- 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 Crisco 1492 04:29, 24 July 2015 [7].
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No content to leave the tourism marketing campaign to just brochures and our license plates, we now have Pure Michigan Byways! With a bunch of work, and a assistance from an intern at the Michigan Department of Transportation, I bring you the only single page that documents the lengths, dates and termini of the byways in Michigan's program. (Really, MDOT never bothered to compile a single list any place even though they're in charge of the program.) Polishing this list will provide a template for other state or national scenic byway programs in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 06:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I reviewed this list at ACR and feel that it meets the FL criteria and serves as a model for how scenic byway lists should look. Dough4872 15:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I looked at the changes since I reviewed at the ACR nomination and don't see a reason why not to support. --Rschen7754 16:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Dead links
- five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state. 5, 6, and 5 in both Upper and Lower, or 5, 6, and 5 altogether?
- a road must be a state trunkline highway can you link "state trunkline highway" somewhere, or explain it in the text?
- The criteria includes "criteria" is plural; includes → include
- to sites or districts on the National Register of Historical Places, recreational areas, or scenic landscapes. add "to" before "recreational areas" and "scenic landscapes"; it currently reads like "on" should be placed before both
- Working with local communities, organizations, and government agencies, the Pure Michigan Byway Program strives to identify roads that access Michigan's unique natural, scenic, historic, recreational, and cultural resources. The program also attempts to preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors, improve distinct roads in a careful and considerate way, promote a greater awareness of and appreciation for the state's scenic, recreational, historical and cultural resources. this doesn't sound too neutral; can you rework?
- new signs are due to be unveiled in 2015. do you have a reference for this? How close are we?
- in the southeastern corner of the LP needs a period
- The first recreational route ... The last the last recreational route?
- As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals are are → were, past tense
- touted the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign and can you cut this? This isn't neutral.
- "say" → "said" in the same sentence
- "Ref" column in the table should be "Ref(s)", as all but one rows have multiple references
- After I sort one column, I can't sort another; after I sorted by "name", for instance, I couldn't sort by "Type"
- "Length (mi)" and "Length (km)" columns should really be combined; there should be no sorting difference between the two
- I don't think the key at the bottom is really necessary if the text is spelled with the color
- Do you have a reference for the ineligibility of the National Forest Scenic Byways routes to become Pure Michigan Byways?
For these reasons, I oppose this nomination for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
- Those "dead links" are in citations that have archived versions in place. There's nothing to fix. The original URLs cannot be removed without breaking the citations.
- Michigan: State Program → archived on April 14, 2013
- Bay City Receives Historic Heritage Route Designation → archived on December 12, 2008
- Monroe Street (M-125) → archived on October 18, 201
- M-123 Tahquamenon Scenic Heritage Route Expanded → archived on October 7, 2012
- There are 5, 6, and 5 total across both peninsulas.
- [[Michigan State Trunkline Highway System|State Trunkline Highway System]] or "State Trunkline Highway System" is linked in the very first sentence.
- Fixed.
- Added.
- Is there any thing specific that leads you to say it's not neutral? It's all based on what the sources say. If I had some idea upon which you're basing your opinion, I'd know what to change, if anything.
- The legislation, as noted in the body of article, was signed into law on December 30, 2014. MDOT has a full year from that date to obtain a trademark clearance and design the new signs. Therefore we could theoretically be waiting until December 30, 2015, for the new signs to be unveiled. My inquiries to MDOT about their progress on the signage have been unanswered at the present.
- Added.
- Clarified that it was the last of any type. (It's actually a scenic one.)
- Changed.
- No, it is neutral. That is exactly what the backers were saying as part of the justification for the name change. They justified the name change by tying the new name into the tourism ad campaign.
- Changed.
- I'm not sure. It has worked just fine for me, and it's using the standard coding for sortable tables.
- I disagree and point to List of Interstate Highways in Michigan which has separate columns.
- It was suggested that I add it before I opened the nomination, and I disagreed with that suggestion. Since you agree with me, I'm removing it. :-)
- That's purely definitional. The National Forest Scenic Byways are county roads. Since they're not state trunkline highways, they can't be Pure Michigan Byways.
@Seattle: replies and fixes have been made. Will you follow up? Imzadi 1979 → 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: #13, I found the issue, which was related to something needed for the color key that was removed in #15, so it's fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 05:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify that this is "altogether" instead of separate in the lead? It currently reads as though 5, 6, and 5 are in both; "five historic, six recreational and five scenic byways have been designated... in both the Upper and Lower peninsulas (UP, LP) of the state"
- I'm sure that's what the sponsors stated; we don't include what the sponsors "touted" of other legislative acts, such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or the Clean Air Act, as that wouldn't be neutral.
- "say" should still be "said" in that sentence.
- Other than OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, why do you think that miles and km shouldn't be combined? Seattle (talk) 06:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
- Tweaked to add "in total" after the counts and before the mentions of the peninsulas. (Because of various things, it's pretty standard to make sure readers know that a program applies to both peninsulas; we have separate state championships by peninsula in some high school sports, and firewood from the LP can't be brought into the UP, among oddities.)
- But in this case, what they said is the reason why they replaced an otherwise perfectly good name ("Michigan Heritage Route") with "Pure Michigan Byways". If It was just a change in federal regulations requiring them to use the word "byway", they could have renamed them "Michigan Heritage Byways" or even "Michigan Byways". You need both aspects, the federal regulation and the tourism campaign, to explain the full change to "Pure Michigan Byways". It's all interconnected, so I can't cut it out, sorry.
I think you need to read the opening sentence of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for the policy on neutrality: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." That doesn't mean we have to excise all opinions. Rather, we include those that are pertinent, and to comply with the other key policies (WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research), we have to attribute them with citations. We also have to include opposing viewpoints in proportion to their occurrence in the appropriate literature. In this case, there just aren't dissenting viewpoints; the bill passed 105–3 in the House and 37–0 in the Senate. According to the press release from the Governor's office, "The bill builds on the success of the state’s “Pure Michigan” tourism campaign." Unless someone finds some dissent mentioned in the news, and I've looked, there isn't one to list.
- Changed, sorry I missed that before.
- Ok, first off, if we combined them into a single cell, it would complicate or break sorting by length. It would also mean that either "miles" or "mi" would appear in every cell in that column as would "km". By using two columns, which is a standard option using
|disp=table in {{convert}}, then the unit is dropped and moved to the header. This is just a very standard way to handle things, and I could give you dozens of examples that use two columns like this. Also, by using this formatting, the numbers are right-aligned. For columns of numbers, this promotes legibility, and because the level of precision is consistent, the decimal points line up.
@Seattle: replies made and a few additional changes done to the article, so once again it's back to you. Imzadi 1979 → 07:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the NPOV issue, why not just prefix the statements with "According to X"? --Rschen7754 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rschen7754: those "magic words" would only hand in-text attribution (in addition to inline footnotes). The text already has in-text attribution by saying, "Sponsors of the bill touted..." to attribute the "the promotional benefits of including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign..." as what they touted. WP:NPOV only requires that the viewpoint be attributed, which the current text does, not that we use some magic formula. Imzadi 1979 → 04:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from my reading I can see the point that the text seems a bit promotional. For example, "preserve the unique and irreplaceable qualities of selected corridors" implies that there are "unique" and "irreplaceable" qualities of those corridors. "These actions provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism" is also a bit problematic as it is presented as a statement of fact, and it coming from sources that are perhaps a bit too closely related to the subject leaves me a bit uncomfortable. I'm willing to reconsider, but I'm a bit uneasy with it being left as is. --Rschen7754 05:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rschen7754: you're talking about something else then than what is being discussed down here. We're discussing the sentence about the name change in the history section, which complies with the NPOV policy as written. Imzadi 1979 → 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The cited sources use the words "unique" and "irreplaceable", and definitionally, if they weren't "unique" or "irreplaceable", they wouldn't be listed as PMBs by MDOT. After all, it's not just any old roadway in the state that can be listed. That being said, I did play with the language a bit in that section. Imzadi 1979 → 06:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes made are good for me. --Rschen7754 13:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I mentioned that section in my original comments, and I agree that those changes look good. Can you do the same for the "sponsors touted" section? Sortability wouldn't be affected. This is an example of what the table would look like– readable and concise, to me. Seattle (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle: policy requires us to attribute in text any opinions, and the current text does that already, so no changes are required to comply with WP:NPOV.
- As for your change, I reject that. The existing formatting right-aligns each number, roughly lining up the decimal points. This enhances legibility of numbers. Ever notice how spreadsheets normally right-align numbers? Or how old-fashioned ledgers (even check book registers) align columns of numbers to the right or by the decimal?
- The current formatting also eliminates the redundancy of the word "miles" and the symbol "km" from appearing in every column. As I noted on your FLC, you don't restate the word "County" in every row when the heading implies that, and you don't include the unit name of "people" for every row of the table in the population column, so why must I repeat the word "miles" when the heading can handle that? Sorry, I reject that change as decreasing the quality of the table, not increasing it.
- If you don't want to repeat "mi" and "km2" after every entry, add
|abbr=values to {{convert}}. If you want text to be right-aligned, add |disp=br() to {{convert}}. There's no reason why these two columns couldn't be combined. I'm not withdrawing my oppose until you change this inferior table to its more concise alternative. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any outstanding issues, besides the formatting of the lengths that prevent you from striking your opposition? If so, can you let me know so we can resolve them and move on? Imzadi 1979 → 23:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "touting" of supporters
and the superfluous table column keep me from supporting this article as a featured list. Seattle (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think combining the columns decreases readability, due to the decimal issue, and because it makes the column look more crowded. --Rschen7754 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus formed at
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 to combine the "Miles" and "KM" columns; both appear to be acceptable. I'm striking the combination rational from my oppose, as it appears to be a matter of personal preference.
Seattle (
talk) 03:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
- I can use a synonym for "touted", but that would be inaccurate. "To tout" means to "peddle", "sell", "hawk", etc, and that's exactly what the sponsors were doing; they were offering reasons to persuade others of their position and the need to change the name to include "Pure Michigan" not just the word "byway". It is the concise and accurate description for what they were doing, therefore it is the neutral choice. "Touted" doesn't make a value judgement on whether or not they were correct as it does not have that implication in its meaning. The text on the page would not be neutral if it implied that they were correct or not, but it is neutral because it simply states what they touted as their reasons.
- I won't change the columns to a format that I feel is inferior. Dozens of FAs on highways use two columns for the mileposts (and their metric conversions) and the other FLs on highways do as well, so there is ample precedent for the format. The proffered suggestions still collapse separate values, granted for the same measurement, into a single column and decrease legibility in the context of a table. Given that there is no requirement to make that change, I trust the delegates can weigh your oppose accordingly as a matter of personal preference, not one that enhances legibility. Imzadi 1979 → 01:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Floydian
edit
- Prose
- "in total" is redundant
- "state. Another three have been proposed." - I believe a semi-colon is more appropriate here
- "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, and is a reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign." - "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, in reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign." or "The current name was adopted on December 30, 2014, as a reference to the Pure Michigan tourism marketing campaign."
- "To be listed as a Pure Michigan Byway, a road must be a state trunkline highway, and it must be nominated through a two-stage process." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both those commas are unnecessary.
- "These actions also provide economic benefits by stimulating tourism." - I think after the "also" in the previous sentence that this one should be removed.
- "Staffers for State Representative Peter Pettalia of Presque Isle..." would sound better as "Staffers for Presque Isle State Representative Peter Pettalia", YMMV
- At the end of the Program section, you mention that the MDOT director presents a report to the legislature. Do they have to approve this report or?
- In Types and requirements, the style I usually see would place the first citation after the colon in "The Legislature defined these types to be:", rather than the placement here. I'm unsure if there is a MOS guideline to provide clearance here.
- In other sections, you place a comma before "and" in lists of three or more items, but in this section you do not. This should be consistent throughout the article.
- "All routes are given specific termini points with a reasonable length." - define "reasonable length"
- "These sites need to be visible from the route of the byway, or in the case of historic districts, a "substantial portion of the district must lie adjacent to the highway"." - I believe that there should be a comma after "or" here.
- I feel that the final four paragraphs of this section could be one paragraph. YMMV.
- In the history section, I want to point out that I think linking the abbreviations UP and LP here is a great idea, as they haven't been used since the lede.
- "As of December 22, 2014, only the US 31 and M-134 proposals were active." - since this is cited to an annual report, is the specific date even significant?
- "The bill passed the House in March 2014,[5] and it passed the state Senate during the lame duck session in December 2014." - two things: a) I think the proper language would be "in the state Senate" and "in the house"; b) "it passed" is redundant here.
- I'm not sure about "touted"....... just joking ;)
- "and to unveil the new signage bearing the new program name." - one of those "new"s needs to be dropped.
- List
- I'm not sure whether the s in parenthesis is necessary in the "Ref(s)." column header.
- Can the km column be made sortable?
- As I mentioned to you at one point, I think the table colours should match the infobox/map colours, or a legend should be included for MOS:COLOR compliance.
Everything else looks good. Unfortunately my DNS is out temporarily, so I can't spot check, but I'm not gonna hold up my review any longer on those grounds. I conditionally support pending fixes. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted them over to a numbered list so I can reply by number. I'll be working on tweaks here and will reply shortly. Imzadi 1979 → 04:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose
- 1–3: done.
- 4: I think both are needed. The second comma sets off an independent clause ("it must be nominated through a two-stage process" can stand alone as a sentence), and the first comma sets off the "to be listed" as applying to both of the subsequent clauses.
- 5: done.
- 6: I'm not changing it because he isn't the state rep for Presque Isle, but rather a state rep who happens to be from Presque Isle. Your proposed switch would reverse that relationship.
- 7: It's just an information report, no approval necessary.
- 8: I put it where I did because that is a block quote, and direct quotations are supposed to have a citation afterwards. For other articles that put it before the colon, I'd say they do it wrong, or at least inconsistent with placing the footnote after the closing quotation marks.
- 9: done.
- 10: MDOT does not define "reasonable length", so I can't.
- 11: done
- 12: they're intentionally separated to keep each subtopic together, mirroring the definition list in the blockquote above it.
- 13: thank you It's one of the times where WP:OVERLINK's allowances come in handy.
- 14: maybe, maybe not. I aimed for accuracy there, since that's the date of the last report listing them as active proposals.
- 15: Since the Senate and the House are co-equal branches of the Legislature, it would be weird to capitalize one and not the other.
- 16: It's a good thing I understand your sense of humour as well as I usually do... :-)
- 17: done.
- List
- 1: I'm ambivalent on that. That was the suggested format from Seattle's review above, and it certainly is common to put the "s" in parentheses when dealing with something that refers to either a singular or plural subject. (One row of the table has a single footnote applying to it while all of the rest have two or more.)
- 2: Yeah, it can.
- 3: The problem is that if I made them match exactly, then black text wouldn't stand out. The map uses the same shades from the signage so that the lines will stand out from the background, but in the table, I used a pastel version of the three signage colors so that black text would stand out as the important detail. The orange shade, is the same shade we use for proposed highways in {{infobox road}}, et al., or in the new-style templatized routelists. As noted above in Seattle's review, a color key isn't needed because meaning behind each color is spelled out with each usage.
So I guess my options are to switch the teal/brown/blue to the same shade as the signs and use white text for the Historic/Recreational/Scenic labels or to leave it as is.
- @Floydian: I've made fixes as noted above, or otherwise commented. Imzadi 1979 → 06:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Prose point #15, the capitalization wasn't an an issue; rather it was to impart the use of "in the" for the house and senate, since the legislation was done in the senate/house, not through it. I'll accept the colour issue, I just wanted to clear it up before the ninnies complained. Regarding point one for the List, I think "Ref." is acceptable short-form for references as well as reference. Won't hold this up on that semantic however.
- Support - My concerns are addressed, although my DNS is still wonky until Monday or Tuesday so I can't spot check references for verification. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: No, "touted" is analysis of a third-party source in violation of WP:WEASEL. The phrase "Sponsors of the bill touted the promotional benefits..." is furthermore a WEASEL phrase, as it "aim[s] at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated". Seattle (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, Seattle, that it isn't a weasel word at all. WP:WEASEL says that we have to attribute stated opinions to their sources. Well, I've just added a direct quote from the cited news article. Even if I hadn't, you need to read a little further down that MOS page to see: "Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." (emphasis in original) If you had read the news article, or read the quotation I just added to the article, you'd see that the text of the article "accurately represent[s] the opinions of the source", in this case the lead sponsor of the bill. The attribution is, and was, supported, and is now even more strongly supported by a direct quote, so I ask you to please strike your oppose !vote. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: any thoughts from a third party? Imzadi 1979 → 06:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the whole problem could be resolved by changing "tout" to "said". Seattle doesn't seem to have an issue with presenting their opinion, but rather the word you are using to introduce the opinion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tout is synonymous with promote. I see no issue myself. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Though they are synonyms, they do not have the exact same meaning. Besides, the suggestion was for "said", as in "said that the inclusion of the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign would be beneficial". "WP:SAID states "Said, stated, described, wrote, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms." Tout is not neutral, as among its meanings are a sense of persistence or hassling. "to solicit, peddle, or persuade importunately" according to Merriam-Webster. "Attempt to sell (something), typically by a direct or persistent approach" according to Oxford. "to try to persuade people to buy something by telling them about it, especially loudly and in public", according to Macmillan. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle and Crisco 1492: wording changed. Can the oppose !vote be stricken now as that was the only thing left, aside from the opposition based on using separate mile and kilometer columns, which I believe you had also struck earlier?
Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
[reply]
- No. Now you've added "indicated", which is POV under WP:SAID as well. WP:SAID states that to write that a person clarified, explained, exposed, found, pointed out, or revealed something can imply that it is true, where a neutral account might preclude such an endorsement. Wiktionary lists indicate as "[t]o point out; to discover; to direct to a knowledge of; to show; to make known." "Stated" would be neutral. Furthermore the sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Sponsors of the bill said that by including the highways in the Pure Michigan tourism advertising campaign would provide promotional benefits. It's a dependent clause without anything else. Fix the grammar and replace "indicated" with "stated" and I'll strike my oppose. Seattle (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle:: {{u|Crisco 1492 beat me to it, so take another look. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that looks good. How hard was that? Seattle (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 13:15, 21 July 2015 [8].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Conan Doyle was a prolific and high-profile British writer, best known for his Sherlock Holmes series of stories. He wrote much, much more besides, and his output included 22 novels, 204 short stories and articles, non fiction books, plays, poems, pamphlets, and a series of works on spiritualism, in which he began to believe after losing his son and brother at the end of the First World War.
This is a re-vamped bibliography, made partly from the previous limited, but greatly expanded and now brought into line with MOS requirements, and fully sourced throughout. All comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Jimknut
| Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
* In the introduction the Sherlock Holmes stories "A Scandal in Bohemia" (1891) and "The Adventure of the Final Problem" (1893) are discussed before A Study in Scarlet (1887), the story that introduced Holmes. Shouldn't Scarlet be first?
- Also in the intro you could hyperlink "A Scandal in Bohemia".
- In the infobox "Plays" and "Operettas" are listed separately yet they both link to only one section ("Stage works"). I suggest putting both together in the infobox OR having them separate in the listings.
- I'm not sure this is a too much of a problem - it's something I've done in some other FLs. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The same goes for the "Spiritualist and paranormal books" and "Spiritualist and paranormal pamphlets" listings in the infobox.
- I've sub-divided the section and linked into the sub-section to get round it here. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Jimknut (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Jumknut, all very much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Jimknut – much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Harrias
|
;Comment from Harrias talk
- The story in The Strand was one in a series of twelve, published in successive months.[4] They were well-received by the public, and the editors of the magazine commissioned a further series six stories, and then another twelve. I think you've misinterpreted the source here. As far as I recall, and having a quick look, I think that there were twenty-four stories before Holmes was killed off. It was a run of six, extended by six to twelve, then a further twelve. Harrias talk 06:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right (although technically they are two series of six, followed by the series of twelve) - now tweaked. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, with that one very minor point fixed, I can't find anything to fault. Great work. Harrias talk 15:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Harrias - I'm very much obliged. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Images and sourcing review
All images are appropriately licensed on Commons, well placed and appropriately captioned. The sources listed are all credible publishers. And while not cited inline by each title listed, the requirement is otherwise met with inline citations in the individual table headers.— Maile (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Happy to support the well-detailed lists of Doyle's works. Nice work on the tables and the infobox. Lead is informative and a good recap of the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- An immense list on a great author. Just a few small comments, which have now been resolved:
| Resolved comments from Cassianto (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
*"Doyle, fearful of having his other work overshadowed by his detective creation, killed his creation off in December 1893..." -- creation/creation repetition.
- "During the First World War he also wrote extensively on the topic..." -- The Boer war or WWI?
- "His son died in the 1918 influenza epidemic, the condition exacerbated by his war wounds; Doyle's brother died of pneumonia shortly afterwards. Like many others at the time Doyle became interested in spiritualism and wrote extensively on the subject" -- I kind of see where you're going with this, and if it's where I think it is, could we simply not say: "Owing to the close successive deaths of his son and brother, Doyle turned to spiritualism..." Or something similar? I'm worried that this would otherwise be a deviation too far away from Doyle himself if it wasn't a ramification of his relatives deaths. CassiantoTalk 23:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Many thanks for the suggestions, which I've adopted in their entirety. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2015 (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 PresN 20:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Angel Haze is an american rapper, they've released one studio album, two extended plays, six mixtapes, eleven singles (including five as a featured artist) and eight music videos. I am nominating this for featured list, I've been working on it extensively for the past few days and think it sufficiently meets criteria, hope to hear others thoughts. Azealia911 talk 00:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't looked thoroughly and may add more comments later, but on first glance:
- All mentions of "extended play" should be changed to EP, the more common term. The releases infobox even uses "EP".
- Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The "they" pronouns should be explained in a footnote for readers who have not read Haze's biography.
- Done: Explained and sourced. Azealia911 talk 22:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @HĐ: Please could you elaborate a bit on how this meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. As PresN has outlined here [[18]], short "looks great" reviews can give impression that the list wasn't actually "reviewed" even if it was especially if later reviews find substantial things to fix. I don't want it to seem as if I'm trying to hinder these noms but I'm actually ensuring the nom has better chance as reviews don't need to be discarded later on. Cowlibob (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: user HĐ did tweak the page before leaving comments, just to eliminate any thought of "gave approval without even looking at the page" Azealia911 talk 03:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a gifted support but have to take into account how these early "votes" have been considered in the past. Cowlibob (talk) 03:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a good article, apologies for my disruptive edit! new user here HyunAChachki (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the !vote, and that's ok, we were all new at one stage, happy editing. Azealia911 talk 21:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @HyunAChachki: Since you started your account just yesterday and have made 8 mainspace edits. It's probably too early to start giving supports to featured list candidates but feel free to continue contributing on expanding articles. Please look at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria for what is required for a FL. Cowlibob (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm actually going on wikibreak for a couple of weeks for exams. Comments I can leave with you are:
- the lead is only 900 characters which wouldn't be enough for DYK nomination. Is it possible to expand that? You could use things like chart positions, notable collaborations.
- Done: Expanded and sourced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't be surprised if others suggested merging the discography back into the main article as the main one only has 3.5K of prose. I think Lorde who has a similar length discography had atleast 5.5K prose before it was split.
- Done: Calling this a done seeing as it's not a fixable problem concerning the discog article, I'll buff up the main article as much as I can though. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't use metacritic in this case for critical acclaim as it is based of 6 reviews.
- Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Table error in guest appearances where the table is open.
- Done: Fixed year error. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of links to commercial sites such as iTunes, they are generally used if there are no other sources for the song/album.
- Done: Replaced majority, only remaining is a very low-key artist I can't find an alt link for, and one for the New York EP, which partners with one that mentions the release of the EP in October 2012 without specifying date. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also try to find alternative sources for the info which is based of Facebook, wordpress and other such sites even if they are operated by the artist.
- Done: Replaced. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Main image needs alttext per WP:ALT
- Done: Provided. Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those would be my initial comments. I can't reply to it due to above wikibreak. Hope they are helpful. Cowlibob (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Best of luck with you exams, and hopefully if the nom is still open when you get back, you can give your support. All the best, Azealia911 talk 17:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
- Comments from Calvin999
- Is pandering to her requirements of being referred to in singular pronouns "they" and "their" appropriate for Wikipedia? As a read, I find it confusing.
- !: Per MOS:IDENTITY, yes.
- In July 2012, Haze released their[note 1] EP Reservation online for free, which was met with critical acclaim, with Consequence of Sound calling the project "diverse in its influences" and "polished". → Too many clauses, just full of commas.
- Done: Fixed.
- In late 2013, Haze leaked their debut album Dirty Gold after a disagreement with their record label, who wanted to release it sometime in spring 2014. → As you say 'late 2013', I think it would be more inline to say 'early 2014' instead of Spring.
- Done: Fixed.
- Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics, it was a commercial failure, failing to appear on the Billboard 200, and appearing on the nether end of the UK Albums Chart, peaking at number 197, with reports claiming that the album may have sold as little as 850 copies in its debut week of release. → This is a really long-winded sentence with too many clauses.
- Done: Cut down.
- on the Billboard 200, → Billboard should be in italics.
- Done: Removed from sentence in question.
- Lead says that it peaked at 197 in the UK, but the album chart table below and the album article say 196?
- Done: Fixed.
- Is Spotify Sessions supposed to link to Spotify?
- Done: It was inentional if that's what you were questioning, I'll only link "Spotify" as opposed to the full title in order to avoid confusion.
On the references front:
- Ref 1: Consequence of Sound should not be in italics.
- Ref 3: Missing authors name
- Ref 6: Is the second instance of Billboard in the references, so it should not be linked
- Ref 8: PitchFork Media should not be in italics.
- Ref 11: Same as Billboard above, this is the second instances of Consequence of Sound and it should also not be in italics.
- Ref 12: Same here again for Billboard
- Ref 13: Can't work out why you've said it's for UK R&B peak positions when there's only one reference. The title should not be in italics.
- Ref 14: Same here. It's just once reference. Official Charts should not be linked, and neither should the title. I think you've added some stray apostrophes for these two references.
- Ref 15: Republics Records should not be in italics.
- Ref 16: Rate Your Music should not be italics
- Ref 17: Rate Your Music should not be italics nor linked.
- Ref 19: DatPiff should not be linked.
- Ref 20: Sterogum should not be linked.
- Ref: 22: Official Charts should be neither italicised nor linked.
- Ref 23: Same here, both of them.
- Ref 24: Consequence of Sound should not be italics nor linked.
- Ref 25: Same again for Pitchfork
- Ref 26: Same for Digital Spy (non-italics)
- Ref 31: Consequence of Sound again
- Ref 33: Rap-Up should not be linked.
- Ref 34: Beatport should not be italicised
- Ref 35: Rolling Stone should not be linked
- Ref 36: Idolator should not be italicised
- Ref 39: Second instance of NOISEY so shouldn't be linked
- Ref 43: DS should not be linked
- Ref 44: Same for Stereogum again
- Ref 47: Same for Idolator
- Ref 48: Same for Pitchfork Media, (not called just Pitchfork by the way)
- Ref 49: Same for Idolator again
- Ref 50: Missing work parameter
Oppose I don't know how the two editors above have voted Support when the references are such a mess and there are still mistakes in the lead despite four editor's being involved thus far. — Calvin999 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for looking through the article in such depth, have now addressed all of your concerns, thanks again for the in-depth analysis! Azealia911 talk 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
As per Azaealia911's message on my talk page, all of my concerns have been addressed (I just made some additional fixes to some refs as well), so I now Support. — Calvin999 20:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again, too many quick supports...
- Please fix all the WP:DASH violations per the MOS, mostly in the reference titles which seem to use spaced hyphens rather than spaced en-dashes mostly.
- Done: Corrected, think I got 'em all.
- Infobox has 1 EP while lead and main article show 2.
- Done: Corrected.
- Are you claiming a single source that says "only someone who gives at least several fucks could offer up something this personal, this diverse in its influences, and this polished" means that an EP is "critically acclaimed"?
- Done: Sourced.
- Image caption is an incomplete sentence so it needs no full stop.
- Done: Corrected.
- "Haze released... Haze released..." repetitive and dull prose.
- Done: Cut down use of the word "release" from 11 times in lead to 5.
- "release it sometime in early 2014.[4] Due to the leak, the label rush-released the album, and it was officially released" count the "release"s, again dull and repetitive prose.
- Done: Same as above.
- "sold as little as 850 copies" as few as...
- Done: Corrected.
- "Although Dirty Gold received generally positive reviews from critics" where is this referenced?
- Done: Sourced.
- "which is set to be released in 2015." well we're half way through 2015, when is this going to happen?
- No idea, I'm not affiliated with Angel Haze's music team, simply a fan. But as you pointed out, we still have six months left of this year in which the project may be released, and as we know, albums can be released with no prior announcement, even from the biggest artists. The article cited stating the projects are due for a 2015 release are them most up-to-date I can find, and as long as we're in 2015, I see nothing wrong with the wording.
- "were released from Haze's upcoming projects, both released" released released.... zzz.
- Done: Fixed.
- Please include the country of release for each of the specific release dates.
- Done: Done.
That's it for a quick run through. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected all errors pointed out. Azealia911 talk 21:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
|
Needs brushing up.....
- "The discography of American rapper and singer Angel Haze consists of" is overly wordy; just keep it simple and use "American rapper Angel Haze has released"
- Done: Changed.
- Critical reception for releases belong in their own articles, not here
- Done: Removed.
- Done: Removed from refs in question.
- Josepvinaixa.com (aka "Ultimate Music") and "Gigwise" aren't really good sources to use
- Done: Changed.
- "Digital Spy" shouldn't be italicized
- Done: Changed.
- "NOISEY" should read Vice
- Done: Changed.
- "Rate Your Music" is unreliable per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
- Previous sources were officially verified social networks of Haze to indicate release date. Another editor thought these to be unreliable. However, RYM is the only other source I seem to be able to find, what do you suggest doing? The mixtapes exist as proved by the social network posts, but seem to be unusable on here, which leaves me pretty stuck.
- Done: I've just gone and removed the two tapes in question. They seem incredibly lowkey and I can't actually find a place to download them, let alone reliable sources to back them up.
- Done: Changed.
- Are "DatPiff" or "The Line of Best Fit" reliable?
- The Datpiff link was uploaded by a user named IAmMixtapes, who's uploaded various other official mixtapes, including those of Birdman 1, Pusha T 2, and Jae Millz 3. Same with the other datpiff reference, with the tape in question being uploaded by Flybeats09, who's uploaded official tapes by Young Jeezy 1 and Jim Jones 2. I also don't see any issue with the line of best fit.
Not exactly FL material at the moment. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SNUGGUMS sorry it took me so long to address your comments, changed the majority to your suggestions, will work on the others shortly. Azealia911 talk 12:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking better, but is "BeatCog" reliable? I'm not very familiar with it. Additionally, Official Charts Company shouldn't be in italics. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SNUGGUMS, Nothing instantly brings up a red flag to me, and nothing at the WP:RSN after a search. They seem to report on minor artists. The article simply relays information, and includes a tweet confirming the title from Haze's twitter. Changed OFC. Azealia911 talk 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from FrB.TG
- Add the full form EP on its first usage, with EP in parenthesis.
- ? Previous user Chasewc91 thought otherwise in his comments.
- I'm asking it to use it as extended play only on its first instance 'cause I am not sure if all know what does that stand for.
- "Due to the leak, the label rush-released" - pathetic. Surely it can tweaked (especially that "rush-released" thing) for a better flow.
- Done: I'd appreciate it if you didn't point blank call my work pathetic though.
- If you submit a list, you'll face criticism. Even the FLC itself means "constructive criticism" from reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling my work "pathetic" isn't constructive. Try not to confuse constructive critisism with simply being rude. Azealia911 talk 17:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my God! I wasn't being rude. What I was trying to say is that I didn't like that sentence (not you), that's all. I haven't reviewed the list just to put someone down or in your words being "rude". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The last sentence in the lede is a bit confusing. I don't know if "CANDLXS" and "GXMES" are the names of the Haze's "upcoming projects" or the two "promotional singles".
- Done: Tweaked.
- No sales amount for the studio album?
- No further info other than the poor first week sales, I could input that if you're ok with it reading "US: 856", but upon reading that myself I'd be convinced it was vandalism.
Would appreciate it, if you look at my nomination. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm watching this page. I'll revisit later and will express my opinion once I am satisfied with the list. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 12:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FLC now has 5 supports and only 1 oppose (of which all comments have been addressed, and user has said they will re-asses if they have the chance. I'm assuming they're too busy to do so.) Last comments were made near-two weeks ago, can this just be closed already? Azealia911 talk 19:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - feedback as follows:
- None of the tables have any headings.
- Done: As far as I know, they're not required, they're pretty self explanatory headings, added anyway.
- Some of the headings are nonsensical such as "List of non-single charting songs, with selected details and chart positions" - if it's a non-single how did it chart?
- Songs don't have to be singles to chart. I do see on your user page that you've worked well on discographies of artists who primarily released music in the 20th century. Modern day Billboard charting can be achieved via high levels of streams on spotify or independent downloads of a song from an album, without it being a single. An example being the song "Feeling Myself". It wasn't released as a single from it's parent album, but charted on multiple charts, considerably well actually, from streams/downloads.
- Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart.
- ? Bit confused by what you mean, can you give an example of a chart header in the page you think needs changing, and what you'd change it to?
- In accordance with the style guide for discographies - Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. For example the wikitable for Singles as a lead artist, whereby UK charts should be separated into two columns under a single heading of UK. In the other wikitables such as promotional singles the heading of the chart should be US, with US be wiki-linked to the appropriate chart. In saying that is the US Pop Digital chart the same thing as the Mainstream Top 40? (it doesn't appear that they are). In fact all the chart links need to be double-checked to ensure they link to the right charts.
- I'm still lost, especially the comment about the lead single section. Don't suppose I could request you whip something up in my empty sandbox could you?
- I'd suggest you check the Discography style guide, which clearly outlines how chart tables should be formatted. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt Ok, I now understand what you mean, but have to disagree, with you and maybe even the MOS. I note that the examples from on the MOS' page all link the the primary chart, which isn't the case in the article. Under both US headers in the examples, it links to the Billboard 200, the main albums chart for the US. Whereas on Haze's page, the US Heat title links to the Top Heatseekers chart, a kind of pre-school equivalent of the Billboard 200 if you like to use an analogy. As for the singles chart, wouldn't having three US headers all linking to different charts be incredibly confusing? US is generally just linked to the Billboard Hot 100. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Other charting songs table should be amalgamated into the table for singles as featured artist
- ? The song wasn't a single though...
- If the song was never released as a single then how did it chart at #32 on the US Dance Digital Chart?
- Same answer as above question relating to table headers.
- The statement "Haze revealed that they were working on a sophomore album, titled The Flowers Are Blooming Now, which is set to be released in 2015." has no reference citation.
- Done: Sourced
- Isn't the publisher actually Vice Media and the author is Isabelle Hellyer
- Done: Changed.
- Was The Winter of Wet Years released on February 23, 2015 - as some sources state.
- Done: No, included note.
- The term "never surfaced" needs to be replaced with something that isn't so colloquial.
- Done: changed.
- Is the title In the Winter of Wet Years or The Winter of Wet Years
- Done: In the Winter of Wet Years, spotted mistake.
- Ref 12 is identical to Ref 30 & 31.
- Done: Ref named.
- Need to replace "was officially serviced" with a more appropriate term.
- Done: replaced.
- The lead is still relatively 'light-weight'. At my count it is still under 1,500 characters - which as pointed out by Cowlibob wouldn't qualify for a DYK.
- It's like 50 characters under. I don't know, maybe I could apply some minor puffery but I don't see it as a huge barricade.
- The lead section, particularly for a 'Featured List', should summarize its content, provide any necessary background information, give encyclopedic context, link to other relevant articles, and make direct statements about the criteria by which the list was selected. For a start you should be looking about including information on sales and charting. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead is now 1997 characters at my count. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain whether this article is really notable. At this stage Angel Haze has only released one album and two EPs, of which the only mainstream chart success has been a peak of #196 on the UK Charts. I'm think that the application might be a bit premature at this stage. Dan arndt (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never seen a guideline that states articles may only become featured articles once the subject has tonnes and tonnes of successful content to write about. The article has near-50 references, includes all the standard discography sections, and is well written. Azealia911 talk 14:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing the point, I am simply questioning whether the article should exist as a stand-alone list given the limited number of official releases by Angel Haze. The more I look at it the more I think that the article could be incorporated into the main article on Angel Haze. Dan arndt (talk) 01:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess all's I can do is disagree, as an earlier editor pointed out, the main article its self has less bulk than this article, which can be used to argue either side. If you'd like, I could also bulk up the main article, as it's particularly outdated in content, but I rarely edit it. But I would still say that this article has more than enough to warrant a SAL. Azealia911 talk 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to comment on this. I count over 30 entries in this discography (including all sections). That looks to be enough to meet criterion 3b. Of course, it would be nice to have the main article be a bit meatier. It would make the disparity in article class much less troublesome. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, thanks for your input, I'll get to work on it in a bit. Would the article have to be bulked up in order for this to be promoted? Just wondering how urgent it is to attend to as I'm quite busy with work at the moment. Azealia911 talk 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not, it wouldn't be requirement. FL status does not depend on the quality of related articles. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco 1492 Oh ok then, in that case, I'll wait until this closes to start working on their bio article. As it currently stands, all comments have been addressed (apart from one comment from Dan arndt which I'm still not fully sure I grasp what they're requesting) and the other opposing user has been requested to reconsider their place on the lists status, and has stated they will if they have time. Other than that, nomination has five supporters and two users who are yet to indicate a !vote. Azealia911 talk 17:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan arndt thanks for your comments. Azealia911 talk 07:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate note: A discography list for an artist with only one actual album makes me give it a funny look, but the singles give it enough content to not be a content fork, so I'm in agreement with Chris. That said, you still have an oppose from The Rambling Man - can you ask him one last time to at least strike his oppose, even if he doesn't want to give a full review? I'd call the issue done after that. Also, just for your edification: vote counting is pointless- there's another nomination at FLC right now that I'm not going to promote until some discussion finishes that has 6 supports and one oppose. That's not "6 minus 1 equals 5", that's "consensus not reached". Similarly, if a nomination came up here and got 3 real supports in it's first day, I'd still leave it up for the full 10 days just to make sure it got enough attention paid to it. And I'd read it over myself. The little vote counting "participation guide" box you put on the nomination is pointless (and a little annoying), because the director and delegates actually evaluate the discussion before promoting, not just count the "!"votes. --PresN 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the participation guide, if anything it's more for me to see if I have comments to address left. I've asked The Rembling Man again to review his position on the page. Thanks for your comment Azealia911 talk 06:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco 1492 The Rambling Man's been editing since you and I requested his input, I don't think we'll get a response. Azealia911 talk 22:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco 1492, PresN Soo...what happens now? The Rambling Man has now struck his oppose. Azealia911 talk 11:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the oppose struck, I'm going to close this as passed. --PresN 20:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much for passing my first piece of featured content!
Azealia911 talk 20:10, 17 July 2015 (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 PresN 16:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC) [19].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Prashant 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2012 Indian romantic comedy-drama film Barfi!. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 14:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
I'm a non-native English speaker. Hence, i request the nominator to keep the fact in mind that these aren't the only possible issues and a better editor may also contradict my views. To the best of my knowledge, i could spot these issues. Please rectify them, or give a reasonable explanation here.
- The film stars Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra, and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles, with Saurabh Shukla, Ashish Vidyarthi, and Roopa Ganguly in supporting roles — The film features Ranbir Kapoor, Priyanka Chopra and Ileana D'Cruz in the lead roles, with Saurabh Shukla, Ashish Vidyarthi and Roopa Ganguly playing supporting roles.
- Did Basu "co-wrote" the film's script with his wife Tani?
- Any film's narrative in general either tells or narrates the lives of the protagonists. Barfi in particular. Give it a thought!
- Is Barfi the only India's official entry for the Best Foreign Language Film at the 85th Academy Awards? I mean, was there any other one too?
- What does mostly from recognition of the film itself mean? Can you please explain?
- Barfi! received nine nominations, and swept eight awards — more formal usage of terms is encouraged.
- Note c and d require references.
- Is reference number five reliable?
- Make sure that all the links in the reference are not dead.
Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Well, every year there is only one official selection for the Oscars. The reference number five is very much reliable and thanks for your comments.—Prashant 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Pavanjandhyala. What makes Business of Cinema a "very much reliable" source? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We have been using this in almost every FAs.—Prashant 16:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Namely? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FrB.TG: and @Pavanjandhyala:: Shah Rukh Khan (Reference number 133), List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra (Reference number 64), and many more. Do I need to prove more?—Prashant 14:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Prashant!, FL exemplifies one of the best works on Wikipedia and that's why we ask you to prove its reliability. Well, reference number 6 and 28 are dead. What about them? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked and found that reference number 28 is working properly. And, fixed the reference number 6.—Prashant 12:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This tells a different story however! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was reference number 29. Fixed it.—Prashant 12:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are four green links there. Turn them white by archieving them, just like reference number 6. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all the references.—Prashant 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To the best of my knowledge, i find this list eligible for a Support now as FrB.TG is looking after the prose, where i am weak being a non-native English speaker. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from FrankBoy (FrB.TG) |
- In the first line, pipe Indian to Cinema of India.
- WP:ALT text needed for the image.
- "received several awards and nominations for their performance" => "for their performances"
- "written-directed by Anurag Basu" => "written and directed by Anurag Basu".
- "Pritam composed the musical" => "Pritam composed the music".
- Convert crore to million/billion per MOS:COMMONALITY.
- "and won seven awards, including the Best FilmBest Film"?
- Not sure of the credibility of The Times of India Film Awards as it is just basically an internet poll. Even if it is notable enough, it does not need to be included in the lead.
- The same for ETC Bollywood Business Awards.
- You need not link the categories of the BIG Star Entertainment Awards as they are redirected to the parent article.
- Under the award column it's 58th Filmfare Awards while others are simply the awards (excluding their ceremonies). Be consistent.
- The same for Zee Cine Awards 2013.
- Why isn't Debajit Changmai sorted by his/her last name?
- Ref. 6 is dead.
- CNN-IBN needs to be linked on its first instance.
- In ref. 10 and 11, link Apsara Awards to Star Guild Awards. It's not known as simply "Apsara Awards".
- Pipe Indiatimes to Times Internet, and it does not need to be in italics. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. TOI Awards, actually are not polls but awards. If you can see even Screen Awards decides Popular categories by voting. And, ETC Bollywood Awards are presented by the ETC Network for the business of the films.—Prashant 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- TOI Awards are non-notable awards from a notable parent company. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't start a new controversy for awards. The awards which were considered non-notable were already removed after a discussion. So, please. —Prashant 15:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to comment on it anymore as the editor does not want a "new controversy for awards". -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 16:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the Apsara categories are redirected link.
- "Set between 1972-2012" => "Set between 1972 and 2012".
- "grossing ₹1.75 billion (US$28 million) at the box office.|" - What is | for?
- The first and second sentence of the second paragraph can be merged with the omission of "was a major commercial success" as it's not necessary here.
- How many awards (total) has the film won?
- "received 23 nominations at the 19th Screen Awards, winning nine, including" - nine what? You mean "awards"?
- "At the 14th IIFA Awards, it won 14, out of 21 nominations" - ditto.
- There is no source for the main categories of IIFA.
- Ref 19. only confirms the win of Chopra, and not Basu.
- Ref 21. is not needed as the film has won no awards at the Mirchi Music Awards ceremony.
- Ref 25. does not even relate this page. Why is that here?
- None of the ref confirms that the film won Best Cinematography at the Screen Awards.
- Winners of Zee Cine seem to be verified by refs but not all i.e. Best Production Design. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks!—Prashant 16:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that all are done? -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure all of the actors are "looking towards the camera"?
- None of the IIFA source says that Saurabh Shukla was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor award.
- In the Mirchi Music Awards' Results there is an endnote, actually there is no endnote, but just "[IV]" - what does that mean?
- Now that you've added the total wins (and also nominations), a tally must be added to represent the number of nominations and awards that the film received. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Except for the ALT as all three of them are looking in three different directions. Can you suggest something for it?—Prashant 08:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You do not need to particularly describe their eyes' directions. Something like "A photograph of three people at an event for the film Barfi!". The film has not won 70 awards. As per my counting, it is 68. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sorry for the counting mistake. Thanks! for your detailed review. I appreciate it.—Prashant 10:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The first and second sentence of the second paragraph can be merged with the omission of "was a major commercial success" as it's not necessary here. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 18:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the film was a major commercial success. It was the first time that a film like this collected more than hundred crore. So its fine. And, you want that I make another sentence saying the film was released on this date?—Prashant 05:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI I asked you to "merge" (combine) those two sentences if you remove that success thing. I didn't ask you to "make" another sentence or such. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, that can stay. See Kaminey fl. I mean this not an issue, but a choice.—Prashant 11:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't asked you to remove that. Given the above explanation ("collected more than..."), I think it can stay. Anyways I may post some more comments (if any). -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 13:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- A Support from me for putting up with all my crap. Cheers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 14:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash
I support this FLC as I find no obvious improvement needed in prose.However, the links may be archived to prevent link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
Support — Looks pretty comprehensive. Nice work on this, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
- Well done, Prashant, I'm happy to support following the improvements made based on others' input. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- What's that?—Prashant 05:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prashant!: Do it this way. OR if you're asking the purpose behind that, you've got to read the template. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 22:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the template per user's request. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mirchi Music Awards Hindi 2012 nominations" appears as a dead link for me
- It is very much working.—Prashant 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Basu co-wrote the film ... Pritam composed the music ... Barfi! was edited by Akiv Ali dull prose
- Pritam composed the music Pritam redirects to Pritam Chakraborty; can you use his proper name?
- The film was a major commercial success ... The film was selected ... The film has received repetitive prose
- At the 58th Filmfare Awards, Barfi! received most nominations with 13 of what?
- At the 58th Filmfare Awards, Barfi! received most nominations with 13 needs a "the" before "13"
- Is there a date for the "Okinawa International Movie Festival"?
- YouTube channel in reference 9 isn't verified; please remove the reference per WP:COPYLINK. Seattle (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Also, That is the official Youtube Channel of the Star Guild Awards.—Prashant 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not verified; how do you know it's not a massive copyright violation? The prose also reads stiltedly; do you think you could combine a few sentences? Seattle (talk) 06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced that source with another one. Do you have any suggestion about which sentence to merge?—Prashant 11:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The structure reads much better than it did– the only thing I would change would be Barfi! has received various awards and nominations in categories, with praise for its direction, the cast's performance, cinematography, screenplay, musical score, costume and production design. The film has won 68 awards. → Barfi! has received various awards and nominations in categories, with praise for its direction, the cast's performance, cinematography, screenplay, musical score, costume and production design; in total, the film has won 68 awards. Seattle (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for your inputs.—Prashant 04:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Oppose – I see a problem with the tone of the article. I know this is an accolades list, but you can still try to make it neutral. Though the film was a critical success during release, it received sharp criticism when it failed to get a nomination at the Academy Awards. Given that you've included stuff about the same, I think the reasons could well be added. —Vensatry (ping) 21:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Vensatry for the oppose. But, please try to tell me an exact reason because this is an accolades list and not the article. I think that is for the article. So, you think I should remove the official entry thing from the list?—Prashant 15:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my reason was quite "exact". "because this is an accolades list and not the article. I think that is for the article" – You mean to say lists can bypass WP:NPOV. I suggest you please reread the criteria before arriving at a conclusion like this. —Vensatry (ping) 08:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I feel every film from India is criticised for not getting nominated for the Oscars! And, I havent seen a single accolades page talking bout their criticisms. Do they? I have followed a pattern similar to lists and not articles.—Prashant 08:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about other lists, neutrality is a prime requirement for all articles. As for the Oscars, yes I do agree most of the films receive criticism, but in the case of Barfi, the criticism was very sharp right after it was submitted to the Academy. I see no point in mentioning that in the lede since that can neither be considered an award nor a nomination. But then, if you wish to retain it, the criticism too can be added to maintain WP:NPOV. —Vensatry (ping) 19:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
- Per WP:ALT, alt text should identify the names of people in these types of lists. Their appearance or posture doesn't really matter.
- "It was co-written by Basu with his wife Tani," - The source doesn't mention anything about his wife and from our article's infobox I see that she is credited (jointly) only with the film's story. However, I don't see that claim made anywhere else in the article (in words).
- "Pritam Chakraborty composed the film's musical and background score while Akiv Ali edited Barfi!, with the cinematography provided by Ravi Varman" - It's better to move the name of the film (Barfi!) to the beginning of the sentence because it gives the reader an impression that we are talking about two different films.
- "in total, the film has won 68 awards." - Needs "as of ..."
- Since you are sure that the film has won 36 awards, why don't you include a table in the infobox mentioning the total number of wins and nominations? Many of the existing FLs seem to follow that pattern.
- Its not a must in all the lists and all Indian films list follows the same pattern.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Critics' Choice awards have nominees?
- The nominees/recipients of Best Film awards are the producers themselves. You seem to have included the name of the film in the table which is technically incorrect.
- Same as above explanation.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As Cowlibob says, the Times of India Film Awards are not notable. They are just internet polls.
- It like you haven't seen the rest winners, which includes Jury Awards. It follows the pattern of all Indian awards like Filmfare, IIFA, Zee Cine and the rest. Popular awards are decided by votes and rest by Jury.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "including the Best Film and Best Director" is repeated three times in the last three sentences.
—Vensatry (ping) 15:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the rest.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support excellent piece of work. nicely written neutral point work. Daan0001 (talk) 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your exhaustive review. Care to explain how well the article appeals neutral to you? —Vensatry (ping) 08:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean it sarcastically. Because I think Daan0001 always supports Prashant, regardless of the situation. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha, that clearly shows how good he is as a reviewer! —Vensatry (ping) 11:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments wow, so many supports!
- Well, another nomination of mine also got many supports. Hehe.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "features" vs "incorporated" - pick a tense and stick with it.
- No need to overlink rupee.
- Second paragraph reads really clunkily, like a series of almost unrelated factoids.
- "nominations in categories" is "in categories" really necessary?
- 13 ... seven, etc... - see MOS:NUM.
- Well, someone had told me that I should use numbers after 9. —Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NUMNOTES —Vensatry (ping) 06:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.—Prashant 10:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If ETC Bollywood Business Awards are notable, why isn't there an article? At least it should be red-linked.
- Yes, these awards are notable, linked one of them to its existing article, created another and red-linked the last one.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same comment applies to the Lion Gold Awards and the South African Indian Film and Television Awards.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.—Prashant 11:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggested rephrase "The screenplay which incorporates a nonlinear narrative was co-written by Basu with his wife Tani." Also Tani Basu contributing to the screenplay is not mentioned in the source.
- For critical acclaim you can replace the Business of Cinema with one from NDTV [[20]]. Just because it has been used a few times in featured content which often have 100s of references doesn't mean it's reliable, if it was used extensively to verify key information then there could be something to talk about, in any case refs should be able to stand on their own.
- What makes South African Indian Television and Film Awards notable for inclusion here when it doesn't have an article of its own?
- Times of India Awards also doesn't have its own page, I'm just redirected to the Times of India page. The awards themselves are determined by an internet poll which we had consensus to exclude. I see another user mentioned this above but the nominator just told him to stop discussing it without a valid rationale which is completely inappropriate behaviour. Nominators should show respect for the reviewers and not dismiss their comments as "Please don't start a new controversy for awards."
- As table is sortable wikilink every entry wherever possible. Check the table for this, and also if we have articles for any of the currently unlinked nominees.
Cowlibob (talk) 10:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. And, for the TOI awards, they are decided by voting (Popular awards) much like Zee Cine, IIFA and Filmfare. But, there are also Jury awards which is decided by the Jury. As for its page on wikipedia, anyone can create it, when one have time.—Prashant 05:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tani Basu is not mentioned in the source that you've sourced, please add a source that she co-wrote it or that's unsourced.
- I'm not suggesting that just because there's no article for South African Awards means not to include it. Do the awards ceremony get substantive coverage from secondary source (not simply a listing of who won the award) per WP:GNG so that they can be redlinked per WP:REDLINK?
- In regards to the TOI awards, they are internet polls which are different from ones you've described. Internet polls such as this have ben suggested to be excluded by three reviewers at this FLC as well as this RFC Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Bollywood_Hungama_Surfers.27_Choice_Awards.
- Cowlibob (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, South African....Awards received a substantial media coverage and so does TOI Awards. Toi is not an internet poll like Bollywood Hungama surfers Choice. TOI organised a function in Toronto, funded by Canadian government. It also had a jury unlike Polls.—Prashant 04:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Atleast fix the unsourced info of Tani Basu contributing to the screenplay. Cowlibob (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I had provided a source (Apsara Awards nominations list) as she received nominations (and won at other ceremonies) for both story and screenplay. I hope it's clear now.—Prashant 18:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding source. We can just sort this dispute by asking a delegate for their input.Cowlibob (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492 and PresN: We're at an impasse here. There is disagreement on whether to include awards/nominations derived from an internet poll. The Times of India Film Awards which started in 2013 have split awards with some jury led and others in the popular category voted on via an internet poll, both were presented at a ceremony. There is consensus not to include awards/nominations derived from internet polls which I showed above however the nominator does not want to remove them as similar "popular" awards exist for others which are included in lists but are determined by telephone voting, online, and variety of other methods to get the result. I don't mind being wrong as long as we have a result either way. Cowlibob (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not commenting as a delegate here, but the rule of thumb is that we only include awards etc which are notable enough to have their own articles. This doesn't and personally I'd take it out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- TOI is not a poll. Infact it had substantial media coverage, given by Times of India and is similar to Filmfare, Zee Cine and IIFA. If that is the case we will have to remove Screen Award for Best Actor and Actress Popular from wikiledia because they are 100% decided by polls. That's not all we have to remove all bollywood awards then. Only NFA will be here. Plus, Teen Choice Awards and other American awards are also polls but, I dobt see much problem there why?—Prashant 14:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I second SchroCat's opinion. Vensatry and I also objected this; however, I dismissed the issue thinking that it might be notable. Now that there is consensus not to include this, it should be removed for at least if you want to see it as a featured list. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate note: This list is currently at 6 supports; that said, at least 3 of them appear to have been given after only a cursory review at best, given that there are substantive comments after them. That'd be fine(ish), but Vensatry has an oppose that seems to have been largely ignored- I haven't looked into the tone of the list yet, but I'd like to see either you two come to an agreement or an impasse, not just ignoring the issue, before I'd be willing to look past an oppose to promote. I don't know enough about Indian film awards to say whether the TOI awards are notable/popular enough to overcome the half-online poll nature of them- but given that the idea of only jurying half of the categories but treating the polled ones the same instead of having a "reader's choice" category or something is frankly bizarre, I'd likely say that award should be dropped from the list. I'm not swayed by the argument that it had "substantial media coverage"- from the newspaper that awards it. Does anyone else pay a lot of attention to it besides the TOI? Really, what I'd like to see here to feel comfortable promoting is some actual persuasive arguments as to why you disagree with the other editors/reviewers and why you are correct, not just the equivalent of "no" and some handwaving about having to delete swathes of articles based on the consensus that the TOI award should not be in featured accolades lists. --PresN 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Vensatry has striked his oppose. FYI, TOI Awards ceremony was reported by other publications too.—Prashant 19:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing as Promoted. --PresN 16:15, 14 July 2015 (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 PresN 14:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC) [30].[reply]
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dorothy L. Sayers was an absolutely fascinating woman. She had a brain the size of a planet and a sense of humour and zest for life that was admired by all who knew her. In 1923 she introduced the character Lord Peter Wimsey, the archetype for the British gentleman detective. She then went on to write theological essays and plays, as well as literary criticism of Dante; she also translated Dante's Divine Comedy, and works from medieval French. This is a new page with some basic info removed from the main Sayers page and worked into a fuller, more complete list, now fully supported by reliable sources. – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Seattle
- Dorothy Leigh Sayers (usually stylised as Dorothy L. Sayers; 1893–1957) was an English crime writer, poet, playwright, essayist, translator and Christian humanist; She was also a student of classical and modern languages. can you just move "and student of classical and modern languages" to the end of "Christian humanist", and cut the "and" after "translator", for flow?
- Let me mull on this one a little. The initial list is her public output and profession; the second list is lesser known and more a hobby or way of life. It would also make for an unweildy list to open. I'll ponder further on this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Hi, Seattle, I've mulled over this and I think, for the reasons I've given above, that I will leave it as it stands for the moment. It's still very early days for the FLC, so should others object or comment, then I will certainly try to re-work the sentence. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
*Sayers was educated at home, and then at the University of Oxford, which was unusual for a woman at the time, as they were not admitted as full members of the university until 1920 can you rework this? This reminds me of a comma splice
- I've split the sentence to alleviate. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- a murder mystery novel featuring the fictional Lord Peter Wimsey no need to link Wimsey here; linked above
- Towards the end of the 1930s, and without explanation, do you have a reference for "without explanation"? This seems abrupt; can you form a note that explains why some biographers state she shifted to religious writings?
- It's supported by the Benstock citation, but I could have put any of the sources in there as they all say the sme thing. Sayers gave no explanation for the change, and the biographers all guess at possible reasons, but none with any great conviction. It's just one of life's little mysteries, really. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the four Pietra canzoni Can you link "Pietra" or "canzoni" somewhere?
- Name in article stylized as "Dorothy L. Sayers" but in infobox as "Dorothy L Sayers"
- A slip of my English pen, as we don't use full stops after letters really, but the American-based MoS bides us to drop them in regardless... Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I count 11 plays, but infobox only lists 10; why isn't "The Silent Passenger" italicized?
- "Scripts" section in infobox doesn't link anywhere
- When I sort ascending for the "Title" column in the "Letters" section, The Letters of Dorothy L. Sayers: 1951–1957, In the Midst of Life sorts before the 1937 and 1944 letters. Seattle (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks indeed for your thoughts. I'll mull over the first one to see if there is a different way of doing this without leaving one long list. I need to try and find suitable links for "Pietra" and "canzoni" too, which I'll hunt round for, as nothing obvious springs to mind. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've linked canzoni to canzone - Italian for song. Pietra is Italian for stone and doesn't link anywhere, so I've translated the two in the table, although not in the lead (I'm not sure it's needed there as "Pietra" acts as a title and conzoni is linked, but I could be persuaded if you think it's the best course). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – with a few minor comments:
- Lead
- As you may imagine, I don't much care for the false title in "which feature English aristocrat and amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey", but to each his own.
- "over stressed" – one word, not even hyphenated, in the OED.
- Tables
- Not sure I see the advantage of sorting on the publisher's location.
- They sort on the publishers name only, not the locations. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not on the only table I tried, viz the Poems one, nor, now I inquire further, in the Translation table. (I don't at all think it important, you understand, but I speak sooth.) Tim riley talk 18:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Later: You don't give the publishers' locations in the Non fiction table. Perhaps you might do so, for consistency. Tim riley talk 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right, Pike, I was waiting for someone to spot that. Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Novels
- Is it worth mentioning in the notes column that Unnatural Death and The Five Red Herrings were published in the US with different titles, namely The Dawson Pedigree and Suspicious Characters?
- Non fiction
- Should the definite article be added to the first column of Greatest Drama Ever Staged?
- Yes, my error when trying to sort the formatting for the sort. - SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Happy to support this excellent piece of work for FL. Tim riley talk 08:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Tim, for your thoughts and comments - all much appreciated. While I have your attention, could I draw your eyes to Seattle's comment above re the opening line. Do you have a view either way? Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were to roll all the various occupations into the one list it would go on a bit. Perfectly acceptable, but it's easier on the reader's eye if you break it up, I think. The semicolon is an excellent choice - linking the lot. A full stop would be a bit emphatic. On the whole, I think I'd leave the sentence as drawn. Tim riley talk 12:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Doc Blofeld
In the external box is "By List of works by" intentional?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope! A slip from the splitting off of this info. Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks in very good shape and seems to meet FL criteria. I suppose aesthetically I'd rather see each note column with some info and a source rather than empty ones among the others but it's probably redundant to do so in many cases and no point in adding stuff for the sake of it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- "She is perhaps best known" not sure. Is this your own opinion?
- Would prefer to see all upright images the same size.
- Why is the location of the publisher put first and then not sorted against? I thought you would put the location in parentheses after the name of the publisher?
- [4][10][11][9], [4][11][9] etc refs in numerical order preferably.
- Some of the notes have inline references, some don't, for those that don't, are the notes adequately referenced elsewhere?
- Yes. All the information in all the tables is supported by the initial sources shown at the head of the Title column. There are a couple of entries (just the Detective Club books, I think), where the details were sourced from elsewhere). - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer the infobox to be in the same order as the sections in the article, not that it's a big deal but it seems like common sense.
- I'd like that too, but it's a pre-set order in the IB; for the body of tables, I've gone for chronological throughout, as with other similar lists - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Was The Silent Passenger never performed? It has a blank "location of first performance".
- It was a film script, rather than a play. I've added "See note", as I have done with the radio plays, to make it a little more clear - and re-named the section and table. - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I can't fault it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Many thanks The Rambling Man, all done, I hope satisfactorily. Please let me know if I've missed any of the bits, or added confusions somewhere with the edits! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (sorry it took so long to remember to return!) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Great news – many thanks RM, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT
|
Comments from FrB.TG
- WP:ALT needed for the three images.
- Not actually needed, but it is good practice. Now added. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Though one is not banned from writing US, I think "United States" is better.
- US is fine, especially in a Notes section. - SchroCat (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Looks solid. One thing though:
- "During the Second World War these plays, and other works like The Wimsey Papers (1939–40) and Begin Here: A War-Time Essay (1940), Sayers "offered her countrymen a stirring argument for fighting", according to her biographer, Catherine Kenney." -- the conjunction confuses the continuation from the leading line somewhat and doesn't really flow. For example you say "During the Second World War these plays...Sayers "offered her countrymen a stirring argument for fighting", according to her biographer, Catherine Kenney."
Nothing else to report; an excellent list. CassiantoTalk 08:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Cass, a "through" missing from the sentence, which should now make sense. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as promoted. --PresN 14:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
— Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
