Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2007
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 23:58, 29 December 2007.
Support as nominator. After the last submission failed, I have taken into account everything said, and improved the article, I now feel the article is at FL standard NapHit (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Hello NapHit, good work, but a few comments before I can support.
- Use WP:HEAD for headings, i.e. no overcapitalisation.
- "...to the present day" in lead and "as of October 3" in stats table.
- Not vital but Tom Watson (footballer) should be used, not the redirect Tom Watson (football).
- Remove spaces between citations and punctuation (e.g. [6])
- "They were replaced..." implies they were sacked but then "The next manager, Don Welsh became the first Liverpool manager to be sacked..." contradicts it. Just needs ironing out.
- "...club to a double of the..." - not just a double, The Double - consider capitalisation and maybe further explanation, like "...club to the League and FA Cup double..."?
- "They won a treble..." expand what sort of treble, not a treble vodka for example!
- Consider making "Caretaker" a note - this will drastically reduce the width of that column and improve the layout.
- What happened between January 1951 and late March 1951?
- Remove hyphens for seasons without honours.
- "2 FA Cups" vs "FA Cup winner" - consistency needed, although I see what you're doing. If no-one else complains, no worries.
- Template doesn't match table e.g. Ashworth - table says 1919 to 1922, template says 1920 to 1923... there may be others, worth double checking.
Hope these comments help. The Rambling Man 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- All comments taken care of, more welcome please NapHit (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not quite, what about what happened between Jan 51 and March 51...? Also, what now happened between December 1922 and February 1923? Gaps are big enough to warrant explanation, even if it's a referenced caretaker manager situation. It may be worth making a note somewhere that the dates for most changeovers don't match and if games were played it was under some kind of interim management. Good work on the other comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I have done the best I can but the fact of the matter is I don't know what happened, so I hope what I have done is satisfactory. NapHit (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to LFChistory (Ashworth), Ashworth left Shortly after overseeing home-and-away victories over his former club Oldham Athletic on Christmas Day & Boxing Day, LFChistory (McQueen) says he left Anfield for Oldham Athletic early in 1923, and according to Liverpool F.C., in February 1923 Ashworth left the table-topping side to return to Oldham. I'd guess lfchistory's 21.12.22 date was a typo, because it doesn't match any of those articles, so there probably isn't actually a gap at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Struway I'll change it now NapHit (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- According to LFChistory (Ashworth), Ashworth left Shortly after overseeing home-and-away victories over his former club Oldham Athletic on Christmas Day & Boxing Day, LFChistory (McQueen) says he left Anfield for Oldham Athletic early in 1923, and according to Liverpool F.C., in February 1923 Ashworth left the table-topping side to return to Oldham. I'd guess lfchistory's 21.12.22 date was a typo, because it doesn't match any of those articles, so there probably isn't actually a gap at all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments;
- I'm not a big fan of the history section. It's full of very short sentences which don't feel like they run into each other very well, not allowing the prose to flow.
- There's no reference to Liverpool's fabled bootroom.
- Possibly not essential, but there's no entry for Charity Shields in the table although they are mentioned elsewhere.
- Why change between Division One champions and Division One championships in the table? I realise the former is for those who have just one win, but why not say 1 Division One championship?
Apart from those few points I can't see anything else except for what has been mentioned above particularly regarding the gaps. From personal experience I know how hard these can be to fill. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok I've improved the history section any more comments are welcome NapHit (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's lots better. Nice work. Just the addition of charity shields to the honours to do in my opinion. Although is there any explanation for the gap in manager from 1915 to December 1919? Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for that gap is because of the First World War, I will add the Charity Shields now NapHit (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guessed so but id Liverpool not have a manager for wartime football? Plus league football resumed in September 1919. Peanut4 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- On the Liverpool website it states there was no manager during the wartime period, so I can't addd anything there, nor does it mention a caretaker manager, so i will to leave it as it is NapHit (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guessed so but id Liverpool not have a manager for wartime football? Plus league football resumed in September 1919. Peanut4 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The reason for that gap is because of the First World War, I will add the Charity Shields now NapHit (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- That's lots better. Nice work. Just the addition of charity shields to the honours to do in my opinion. Although is there any explanation for the gap in manager from 1915 to December 1919? Peanut4 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Looks very good. Improvements made above look nice. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments: Some points at first glance;
- a reference was needed for the famous bootroom (I added the one from the main Liverpool article, and also wikilinked to the article on The Boot Room) - although I still think the most important thing about the Boot Room is that it was where they stored the gin!
- As we've recently been discussing with regards to the main article, I think it's essential that some mention is made of Phil Thompson's stint in charge while Houllier was recovering from heart surgery.
- In fact, I would be of the opinion that the history section needs to mention Houllier's heart surgery.
- I can understand why you'd say Houllier was sacked - however, this requires a source, as the current reference you give doesn't use the term sacked - and the reference used for the main article says they "parted by mutual consent" (although one could ask whether this is just another name for the same thing)
- You say that both Fagan and Dalglish's reigns were "tinged with sadness" as a result of Heysel and Hillsborough respectively - I think this could be better written.
- I don't think you need to mention that Benitez has won the Community Shield and Super Cup - those competitions are not mentioned for the other managers, so I'd say this is recentist.
- In general, you don't get much of a sense for the managers, their personalities, approaches to management, etc. from the history section, and as a result, it does seem a little dry - "x won this competition" and "y won this competition" is all very well, but people like Shankly were the greatest personalities in football, and I can't help but feel that any article which reduces them to the trophies that were won is missing a great deal - just my personal view.
Robotforaday (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I've given the Managerial history section a bit of a rewrite, to sort out some of the phrasing as I didn't think it was good enough quality of writing to meet the featured content criteria. Other than that, though, I couldn't see anything wrong with the article that hasn't already been mentioned. Good work guys. – PeeJay 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
CommentWere Roy Evans and Gérard Houllier joint managers in 1998? If so, there should be a note just like for Barclay and McKenna. If not, then the reason why they were together should be mentioned.--Crzycheetah 09:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Done NapHit (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to support as soon as the notes are separated from the citations. Here's an example.--Crzycheetah 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just as a clarification, is that actually a guideline or just a personal preference? It can be hard to keep track of these things on wikipedia. Personally, I think a footnote is a footnote is a footnote, and unless you're using Harvard referencing or something similar (which wikipedia articles don't normally use), citations and other notes are usually kept together... Robotforaday (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's just a trend. I've seen it in more and more articles/lists that pop up nowadays. It also makes sense to know whether a statement is cited or just explained more thoroughly before actually clicking on the footnote. Do I prefer it? Yes, I do. Is this just a personal preference? No, this is not.--Crzycheetah 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Seperated the notes from the citations, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's just a trend. I've seen it in more and more articles/lists that pop up nowadays. It also makes sense to know whether a statement is cited or just explained more thoroughly before actually clicking on the footnote. Do I prefer it? Yes, I do. Is this just a personal preference? No, this is not.--Crzycheetah 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just as a clarification, is that actually a guideline or just a personal preference? It can be hard to keep track of these things on wikipedia. Personally, I think a footnote is a footnote is a footnote, and unless you're using Harvard referencing or something similar (which wikipedia articles don't normally use), citations and other notes are usually kept together... Robotforaday (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be happy to support as soon as the notes are separated from the citations. Here's an example.--Crzycheetah 19:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Thanks, well done!--Crzycheetah 19:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 23:58, 29 December 2007.
This list "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed," has a good lead, and a free and useful image. This list uses a very similar format to already approved US State featured bird lists and is a self nomination. Pmeleski (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak opposeuntil WP:MOS issues raised in peer review (e.g. inappropriate punctuation in photo captionsSupport MeegsC | Talk 14:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) Done, using numerals to start sentences Done, not spelling out numbers less than ten Done, etc.) are dealt with.
- I went through the article today and addressed those three concerns. There may be others that have not yet been addressed, however. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts, GaryColemanFan! That's addressed those three points. I think there are only a couple of further issues:
- Section header should be capitalized per WP:MOS (e.g. only the first word should be capitalised); this will mean updating the TOC as well Done
- References should be in standard format (e.g. cite book, cite web, etc.)
- Section header should be capitalized per WP:MOS (e.g. only the first word should be capitalised); this will mean updating the TOC as well
- Once those points are addressed, I'm happy to change my vote! MeegsC | Talk 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the section headers and table of contents. The list seems to be completely unreferenced, however. I know next to nothing about birds (I just picked this article at random and started addressing concerns), so I am unable to source the entire list. This (along with the previous four concerns) seems like something that should have been addressed after the Peer Review before this article was nominated for FL status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- No worries GCF, you fixed exactly what I was hoping would be fixed. As you say, these were all things that were mentioned on the peer review; I'm a bit surprised it came here without getting them sorted first! The overall referencing is another issue—and one we're currently working to sort out in WP:BIRD. MeegsC | Talk 18:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the section headers and table of contents. The list seems to be completely unreferenced, however. I know next to nothing about birds (I just picked this article at random and started addressing concerns), so I am unable to source the entire list. This (along with the previous four concerns) seems like something that should have been addressed after the Peer Review before this article was nominated for FL status. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your efforts, GaryColemanFan! That's addressed those three points. I think there are only a couple of further issues:
Comment for some reason there's no intro text for "ibises and spoonbills". THis is a flaw that has been carried down from List of North American birds.Circeus (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)In the same vein, "Order" and "family" stops being bolded with Columbidae until Tyrannidae. Circeus (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I bolded those words in the sections where the bolding was missing. MeegsC | Talk 22:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- comment I just copied the text here from the birds of Kansas list. May want to bring along the image also. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive, nicely described, nicely illustrated. --Orlady (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not fond of having all the sentences in the first paragraph start with "This list..." Otherwise the list looks good, but the first thing one sees should be changed. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I'll update many of suggestions made above. Regarding references concerns, this list follows almost identical reference format to List of North American Birds and List of New Jersey Birds which are already featured lists. I'm unsure what those lists have for references which make them work vs. this list which has what those lists have, yet it doesn't work.......As an aside, I do need to do some work to further divide a few families which have been updated over the past year from Clements/ABA, when that is done, I'll try for another FL nom.......Keep any comments coming in the meantime! And thanks for the editing help and for all the information! Pmeleski (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Meets the criteria and is easily understandable to me, a non-bird enthusiast. Nicely illustrated and fine format. Noobiemacnoss1 (talk) 00:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support per Orlady.--Crzycheetah 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.
- Support as nominator. This page follows the format of
Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders that was passed yesterday six in favor and zero against.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 17:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC) - Support per above. michfan2123 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This list is very nicely formatted, and the information is not readily available in any other place that I'm aware of, as most lists of college football records by team are limited to the actual leader. This list provide historical context and shows the development of the record over time. The sortable function is also helpful.Cbl62 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good format, good lead, good prose. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 00:56, 28 December 2007.
- Support as nominator. This follows the format of Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders which was passed on 2007-12-17 by six in favor and none against.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support per above. michfan2123 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This list is very nicely formatted, and the information is not readily available in any other place that I'm aware of, as most lists of college football records by team are limited to the actual leader. This list provide historical context and shows the development of the record over time. The sortable function is also helpful. Cbl62 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Good format, good lead, good prose. Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support. I question the relevance of the rivalry prose in the first paragraph in this article. Other than that, great list.↔NMajdan•talk 20:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 23:50, 23 December 2007.
I've been working on this list for awhile now, and believe that it is now comprehensive and well-references, and meets all the criteria, in addition to being comparable to Featured Lists about similar topics. Thanks to those members of WikiProject Wisconsin who looked this list over and caught a few problems I had missed, and to all those who comment here. —Salmar (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - "Other high offices held" looks like it was added on as an afterthought. There must be a better way of doing this, although I'm not sure what. Also, under "Living former governors," the statements about the oldest, the most recent death, and the most recently-serving governor to die seem like trivia. (Could dates of birth and death be added to the table?) -- Thinking out loud here, Orlady (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Both were actually added in imitation of other featured lists about
Wisconsingovernors, not as afterthoughts. As for your comments, the dates of birth are already in the "Living former governors" table, the dates of death can't be added because it is, after all, a list of living governors =P ... or did you mean the table of all the governors? I suppose I could, but it'd make the table kind of overly big, in my opinion. As for the "Other high offices held" table, is there anything, in specific, that you think could be better about it? —Salmar (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) - edit Strike out extra (not to mention wrong!) word in that reply. —Salmar (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Both were actually added in imitation of other featured lists about
- Conditional support. The red links and "Madison, Wisconsin" links in "references" should go. Circeus (talk) 05:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed —Salmar (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - as someone who brought four other governor lists to featured status (AL, AR, CA, and helped with KY), good job. A few comments:
- Are the key boxes really necessary? The table says which party they were, it just seems to double up on things.
- I added them to a number of article. Here they admittedly do not double with the table itself as much as with the summary in the upper-right corner. 00:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs)
- After taking a closer look, I agree, and have removed them.
- "Terms" is a new idea, and like all new things, I hate it immediately, then slowly grow to like it. Because of that, I have no opinion. :P However, now that I take a closer look at it, it's a very novel way of getting rid of the mostly-empty "Notes" column we've had in the other featured lists. Hm.
- I was wary at putting it in, because it wasn't in any of the other lists, but the empty notes column was driving me crazy!
- I dislike having Doyle's expiration day in the table, I much prefer it in the ref. Like the others. :>
- moved to ref
- I like you showing the offices that the governor resigned so that he could be governor; I dunno if we've had to deal with that before, since usually it's the other way around.
- I like the other high offices held and former living governors, but I can also see why others would see that as trivia. I think I was inspired mainly by New York's governor list (which listed the many, MANY governors that have become presidents and what not), and the List of Presidents, which obsessively mentions the living ones, how many times we've had 5 living presidents, etc. etc. Personally, I find the list of living governors as useful as the list of living presidents - which is to say, useful.
- I found it useful too, and also felt it was best to put it in since it was in all the similar featured lists
- One thing keeping me from a full support: the acting question. In the intro, it states that the Lt. Gov becomes governor if the governor dies or resigns; however, the references all say that the Lt. Gov acted as governor. This is an important distinction that needs clarifying.
- Sorry about that; the constitution distinguishes between "becoming governor" and "acting as governor", but several of the sources use the latter in all cases, and I'm afraid I used the same terminology without thinking about it. I've fixed it now.
- So, fix that, and you get full support. :) I think I'll take some of these ideas and put them in the Cali, Ala, and Ark lists. --Golbez (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments! —Salmar (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Are the key boxes really necessary? The table says which party they were, it just seems to double up on things.
- and thus, Support. --Golbez (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- for reasons explained on his talk page, I have asked Golbez if he could come back to here and make sure that he still supports —Salmar (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- yup! --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- for reasons explained on his talk page, I have asked Golbez if he could come back to here and make sure that he still supports —Salmar (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
I'd like to know why there isn't a "left office" column in the Governors of Wisconsin Territory section.- Simply because, although I assume that they left office the same day their successor took office, there is absolutely no source I can find that actually says this.
- On the other governor pages, it was very difficult sometimes to find out when a territorial governor left office; often, it was not when the next one took office, and there were significant gaps. However, in the absence of such information, we have to simply assume it was the date. I'll add a note on this.
- Simply because, although I assume that they left office the same day their successor took office, there is absolutely no source I can find that actually says this.
Since there are free images of Governors of Wisconsin Territory available, why is the table not formatted like in the California's page with the images?- Actually, that'd be a good way to make the table the same size as the governor's table. I think I'll try that; thanks!
- I tried it, and then reverted myself; my opinion is that the overly tall cells (in contrast to the governor's table) and the large white space to the right make it look ... odd. You can see the with-images version here, if people disagree with me, I'll have no problem changing it back. —Salmar (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have readded the pictures because a)The "left offices" column was added and the table got an appropriate width and b)All images make tables taller, but at the same time make it more illustratable.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I tried it, and then reverted myself; my opinion is that the overly tall cells (in contrast to the governor's table) and the large white space to the right make it look ... odd. You can see the with-images version here, if people disagree with me, I'll have no problem changing it back. —Salmar (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, that'd be a good way to make the table the same size as the governor's table. I think I'll try that; thanks!
- These lists about State Governors are the only pages in Wikipedia that use letters for citations and numbers for notes. It needs to be reversed! I blame this on Golbez, of course.
- Yeah, well, you can .. do .. something bad. :P And no, not quite the only pages, but if you want it repaired, go bug the devs to fill my two-year-old feature request for a second class of reference tags! --Golbez (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because it's easiest to use <ref> tags for the notes (which always produce numbers) and {{ref}} templates for the references, which must, therefore, use letters. I could change it, but it'd be difficult, I think. —Salmar (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can as easily say the opposite that <ref> can easily be used for references and {{ref}} for notes.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- You could. However, it is my opinion that: 1) changing them now would be very difficult. That, of course, is not a good reason not to do it, and, if you truly believe that this is necessary, I will change them. However: 2) the other Featured Lists about governors do it the same way this list does, and a) there doesn't seem to be a problem there and b) it seems good to me that the lists have a similar format and 3) there's no guideline that says it has to be done one way or the other, so, quite simply, I don't see why it matters. —Salmar (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I understand that it will be difficult to change, especially so many FLs use it. I just think that notes have to be differentiated from citations. When I am reading an article, I want to know what I am going to read (a note or a citation) before clicking on the footnote. That's why I started advocating these "numbers for citations and letters for notes" guideline, since I believe that most of the articles use this already.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- You could. However, it is my opinion that: 1) changing them now would be very difficult. That, of course, is not a good reason not to do it, and, if you truly believe that this is necessary, I will change them. However: 2) the other Featured Lists about governors do it the same way this list does, and a) there doesn't seem to be a problem there and b) it seems good to me that the lists have a similar format and 3) there's no guideline that says it has to be done one way or the other, so, quite simply, I don't see why it matters. —Salmar (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- I can as easily say the opposite that <ref> can easily be used for references and {{ref}} for notes.--Crzycheetah 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- --Crzycheetah 09:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support I supported this list since it was nominated. I just want to make this clear that it doesn't matter to me whether my last concern is met or not.--Crzycheetah 02:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and sorry if I came off as a bit rude. I certainly understand your concern, and also wish that there was some easy way to differentiate between notes and citations that is consistent across articles. But unless something like the two-classes-of-references that Golbez mentioned is ever implemented, I'm afraid that I just don't know what can be done =\ Thank you to you and everyone else who has supported thus far! —Salmar (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
CommentSupport: A few questions/comments before I support fully:- Could you widen the almost-full-width tables to 100%? Specifically "Governors of Wisconsin Territory" and "Other high offices held".
- Done for the two tables mentioned; the third one is so narrow that making it that wide makes it look silly
- I disagree with the above statement about the key/legend. If you skip down to the table, or (like I did) forget that you saw the colors up there once you've read the lede, you don't know what the colors mean. And since there's a column that indicates party affiliation, you (I) assume(d) that the color couldn't mean party. Then, of course, I scrolled back up for some reason and felt stupid. So my suggestion is to either a) have a key at the bottom of both colored lists or b) move the "Number of ..." table/key/legend down closer to the other colored tables and remove the party affiliation column. Actually, since that column is duplicated information anyway...
- I've added the color keys to the main governors table (and that table only) because: 1) the territorial governor table is so small that it really is unnecessary, 2) it isn't completely useless since the lieutenant governors weren't always of the same party as the governor, and their party isn't explicitly mentioned and 3) it isn't completely without precedent; the List of Presidents of the United States does it too
- I'd love for the table to be sortable, but there are too many split-rows for that to be practical, so I'm just registering my frustration at the universe here. :)
- Maybe one more picture along the right side to fill in the white space?
- There's no whitespace when I look at it, but, sure, why not? =) I've added a picture of the current governor, since he was rather obviously missing. The only problem is that the only available picture of him is considerably smaller than the others. If you don't like it (or it isn't big enough to fill the blank space) I can take it out and use a different one.
- -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments! —Salmar (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you widen the almost-full-width tables to 100%? Specifically "Governors of Wisconsin Territory" and "Other high offices held".
- Support. Looks well done. Rmhermen (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 20:29, 22 December 2007.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. BomBom (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I am self-nominating this list because I think it complies with all the Featured list criteria :
- (a) It is useful : the list covers a topic that lends itself to list format.
- (b) It is comprehensive : the list includes everything that needs to be known about the films (their original title, their submitting country, their director, the languages used in their dialogue track).
- (c) It is factually accurate : the list is fully referenced. The names of the winners and nominees are taken directly from the official Academy website.
- (d) It is uncontroversial : films have either been nominated for the Award or haven't. There's not much to argue about.
- (e) It is stable : the list only needs to be updated twice a year.
- (f) It is well-constructed : it has taken a lot of effort to turn this list into a fully functionable sortable table. The list is now very easy to navigate, and allows the user to group the films as he pleases (i.e. by chronological order, by country, by language...).
- It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style :
- (a) a well-written, useful and concise lead section ;
- (b) a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
- It is illustrated with the image of an Oscar statuette and a useful map showing the countries that have been nominated for and/or won the Award. BomBom (talk) 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Commment The table looks much better than it did before. Although it would be nice to see an image of an actual Oscar, rather than a graphic. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that positive comment ! I replaced the graphic image with that of an actual Oscar statuette. BomBom (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Looks good overall; there are just a couple of small WP:MOS issues to address. There should be no space before colons and semicolons, and all numbers less than ten should be spelled out (see footnote #3, for instance). Once those are cleaned up, I'm happy to support! MeegsC | Talk 09:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done ! I hope more people will post their comments. If the nomination is successful and the list is promoted, I will use its layout to improve other Academy Awards lists. BomBom (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support—very nice job. One more thing that should be cleaned up: the sentence that currently reads "[...] the names of the other languages are written in small and between brackets". This reads awkwardly. Something like "[...] the names of the other languages are written in smaller typesize and placed between brackets" might be better! : ) MeegsC | Talk 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! One more thing I meant to say—you might put something in the map caption indicating what the various colors are for. I know they're included in the map file description, but it's nice not to have to click on the map to find out what they mean. MeegsC | Talk 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! Your two comments have been addressed. I have rephrased the sentence you mentioned and Circeus has added a color legend below the map. BomBom (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops! One more thing I meant to say—you might put something in the map caption indicating what the various colors are for. I know they're included in the map file description, but it's nice not to have to click on the map to find out what they mean. MeegsC | Talk 17:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support—very nice job. One more thing that should be cleaned up: the sentence that currently reads "[...] the names of the other languages are written in small and between brackets". This reads awkwardly. Something like "[...] the names of the other languages are written in smaller typesize and placed between brackets" might be better! : ) MeegsC | Talk 17:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not sure the change in layout to gain sortability was necessary, but still very featurable. Circeus (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support and thanks for adding the color legend below the map ! I have read the List of tallest buildings in Dubai nomination discussion in which you took part, and agree that using letters for notes and numbers for citations is a good idea. Therefore, I split the "Notes and references" section in the List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, and changed the notes from numbers to letters. BomBom (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: with one or two minor requests:
- I wish I could figure out how to get The Walls of Malapaga to be in the right place when you sort by "Submitting country". Maybe put "co-production" after the two flags?
- I already thought about this, and I found that the best solution was to put {co-production} before the names of the countries. Of course, it's perfectly possible to make the film appear in the regular list and not at the bottom of the table when one sorts by Submitting country. However, we would be facing a real problem in determining "the right place" of the film: should we make it figure with films submitted by France or with films submitted by Italy? If we make it figure with the rest of French entries, then we would be giving France more credit for the film, and this would be quite "unfair" towards Italy. If we make it figure with the rest of Italian entries, we would be facing exactly the same problem. The only way to make The Walls of Malapaga appear with both French films and Italian films would be to include it twice in the table (once as a French submission and once as an Italian one), but that would be really awkward and quite confusing. Therefore, I believe that putting {co-production} before the names of the countries is the best thing to do, since it prevents a single country from taking sole credit for the film when the list is sorted by Submitting country. (I have applied exactly the same solution for films with multiple directors.) BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Very good point - I didn't even think of that :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I already thought about this, and I found that the best solution was to put {co-production} before the names of the countries. Of course, it's perfectly possible to make the film appear in the regular list and not at the bottom of the table when one sorts by Submitting country. However, we would be facing a real problem in determining "the right place" of the film: should we make it figure with films submitted by France or with films submitted by Italy? If we make it figure with the rest of French entries, then we would be giving France more credit for the film, and this would be quite "unfair" towards Italy. If we make it figure with the rest of Italian entries, we would be facing exactly the same problem. The only way to make The Walls of Malapaga appear with both French films and Italian films would be to include it twice in the table (once as a French submission and once as an Italian one), but that would be really awkward and quite confusing. Therefore, I believe that putting {co-production} before the names of the countries is the best thing to do, since it prevents a single country from taking sole credit for the film when the list is sorted by Submitting country. (I have applied exactly the same solution for films with multiple directors.) BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd kinda like a key someplace. I know that second section details what the blue and teal are, but I looked around for a key before reading that. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean by "key". Does "key" mean "explanation"? In any case, I have added a color legend before the table, but I'm not sure whether this is what you were referring to. Please tell me if this satisfies your request. If it doesn't, then please explain to me what you mean by "key". BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry - key, legend - yes, they're the same thing. List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks has an example, but yours looks good too :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I really do not understand what you mean by "key". Does "key" mean "explanation"? In any case, I have added a color legend before the table, but I'm not sure whether this is what you were referring to. Please tell me if this satisfies your request. If it doesn't, then please explain to me what you mean by "key". BomBom (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 19:42, 20 December 2007.
Though the Nation of Ulysses had a fairly limited number of releases in its short history, I believe this list is still FL-quality due to its comprehensiveness and adherence to established discography style. This discography was modeled after similar featured lists for similarly obscure bands that I've worked on (The Make-Up discography and Lightning Bolt discography). Like those, it is important that I mention that unlike many other FL discographies, statistics like Chart Performance aren't necessary or possible, since the Nation of Ulysses were by and large an independent band that never come close to any album/singles charts. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome. Drewcifer (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- IIRC, Discogs is not considered to be a reliable source. Maybe you could consider linking to the Allmusicguide page for the band instead. Circeus (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Done Good call, didn't notice that. Drewcifer (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but is "posthumously" the right word? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- And a comment - I'm not fond of any of those "see also" links. Dischord and The Make-Up are linked in the article (though not to their respective discographies), and Weird War isn't even mentioned in the article. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support! And yeah, posthumously is the correct word. As for the see also section, generally speaking Nation of Ulysses, The Make-Up, and Weird War are typically mentioned in the same breath, as the bands shared members, ideals, aesthetics, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I defer to your knowledge about the groups, but on the discography I don't see a need to link to the others'. Just my opinion - and thanks for the new use of the word - I had no idea! :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support! And yeah, posthumously is the correct word. As for the see also section, generally speaking Nation of Ulysses, The Make-Up, and Weird War are typically mentioned in the same breath, as the bands shared members, ideals, aesthetics, etc. Drewcifer (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Any pictures? If there are no free alternatives, a fair-use image should be used at least.--Crzycheetah 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I know, there are no free pictures of the band. That said, I think it's been established in the past that fair-use images aren't appropriate in discographies. Which is why every discography has a free image or none at all. I brought this exact question up at WP:FUC and got this response. Drewcifer (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Could you elaborate on the zines section? Does it mean this zine? It's a confusing section. Other than that section,
the list looks fine.--Crzycheetah 23:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) - Actually, I think the discography can stay in the artist's page. It's not long enough to be separated. I believe I have to
oppose.--Crzycheetah 23:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)- Thanks for the comments, I'll see about clarifying the zine section - though to be honest I was thinking about just removing it altogether. As for your other concern, that it is not long enough, I realize it is straddling a fine line, but generally speaking, transcribing the content placed here onto the Nation of Ulysses page would unneccessarily bloat the NoU page. (ie. diff). Based on the diff, I think the content is clearly better placed here, though I suppose it could be a matter of opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That "diff" that you showed, looked neat, in my opinion. And, removing those zines is a good idea!--Crzycheetah 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I guess that backfired! =) I guess my point is that it's on such a fine line that it comes down to a matter of taste, and matters of taste don't really have a whole lot to do with the FL criteria. Drewcifer (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right about a matter of taste, so I have changed my mind again (I've got to stop that). Anyway, you have my support.--Crzycheetah 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome! Thanks for your support, and thanks for being flexible. Drewcifer (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right about a matter of taste, so I have changed my mind again (I've got to stop that). Anyway, you have my support.--Crzycheetah 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I guess that backfired! =) I guess my point is that it's on such a fine line that it comes down to a matter of taste, and matters of taste don't really have a whole lot to do with the FL criteria. Drewcifer (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- That "diff" that you showed, looked neat, in my opinion. And, removing those zines is a good idea!--Crzycheetah 08:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I'll see about clarifying the zine section - though to be honest I was thinking about just removing it altogether. As for your other concern, that it is not long enough, I realize it is straddling a fine line, but generally speaking, transcribing the content placed here onto the Nation of Ulysses page would unneccessarily bloat the NoU page. (ie. diff). Based on the diff, I think the content is clearly better placed here, though I suppose it could be a matter of opinion. Drewcifer (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. Could you elaborate on the zines section? Does it mean this zine? It's a confusing section. Other than that section,
- Comment Could you make all tables the same width. Also, since the two tables have all the same column headings, could you make each column in the tables the same width too, so that they look uniform? If you can do this then I would be glad to support.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- Hmm. Interesting suggestion. Although I don't believe this is common practice for discographies, it's not a bad idea. That said, there's a problem with making all the tables the same width: different monitors will display them different. For instace I'm assuming you have a fairly high-resolution monitor, so the tables don't fill the width of the screen, hence they're different sizes. My monitor however is fairly small, so they extend to both edges of the frame and are thus uniform. Therefore, making the tables a certain size will make it inevitably look weird on some people's monitors, either by being way too small, or way too big (wider than the screen can support). Does that make sense? I think that's what's going on here, but I could be wrong. That said, I did conform the a few column widths to make the tables more uniform between each other, but it's hard for me to tell since my monitor squeezes the tables. I think what we're really dealing with here is a compatibility issue, and leaving it as is makes it the most compatible. I think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I made my own changes to the tables, and then reverted myself. I just defined the limit on each column so that tables will always be the same. Tell me what you think and how it looks on your screen. If it looks good, then you can just undo my undo, and if it doesnt then tell me, and I wont hold it against the nomination :)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- Looks nearly identical to me, so I'm fine with it. I undid the undo, so it should be back to how you had it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support haha I liked your edit summary, oh and to see what it does, if you take your browser window and make it smaller by grabbing the right side and moving it left (to simulate a smaller screen), the columns and tables wills always stay uniform. Idk, it looks good to me now so thanks! and great work!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 20:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support haha I liked your edit summary, oh and to see what it does, if you take your browser window and make it smaller by grabbing the right side and moving it left (to simulate a smaller screen), the columns and tables wills always stay uniform. Idk, it looks good to me now so thanks! and great work!
- Looks nearly identical to me, so I'm fine with it. I undid the undo, so it should be back to how you had it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I made my own changes to the tables, and then reverted myself. I just defined the limit on each column so that tables will always be the same. Tell me what you think and how it looks on your screen. If it looks good, then you can just undo my undo, and if it doesnt then tell me, and I wont hold it against the nomination :)
- Hmm. Interesting suggestion. Although I don't believe this is common practice for discographies, it's not a bad idea. That said, there's a problem with making all the tables the same width: different monitors will display them different. For instace I'm assuming you have a fairly high-resolution monitor, so the tables don't fill the width of the screen, hence they're different sizes. My monitor however is fairly small, so they extend to both edges of the frame and are thus uniform. Therefore, making the tables a certain size will make it inevitably look weird on some people's monitors, either by being way too small, or way too big (wider than the screen can support). Does that make sense? I think that's what's going on here, but I could be wrong. That said, I did conform the a few column widths to make the tables more uniform between each other, but it's hard for me to tell since my monitor squeezes the tables. I think what we're really dealing with here is a compatibility issue, and leaving it as is makes it the most compatible. I think. Drewcifer (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.
Completed list of twenty founders, but someone is trying to delete them in order to make a point and to disrupt the encyclopedia. I have been working on this list for over two months or so, and just completed writing the last founder. Miranda 20:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- The section about the song is way too early in the article and way too short to warrant its own section.
- I moved the poem down and the idea of this article is to list names, not a lot of prose.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with moving the poem, I think it should be a more national poem (i.e And God Said..) because every chapter uses it and it's on quite a bit of ParaphernaliaKnicksfan4ever (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Same with the section about presidents - that would be served best with an actual list, I think, rather than an out-of-place template.
- there's a similar list in the APA brothers, and adding all these names to the article will just make the article more lenthy.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like some of the blacklinks to be redlinks, especially in 'politics' - these folks are notable enough for articles, they simply haven't been written yet.
- The redlinks were objected during the FA review for the APA brothers list, so I'm cocerned that if added, they will be objected here. The fact that there is no article doesn't mean the person is not notable or that they're not a member of AKA. Can you let this slide also since it seems POV.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment any further unless you can explain how my objection is "POV". --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- sorry for the confusion. Redlinks were objected when I used them on the APA brothers so I had to remove them. You're requesting redlinks in this article. I'm concerned that the contributor opposed to redlinks will object and not support. I thought both views/objections were POV because I wasn't aware of the presence or non-presence of redlinks was a wikipedia. I will defer to your knowledge of wikipedia and add the redlinks. thanks.--Ccson (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- I refuse to comment any further unless you can explain how my objection is "POV". --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The redlinks were objected during the FA review for the APA brothers list, so I'm cocerned that if added, they will be objected here. The fact that there is no article doesn't mean the person is not notable or that they're not a member of AKA. Can you let this slide also since it seems POV.--Ccson (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Finally, I'd like more information on "unknown" - why is this in quotes, is the reference saying that specifically?
- It looks like the same style is used on the APA brothers page. That doesn't mean I like it, but I can let it slide.
- Otherwise, it looks well on its way. Please don't let the AFD get to you - if it truly is a point nom, then the community will probably see that and deal accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- The section about the song is way too early in the article and way too short to warrant its own section.
- Support: My concern was the second paragraph of the intro, but I have rewritten.--Ccson (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - List is well done and all entries have references. Great job! -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: In particular, excellent job on the footnotes.-RoBoTamice 16:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support This list includes some very notable women who have made an impact on American Society, Culture and HistoryKnicksfan4ever (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - This is one of the best looking lists I have seen....--Cometstyles 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Could you go over the citations, please? There seems to be a couple of errors. Plus, why are you sorting the references column? I don't think it's useful.--Crzycheetah 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- A member recently added members without standardizing the template. We are doing that now. Miranda 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Refs column is default due to template. See List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. Miranda 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, do you mean to say that this list is not complete yet? Are you completing this list now? Sounds like this nomination is premature. As for the refs column, I still think that you should "unsort" it and preferably in the "brothers" list as well. I mean no one is going to sort that column, right? --Crzycheetah 06:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- No, the list is completed with notable members (that I know of), but a member of the sorority is adding other members, which is good. New members get initiated all of the time. But the main parts are completed.
I will work on the reference sorting, that should be minor.Sorry, but that's just part of the template syntax.Miranda 12:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- Support All right, the list looks great. I made the refs column unsortable.--Crzycheetah 19:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Refs column is default due to template. See List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. Miranda 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the list looks great the way it is, however, I think the article does not have to look identical to the List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. It should have it's on twist, identity, etc., let me think of some ideas. IMHO, this list can stand alone and is worthy of being featured in it's own right. Unlike Zeta Phi Beta Sigma, the two organizations beyond early influence are not directly connected, except by obvious strong support and mutual respect for one anotherKnicksfan4ever (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. this has nothing to do with Alphas and AKAs, Omega and Delta, Sigma and Zetas being siblings, or that Kappa has no sisters because they love all. Both Alpha and AKA articles are "coincidentally" using the same wikipedia template (Template:FratMember) and that caused a sorting issue, in fact, the List of Alpha brothers probably had the same problem, but now that Crzycheetah has fixed the template that both employ, both Alpha and AKA no longer sort the list based on the reference field. Any other group using the template to create a list will sort the same whether they love, dispise or respect other greek groups. Thanks for your support above.--Ccson (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Got it now, didn't realize there was a template, so it's all good. I hope it gets featuredKnicksfan4ever 18:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 22:25, 17 December 2007.
This list "useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed," has a good lead, and a free and useful image.(No longer used) This list was created using the basis from prior lists from Category:Lists of first-round draft picks by NFL team. This list is the longest of any list created like itself, properly sourced, and very thorough. Thus I think it deserves FL status. I can and will address any concerns or comments. Thank you for your time. Please note this is a self-nom
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if the other similar lists do this, but perhaps you could use colour coding to note which players still play for the Packers? -- Scorpion0422 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- They don't but do you mean currently active players that are still on the team? If so then there are only 5 players on the list who qualify, so it would be pretty easy to implement with a color box like the ones used to show HoFs and overall #1 picks.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - See the articles history, I implemented what you suggested and reverted my changes. Tell me what you think (Oh and the color can be about anything if this one doesnt suit).
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 00:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)- It looks good. I have no further quolms. -- Scorpion0422 03:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- They don't but do you mean currently active players that are still on the team? If so then there are only 5 players on the list who qualify, so it would be pretty easy to implement with a color box like the ones used to show HoFs and overall #1 picks.
- Support This nomination caught my eye when I promoted it to the main page in the DYK section. My only comment is to consider adding another color (especially a different shade of yellow like a lighter yellow) for players in the Packers Hall of Fame. Royalbroil 19:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done although I chose blue cause yellow just looked weird :-)
- Comments. First off, great work! I too saw it on DYK. I'll likely support, but I have a question: What is n-c-systems.com, and what makes it a reliable source? --Fang Aili talk 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Here is an overview of what N-C-systems does when it refers to drafts. They have worked on completing full draft histories for basketball, football, baseball, and hockey. It seems that they are a software company, and it seemed to be an experiment on completing the draft history of basketball, and the site was well-received, so they decided to expand it. When compared with the official draft history found at NFL.com, I have yet to find a mistake. The site is sourced on most if not all of the articles pertaining to the first-round picks for each team. Here is their home-page, which has a link for contacting them if you feel like confirming their respectability. So combined with the good-standing of the company, the use of the site as a source on other pages on Wikipedia (precedence), and the fact that I have yet to find a flaw in any of their info, I believe this is a very solid source to cite. Hope this answers your question, feel free to elaborate if you I haven't answered it.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- I believe that satisfies WP:RS ("reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"). Thanks for the explanation. --Fang Aili talk 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Only possible improvement I can think of is adding a picture or two. --Fang Aili talk 14:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah Ive been looking for one, but me being in Arizona, it is difficult to get a picture of anything in Wisconsin, I will try though, hopefully the Packers will come to AZ next year and I can grab some photos. Thanks for the comments!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)- I got one [1] of Nick Barnett. I'm not at home, so I can't do photo editing at this time. Give me 12 to 24 hours. If you ask a few flickr people, you are bound to quickly find a decent (but not professional) photo after trying a few people. Royalbroil 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- AWESOME!! Thanks, I actually havent tried Flickr, but thanks for the work!! Thats a great addition!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)- The Barnett image has been added. Please resize/relabel as needed. The same source also relicensed an image of A. J. Hawk to a free image, so it might be added by the time your read this. Royalbroil 02:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- AWESOME!! Thanks, I actually havent tried Flickr, but thanks for the work!! Thats a great addition!
- I got one [1] of Nick Barnett. I'm not at home, so I can't do photo editing at this time. Give me 12 to 24 hours. If you ask a few flickr people, you are bound to quickly find a decent (but not professional) photo after trying a few people. Royalbroil 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Meets WP:FLC, and it is structured identically to a number of other FLs like List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks and List of New York Jets first-round draft picks. Good work! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.
Another football team seasons list following the format of such existing FLs as Gillingham F.C. seasons and Ipswich Town F.C. seasons, please let me know what you think!
Cheers, ChrisTheDude 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support based on the fact you'll sort out whether to use hyphens or en-dashes in the key...! The Rambling Man 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done - no idea what was up there, but sorted anyway.... ChrisTheDude 07:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support
subject to considering the two points below.cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)- Note (currently) 17 says They continued to field a team in the Kent League, and the league placed a requirement on the club to field its strongest team. I'm assuming the league refers to Kent, but could you clarify.
- Your lead says It details the club's achievements in all competitions, and the top scorers for each season. However after 1989 it doesn't detail the club's achievements in all competitions, because source material is lacking. Perhaps you could qualify the lead sentence somehow?
- Done both points addressed, hopefully satisfactorily ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- This reader's instant reaction was 'what's he mean, most minor comps'. Perhaps ref it to existing footnote 39. (I know, I'm being picky now, but it's uncomfortable having nothing to criticise ;-) cheers, [[User:Struway2|
- Support although under the 77-78 season, I wouldnt put two question marks, just place the reference tag, the "??" doesn't look that good. Other than that, great job!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done changed it there and also the other two places it was used :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 01:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, looks good :-)
- Support although have a couple of points.
- I can't work out if most recent completed season or if it should be most recently completed season.
- The entry for other competitions is gold or silver when the club wins one of the trophies, even though there are up to three in some of the boxes. Is there any way to correct this info.
Otherwise good work Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 03:11, 14 December 2007.
I believe this list fulfils the criteria as well as being consistent with the five other featured lists covering different areas. Self nomination. Thanks Suicidalhamster 20:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Sefton Coast in currently a useless redirect, if that could be fixed, it'd be a good thing. I'd personally like something that made the intro more than a cute-and-paste job. Maybe mention where is Merseyside (not everybody is British), and possible about the relevant (if any) geographical/geological or ecological peculiarities of this Area of Search? Circeus 05:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sefton Coast is now a stub. I have also added some information on Merseyside and some of its characteristics (very basic at the moment). Do you think more should be added? Suicidalhamster 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- The extra context is a greater improvement than it might look. Support. Circeus 18:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sefton Coast is now a stub. I have also added some information on Merseyside and some of its characteristics (very basic at the moment). Do you think more should be added? Suicidalhamster 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support with a minor issue - you have capitalization issues in the header of the table. A really minor thing, but... "Site name" "Grid reference" vs "Reason for Designation" "Biological Interest". Choose one or the other? Otherwise I agree with Circeus - the expanded lede is great and the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Have changed the header to lower case for the second words. Thanks for spotting that. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Fixed a typo in Lead. Other than that, looks good. Woody (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very thorough, good job, I especially like the use of
in the table. Overall good job!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 12 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Self Re-nomination Came so close to an agreement 3 Support, 1 Oppose (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks/archive1). Still think this list is close to/has met Featured list criteria. I also believe that it is up to par with the other lists of Pro Football First Round picks (see List of Minnesota Vikings first-round draft picks and List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks). It also has references and is well set out. Thanks, Jwalte04 (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Apologies for closing it when it was so close, but an editor clearly had issues with the page and it had been there 23 days with few comments, so I figured a new nom would bring fresh comments. -- Scorpion0422 19:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Totally agree. Jwalte04 (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fantastically annotated, free of POV, complete, and referenced. -Drdisque (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Looks great, meats up to all the other FL articles of this same subject, amazingly referenced!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Weak OpposeSupport: At the moment, I see a couple things that would greatly enhance the list:- The white-space to the right of the list is just too big. Can pictures of the stadium, players, the team's logo, something be put in that space? Or the table be widened to 100%? I know the other FLs you mentioned above have the same problem, but IMO there shouldn't be that much space.
- The header column "National Football League, Early Era (1936–1969)" adds nothing. There's no corresponding "Modern Era (1970-Present)", there's no indication of why that is important.
- If the Redskins started in '32 and since there's no "List of Boston Redskins first-round draft picks", could the table be extended back to '32? I'm assuming you included '36 because that took place for the '37 season?
- Year, Player, Position, and College could all be sortable.
- Ernie Davis' note needs to be clarified as to why it's on this list. Searching for his name showed me he was a Redskin player, but that should be explicit. Additionally, the third "Notable First" strikes me as trivial, bordering on OR.
- Overall, well sourced (though is [thehogs.net TheHogs.net] a RS?), and looks complete. Nice work. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- 1.
Not done Okay, I will work on it. Done Added picture of Darrell Green.
- Yeh, that's a picture, though I was thinking more along the lines of how this list does it :)
- I would do that, but frankly there arent enough usable pictures of people that are on this list.
- Yeh, that's what I thought was the case. Not a show-stopper, in my opinion, just a nice-to-have.
- I would do that, but frankly there arent enough usable pictures of people that are on this list.
- Yeh, that's a picture, though I was thinking more along the lines of how this list does it :)
- 2. Done added Modern Era Header, its important to the history because it was 1970 was the first draft after the merger.
- 3. Done I have it starting in 1936 because thats when the first draft took place.
- 4. Not done I dont know how to do this, so if there is an agreement on this, can someone tell me how? thanks.
- I'm not sure it's worth it, but (IMO) it would make the table better. First, the "Modern Era" and "Early Era" cells spanning the whole table messes up the sorting, as does the very first cell (which is redundant anyway). The "No Draft Picks" also messes it up. So I've put together a start at Wikipedia:Sandbox/sb2 to take a look at. Your call if you want to put that much effort into it - and what do others think?
- I personally dont really like it, but if there are others that do and think that it will improve the article, then I am on board.
- I guess this is probably a "nice-to-have" as well. Unless others chime in that sortable is better, I won't press it :)
- I personally dont really like it, but if there are others that do and think that it will improve the article, then I am on board.
- I'm not sure it's worth it, but (IMO) it would make the table better. First, the "Modern Era" and "Early Era" cells spanning the whole table messes up the sorting, as does the very first cell (which is redundant anyway). The "No Draft Picks" also messes it up. So I've put together a start at Wikipedia:Sandbox/sb2 to take a look at. Your call if you want to put that much effort into it - and what do others think?
- 5. Done Clarified that Ernie Davis was a Redskins pick and lost the third notable fact.
Thanks for the help/suggestions! Jwalte04 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into this list and I believe it meets the FLC.
It is useful and comprehensive in that it is a clear-defined set of topics (all aired episodes and Shada), and is factually accurate, having contained no uncited information for quite some time. While it does have the current TV template, it is stable; DWM is only released monthly, and barring that, there is little that can change "day-to-day", and even with a DWM release during the months where they're teasing the new season, little makes it to the list (guest stars and episode titles). Will (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
I have three major issues that need resolving before any detail can be hammered out:All my concerns addressed now.
originalconcerns
Headers in the table- Link in headers
- Can you suggest an alternate place? Will (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Normally, such links can be integrated into section text, which happens to be "missing" here. Adding some buffer text to describe important feature of every "era" is the best option. Another possibility is to group all the subsections' text there. This could allow in-table non-wiki headers like those of List of Anuran families, but removing individual season editing might make the article unwieldy to edit. The whole thing has something of a catch-22 quality given that the cell sizes are now wildly different from a section to the other, even under a single doctor. Gyah... Circeus (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to make it consistent between the tables. Will (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Will (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've tried to make it consistent between the tables. Will (talk) 12:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Normally, such links can be integrated into section text, which happens to be "missing" here. Adding some buffer text to describe important feature of every "era" is the best option. Another possibility is to group all the subsections' text there. This could allow in-table non-wiki headers like those of List of Anuran families, but removing individual season editing might make the article unwieldy to edit. The whole thing has something of a catch-22 quality given that the cell sizes are now wildly different from a section to the other, even under a single doctor. Gyah... Circeus (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Can you suggest an alternate place? Will (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Displaced ToC without a good justification.- It'd look like this without calling the template. Will (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Circeus (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that redlinks in the other columns are not a disqualification factor, especially as there aren't that many and they seem reasonably well-linked outside this list.
- Maybe instead of {{Edit-top-section}}, you should consider installing the existing user script. Trust me, you rapidly find it essential.
- Done Will (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to butt in here... This has nothing to do with FLC requirements. I'm putting that one back in, as it works for any editor, not only those that have some user script installed. That link is there only for everyone's convenience. — Edokter • Talk • 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- An image, if any appropriate enough can be located, would be nice, but given the media nature, it's unlikely.
- You're right. I doubt there's a scene, other than the diary in Human Nature, that can accurately sum up all 44 years.
Won't fix. Will (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. I doubt there's a scene, other than the diary in Human Nature, that can accurately sum up all 44 years.
- The only reason I still oppose. Those template notes should be labeled with letters (otherwise you have 2 different notes #1...) and have a proper target: you have notes marker, but no notes for them anywhere! Circeus 00:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Will (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can't have red links. Buc (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - says who? All the individual titles have articles. There are very few red links compared with wiki-links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the pages fault that the articles don't exist - and it's not in the required criteria anyway. StuartDD contributions 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment And also take in note that red link can also be caused be grammar error. for example Looney Tunes vs Loonay Tunes.The Tramp 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the pages fault that the articles don't exist - and it's not in the required criteria anyway. StuartDD contributions 14:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - says who? All the individual titles have articles. There are very few red links compared with wiki-links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support A well-structured, well-referenced list. Made me quite nostalgic to read it, too! BencherliteTalk 20:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support with minor concerns: a) Is "Fire on the Set really necessary on this list? b) The lettered note "c" doesn't work, though all the other lettered notes do. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 10 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I am submitting this list for featured status as I believe it meets all the required criteria. The list has been through the Peer Review process, the results of which can be found here. All comments will be dealt with as promptly as possible. Thanks. – PeeJay 01:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Having seen this at PR, I will immediately Support on one minor proviso, which I can't believe wasn't picked up a PR- Everything now fully in order, this was already excellent at PR stage. So fully Support. Peanut4 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I presume the spells for Matt Busby, 1945-1969 and 1970-1971 in the lead ought to have endashes. Peanut4 (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed they should. Cheers for pointing those out. – PeeJay 01:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from That Ramblin' Guy
- Comments
- Still not sure why you have [11] and [23] references next to manager names when you have a reference column. It'd look neater to keep all references in one place would it not?
- Not done Because they're footnotes rather than references, i.e. they're just little asides that it wouldn't have been appropriate to include in the main text.
- Hmm. Footnotes/references all appear in the same section. Why distinguish? Why put a footnote next to the name rather than in the ref column? Little aside or not it looks odd putting them next to the name, seems inconsistent to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Done – PeeJay 21:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough.
- Hmm. Footnotes/references all appear in the same section. Why distinguish? Why put a footnote next to the name rather than in the ref column? Little aside or not it looks odd putting them next to the name, seems inconsistent to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- What happened to the club between Sept and Oct 10, 1903, and Aug 21, 1912 & Oct 12, 1912?
- Done There is no information on who was manager from September 1903 to October 1903, so I think we should just assume that the club was managerless for this period. As for August to October 1912, I found a mention of a T. J. Wallworth who was the club's acting secretary from September to October 1912.
- Why not specify exactly which league championships/FA Cups won by each manager?
- Not done Because I feel it would take up too much space for the more successful managers. However, if you think it would be a good idea to include them anyway, please say.
- I think, perhaps, you have a unique situation where you have one or two VERY successful managers and not a lot else, and this would result in it taking up a lot of space. I won't fall on my sword for it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- MUFC manager template says Albut started 1892. The table says (n/a). Consistency required.
- Done Yeah, I've changed that in the table, and I've also changed the lead to reflect the fact that no-one seems to know who the manager/secretary was from 1878 to 1892.
- Fergie won Charity Shields and Community Shields. Needs reflecting.
- Done Added a footnote to reflect this, but it could do with a rewrite. I drew a blank when writing it, so I don't think it reads too well.
- "...a feat that no other manager has yet achieved with the same club. " is uncited.
- Done Found a reference for that. Even though it's a few years old, I think it's still good.
- Still not sure why you have [11] and [23] references next to manager names when you have a reference column. It'd look neater to keep all references in one place would it not?
Hope these make sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have responded to your comments. Looking forward to your replies. – PeeJay 20:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good stuff thus far, just one more thing, Wallworth's nationality is blank. Surely either (n/a) or the real thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - consider making sure that you don't wikilink the same subject twice in a short space e.g. Manchester United F.C. linked in both paras 1 & 2 of the lead-in. And I always find it unnecessary to double-link external links, in fact it borders on promotional - if they want to access the homepage of the external site, they can do it from the link itself, e.g.
- Otherwise, very good article/list. Ref (chew)(do) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorted those things out. Cheers for the support, bud. – PeeJay 18:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The footnote for Wallworth states that his record is unknown, but exact dates are given in his entry. Presumably the record of matches played between these dates is known, so which is it? Oldelpaso (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
subject to considering two matters arising.
- Can you say in 1945–1969? would from 1945 to 1969 be more grammatical?
- Yes, perhaps it would. Done – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps it would.
- This page of your general reference MUFCInfo seems to imply that Albut was in charge of the team for the 1892-93 season. Assuming that's a reliable source, which presumably it is or you wouldn't be referencing it, then you could add in his stats as well (FCHD gives league finishes, Test match scores and FA Cup results). If you're uncomfortable with there being no official confirmation of his exact start date, cite the page I've mentioned, remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and spare a thought for those of us whose club's entire official records were burnt down along with their main stand in 1942.
- Like you say, I'm not that comfortable with extrapolating Albut's record, as he may have taken charge before the end of the 1891-92 season, and we don't even know when in 1900 he was replaced. I mean, I could work backwards from James West's record, going back 113 games from his final match in charge to find when Albut was replaced, but wouldn't that count as WP:OR? – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, if the end date is doubtful as well, it probably would be an extrapolation too far. Thanks for clarifying the matter. Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Like you say, I'm not that comfortable with extrapolating Albut's record, as he may have taken charge before the end of the 1891-92 season, and we don't even know when in 1900 he was replaced. I mean, I could work backwards from James West's record, going back 113 games from his final match in charge to find when Albut was replaced, but wouldn't that count as WP:OR? – PeeJay 13:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Good work, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Support Good work. Mattythewhite 14:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent article, no issues that I can see ChrisTheDude 09:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 11 days, 7 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Another list in the tradition of WP:FOOTBALL's continual push for excellence in all things list-like. I took an already relatively comprehensive list and turned it into something slightly better, with a lead, plenty of citations from the best sources possible for each manager and even a nice little photo of David Moyes. I'd be delighted to hear from the community, and, as always, thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support All issues I raised at the PR were addressed, another excellent contribution form TRM, one of our very best Wikipedians ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- "one of"? Lol I refer you to WP:WEASEL :-) --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support My fiddly concerns already dealt with. Good stuff. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
CommentSupport Not too keen on the footnote stating Theo Kelly was the first true manager of the club. A little explanation of the difference between the roles of secretary and manager would be useful. If included, it would make matters clearer and render this footnote unnecessary. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)- Ok. I'll do my best to re-English and expand the point. Tomorrow! The Rambling Man (talk)
- Done Footnote removed, really was already redundant as there was a note in the text. I have expanded the text a bit and added another citation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
*Comment just a few (very) minor points, otherwise I will undoubtedly support this.Everyone tip-top now. Support Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Everton's first season in the newly founded Football League. Would this be better with a season attached to those unaware of when the league was founded? Though Football League is wikilinked so that may prove good enough.
- Done with the league success punctuated by another FA Cup triumph Perhaps successes rather than success.
- Done March, 1997 ought to be March 1997 without the comma.
- Done Howard Kendall initially proved to be unpopular. Do you have a reference for this? Peanut4 (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- You.... you.... okay, all good points. As above with Senor El Paso's issues, I'll deal with tomorrow. Pffuff. But by then I'm hoping to be England Coach... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Cuff and Catterick, who form relative clauses like this one, require commas
afterbefore the who. Catterick might need re-phrasing slightly. English isn't my strongest subject, so if I'm wrong on this then I apologise! --Jameboy (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)- Not sure. If you mean a comma before the who, as you have in your comment, then I can see why, but not after... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's not fullproof but running the Word grammar checker across the sentences doesn't throw up any problems either, so I think I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that was what you meant! Anyway, as I said, the grammar checks out fine as far as I can see so I'll leave it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Commentnow Support- Done Despite relegation to the... sentence, take out win (you can't win two successful appearances in the Charity Shield).
- Done The club returned to the top tier... They finished 2nd, not 3rd; and it'd say what you mean if you turned it round After finishing second ..., the club returned to the top tier of English football, the level at which ....
- Done Kendall, reckoned by some... Who? your reference only says many within the game, which is just as weaselly.
- Done proved unpopular with the Goodison crowd... Reference? and needs a comma, or the sentence split into two.
- Done He would return is conditional, not past. Just he returned is fine.
- Done Split Walter Smith sentence ...his first three seasons. Facing relegation... (or with a semicolon)
- Done Lose comma before David Moyes (or put another one after him).
- You reference manager stats to Soccerbase, as there are well-recognised problems with Soccerbase figures, have you cross-checked against any other source? I ask specifically because several managers' stats differ from those on the Everton website. Why choose Soccerbase ahead of Everton FC, where there is a choice? And why Everton FC for Carey?
- I selected Soccerbase for the early management as they are the only source available on-line, even the club doesn't seem to have those records available. Everton FC stats were selected in every case where the records exceeded those on Soccerbase. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- My apologies on that one, for some reason I had misread the footnotes and thought there were some more recent ones where you'd gone with Soccerbase. Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I selected Soccerbase for the early management as they are the only source available on-line, even the club doesn't seem to have those records available. Everton FC stats were selected in every case where the records exceeded those on Soccerbase. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Did Everton play between Carey and Catterick?
- Yes, three matches, but I can find no record of who was caretaker if indeed there was one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have a smallish screen at 1024x768, any greater resolution on this screen and I can't see the small writing, let alone read it :-) For me, McIntosh's Honours column entry occupies ten lines and Howard Kendall's twelve, with no more than 3 words on each. Do you need to write in full Caretaker (and, particularly, Player-manager/caretaker) in the notes column, rather than either having a footnote or writing Caretaker in small under the manager's name? Or if you must, at least put a space after the slash in Player-manager/caretaker, so it can wrap.
- Done Do you need the almost-invisible dashes to denote no honours won? If you're sure you do, then Gordon Lee deserves one as well.
Sorry I missed the very brief peer review or this lot could have been sorted before ever reaching this stage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry you missed it too. No big deal, I appreciate the comments wherever they're placed. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- That really is a tremendous improvement, thanks. Have changed to Support. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find any problems with it. All the fiddly things seem to have been dealt with. If Struway can't find a problem then there probably isn't one. The only thing I could find was that the managers template was missing a link to the list. I have added it now. Looks good. Well done (again). Oh and Support Woodym555 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Can't find anything wrong with this article at all, but I have a notoriously poor eye for items that need referencing, etc. Seriously, though, great article. KUTGW. – PeeJay 14:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The dates for Royle and Watson overlap. For the early managers where Soccerbase is the source, it might be better to just put the month with no day - Soccerbase uses the first of the month when the exact day is not known, which barring an extreme coincidence looks to be the case here. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's weird isn't it? But both dates are sourced from Everton's official website, so this looks like a case of verifiability over truth. Unless we can find another source...? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's not always reliable but soccerbase has Joe Royle leaving March 27 here. Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- This from the Independent confirms he resigned on soccerbase's date. Watson's start date per Everton would appear to be the date of the next match they played, and Royle's end date per Everton would appear to be a typo for the date of the last match they played while he was manager, 22 March (not April) 1997. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, Carey's end date per Everton is 15 April, not 1 April (so the answer to my question above as to whether anyone played between Carey and Catterick should have been no ;-) You may want to give the rest a quick proofread. EFChistory's managers page is quite helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed both Royle and Carey, added a new ref for Royle. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Following on from this, you may want to explain somewhere that the from/to dates as taken from Everton F.C. are all dates of first/last games played under that manager rather than dates of appointment.
- Also, there seems to be a 12-month gap between McIntosh and Kelly. cheers, Struway2 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- God bless Soccerbase. Not sure why any of us use it! Oh well, fixed again and in the main text. And a note added re use of Everton's own website. Despite even that being problematic it appears! The Rambling Man 14:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed both Royle and Carey, added a new ref for Royle. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know it's not always reliable but soccerbase has Joe Royle leaving March 27 here. Peanut4 (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)