can be entirely disregarded.
|
- Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency ... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope ... Our *four*... no ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rambling Man, thanks for having a look. As a MilHist coordinator, I apologise if some members of the project have brought it into disrepute at FLC—I can only promise you that I wasn't aware of it, and if I had been, I would have had something to say to those responsible. As for fear of reprisals, I know you respect Rexx, so you can ask him—he'll tell you I'm harmless. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (not if you're a bottle of scotch;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Rambling Man, thanks for having a look. As a MilHist coordinator, I apologise if some members of the project have brought it into disrepute at FLC—I can only promise you that I wasn't aware of it, and if I had been, I would have had something to say to those responsible. As for fear of reprisals, I know you respect Rexx, so you can ask him—he'll tell you I'm harmless. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency ... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope ... Our *four*... no ... - Dank (push to talk) 18:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I was over this in detail some months ago and the table semantics, citation mechanism, and notes system are all solid. I trust that the ACR sorted issues of comprehensiveness, and so lend my support to this. Ya do need to address the dead Lethbridge (Britain at War) link. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much obliged. I'll see what I can do about that link; in the meantime, I've added another source that backs up the statement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (The last edit will need a few days to show up, the toolserver needs time to catch up.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- First two words of the List of field marshals section title could easily be removed, and I personally like it better when section titles don't have them. It's obvious to the reader that it's a list, after all.
- They could, but I prefer it how it is. I think it makes clear that what follows is the list of field marshals and information about the list entries, and not just more information about field marshals in general or the rank itself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think Earl Roberts' first name needs to be used a second time in this section.
- It's actually his title, but you're right—we don't need it twice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most importantly, there is a dead link tag for the Britain at War Magazine article, and I'd be reluctant to promote a list with a tag in it. You could try citing an offline version of the article, which won't have this issue, or you can see if the Internet Archive has a copy.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I see that the problematic link has been removed. Any response to the couple of other things I pointed out? Giants2008 (Talk) 16:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After stumbling upon the list I was wondering why it wasn't featured, then I saw it was up as a candidate. I notice that the Lethbridge, JP. "From Private to Field Marshal" reference is a dead link - can you find this on an archive site? Cheers, Zangar (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the FL criteria are met. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [12].
- Nominator(s): KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the comments in the previous FLC and I think the article is now ready for FL status. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am confused that you abbreviate "Billboard 200" to "BB", while the singles chart to "US". I think this should be changed. Otherwise an excellent list. Regards.--GoPTCN 09:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find "Billboard 200" abbreviated to "BB" anywhere. Can you please tell me where it is? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. The US looked like "BB" on my screen. I am now supporting. Regards.--GoPTCN 12:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. The US looked like "BB" on my screen. I am now supporting. Regards.--GoPTCN 12:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find "Billboard 200" abbreviated to "BB" anywhere. Can you please tell me where it is? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Sorry, I completely misunderstood you. Is it correct now? However the "Years" column in the music video section is different than in the rest of the discography in the Kelly Rowland discography, and now in the Backstreet Boys discography. Should I change it? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 23:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Sufur222
If these things are fixed, I will have no reservations supporting. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Now looks very good. Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [13].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria necessary for it to become featured. NapHit (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "held usually" - shouldn't that be "usually held"?
- "The first race at the circuit used the 22 km (14 mi) circuit," - would remove the repetition of "circuit". I am also confused what you really mean. Is it about the Nürbugring or Silverstone? Which circuit you are referring to?
- Too many repetitions of the same word in the next sentences.
- "New circuits have been used in Asia and America, the change has been a recent occurrence." - shouldn't that be replaced with a semicolon? At least it is so in English.
- "The Circuit of the Americas is set to become the latest different circuit to host a Grand Prix; when" - you can not place a semicolon ahead a non-complete sentence, can you?
- "The longest circuit to have hosted a Grand Prix is the Pescara Circuit, which hosted the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix. " - How about "The Pescara Circuit have hosted the longest circuit, the 1957 Pescara Grand Prix"?--GoPTCN 11:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall nice.--GoPTCN 14:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- done all apart from the last one which would make the sentence dramatically incorrect, thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
Otherwise an impressive list. Arsenikk (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "The 25,800 km long circuit in Pescara, Italy, held the annual Coppa Acerbo race, in 1957...". Comma should be a semi-colon.
- I meant the last comma in this bit, not the second one. My fault for not being aware of how many commas there were. Basically, the comma after Italy should be restored and the one after "race" is the one that should be changed. Sorry about that. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, should be right now. NapHit (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the circuit column, Osterreichring isn't sorting in the proper order.In ref 5, "Formula1" needs a space for consistency with other refs.Giants2008 (Talk) 15:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Giants, I've fixed them all. NapHit (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – per above discussion and comments. Overall, a very impressive list. Good work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments participated in the PR, so not much to add.
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [14].
- Nominator(s): ZiaKhan 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think this meets the criteria to become a featured list. Also, this went through a Peer review before nominating here. Any comment or suggestion will be appreciated.... ZiaKhan 05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still getting odd results on, say, sorting by Last now. I don't know how to fix it though. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment good work on the sorting. Note that when sorting by BBI, Anjum and Ahmed are out of order, and a batting average of 0 looks odd when all others are to two decimal places. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Vensatry |
---|
Initial comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 07:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you did before. ESPNcricinfo isn't a print media. Since this being the name of the website, you should include that under work parameter. The publisher for ESPN cricinfo is ESPN EMEA. The choice of including publisher parameters is upto you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Good work with the list. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
In the captains table, the winning percentage doesn't sort well at all. It either doesn't sort at all, or sorts one way but not the other. I have a hunch that the colspan used in the total column is causing the problem.None of the reference publishers should be italicized; the italics are used for printed publications, and I don't see a single one in this group that fits the bill.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. ZiaKhan 04:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- You need to remove the rowspan="2" parameter from Cap, Name, First, Last and Mat, given you've added "General" in the row above, contrary to precedent.
- Done.
- Given that in twenty years, a large number of these players will have retired, meaning that the list will be covered in this symbol, it is really necessary?
- Removed.
- Personally I don't think {{sort dash}} is appropriate for the Bowling average column, as it means that the players without a bowling average sort above the best average of Mendis. I would prefer those players to sort at the end.
- Done.
- ESPNcricinfo is overlinked: I would suggest linking to it from the first reference, but not thereafter.
- Done.
- Refs #22, #23, and #33 need date of publication, and author adding.
- Done.
- In the Captains list, why does Inzamam-ul-Haq have a win percentage listed as 100%, while the rest are XX.XX. Surely, he should have 100.00?
- Yes, the only match he captained was won by Pakistan.
- I don't doubt that, but my point was that it was written in a completely different format to all the others, and should be the same for consistency. Harrias talk 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Zia Khan 19:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that Tanvir Ahmed has 1 against his innings column, he should have a total listed in runs and HS, or there should be dashes in Inn, NO and 50.
- Done.
- Hmmm, having a look at his page on ESPNcricinfo, I think you went the wrong way with this: it looks like he hasn't batted in T20I. Shahid Afridi's stats are also wrong: I would recommend going through and checking all of the others are correct. Harrias talk 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected. Zia Khan 18:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Harrias talk 11:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Zia Khan 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose pending further checks on accuracy of statistics provided. Harrias talk 17:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Sahara4u has informed me this has already been promoted. Harrias talk 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [15].
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past year and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<font=white>Resolved comments from – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support nothing else I can see to hold this up. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
|
- Support nice work! Arsenikk (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --GoPTCN 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose wow, lots of early support, good to see. Nevertheless, to be addressed...
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, you've resorted to more below the belt tactics now. The claims you made about me are completely false. And you're now calling me a liar? Let's see:
Judging from the use of words throughout this, I've actually been very positive ("I respect your view," "I'm sorry to hear that," "let's just agree to disagree.") while you've used the most negative terms to talk to me ("you've lied," "All lies. Pure fabrication. Completely revolting."). From above, I completely blew your argument out of the water with regards to your claim that I lied. Who's the liar now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- There should be an extra table listing the multiple winners. Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, adding such a table would be completely redundant. This list is a stat club, not an award (where a multiple winners table would be more appropriate, such as FL Cy Young Award). Even then, baseball FLs for awards such as Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award don't include multiple winners table and instead utilize numbers beside multiple winners. In this case, small numbers are already included after multiple winners and that alone will suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you explain to me how a reader can easily figure out which palyer had the most/the second most/ etc. 50+ HR seasons then I will agree that such a table is redundant. Nergaal (talk) 07:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Players with the most 50+ HR seasons are already noted in the first paragraph of the lead. The player with the second most (i.e. A-Rod) is already listed in the table with (3) denoting the # of seasons he's had. My hunch is that the reader would have at least read the first paragraph of the lead before proceeding to the table. I'm also assuming that the key would play a part in them understanding that the small number beside a player's name would denote the # of HR they had accomplished at that point. The table is sorted chronologically, so reading the number beside a player's name makes it pretty easy to figure out which players have the most (i.e. whoever has the highest number has the most). These are reasonable assumptions, aren't they? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 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 by The Rambling Man 17:35, 1 August 2012 [16].
- Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfils the Featured List criteria. The list is complete with references and any information the reader would want to know from available sources. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
Otherwise a nice list. Arsenikk (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support well-crafted list. Arsenikk (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comment: I'm not sure the comment at the end of the lead regarding Patrik Andersson's 96 caps between 1992 and 2002 is really relevant now the caps column has been removed. It's also more than a little misleading given that he left the club in 1992, and didn't come back until 2004. Other than that this looks to be shaping up into a very strong list. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Good that you noticed. I've removed it from the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, meets standards now in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers man! --Reckless182 (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, meets standards now in my book. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good that you noticed. I've removed it from the lead. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well writen lead and list, belive it meets the standards.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The footnotes section should utilized this style, since this is the most up-to-date style for a list that embeds references within footnotes (and only uses each footnote once). All you have to do is place the info of the footnote in the refcontent section of the markup. You can ignore the "name" section, while the group name in this case would be "upper-alpha" (since all your footnotes right now are upper case letters). Follow the instructions on the page and just ask me if you need any help.
—Bloom6132 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you for pointing this out! --Reckless182 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I'm happy to be of help. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets all 6 FL criteria. An extremely impressive list. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Hatnote at top: "This list is about Malmo FF players with at least league 100 appearances." Flip 100 and "league".
- Don't need multiple Allsvenskan links in the lead, or for "the highest tier of Swedish football" to be repeated from the material in the second paragraph.
- Key: "and" is needed before "Division 2 matches."
- "the player with the most goals scored are ranked higher if two or more players are tied." "are" → "is".
- The List of players heading would be better as just Players. The readers are smart enough to figure out that it's a list by its appearance. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done! --Reckless182 (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.