- 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 Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My current open nomination has four supports and no open complaints, so I'm nominating the fifth list in the series for featured status. All comments to be expediently addressed. Many thanks for your interest. — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- "(plaque thereon pictured)" seems a little archaic (I think I mentioned this before?), just "plaque pictured" is fine.
- Whiz Kids is a little confusing to the non-expert. Sure, it's linked, but this suddenly comes out of the blue...
- 16 batters - are batters everyone but pitchers? Pitchers don't bat? I'm not an expert so I'm not sure how to identify the 16 batters you noted in the lead.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That plaque thing is something I'm gonna have to remember to fix; it's the same throughout the whole series. Done now. I'm not sure how you want me to clarify Whiz Kids other than the link; more prose would give more context (and lengthen this lead), but I don't know how "in-place" it would be. As to the batters: it's kind of a semantic thing. Technically, yes, pitchers do bat (in the National League, which this is), but they really aren't categorized by their batting stats (except in exceptional circumstances), so yes, by "batters" in this case, I do mean "non-pitchers". Originally, the plan was to be "position players", but pitcher is a position, so that's even more wrong. Look forward to your comment. — KV5 • Talk • 01:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the Whiz Kids, perhaps you could drop in something like "Nicknamed the Whiz Kids..." into the prose? Would completely clear up the issue for me. As for batters/pitchers, I'll leave that to your discretion. Sometimes I look at these lists as a complete novice (which, in this case, I virtually am) and see things as potentially confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Understandable. I did try to clarify in the lead by means of the final sentence of each list's first paragraph. I'll try to look at a possible re-word for the Whiz Kids
tonight when I get home from work now. — KV5 • Talk • 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So that should be done. — KV5 • Talk • 12:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Don't see any problems here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to return by the nominator after the merge, and spotted only one new issue: the note above the table needs to be updated by mentioning the letter F (only E is mentioned now). Other than that, the merge has been done effectively and I feel comfortable retaining my support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two tables; each has its own caption. — KV5 • Talk • 01:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
*One niggle, in the seasons column, why is Ennis's 2007 sorting between Eaton and Eyre? Courcelles 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly am not sure. I would think that, logically, "2007" would sort before "2007–". Is this not the case? — KV5 • Talk • 13:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The order ought to be, "2007; 2007-2008; 2008-2009". Instead it is sorting as "2007–2008; 2007; 2008-2009" Courcelles 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that, and I see it; I don't understand why it's doing that. Logical order would probably state that the plain 2007 would come first. Also, I don't know how to fix it. — KV5 • Talk • 22:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know; you can try ((dts)), as it's for dates.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DTS doesn't work for date ranges. I've implemented an inelegant hard-coded sort solution that should at least be a stopgap measure until I can figure out something better. — KV5 • Talk • 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Hacks are sometimes required to make sorting function, good work. Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I preferred these separate, as it allowed a more focused lede to each group, but, so be it. Courcelles 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no issues beyond what was already addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterating support after reading through post-merge article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I am going to be labelled as the CFORKing guy, but why is this list separate from the "F" one? It has only 32 entries and with the F one would barely pass 100. There are a few well beyond 150 entries so I don't think it would be too much. Splitting under 1900 players in something like 20 FLs is too much. I think the aim should be closer to 10. Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal was for lists with 10 or fewer players to be subsumed into others. 32 entries is more than enough to constitute a stand-alone list. — KV5 • Talk • 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with KV5, this passes 3b. Courcelles 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. When did 32 become too few elements to have a stand-alone list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it is too few, but that the 1.9k players are split over too many lists. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're objecting on the grounds of forking. This doesn't cover "too many lists" as far as I've ever read. Can you clarify your position with respect to WP:WIAFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with TRM. The scopes of these particular lists are very clear, and each fully meets the requirements for stand-alone lists as set out in WP:SAL. We have featured lists of all sizes, and there's no criterion in WP:FL? that states a list may only be split when it reaches a certain size. In addition, you must view the split itself as a whole. This is not the "E" sublist split from the "F" sublist; rather, it is the "E" list split from the original list, and viewed in that sense, it truly does not violate 3b, because it could not reasonably be included as part of the main article. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the following alternative scenario: if the original editor who split the main list into 10 distinct lists (instead of 20) and would have nominated the one named "E-F" I am sure nobody would have complained in that nomination about splitting E and F into separate articles because 111 is too much for a FL. FLs with more than 100 entires are passed on a regular basis these days, so I don't see how 111 would be a problem. The (original) intentn of CFORK (to my understanding) is to not split content more than it is necessary just to bump up the featured content count. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above objection; Policy clearly states that articles should be kept together. This translates into merging as many of the lists, as size and sorting permits. Precedence can be seen in the lists of gay/bi-sexual people. Sandman888 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDSPLIT is part of a guideline, not a policy, does clearly not say "articles should be kept together" but is all about ensuring articles meet notability criteria when split off, to whit: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This article clearly meets the notability criteria, so no problem. And yes, other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" is an FL criteria, which parallels the logic in avoiding small splits. The reference to wp:otherstuff is quite hollow; it is common to refer to other FL list to determine application of policy, but you already knew that. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
|
Oppose As above. This is the case where we should ignore all rules and use some common sense. Why do we have one page with 200 items and another with 15 about the same subject? Does it make sense? If you were trying to have one page per letter, then it would make some sense, but you combined some of them(and rightfully so); thus, creating a precedence that any letter can be combined with the other as long as it makes sense(i.e. remains viewable). So, my first suggestion is to combine "E" with "F", "I-J" with "K", "N-O" with "P", "Q" with "R", "T" with "U-V", and "W" with "Y-Z".Cheetah (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be tempted to suggest we IAR in the opposite direction. The list is long enough right now, adding score(s) more would detract from the usability of this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention this list is self-expanding.... Courcelles 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget that all of these lists are cforks. The reason we're having this discussion is that it's not distributed evenly. Y-Z has 15(!) players listed while "M" has 200 players, does that make sense to you? It should be organized more evenly, meaning all lists should hover around certain number of players. If you're worried about self-expansion, why do you accept that "M" list or the "S" list or the "C" list and so on? All I am asking is to be fair!Cheetah (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose this is where some people may call for WP:SAL. This is a viable standalone list. Everyone can have an opinion on how many entries/how to split etc etc, but this is subjective. Right now, the split is objective where each list meets SAL, meets AVOIDSPLIT, meets everything that's needed. Everything else here is editor preference (apart from Sandman888's assertion which is false). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, let's avoid splits and have Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster with ~1900 players. Cheetah (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Look at WP:SIZE, although I'm sure you're aware of it. If M's alone make a list which is nearly 100KB in size, then it's clearly nonsensical to suggest merging over nine times the number of players into one list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I said was a sarcasm, "although I'm sure you're aware of it". What we have here is a huge list of 1881 players, which we can't avoid splitting. When we split, we should have as few forks as possible, so that they can be easy to use and get the most out of it. Right now it's split in 20 different lists, which may just be too many. When we have a chance to get rid of 5-6 lists and have 15 comprehensive lists, we should take advantage of it. If from that huge list, we take all the players with last names that start with "E" and "F" and put them in one list, we'll have a list of 111 players. That's less than 143 that's currently in the "C" list which was supported by Courcelles; I guess the Phillies took an oath or something that they're not going to sign any player with the last name that starts with a letter "C". Cheetah (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said before, this is editor preference, merging some lists with others. Each list meets WP:SAL as they stand. You are obviously entitled to oppose but it should be made clear that the oppose is based on a personal preference, not that the lists have broken any criteria or wider guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about preference, this is about what's beneficial to the readers. I understand you're talking just like any process director, but I ask you to be more open-minded. We have one list with 32 players another with 79, so the reader will need to click on one more link. If we have one list with 111 players, that would eliminate that one click. Hypothetically, we can also split this list to "Ea-Em" and "En-Ey" and have two separate lists that pass all the rules and guidelines. Would you support that, too?Cheetah (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking like "any process director", I'm talking as a reviewer. This has nothing to do with me being an FL director, nothing at all. I won't be closing this so that's irrelevant. I think subdividing the per the alphabet and WP:SAL seems to be the most objective solution. Hypothetical lists are all very well. Anyway, there's no guideline supporting your position, that's all I wanted other reviewers to know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose OpposesThis is ridiculous... imagine all letters would be merged together; letters like B, C or D are lagging on my laptop and even a little bit on my computer. What if someone has a crap computer? Who wants to wait minutes after it will load? Do you like lags? I don't and I think you too! Don't forget the server lags.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(→)TRM, splitting "per the alphabet" is your preference, isn't it? Show me a rule where I could see the "split lists per alphabet" line. There's none! I see no guideline supporting your position, either. Greatorangepumpkin, "E-F" will have less players than "C" and "B"(which are alread at WP:FL). If you're worried about lagging, you can submit "B" and "C" at WP:FLRC.Cheetah (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I see nothing other than WP:SAL. Which this list, and all the others, comply with. And I said splitting by the alphabet was "objective", nowhere did I say it was my preference. Nowhere did I claim a guideline for that either, other than SAL which I've said all along. Once again (and this seems circular now, so this is my last comment), the list complies with our guidelines. You may not "like" the way it's split, but it's just that, a personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is objective to have "E" and "F" together just like "P-Q" and "U-V". "E-F" will comply with WP:SAL, as well. My personal preference would be to have one page with all players, but I understand that it's near impossible.Cheetah (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not about a hypothetical list that doesn't exist; it's about this list. If it meets the FL criteria and WP:SAL, then the opposes are unfounded. That's TRM's, and my, point. — KV5 • Talk • 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, this list does not meet the FL criteria because it's not forked as it should be. It does not exemplify our very best work. Our very best work would be to add the "F" players to this list. That's it.Cheetah (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your oppose is still based on personal preference and not policy. Your interpretation of best work and mine are obviously divergent in this case. TRM, myself, and four others clearly disagree with you. I disagree that it would be best practice to merge the E and F lists because neither of them violates SAL or the FL criteria, despite your claim. — KV5 • Talk • 12:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To get this out of the way at the start rather than the end of the post, I have grumbled about these lists, a lot. Possibly too much. Grumble though I may, it's beyond dispute there is consensus for the format. That said, the end of 3b ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") would seem to support Cheetah's specific suggestion of merging E and F. —WFC— 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Thank you KV5 for your patience. I just went over all Phillies lists and the only lists that can still be merged are T-Z. Right now it's split into 4 lists, I think it can be 2 at the most. That's a comment for the future.--Cheetah (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cheetah; to address your final concern, if you look at the very bottom of the nom section, I have proposed merging T-V and W-Z to complete the series. Those merges will be done when (if) this passes and before I nominate G. One project at a time. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 3b, per my rationale below; E and F could reasonably be merged. —WFC— 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutal Based on the discussion that has taken place here, and the merge, I have agreed not to oppose this on 3b. I trust the judgement of The Rambling Man, Giants2008, Courcelles and Wizardman as far as the quality of this list goes. —WFC— 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If E and F were merged (or even if not), could we at least get consensus that all the other current and future ones are acceptable so we don't have to go through this again? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since all these articles are technically cforks, I think if they are split in a reasonable manner everybody will be happy. I am of the opinion that if the total is around 100 entries then that is an acceptable split. If Y+Z has 8+7=15 entries in total, that does not mean it is an acceptable split. U-Z has about 100 so I think that is an acceptable one, instead of slicing each possible letter that has 10 entries. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved discussion on 3(b). Capped by WFC
|
**I'm near enough with Nergaal. There is unquestionably consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. The question now is just ensuring that the individual splits are reasonable. —WFC— 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been wondering what was going to happen with this nomination regardless of my patience level, but it's become painfully obvious that personal preference is going to override policy here, so I've discontinued worrying. — KV5 • Talk • 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3.b says "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". This article can be VERY reasonably be merged into the F one. It is not a personal preference, but CRITERIA. Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouting is unproductive. As TRM said, preference, not policy. But, you do what you want. — KV5 • Talk • 23:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's disingenuous to dismiss this as personal preference. All but one of the contributors to this page have conceeded that, regardless of their personal preference, there is consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. Even me, and heaven knows I've ranted about it. But the accusation of personal preference doesn't hold with Cheetah's statement. If B and P–Q are reasonable, I don't understand how it can be said that Cheetah's suggestion to merge E and F is unreasonable. —WFC— 00:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because Q on its own doesn't meet the requirements for stand-alone lists. E does. — KV5 • Talk • 00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken, Q was a bad example. Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O) then? —WFC— 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't know why I combined those, but they would each meet SAL if split. — KV5 • Talk • 00:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I conceed that. But unless there's some massive problem with that list that I'm not seeing, that one is proof that two lists that technically meet SAL can nonetheless be reasonably merged. Which is Cheetah's point. Just because one policy or guideline suggests that there is technically nothing wrong with 21 lists (22 if N and O were split) does not make it the best way of dividing the content. For all its faults, that is precisely why we have 3b. —WFC— 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But who is to say that one way is indeed "best", or better than another? The supporters of this list seem to take no issue with it. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the opposers seem to, for whatever either statement is worth. It's your prerogative as the list's author to decide what method of splitting is best (you have decided that an alphabetical split is best). It is then down to reviewers to decide if the way it has been done is reasonable. Consensus has been established that an alphabetical split was fine, but while acknowledging that, several reviewers have determined that E could reasonably be included with F. After all, Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster is one list that for size reasons has been sub-divided. It stands to reason that the fewer splits we need to make (while taking into account factors such as usability and the scale of the potential for growth), the better. Or at least, that's my view. Unless someone can explain why merging E and F would be unreasonable, it's a view that is supported by our criteria for featured lists. —WFC— 01:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can see that no one is going to give on this issue unless it's me, so I'm going to do re-merging/splitting all at once and then not again. So my new plan, if it's absolutely necessary (which I don't believe it is, but anyway), would be to combine E and F; combine T, U, and V; combine W, the non-existent X, Y, and Z. I-J, at 67, is longer than N-O, at 57, so those three combinations should eliminate forking concerns. This ensures that all lists have a minimum of 50 players, which is more than eminently reasonable considering that the old arbitrary cutoff for number of items in a list was 10. Thoughts from all? — KV5 • Talk • 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 10 remains the unofficial minimum for a stand-alone list. I'm sure nobody disputes that. But that's different to arbitrarily dividing a bigger list on size grounds. In this case, I would have thought the defining criteria would be... size. In the interests of moving forward, I'm prepared to stop opposing the Phillies lists (and the Phillies lists only) if this compromise is implemented. But I'm still uneasy about this, and reserve the right to start an RfC on the matter if this convention spreads beyond the Phillies. —WFC— 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you're not the only one uneasy (I am too), but compromise requires both sides to give. You can "reserve the right' to RfC if you feel the need, but this is all a moot point to begin with considering that "10 remains the unofficial minimum for a stand-alone list" anyway. — KV5 • Talk • 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have compromised so as not to further upset a great contributor, and on the basis that I will not start an RfC unless I see this convention happening more widely. Furthermore, I've gone out of my way below to ask that the 3b discussion does not stand in the way of longer Phillies lists, accepting the consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. In light of the above response I'm not entirely sure why I'm taking such a restrained course of action. Nonetheless, I suggest we leave this here, as for the purposes of this FLC the matter is resolved. —WFC— 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Separate suggestion I intend to continue the above discussion, whether that takes place here or elsewhere (for instance an RfC). But I do feel that we should do what we can to ensure that the Phillies lists are promoted as quickly as is possible. And that, as far as we can in the circumstances, minimise the drama. I would therefore propose that another Phillies list be granted an exception to the usual convention of only one list at a time. There is no issue with the overall quality of these lists, save for whether some individual ones meet 3b. To assist with the reduced drama aspect, I would suggest that the list nominated should be the longest remaining list, as that can reasonably be assumed to be the one least likely to be affected by a merge proposal. It takes an average of three to four weeks to promote an FL: even if were to take us a couple of months to work this out, there should be 3-4 relatively uncontroversial ones which can be promoted in the meantime. —WFC— 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How short of a nomination period are we talking about? I don't feel comfortable with making the period too short for any list, even if it's in a series that is typically trustworthy quality-wise. For example, TRM continues to find issues to report in the MLB first-round draft picks series of lists, which are all of high quality. It's also possible that a reviewer who hasn't read lists in the series will spot problems that us regulars are missing. Then again, I also feel that this list should be promoted, and that the opposers are taking 3b beyond what it was intended to do (ensure that forky lists that shouldn't exist at all don't become featured, not determine how large a particular list should be), so what do I know? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I didn't mean a quick pass procedure. I just meant an exemption from the usual rule of not being allowed to nominate a second list where the first has opposition, as the nature of the opposition here would have no effect on the longer lists (safer bets include H, M and S). —WFC— 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no problem with that as long as we don't go overboard. We don't need six of these lists up at once, but if a list other than this one was nommed now I wouldn't object. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some level of merging, as has occurred, was probably a good thing. The list was always of high quality, this seemed like a pretty odd thing to hang up the nomination over (as it could be easily remedied if a different standard was decided on. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the respective positions of those in favour of and opposed to a merge, thrashing out a merge at this FLC was undoubtedly the least-worst option. If it didn't come here, it would only have happened in future at FLRC, or through an RFC which ultimately would have been focussed on these lists anyway. As a result of this discussion, the lists from G-S can now go through FLC uncontroversially, an RFC will only happen if others mimic the approach taken here.
and I'm sure that KV and Cheetah will find a solution by the time T-Z become an issue. just realised that T-Z have already been dealt with. The compromises that came as a direct result of the deadlock here have produced a stable situation. —WFC— 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I stroked out my oppose vote since my major concern was solved. I think though the two tables should be fully merged - you could leave a separator in the middle by selecting that row to be unsortable. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment glad that we're slowly reaching a consensus. I'm not saying it's right, but if we can move on from this, so much the better. My primary concern, perhaps my only concern is the subjective merging of lists. This is now setting the precedent that editors can hand-pick the "best" merges. I guess, as we have consensus, that's the way forward. However, I don't want to see people, in the future, arguing over whether L and M should be merged with N etc... Remember WP:SAL etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this, but as my disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC, I've responded on The Rambling Man's talk page. —WFC— 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I disagree, in part, with WFC's disagreement, but this disagreement over a disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC. I've replied at my talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bought a new computer yesterday and I have no lags now. I red this list weeks ago and I saw no issues. I make a second run and still no issues. A great list even if I haven't seen any baseball games :P.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): TCO (talk), NYMFan69-86 (talk)
State reptiles are frequent subjects for young schoolchildren and provide an easy, friendly way to get into studying biology. But the prompt for doing this article was actually the incomprehension of non-Americans when hearing about state reptiles in FAC for Painted turtle. I hope this article explains what the heck a state reptile is and just shows some fun, quirky Americana.
We have gotten a little help from heavies in the list world on formatting, but appreciate your continued kind instruction and help to make this thing front page material. This is our first visit to FLC, but we are already eying another "prize": Subspecies of Galápagos tortoise.
Note: There is a potential usage problem with the Alabama red-bellied turtle image. Have filed an FFD to try to resolve that and send out emails asking for a donation. Fixed. Got permission for the original image. Uploading OTRS and proper copyright holder to Commons.
TCO (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title should be List of U.S. state reptiles consistent with all other state symbol lists and most FLs in general; WP:article titles generally should not be plural. Reywas92Talk 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks Reywas92!TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'List of' name is not good for several reasons, it's overly long, it's not a list and it's not a list of U.S state reptiles. U.S. state dog breeds was changed to drop the list of after discussion and passed as a featured list with that naming. The above poster(User:Reywas92) moved that article recently(since it passed as FL), with a 'minor' edit. Marking the move as 'minor' edit hides it from watch lists - from those who discussed it as the FL review - as such the action is distruptive. The name of an article is a rather major change. I moved U.S. state dog breeds back to the agreed name. U.S. state reptiles should also be used. It's okay being consistant, but not consistantly incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please change ours back as well? I can see a lot of different sides to this and hope I don't get an object over something as silly as a name war. But since different people feel differently, rather do what makes the article writers happy. I don't like "List of" unless clearly needed since it makes the title longer, there is no separate article to differentiate from (and note that we never say "Articl of"!), the content to me includes a list as well as exploration of the topic, other sites on the web cover this topic without "List of" type titles. Keep the plural as well. This is different from horse (concept) being singular. We are talking about a set small class in number. It's the same as "Single-term presidents of the United States". You can leave that plural as it describes a specific group. Also as far as consistency, only one other state symbol list has been an FL (dog breeds) and it was without List of.TCO (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - references should be after the punctuation marks in the notes. Is an image needed in biology? also on this point there might be too many pictures in the top half of the article, I understand the table but the pictures in history and biology make the article seem flooded with images, it might be a good idea to remove one of the images and reduce the size of the rest. The Lead may not adequately summarize the article may be a good idea to expand upon it. Afro (Talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the punctuation
- Reduced size of all three images.
- I moving the biology image to the lead. Think number of images in text is needed for some break from all my numerical analytics...and content has grown a little again.
- Lead expanded.TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have limited ability to respond to further comments until Tuesday (on travel).TCO (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments on a quick run
- This is an article where I agree (since it is a central concept).
- "States tout their links to the named reptiles" - exactly how do they "tout their links"?
- Expanded the discussion in lead. First section of article body discusses this further.
- Fixed.
- "Six states chose species that shared the state's name." do they no longer share the state's name? Perhaps "Six states have chosen species that share the state's name"
- Rewrote.
- "which finish by formal ..." finish with normally.
- With-ed.
- "Many Secretary of States maintain" is that really the plural of "Secretary of State"?
- Fixed.
- "were in southern states" -> "represent southern states"?
- Fixed.
- Why no real wikilinking in the lead? e.g. painted turtle?
- Wikilinked that term and a couple more. Note, my editorial preference is against lots of blue in articles, also we have a table of species and state links in body text.
- I would mention (and link) state symbol in the lead for us non-US readers.
- Done. We actually need a good article on the concept of a state symbol, to be honest. Maybe I will do that sometime. Have not even found one off site. Shearer and Shearer are the closest but even they write for Americans.
- [13][14][1] order numerically.
- Fixed.NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [23] [nb 2] - remove space.
- Removed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [38][33][1] numerical order please.
- Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The column name yes? Changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 16 seems to have a bit of a raw URL in he title.
- Had a space in url, fixed.
- Check refs for page range which needs to use en-dash, not hyphen per WP:DASH.
- Dana fixed.
Just a real quick glance, I'll need to do a more thorough review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just read the policy. How did we fail (we have alt text) and will you help us fix it please?TCO (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Using color alone to convey information. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not getting you (not fighting, just not following). We only have one color, so even a colorblind person can see "fill" versus "nonfill" in the image. I can say that and take credit for it via caption? But I think even if you print a BW copy of the article, map works fine, no?TCO (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough I guess. ACCESS says "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information." so that's what I was quoting. Perhaps some information in the caption to say the states shaded in green are those of relevance? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified caption.
Ref.(s) or Ref(s)? I thought Ref. was an abbreviation for Reference, so should get a period, no? I would spell it out if it didn't screw up my column. Not arguing, just wondering. TCO (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would always opt for just Ref(s) as, when I was at school, if an abbreviation had the last letter of the word, you didn't need a period, e.g. Mr or Mrs, but that's just my opinion. Either way, it's certainly not a deal-breaker. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added period. American usage retains period in those cases (British did also until WW2). French usage does not. I just researched it. Not arguing, just sharing.TCO (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could link List of U.S. state birds in the "other official symbols such as a bird and flower" sentence. And maybe flower if there's a list of those too?
- see below.TCO (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And in the Comparison to other state symbols section, link as many of the other symbols that have articles/lists.
- I added a bunch of links to other wiki articles. Even added our state dogs FL. FYI, many of these wiki articles have minor issues with them, so the netstate external reference is (generally) better. I started to fix the other articles but its too much. Anyhow, think I have met your intent. We still lack a good general article on state symbols, DC content, bats (and then a lot of our articles are noticeably short of FL). Bats was called out as important by netstate so I left it. As far as birds, they are linked in lead. Flowers and trees (added) are in geo section. I even added crustaceans which we have a page on and netstate does not (and just did individual refs for the content). Just letting you know there was a method to the choices! ;-)
- I made a couple of adjustments, nothing major.
- Coolio.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Started a page for state bats (it was a redlink for our article).TCO (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have a few comments:
- Lede:
- "As with other state symbols, states show their pride via the "Whereases" of designating statutes. " I think I know what you mean here. Thousands wouldn't. I would say "legislatures" rather than Whereases.
- Cut.TCO (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Schoolchildren often start the campaigns to name state reptiles". I'd strike the "the".
- Done.
- " Six states chose species named after the state.". Lose the second state. Perhaps "named after it"
- Done.
- Government aspects
- Perhaps "governmental aspects"?
- Done.
- Does the flowery language bit need citation? Also, usually joint resolutions have numbers, or else put a date of passage.
- That was my generalization in the sneaky guise of a topic sentence. I think it's justified, but if it made you pause, will make others. Cut comment and reader can draw his own inferences. For the JRS, I put the number back (we had it before, but I had cut it thinking the reference sufficed).
- On the "resolution", I'd add that it does not require the governor's signature
- Done.
- West Virginia: You need the name of the town. Maybe it is the same as the school, but that isn't obvious.
- I added it in brackets with a link. Interesting article actually. I could also do a note or even just use ellipses to eliminate the town digression.
- "While ..." rephrase so as not to use word "While".
- Cut.
- Virginia and other states: You should provide pipes to the article on the individual houses of the legislature, for example Virginia House of Delegates.
- I piped PA houses. For VA, had already rewritten to cut some of the discussion of the failure in General Assembly (was very similar story to PA just opposite houses and my cute little comments about NC rivalry give enough VA copy already. I was tempted to try to sneak in the Virginia Republicans for Reptiles but its not an RS and I already have enough cute little finds.
- " Virginia has had two unsuccessful legislative attempts to elevate the eastern box turtle." Perhaps reverse it "Proponents of the eastern box turtle have seen two attempts to elevate it in Virginia fail."
- Done.
- "Official state reptiles are used for education." Perhaps "Designation of state reptiles is used in the education process". And perhaps if you can justify it, add "and to interest children in state geography and/or politics", only if a ref says that. Frankly, I'd rewrite this section, saying something like "State officials, most often the secretary of state, use webpages and coloring books to reach out to children. In Missouri, the incumbent, Robin Carnahan, uses the coloring book to great future voters."
- It's more than just the designation. They use them for all kinds of crap. Basic geography. Logic games. Report writing. I don't remember doing any of that stuff when I was in school, but just Google it. It's all the rage. Heck, that makes me feel good that we have a decent page with all the wikilinks to our articles for teachers and kids to look stuff up. We're better than Netstate or the like, although it's good to know there is alternate content out there too. I rewrote the section a little, and backed up the comment about lesson plans with some refs, but it may still not be there. Please feel free to rewrite if you want, cut Robin's quote, etc. I don't like starting a section with a nominalization though ("designation").
- TCU: That story is long enough you should probably name the guy. And watch your word choice when you are casting around to avoid a repetition!
- Added and (WTF) red-linked him. I'm not sure what boner I pulled, but thanks I guess you caught one.
- Biology
- "wide-ranged" Surely "wide-ranging"?
- I mean the species's range covers a lot of the USA. The individual animals don't really travel far (nothing like a wolf or the like). They are slow and have little legs. Although they move if a water body dries up and sometimes in search of food or the males for females or females to nest (but a couple miles or so). But I cut the whole term.
That's it. A nice effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I agree with all your comments and will fix. Also, saw you put in several upgrades. TCO (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it takes less effort to fix something in an article than to point it out to the nominator, I would rather just fix it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Please have another look. And feel free to mess with the Use section and make it better please.TCO (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to meet the FL criteria. There is a prose glitch now and then, it wouldn't hurt to have someone outside read it over for a final check. I'd add a year to the state resolution you cite in the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added year to Vermont ref and quotebox.TCO (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few small points to address:
- The eastern box turtle image is the only one with head to the right. It would be nicer flipped.
- Many of these are protected or endangered, it'd be nice to identify them in the table.
- I have added the content.TCO|TCO]] (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lede is not exempt from wp:V. It should have supporting citations.
- If this is relating to your comments on summary form ledes ([9], I disagree with you on what is best for the article. General practice and even FA preference is not to have duplicated reference marks for executive summary style leads (provided content is backed up elsewhere in article). This is also how I write content off-wiki. While I respect your right to argue your view in the policy discussions, would ask that you give my article an oppose or support without respect to this issue. I find discussions going back to at least 2006 on this topic, one with Malleus against the notes and SV for them.
- Thank you for drawing my attention to the open-ended state of that discussion, I thought it was resolved. It won't impact my position re this article. Still, I would urge caution. Summary style or executive style ledes that omit explicit citations are vulnerable to wp:SYNTH creeping in. Thus it is especially important to check that each assertion in the lede is also seen elsewhere in the article and cited there. Have you done that?00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It's all summary content, not intro. At one time there was intro content, but when that existed, it HAD cites. And when it moved to body, the cites went with it.TCO (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 59, 67 should follow the form of the other cites to that book (Shearer 1994)
- It appears that NSTATE LLC owns Netstate.com - while convenient it is not clear to me whether it's [stable and wp:RS. In any case, I'd suggest adding archiveurl and archivedate to the ((cite web)) instances to back up the "as of" statements. The internet archive seems to have content for that site, though of course it embargoes it for a few months.
- Thank you, 'dog. Will get to these later tonight (too nice a day for indoors now) and either make the change or note the comment.TCO (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have adressed all your comments, now. TCO (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dianna's comments
* I had a bunch of copy edits to suggest but just did them myself. Not sure what this is (possibly a typo?): Gopherus (gopher tortoises). Note the last two letters are italicised; I am not sure what is intended here.
- I redid this sentence, also included a link to Gopherus.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back to unitalicized gopher tortoises. (the last two letters was a remnant of something previous, NA now) Am concerned to start hyperlinking in there as it quickly becomes all blue.TCO (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Shearer and Shearer just appear out of the blue. Please add a phrase telling us something about who they are or what publication you are talking about.
- "In their almanac"
*Book titles need to be capitalised.
- The Shearer book citations under "Citations?" A few of them need to be condensed also...I'm on it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further inspection, they didn't need to be condensed. I did fix the capitalization on two though (reference numbers 54 and 67), were these the only two?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever we do, need to stack hands and be consistent. I was taught last FA, to go sentence case. There are also web page and article titles to consider. I know the web page titles are not consistent now.TCO (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Book titles need to be capitalised per Chicago and our own MoS but not all of our articles do that; even some of the feature articles do not do it. Chicago also calls for web page titles and article titles to be capitalised headline style but right now no one seems to be enforcing it. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*State birds needs disambiguation.
- Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*http://myfwc.com/newsroom/08/statewide/News_08_X_SeaTurtleSymbol.htm is a dead link. It is listed in two different ways, at Cite #11 and #51. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnit. It was there. I will reference the bill itself as far as the animal naming (that should be stable). In terms of that quote, that has to go (FWC only maintains last 2 years of press releases). Will look for another state to make this point (what the students do). Grr. :( Makes me wonder how the heck we should cite things in general (never site press releases, archive stuff (and does it really stay archived)?TCO (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame to lose that content. It was there only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you can get it back? Regardless, I support promotion of the article. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nbbd.com/godo/cns/seaturtles/floridasymbol.html this time I've archive it here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the content back in (clarified a little the placement and purpose) and added Sunny's "save". Still need a little more Sunny help as it is not "taking" for the webcite.TCO (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the saltwater reptile itself (not the quote), I changed to ref to be to the statute itself (not a press release). I also added enough content (bill number and year) so that even if web location goes back, the cite itself has validity (I think this is how to handle this issue).TCO (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"and discuss how widespread the animal is in the state or how needing of preservation." Feels like "it is" is begging to be put at the end.
- Done.TCO (talk)
The Justification section is pretty much entirely a bunck of quotes. Is there anything else that can be done with it, like using a bit of paraphrasing? It seems a little plain and ordinary for a piece of featured content. There are several other quotes in the next couple sections, come to think of it. Seven quotes in eight (not large) paragraphs is a lot.
- Giants, I just cut two quotes (WV school and Robin Carnahan). For the Justification section, I need the quotes, it's the only way to convey the info without me starting to opine (RSes don't step back and analyze it well). However, I formatted it into bullets (since it's choppy anyhow) and also moved it down a section, so people get some normal prose first. It's improved, now.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm not a fan of the bolding that's been inserted. It doesn't strike me as necessary to have it, and I don't think the MoS supports it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation: Why is the bracketed town name in quotation marks? This is also in note 12.
- I cut that sentence for other reasons. Quotes are used when referring to an article as document (rather than to the concept itself and happening to wikilink). Same as referring to a story or a song.TCO (talk)
- Anyhow, I got that whole long sentence with the WV quote.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Geography: "From the twenty-four of the contiguous states roughly south of the Mason-Dixon line. only five lacked a state reptile." En dash needed for the hyphen in "Mason-Dixon link", and "lacked" should be "lack" (this is meant to be in present terms, correct?).
- Fixed tense. Added en-dash (had to pipe the article, our article uses the hyphen).TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bad ref, agreed. I have found, I think the source, which is CBSSports.com. But it's part of a service they have where they run a bunch of sales outlets and general info and tickets and such. But it is run by a news outlet. Here's the link (http://www.umterps.com/trads/md-m-fb-mas.html) which if you click on about us, takes you to (http://collegenetwork.cbssports.com/school-bio/cbsc-about.html). I'd like to link here as this story is the more engaging version. But let me know if it passes muster. If not, I can go to this link (http://www.umd.edu/testudo.html) which is from the school itself. I just have to cut some of the engaging comments about the enemy animal mascots and the like in my text.TCO (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the college's official athletics website. That's fine in terms of reliability, although I'm not sure CBSSports.com should be considered the true publisher since it's a different website. Perhaps add info on the college to the cite? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just butting in, I don't think that's an RS, it looks more like a link farm to me. Suggest checking the individual schools' actual web sites (not the links from that page).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you might want to be a little more specific about "south of the Mason-Dixon line" Keep in mind that New Jersey lies in part south of the Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I had the "roughly" caveat in text. But I've expanded on it via a note. Cool now? I used states that actually have state reptiles as I think that is more meaningful in this article, than discussing the geography in terms of NJ and DE (a northern and southern state, each with a little extension across the line), but neither of which have a state reptile.TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Giants. Will either fix or respond. TCO (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The website is run by CBSSports. They have some sort of business relationship to act as a storefront or the like, but I think this is more honest, to show them as the publisher (it's not UMD.edu, but a .com domain and when you follow the about us, find that this CBSSports entity (owned by CBS) is running the service.
- I see. In that case, why not include both in the reference? That way, we're giving CBS Sports proper credit while not confusing the reader into thinking that they're about to go on the actual CBS Sports site (not just a site run by them). One of the entities could be the work and the other the publisher. Just a thought. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, man. I'm going to leave as is. There is the url and then the publisher indicatin the commercial entity behind the content. I think this is actually more conservative to list it as this .com provider, than asserting it is the university when it is not.TCO (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Here is the guidance on bulleted lists. This is also, not just me finding some obscure MOS, but how I would write off-wiki. That said, if it reeeeely bugs you, I give permission for you to change it to drop the bolds. I do think bulleting helps as the quotes are choppy anyhow, so would keep that. Think it deals with your issue of finding it hard to read a bunch of quotes in a row and sort of formalizes them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
- The bolding is now gone and I struck out the related comments above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. How about an up or down thumb? We've been here since the 23rd. This is the content I can bring to users. TCO (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Comments
- Been through and checked all the images, all seems to be ok and licensing is in order. However a few loose ends could do with tidying up to ensure everything is covered.
- In regards to the college image File:Another stat reptile collage.jpg, it has black borders on its right and bottom sides which need to be continued all the way around or removed, either way to tidy up this image that heads the article (I don't mind doing this just decide whether you want the borders in or out).
- Also all images contributing to the college have been linked too and it's good practice to link all images used back to the college. 1 of the 4 images do this but File:Garter snake close up northern ontario canada mirror image.jpg, File:Gopherus polyphemus Tomfriedel.jpg and File:Collared Lizard 1.jpg should do also.
Apart from those few things, all seems good to me, can't seem to find anything of concern and I believe it would make a worthy addition to FL once everything is sorted. If I had to nitpick, there is one tiny thing, nothing major but there is one red link Addison Clark Jr.. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix the image issues and insert in article. I will probably live with the redlink. The FA crew are OK with those. I started a list on state bats, so that should keep TRM and the listers happy. For AC, I would really need an article on his dad first. Actually, I will probably get around to it...the redlink motivates me. TCO (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, FS! P.s. I did start a page on AC Sr., who was more notable than AC Jr. No immediate intentions to start an article on AC Jr. Don't care if we leave the redlink or eliminate it. (Don't think the FA delegates care either.) TCO (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The red link in itself is not a problem. If half the list was red links it would be, but one red link in an article filled with blue isn't a failure of any criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look over the page, and I haven't noticed any scientific mistakes. A few bits in the Conservation section need citations, but that should be pretty straightforward, and I've tagged those. Mokele (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review. cites added.TCO (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Mokele. :-)
- Now that's taken care of, I Support this page as a featured list. Mokele (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the IUCN ratings, I had a hard time understanding this sentence: "There, the loggerhead sea turtle is only considered threatened." What is "there" referring to? bibliomaniac15 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to clarify.TCO (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article has seriously raised the bar on research, image presentation and what can be written in a Featured List of a state symbol. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per SunCreator. Meets all criteria comfortably, written to a high standard of a neutral tone. Lead section introduces the subject consistently and is enticing. Signifcantly well researched and supported, content is comprehensive. Attractive visual appeal and well presented. Certainly a worthy addition to FL in my books. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I am intrigued that there's been no discussion on the underrepresentation of snakes, but if it isn't in sources it ain't there. Nice list. I did a bit of a copyedit. Nothing else jumps out at me as needing improving. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't talk about it, but they do talk about the turtle fascination. Kids just love them, want to have them as pets, etc. Was doing some research on commercial raising of turtles, and there was the comment "give a kid a choice between a turtle and a lizard, and the turtle will win every time". And I think snake would be the same. Turtles would be even more popular if the USA allowed hatchling pets (forbidden since 1975 for public health reasons). But still, kids dig them.
- On the snakes, rattlesnakes are an American sort of icon and were even a Revolutionary War symbol ("Don't tread on me") and two states do use a form of rattlesnake. None of the sources said anything about current fear/hatred of snakes (look at Harry Potter, darned parseltongue), but I'm sure we could speculate that there are some people not too crazy about snakes, and there is the Biblical archetype. But other than Shearer and one overall article, there is not much at the overview level, anyway. This article was built up mostly from the state by state examples.
- The animal that NYM and I think is really missing is the gila monster.TCO (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is one thing - I'd link species the first mention they appear in the body of the text. Painted turtle is linked yet most others aren't. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Had them linked for a while, but de-linked because Biology was hard to read with all the blue, along with how dry that section is anyhow. There was also the issue that there is a table of links at the bottom. But let's try it out. There's a lot more text now ahead of Bio mentioning species so maybe it works now.TCO (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well done. Good job. --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support - as I was peripherally involved in some of the technical aspects of the article. I can say that in my humble opinion, the article meets all the needs of accessibility (apart from the lack of a table caption - but I wouldn't insist on one where the table immediately follows a section header). The article is also very usable, particularly the ability to sort the table in meaningful ways. I'm pleased to say that the visual appeal does not seem (to my eyes) to be in any way compromised by the adaptations made to meet WP:ACCESS, and I would be delighted if the consensus here was that this is one of Wikipedia's best works. Well done. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort? The article looks fascinating, and I'll be back after a proper read, but Rex's remark about the sortable table kind of hit me in the eye. Are idjits like me supposed to figger out for themselves how to sort it? Or are there some instructions hidden somewhere, that I don't see? Or is it so obvious everybody knows except me? Please add instructions for sorting, preferably not just in edit mode (remember the idjits).) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Never mind, I found the little clickers. Maybe the other idjits will, too. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You must be feeling a little D-fish like. Well...at least the reptiles are a step towards evolution into man. ;) (Just kidding, don't bite me Hammer.) Umm...if you know a concise way to solve this problem, just insert it in the article.TCO (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh.. bigger clickers? Half a foot or so? Bishonen | talk 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Eight inches work?TCO (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this list meets the FL Criteria. This is my first major expansion of an article and I have formatted it to make it similar to the other FL Grammy Lists made predominantly by User:Another Believer.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Glad to see other contributors taking stabs at Grammy lists! This should certainly help to speed up the process with getting all categories up to good/FL status. I see no problems with references, ref formatting, or disambig links.
See my recent edit regarding sorting. Sorting capability needs to be incorporated into the entire "Performing artists" and "Work" columns.
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will let other reviewers determine if having multiple flags of the same country within the same cell (for example, four American flags for Christina Aguilera, Mya, Lil Kim and Pink) is necessary, and if country flags are preferred in general.
- Waiting for consensus --Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each category is different based on its history, but I feel like this lead is a little short. There may not be much to expand, but I would make sure there are no sources indicating why the category was started.
- Can't find anything, but will keep looking.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that at least one more image could be added to the right-hand column, if possible. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussed Below Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any major gripes about the list, but I will wait for other reviewers to examine the list before offering support. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start working on it ASAP =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting looks good. Don't add additional images if the column starts running into the sections below--there is room for another pictures on my screen, but I realize we don't all see the same display. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the promotion of this list, regardless of whether or not the paragraph I added about Natalie and Nat King Cole and the five artists with more than one nomination within the same year is kept. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Reviewers, would it be worth including this link in the external links section? For some Grammy lists I added official YouTube links to award-winning music videos, but I was never sure if adding a link to tagged videos on the Grammy site was helpful/appropriate or not. Feedback would be appreciated for this list and others. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Santana's caption doesn't need a full stop.
- Not too keen on the repeated flags when they don't line up with the artists names (e.g. Green and Lovett appear on the same line on my screen while the nationality flags appear on separate lines).
- Allison Krauss seems to be actually called Alison Krauss.
- Boys II Men should be Boyz II Men.
- Van Morrisson should be Van Morrison.
- Mya should be Mýa.
- Lil'Kim -> Lil' Kim.
- Black Eyed Peas is The Black Eyed Peas.
- You seem to have linked all newspapers first time except for the NYT.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, though I am not sure about your second point as to what you want me to do--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you could line up the names with the flags using the line break. But it's just my opinion, let's see what others think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, personally I didn't think it was a big deal since Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration does the same thing but sure lets see what everyone else thinks. BTW thanks for commenting!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I went ahead and removed duplicate flags within the same cell. In my opinion, only one American flag is required if both performing artists are American. This can be discussed and reverted if consensus prefers multiple flags of the same country within the same cell. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The Chieftains needs to use ((sortname))
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, based on what AnotherBeliever said, I don't think that groups should be sorted. Is that ok or would you like me to keep?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When things are sorted alphabetically, words like 'the' and 'a' are ignored. So please adjust it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a better image of Santana (or of another artist to replace it)
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how relevant the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) link is, seeing as the Grammys are awarded "without regard to album sales or chart position."
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like some other opinions with regards to whether or not to redlink the unlinked songs.
-
- K, we will see with the discussion--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Another Believer; if the songs don't have articles, a link to its album appearance instead would be better (the reader wants to know more about the song, and the album's entry seems to be very informative in a few cases; better than a red link, I surmise).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kk will do!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking the award-winning songs is more important than linking the nominated songs. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K I linked all of the non-linked songs to their suitable albums..yet some don't have album or articles to link to so I couldn't do some--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer that you link directly to all winning songs, with either redlinks or redirects. Do not redlink nominated songs, though. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K I will leave it as it is for now, since so far most want it linked to the album--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some songs are not really Pop music, but I support anyway (maybe Grammy meant popular music, what is not the same as Pop music).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a fact about Natalie Cole and Nat King Cole's win for "When I Fall in Love", as I thought this was a notable relationship and fact about a remake of one of his "signature hits". If reviewers feel this is not notable enough for inclusion in the lead, feel free to revert. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added a section to the lead about five artists that have received more than one nomination within the same year. Again, feel free to revert if deemed non-notable, though I do feel that this inclusion gives the lead a bit more bulk. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a question: why is "signature hits" – in quotes?
- Oops Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In third paragraph, other collaborators on "Lady Marmalade" are not mentioned.
- Not Done becuase the third paragraph is explaining individuals who have had more than 1 nomination a year and the other collaborators didn't.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Rock on the Net is reliable. Can you find another link?
- Other featured grammy lists use Rock on the Net so I think it might count as reliable.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better to expand CNN as "Cable News Network". And, link the first occurrence.
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Ref 19, publisher is MTV Networks (you've not added publisher).
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I see. Images are good, the table looks good. Amazing work. Novice7 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! All your issues have been dealt with =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – looks good. Good job. Novice7 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written. Everything is sourced. I think nothing more is needed to pass it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for the support!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!--Blackjacks101 (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
