m Bot updating FLC archive links |
archiving 2 FLCs |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Seinfeld (season 1)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Reds managers/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Reds managers/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes/archive1}} |
Revision as of 18:02, 14 February 2009
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Seinfeld (season 1)
- 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 not promoted by Matthewedwards 21:15, 10 February 2009 [1].
List of Cincinnati Reds managers
All right, I think this one is ready. Let's see how it fares. All comments are welcome. (And yes, I am in the Wikicup, if that matters at all.) jj137 (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- Managerial records all needs references. None are provided, and neither is a general reference, though specific ones are preferred.
- I added references for these. jj137 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No playoff ties in the table, so not needed in the key.
- Removed. jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that you need the footnote in the "#" column if there are no repeated managers.
- Removed. jj137 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Differentiate between players inducted to the Hall of Fame as managers and as players (see List of Baltimore Orioles managers for an example).
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "baseball team"→"baseball franchise"
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you aren't going to use the abbreviations NL and MLB, it's unnecessary to explicitly define them in the lead.
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "in
theirfranchise history"- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand lead: add discussion that complements the most successful managers shown already, such as managers with highest and lowest winning percentage, etc. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers for ideas.
- Added. jj137 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above, in that linking to the Black Sox scandal isn't enough to define it, especially since it's an Easter Egg link, which isn't the best to start with.
- I removed it. jj137 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note in the key that linked years link to the corresponding MLB or baseball season.
- Fixed. jj137 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Last thing that I can see is that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source by the Baseball WikiProject. You could replace those links from Baseball Reference or add references from BA/Retrosheet to each manager's table row. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the Baseball WikiProject state that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source? Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by what I was told in my first two FLCs by other reviewers; I had to remove all of the references to Baseball Almanac because it wasn't reliable. I would say that perhaps this page establishes reliability, but I'm far from an expert on the subject. What's your opinion, Rlendog? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually asked because I had a similar experience. I just thought from your comment that there might be something on WP:BASEBALL noting that, rather than it being the opinion of one or two particular reviewers. The reason I was given was along the lines of "they claim to have x number of pages and y number of facts, but how do we know we can rely on their factchecking process." And I am not sure how that can be addressed, or why Baseball-Reference or BaseballLibrary don't generate similar concerns. I can't say I use Baseball Almanac as much as BR, but I haven't found any problems with the information there (I did actually find an error in BR that I think Basball Almanac has correct, where they listed a Kansas City Athletics home game - not even against the Red Sox - being played at Fenway, not that I am suggesting BR is unreliable as a result). My view is that at the very least the information on BA should be viewed on its own merits, rather than a blanket statement that it is considered unreliable. For example, I would think a box score appearing on Baseball Almanac would be as reliable as that box score appearing on any other source. Or if a Baseball Almanac article contains some information that can traced back to a different accepted reliable source but also some additional information, there is a good chance that the additional information is reliable as well. That said, I believe that the information referenced from Baseball Almanac in this article is also available on B-R, so it may be best to just switch the ref to deflect any concern. I may just add the B-R ref myself if I get a chance tonight. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: Baseball-Reference was proved reliable at this FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What am I missing? I don't see Baseball-Reference discussed at all at that FAC, and the FAC was failed. In any case, I have no problem considering BR a reliable source. I'm just not sure what it would take for Baseball Alamanac to be considered a reliable source, and even if it is not considered a reliable source for everything, it would seem that it would be a reliable source for certain things, such as box scores. With respect to this FLC, I changed the ref to BR. In this case, it is clearly superior to BA, since it includes games managed. BA only has the won-lost record, and so the games managed was apparently determined by adding the two. But this is a problem, since it ignores tie games, and there were also some typos or arithmetic mistakes. I think I fixed all those. Rlendog (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: Baseball-Reference was proved reliable at this FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually asked because I had a similar experience. I just thought from your comment that there might be something on WP:BASEBALL noting that, rather than it being the opinion of one or two particular reviewers. The reason I was given was along the lines of "they claim to have x number of pages and y number of facts, but how do we know we can rely on their factchecking process." And I am not sure how that can be addressed, or why Baseball-Reference or BaseballLibrary don't generate similar concerns. I can't say I use Baseball Almanac as much as BR, but I haven't found any problems with the information there (I did actually find an error in BR that I think Basball Almanac has correct, where they listed a Kansas City Athletics home game - not even against the Red Sox - being played at Fenway, not that I am suggesting BR is unreliable as a result). My view is that at the very least the information on BA should be viewed on its own merits, rather than a blanket statement that it is considered unreliable. For example, I would think a box score appearing on Baseball Almanac would be as reliable as that box score appearing on any other source. Or if a Baseball Almanac article contains some information that can traced back to a different accepted reliable source but also some additional information, there is a good chance that the additional information is reliable as well. That said, I believe that the information referenced from Baseball Almanac in this article is also available on B-R, so it may be best to just switch the ref to deflect any concern. I may just add the B-R ref myself if I get a chance tonight. Rlendog (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by what I was told in my first two FLCs by other reviewers; I had to remove all of the references to Baseball Almanac because it wasn't reliable. I would say that perhaps this page establishes reliability, but I'm far from an expert on the subject. What's your opinion, Rlendog? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the Baseball WikiProject state that Baseball Almanac is not considered a reliable source? Rlendog (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The Reds are members"-->They are members
- "There have been fifty-nine different managers in the team's franchise history," Comma should be a colon.
- "regular season games"-->regular-season games
- "regular season game wins"-->regular-season game wins
- "Pat Moran, Lou Piniella, and McKechnie had one World Series victory each" "had"-->have.
- Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods.
- File:BidMcPhee3.jpg needs an author. How do we know that the image was published before 1923? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/mgrtmcr.shtml a reliable source? We need to know their methods of fact-checking.
- The Baseball-Reference citations are inconsistent. This is how they should be formatted: "Baseball Hall of Fame Inductees". Baseball-Reference. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved 2009-01-27. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I fixed the issues with games managed and the references (see above), but I think the list should reflect League Championships (e.g., 1970 and 1972) in addition to World Series Championships. Rlendog (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
I don't know if this still stands, but wikilinking articles like this: 1940, violates WP:MOS. Don't know for sure now, but hope that more users will comment on this situation. You could wikilink it like this: 1940 season. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...in regular season games managed (1,449)..." The table lists 1,450.
- "...with 1,380 and 744, respectively...." The table lists 1,386.
- Please fix the disambiguation links.
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discrepencies in the number of games managed came about when I corrected the number of games in the table. I fixed those numbers in the lead now too. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This FLC seems to have stagnated; the nominator has not edited since January 27. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2009 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 18:27, 8 February 2009 [2].
List of pre-Stonewall American television episodes with LGBT themes
I am nominating this list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. My goal is to bring it and its four sibling lists to FL status in the near future. Many thanks to User:Ruhrfisch for his usual good job in peer reviewing the list. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN - clearly I am not going to be able to satisfy the nit-pickery without completely stripping out the images and I am unwilling to do so since in my view they are fully and completely and obviously well within even the ridiculously over-restrictive image use policy that is designed to discourage some editors who want to actually improve the project and empower others whose preference is to diminish it by playing image police. Every time I nominate something for featured status it's because I've forgotten the level of petty criticism that's attendant in the process and without fail I'm well reminded of it by the time the process is over. If anyone ever sees my sig on a featured nomination again, please call a psychiatrist because certainly it will mean that I've gone insane. Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images I struck the support above because I just noticed that the article uses four non-free images. Please be more detailed in the fair use rationales than "for illustration and critical commentary". Judging by the consensus on a peer review for a similar article, there should not be so many. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The images in the article are of of critical historical importance to this topic. The first identifiably gay character on television, the first self-identified gay character on television, an image from the first national television program on homosexuality and an image showing the lengths that fear of identification drove interviewees to conceal their identities. I can certainly expand the fair use rationales, although I do not think any such expansion is necessary since all that the licensing template requires is what I've written, but under no circumstances will I agree to the removal of any of these images. Fair use images are perfectly acceptable in featured material and the idea that four images in an article this size is too many is nonsensical. There is no numerical limit on such images per article so "there are too many of them" is not a legitimate reason for opposing the promotion. The point is not how many images there are but whether they comport with the (IMHO far too restrictive and stifling) image policy. These clearly do. Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—on images—true, pure numbers of non-free images is not a reason to oppose based on image criteria. But WP:NFCC has several bits that undermine your defense. First, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". So for example, if you wanted to use File:Tcjones.jpg, File:Tc jones 1965.jpg would be better as it's a free image (you could argue the transvestite thing, but that's a different argument altogether. File:Gayplant.jpg is frankly a crappy image that does zero to increase my understanding of the topic, "significantly" per NFCC or otherwise. The other images are just actors, meaning that it's conceivable free shots would suffice to represent the same content; either way, images of them is not significant to reader understanding, and the FUR are weak. If you had historians talking about how pivotal the role was, and some element of their appearance, then you would have a more defensible case. In addition, there's a lack of citations throughout, leading to blatant original research. Who says "Turnabout Intruder" has LGBT themes? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PSTS episode content serves as its own sourcing. Content drawn directly from an episode in no way implicates WP:OR and everything else is cited. There is no way that a free image of the characters can be created. The point is not to show what the actors look like. The point is to show how the characters were presented.
Comment Oppose - I have a real problem with the images. Not their rationales, but their placement in the article. They stretch the table horribly and make it look completely unprofessional. Can something be done with them - perhaps merge them into single composite image at the top of the article? Skinny87 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at David's comments above and the article again, I have to agree - how I missed that I don't know. The lack of citations is indeed a big concern, and as a Trekkie I'm confused over the two TOS episodes selected. Frankly the Trouble with Tribbles looks tacked on (Tribbles are a reference to LGBT?), and who says the Turnabout Intruder has LGTB themes? Skinny87 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, yes, when an entire species is described on-screen as "bisexual" then it is a reference to the "B" in LGBT, which stands for "bisexual". When a male is in a female body and vice-versa, that is a reference to the "T" of LGBT, which stands for "transgender". Otto4711 (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still OR. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's OR to note the fact of a species' bisexuality? It's OR to note the fact of a body switch and an actor's altered mannerisms? I do not think "OR" means what you think it does. This is no more original research than any other description of an episode's plot. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2009 (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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [3].
List of Metallica concert tours
- Nominators: Nergaal & Igordebraga
Asides from minor cleanup, I believe this list is ready to be featured. Constructive comments are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Truco (talk · contribs)
- Metallica is an American heavy metal band, founded in 1981 by Lars Ulrich in Los Angeles. - state that he is a drummer
- Since 1982, Metallica has performed numerous times in North America and Europe, but has also performed in other parts of the World such as South America, East and Southeast Asia,[1] Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and South Africa. - 1)unlink the countries/continents, they are too common terms 2)decapitalize World
- As of 2009, the band has performed live gigs during each year with the exception of 2001, in a total of over 1500 shows. - gigs is not an encyclopedic word, should be events (as well as other occurrences of this)
- The prose needs to be expanding substantially, by summarizing the list more and telling more on the background of Metallica
- All phrases in the notes in the tables should be in past tense not in present tense
- Unlink the countries/states/continents in the table
- What makes Metallicaworld.co.uk , Metsanitarium.com, Encycmet.com., All Metallica. , Last.fm., and Metroactive.com. reliable?
- Consistency is needed in the publishers for the references, like the encyclopedia reference
- Add |format=PDF to the PDF files.
- The notes need to be seriously copyedited, they need to be in complete sentences or in a better worded fragment.--TRUCO 01:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Followup comments
-
- The notes need copyediting still need copyediting First gigs as a band is not grammatically correct.
- The intro should have the first, most recent tour, and other significant tours.
- The sourcing issues need to be resolved--TRUCO 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more copyediting is needed in the notes, example: Festival tour. (this is not a complete sentence, so no full stop needed, there are others also with grammatical errors, this is just one. Some of the notes are sourced, while others aren't, so some are being verified with references, and others aren't, which makes the list unverifiable. Some of the references also look unreliable, but check with User:Dabomb87 for a check on those.--TRUCO 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean something like First gigs as a band were not played as a tour. needs a reference? Nergaal (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah.--TRUCO 01:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The lead is too short and not very well written or organized.
- metallicaworld.co.uk is a fan site, as is AllMetallica and encycmet.com (AllMetallica is the only one of the three that does not admit this on their main page) and is Last.fm useable?
- The format appears to be modelled after List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, but personally I like the format used at List of Nine Inch Nails tours (although listing the band members would not be necessary). -- Scorpion0422 19:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fix the dabs. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of replacing fansites and Last.fm refs, but else do you suggest in the intro? I picked that format to add notes on tour events, specially because not all tours have their pages. igordebraga ≠ 17:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've improved the prose of the notes significantly. Please give specific suggestions for the introduction, because I have no idea what is missing right now. Nergaal (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Since 1982, Metallica has performed numerous times in North America and Europe, but has also performed in other parts of the world such as South America," – "Since 1982, Metallica has performed in North America, Europe, South America,"
- "As of 2009, the band has performed in live events during each year with the exception of 2001, in a total of over 1600 shows." – "As of 2009, the band has performed in live events each year with the exception of 2001, in over 1600 shows."
- Please provide more information for the image captions, such as what city they are in. Frankly, we should learn something new from the image; an image of a concert is just like the image of any other concert, unless we learn more about that specific image.
- "was
the"Kill " - The lead is three short paragraphs. Either expand them or merge them logically.
- The en dashes should be spaced if not between two elements of the same type, like two numbers or two months. So "Mar 14–Nov 30, 1982" to "Mar 14 – Nov 30, 1982". Also, I would very much prefer seeing full month names.
- "Saxon, [4]" – Remove the space after the comma.
Gary King (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all but two - the original source for the Damage Inc. photo is a dead site, so I can't find the location (but expanded the captions a bit), and need to know what could be done in the lead. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the lead, talk about their concerts, perhaps typically how much money they gross, and so on. There is only 1000 bytes of prose in the article right now, surely there can be more. This is the only article about Metallica concerts, so let's make it good. Nine Inch Nails has an entire article dedicated to their live performances at Nine Inch Nails live performances. Gary King (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will review fully tomorrow, but what makes http://www.rockthebayou.com/Bio.aspx?id=27 a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a festival website. If it's not written by the organizers, it's a press release from the band. Either way doesn't fail WP:RS. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question: is this site reliable: http://www.ilikethat.com/metallica/ ? Nergaal (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2009 (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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:36, 7 February 2009 [4].
List of One Piece episodes (season 9)
An anime episode list. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple things, mostly WP:MOS-JA related:
- Kônosuke Uda → Kōnosuke Uda: circumflexes are deprecated in favor of macrons (the page linked to should be moved as well). In the same vein, Eiichirô Oda → Eiichirō Oda.
- Links changed and move requested. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Title emphasis and WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books, CDs, movies, etc.: BRAND NEW WORLD → "Brand New World"; the tildes in "We Are ~7 Straw Hat Pirates variant~" need to be replaced with something more appropriate (parentheses, maybe); ADVENTURE WORLD → "Adventure World".
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "seiyūs" → "seiyū": non-naturalized Japanese words are not pluralized with "s".
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rōmaji titles should be title-cased, as seen in episodes 313 on. And some fixes along with that:
- episode 302, 305: "Rucchi" → "Rutchi": っち is "tchi", see Hepburn romanization#Double consonants
- episode 303: "oozakura" → "Ōzakura"
- episode 311, 320: "zenin" → "zen'in": んい and に need to be disambiguated, WP:MOS-JA#Body text #5
- episode 319: "Jī-san" → "Jii-san": WP:MOS-JA#Body text #1, kanji/hiragana *aa/*ee/*ii are not macronned unless used with ー (e.g. らーめん rāmen)
- episode 320: "Tsuini" → "Tsui ni": don't attach particles to the preceding word
- All done. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kônosuke Uda → Kōnosuke Uda: circumflexes are deprecated in favor of macrons (the page linked to should be moved as well). In the same vein, Eiichirô Oda → Eiichirō Oda.
- —tan³ tx 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved, but when I went to title case the rōmaji, I glanced over a couple spelling errors and a wording error; the episode summaries should be given a closer look. No comments on content, as I've not watched this series past the first fifty episodes. —tan³ tx 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's what you meant with "title-cased". Thanks for doing it. I'm reluctant to mess with the romanizations. I'd propably break more than I'd fix. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved, but when I went to title case the rōmaji, I glanced over a couple spelling errors and a wording error; the episode summaries should be given a closer look. No comments on content, as I've not watched this series past the first fifty episodes. —tan³ tx 07:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Needs a copy-edit. Depending on whether I can take care of my other real-life and wiki obligations, I may return to look at the prose again.
- "The Special Chapter contains episodes, recapping the back stories of the Straw Hat Pirates, and five omake adaptations of short comics by Oda, originally published in the One Piece Log fan magazine. "-->The Special Chapter contains episodes, which summarize the back stories of the Straw Hat Pirates, and five omake adaptations of short comics by Oda, which were originally published in the One Piece Log fan magazine.
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "over fifty-seven episodes" Numbers over nine should generally be written in numeric form (57).
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "These episodes seamlessly continue the story of season 8." "seamlessly" as opposed to what...?
- Fixed. (Rewrote that paragraph.) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Togetherwith the sea train conductor Kokoro"- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "They crossed the yearly occurring storm" Why are is the past tense suddenly used here?
- Fixed. (Rewrote that paragraph.) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "
in orderto" (multiple occurences)- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Enies Lobby drawing near"-->As Enies Lobby draws near
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and as his friends gaze in awe"-->While his friends gaze in awe (add a period before this phrase)
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "All goes smoothly at first, but by the time the" Who are "they"?
- Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "ten-thousand men. "-->10,000 men.
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Galley-La foremen and the leading members of the Franky Family arrive late at the second gate, but they are bringing with them the family's king bulls mounted on caterpillar tracks."-->The Galley-La foremen and the leading members of the Franky Family arrive late at the second gate, and have brought along with them the family's king bulls mounted on caterpillar tracks.
- Not done. Fixed in an other way. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "With their combined forces" comma after this phrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking oppose, will come back to copy-edit over the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to weak support, the prose actually gets better as you move down. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The general ref is missing a publisher.- Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 3 to 7 should not have the title in all caps. Make it in sentence case.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2009 (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 not promoted by Scorpion0422 23:37, 4 February 2009 [5].
Wind power in Romania
- I think that this is a featurable list on Wiki. Mario1987 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that peer reviews should be closed before coming to FLC... I closed it for you this time. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, pertaining to the list, I don't think that the title "Wind power in Romania" is accurate. It sounds like the article is an overview of wind power in Romania, which it is not. Wouldn't it be "List of wind farms in Romania"? To that end, what was the inclusion criteria for the wind farms? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria was all wind farms over 10 MW installed capacity. Mario1987 09:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The name should stay as it is to be consistent with other Wind Power in Country articles. One quick comment is that "in romanian" in the references needs to be capitalized. Reywas92Talk 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But those are not considered lists. See Wind power in the United States. This article should either be copy-pasted into a new article or moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should i move it to "List of wind farms in Romania"? Mario1987 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't move per se, maybe create a new article through cut-and-paste, and leave some info (the lead) here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created a separate article List of wind farms in Romania. Should i propose that as a featured list? Mario1987 17:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should i move it to "List of wind farms in Romania"? Mario1987 09:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But those are not considered lists. See Wind power in the United States. This article should either be copy-pasted into a new article or moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Yes. Do not remove the FLC template or withdraw this nomination yet. Let the FLC director take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For article history purposes, it would be better to close this one, then start a new one for the List of wind farms in Romania. This one is closed. Mario1987, you can create a nom for the new list whenever you are ready. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.