Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2014
Contents
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 12:21, 22 December 2014 [1].
- Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after the first failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly two months, I hope it won't happen again. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fully detailed list and nicely sourced. Well done! Simon (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from SNUGGUMS
- "by brothers Jared Leto and Shannon Leto" →"by brothers Jared and Shannon Leto"
- Fixed.
- remove "ultimately" from "was ultimately released in August 2002"
- Done.
- how about including some detail in the lead on the writing for non-singles and the songs they covered?
- Done.
- Are "Kaos2000 Magazine", MusicRadar, Melodic, and "RWD Magazine" reliable sources?
- FN3 (Kaos2000 Magazine, an independent webzine) consists of an interview with Milicevic and Wachter from the band. MusicRadar is a music website published by Future plc. Melodic and RWD Magazine are independent online magazines. I've also added a source by Shoutweb (former independent webzine).--Earthh (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad, just needs some touching up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support job well done :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- The Rambling Man, do you have any further concerns? It will be useful if you express your final opinion about this nomination since it is nearly two months old.--Earthh (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it looks fine to me now, so I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 08:28, 22 December 2014 [2].
- Nominator(s): Usfun8991 07:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the featured list criteria and is sufficiently comprehensive. Any comments or suggestions that may assist in improving this list would be much appreciated. Thank you. — Usfun8991 07:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Support A comprehensive and well sourced list. Nicely done! Simon (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plenty of information and all is sourced. I think it meets the criteria for a featured list! I do have a question though. In studio albums, what is up with all the numbers next to the record label? BMG (#82876587792). -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph Prasad: Thanks for your support! The numbers are the catalogue numbers for the albums. I'm not quite sure why they're there. Do you think they are appropriate for a discography article or should I move them into their individual articles? — Usfun8991 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usfun8991: I haven't actually seen them on many articles, like Drake Bell discography, I don't see the catalog numbers for the albums. Also, take an already featured list, Taylor Swift discography. No Catalog numbers there, or on the albums. I don't think they belong at all. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph Prasad: All done! — Usfun8991 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usfun8991: Ok, full on support now. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph Prasad: All done! — Usfun8991 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usfun8991: I haven't actually seen them on many articles, like Drake Bell discography, I don't see the catalog numbers for the albums. Also, take an already featured list, Taylor Swift discography. No Catalog numbers there, or on the albums. I don't think they belong at all. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Prosperosity (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
|
Support All issued I'd raised have been dealt with. Good job! --Prosperosity (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
That's in on a very quick run through. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the highest for an Australian Idol contestant" I don't see how ref 2 cites this claim.
|
Comments – The subject is not one I know anything about, and I cannot usefully comment on how the page matches FL criterion 3. A few comments, which I hope will be useful:
- Lead
- "the highest for an Australian Idol contestant" – missing a word, evidently. I think you want "the highest number"
- Singles
- To a non-expert in popular music the distinction between "with" and "featuring" in the first column isn't obvious
- References
- The Manual of Style (MOS:QUOTE) bids us rationalise punctuation within quotations, on which basis I think you ought to replace the hyphens and spaced em-dashes in your references (e.g. refs 71-80 etc) with spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
- Similarly I think, with regard to MOS:QUOTE, the titles of songs should be capitalised in the refs to conform with how they are capitalised in the main text, so that – for instance – you don't have "Oh, Oh" in the text and "Oh, oh" in the refs, and similarly with "In the Midnight Hour/In The Midnight Hour" and so on.
- Ref 66: inner quotes should be single.
That's all from me. Tim riley talk 09:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tim riley: "featuring" means the artist is featuring on (Guy Sebastian)'s song, where as "with" means both artists are credited equally for the song. This is also made evident in the individual articles. Also, what do you mean by inner quotes? — Usfun8991 (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "With/featuring": understood – fine. Quotes: "Guy Sebastian – "Kryptonite"" should be "Guy Sebastian – 'Kryptonite'",with doubles at the start and end and singles inside, round Kryptonite. Tim riley talk 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tim riley: Okay, all fixed now! — Usfun8991 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "With/featuring": understood – fine. Quotes: "Guy Sebastian – "Kryptonite"" should be "Guy Sebastian – 'Kryptonite'",with doubles at the start and end and singles inside, round Kryptonite. Tim riley talk 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support having completed my comments listed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from AngusWOOF (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
-AngusWOOF (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC) updated 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 14 December 2014 [3].
- Nominator(s): — Rod talk 08:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following the recent promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset I'm nominating the smaller but similar list of similar sites in the Taunton Deane district of Somerset. The formatting of the list is the same; however there are only 33 entries in this one.— Rod talk 08:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks excellent. One thing though. I just started Balt Moor Wall and the source does say that the wall was first mentioned in Stephen's charter between 1135 and 1154 so technically, although likely, there doesn't appear to be proof in the English heritage source it did actually date to before 1135 and could have been built in say 1140 and first mentioned in 1150. Do you have another source which says it was definitely built before 1135?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment and starting the article. Another source says possibly 9th century - added.— Rod talk 11:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Taunton Deane was granted borough status in 1975, perpetuating the mayoralty of Taunton." I do not understand this.
- Reworded.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "supporting this" Perhaps "governing this system"?
- Changed.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to check duplinks.
- Done in lead - but in a sortable list removing those after the first occurrence doesn't work if the order is changed by the sort.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was presented, in 1946, by Major Alexander Gould Barrett, to the National Trust and serve as a memorial" Should be "and serves" or "to serve"?
- Changed.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The defensive walls and part of Taunton Castle". The defensive walls and other parts of Taunton Castle?
- The scheduled bit is the walls and part of the castle. A lot of it has been rebuilt so not included in the schuduling.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK if you do not regard the walls as part of the castle.
- Map does not show site names - you seem to have forgotten name=.
- Will check.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by this - the labels show on google maps when I click on the link (as in the BANES one).— Rod talk 20:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies. My error.
- Balt Moor Wall. Length not given - EH says 550m survives.
- Added.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Buckland priory fishponds. "The ponds were probably dug in the 13th century and were filled in by 1725." Yet the picture shows a pond still surviving.
- This source says filled in by 1725 with a picture of the larger area, but I think (maybe) a small area shown in the picture still has water.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Two bowl barrows in a line" - a line of two points?
- Changed.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments (and edits - I reverted one re churchyard and village crosses, could you check). I will look at the map labels.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I misread churchyard and village crosses as two different things. Why do you need "and village" when they are all in churchyards?
- Thanks & good point. Changed to just churchyard crosses. There are some village ones on other lists I'm working on but not this list.— Rod talk 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The lead summarises the contents well and describes Taunton Deane and Scheduled monuments in a way which is easy to understand. As far as I can tell, it is complete and thorough, as well as being well-cited throughout. Well done! --Noswall59 (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:37, 14 December 2014 [4].
- Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previously not promoted, I'm nominating this again because I believe this is know according to the FLC criteria. This list was previously reviewed by The Rambling Man, Vensatry, and Vibhijain. The list is based on List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers. As always, your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets the standards, very well-referenced. --Carioca (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
—Vensatry (ping) 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Vensatry (ping) 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Made a slight ce to remove some redundancies. Another good list. Cowlibob (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:12, 14 December 2014 [5].
We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 6 nominations into account for this nomination.
With your reviewing help, we are hoping to eventually reach featured topic when all lists are featured quality and have been promoted. Our project is currently 6/13 complete, hoping to make it 7 with this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thank you for your input! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This list looks fine, and does not appear to be a fork. One thing I noticed though, where do the remaining 10 people live? Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: thanks for reviewing. Five live in the unincorporated settlement of Umingmaktok, while five live in the unorganized portion of Baffin Island. I can add a note tomorrow afternoon at the end of the first paragraph. The note will indicate that the remaining 0.03% of the population, or 10 people, are split between these two places. Does this location seem appropriate for the note, or did you have another location in mind? Hwy43 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now done. Hwy43 (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list looks fine, but please clarify "Cities, Town and Villages Act" - I assume it refers to the constitution of Canada. Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal:. Thank you for your review and support! The act in question is legislation of the neighbouring territory to the west, the Northwest Territories. The second paragraph mentions this and the note at the end of the first sentence explains why Nunavut uses the legislation of its neighbor. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the intro, not the body. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - short and sweet, only a couple small comments that I don't think are worth holding off for.
- The first sentence of "Cities" is so long! Cut it off after "Community Affairs", then start the next sentence up as "The proposed city must have a minimum assessed land". Same thing for "Towns".
Done - Note c says there's three unincorporated settlements, but note d only lists 1, plus a region. Do settlements without citizens count as settlements?
- Actually yes, I had to look it up. The other two settlements have a population of 0. I suspect they used to have a population in the past, but the residents have since moved away. Do you think I should mention this factoid in the note? Mattximus (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To protect privacy, Statistics Canada rounds the population of communities with 15 or less people to the nearest 5 people, so both settlements could very well have residents. Even if they truly both do not have any residents, the places are still designated as "settlements" according to Statistics Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the FLC for Hugo Award for Best Fancast up above - it's also short! --PresN 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I have time this weekend, thanks either way for the review! Mattximus (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Iqaluit held town status prior to incorporating as a city. - When
- Cities, Town and Villages Act - Why not just stick to CTVA throughout the body? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ce and the review. I've made the changes, and found a source for the dates cited. Please let me know if there is anything else that can improve this article as well as the lists for the other provinces and territories. We are planning on creating a featured topic with all lists, having 6/13 already standardized and at featured list status. Mattximus (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise thanks and likewise I found a source but Mattximus beat me to it. I've split his contribution into the three applicable sections. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written article. Good work, Mattximus and Hwy43. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.