Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lighthouses in Connecticut/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

List of lighthouses in Connecticut

edit
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 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC) diff.[reply]

List of lighthouses in Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of extant light houses in Connecticut and contains fully sourced details for each lighthouse. Each entry is given an image and a link to the article with accurate geographical coordinates. This is my first Featured List nomination. Also note that this work was done in 2013 and is not subject to Wikicup rating. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Favre1fan93

Prose:

Great.

Lead:

Should not start out with "This is a list of". Choose something more engaging, as a reader will most likely already know it is a list, based on the page. End of paragraph 1 information has no source. Same with the end of paragraph 2.

Comprehensiveness:

It seems fully comprehensive of the specified content.

Structure:

Very easy to navigate.

Style:

Not sure what all the super scripts after reference 5 represent. I cannot open reference 11, and reference 20 does not give me the article it intends. All the notes you used do not have sources. All references can possibly use "filling out" with some more information, and the page needs date formatting per WP:MOSNUM.
A) Visuals are fine.
B) Images are fine.
    • The number represents the page the information can be found on. Reference 11 opens fine for me. Looking into Ref 20. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability:

Article is stable - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I'll get right on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead is well written, easy to read, but seems just a little bit short.
  • Images should have WP:ALT text.
  • Does the coordinate and status columns need to be sortable?
  • You may want to put an en-dash in the empty deactivated cells.
  • Destroyed table (one item) doesn't need to be sortable.
  • Several references missing retrieved date.
  • Dates that are present should be in a single format.
  • Comments from the first review are still outstanding.-Godot13 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments resolved, now I Support.--Godot13 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Agree with comments, above, by Godot13. Also, would be helpful for the reader if there were in-line-citations after the factual info presented in the Notes section, after each one of those individual entries. After that's addressed, I'd be happy to reconsider support. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the updates and sorry for the delays, I've been completely overwhelmed with work for a number of weeks now and I've been scrambling to fix up other much demanded things I owed other editors as well. Thanks for the clear information on what is needed Godot13! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisGualtieri: Pinging nominator to remind them that they have outstanding comments in this review. The page nominated has also been dormant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Currently addressing issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I cited the alternative names, but removed one because of lack of prominence or a proper reference to the alternative name. I also had to add a template for notes to allow a reference within the note reference - something which was prohibited by the format before. I did some touching up on the lead and it looks better now. Is this good to go? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes 1 and 6 can be consolidated to one, as they state the same thing. The "skeleton tower" info is not sourced in the lead or the table. References still need expansion to the best of the info available, and date formatting per WP:MOSNUM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out how to combine the two notes into a single one, could you please assist? I've added the access dates and made all the dates compliant. I added Anderson to the author list from his website and unified all the publisher fields to LighthouseFriends.com as well. I replaced the last reference with the United States Coast Guard source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note issue fixed... is it good? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment: If this does not get any more reviews in the next couple of days, I will have to archive it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note: This list has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_lighthouses_in_Connecticut/archive1&oldid=601925374"