Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log
Featured list tools: |
This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, with the most recent at the top. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log.
Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2024. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained; the most recent log is at Wikipedia:Featured lists promoted in 2024.
Full current month log
- 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, it's bats list #2, and mammal list #43: Rhinolophidae. These are the 92 species of horseshoe bats, cousins of the leaf-nosed bats of the last list. Basically, it's a wide array of tiny bats (the size of your thumb, or at most two thumbs) with funny little faces. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family... though reading between the lines of the academic-speak, the scientific consensus is that this family's taxonomy is a hot mess, and by 2100 it could be anywhere from 70 to 130 species once they all agree what a "species" is. In the meantime, we'll stick with 92. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Formosan lesser horseshoe bat has no habitat listed
- Same for Imaizumi's horseshoe bat
- That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, both filled in now (as Unrecorded). Thanks! --PresN 16:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
- "mammal order Chiroptera" should be "mammalian order"
- "Chiroptera, and part" Comma unnecessary.
- "microbat suborder grouping" Doesn't make sense, should be either "microbat suborder Microchiroptera" or just "microbat suborder".
- "rhinolophid, or a" Comma unnecessary.
- "wing lengths ranging from the" Currently, this reads as if the wing length ranges from the FLH bat to the GWH bat. I'd change it to "ranging from 3 cm (1 in) in the Formosan...to 8 cm (3 in) in the great woolly horseshoe bat."
- "Twelve species..., and Hill's horseshoe bat is..., collectively making up almost fifteen percent of the species in the family." Doesn't seem to be grammatically correct, I'd split the sentence up and change to "These collectively make up almost fifteen percent of the species in the family"
- Great work overall, that's all I got. AryKun (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- I checked a handful of map licenses; they're probably all fine.
- Map Captions: ""Southesastern" (twice). Indo-Chinese lesser brown horseshoe Bat has two problems: lowercase "Bat", and the map caption says "Southeastern Africa".
- For File:Rhinolophus mossambicus.jpg, Plos.org is safe, but ... I'm not sure, I was expecting to see some kind of tag saying that it came from Plos.org. Same goes for File:Rhinolophus smithersi.jpg. File:Rhinolophus pearsonii.jpg is also safe, but I was expecting either a FlickrBot tag or a US-PD tag.
- For the other image licenses, FWIW, my tally is: 10 are labeled as "own work", 17 as public domain (incl. from the Biodiversity Center and one from forestryimages.org), 6 as iNaturalist.org, and 2 as FlickrBot. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dank: Bat and captions fixed, added a PLOS template to the two that needed it and a PD-US to the other. Thanks! --PresN 01:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dank
- You know the drill.
- Checking the FLC criteria:
- 1. Nothing is jumping out at me as a prose problem. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
- 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
- 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations (but I was in a hurry when I checked the 4th column; all I can say is that it's not missing anything, but the reviews above seem to have covered it).
- 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
- 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
- 4. It is navigable.
- 5. It meets style requirements. My image review is above.
- 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Fixed one caption myself, looks good to go. Great series! - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for
Support. Honestly you're insanely consistent in your references, and it leaves me in awe lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: It's because I generate the IUCN ones using a custom program that also generates the base table, so they can't not be consistent, and the book cites are just copy-pasting with different page numbers most of the time. --PresN 16:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh that makes a lot of sense! Good to know :) Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After some hard work on this list, I now believe it meets the criteria. This will form part of the Lists of UEFA club competition winning managers topic if it passes here and would be a long overdue addition. My current list has four supports, so I'm assuming it's ok to nominate this one now. Thanks in advance for the comments. NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Image caption: "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield won the competition a record three times." => "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield, won the competition a record three times."
- Link UEFA and CONMEBOL
- Link "played over two legs" to two-legged tie
- "renaming it Toyota Cup" - no reason for italics
- Link FIFA
- "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963" => "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles, leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963"
- "Argentine managers have won the competition the most times" => "Argentine managers won the competition the most times"
- Footnote to explain why there is no winning manager recorded for two of the years should be a footnote, not mixed in with the references. Also don't use "wasn't" in the footnote, write it in full.
- Per MOS:BOLD, bold should not be used to highlight something. Use colour + symbol -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed all the comments. Regarding the bold, I've looked at Bianchi's profile and he's not managed for 10 years. So safe to assume he's no longer active as a manager. NapHit (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Gonzo_fan2007 (including source review)
- In the 1979 row, the managers should each have their own row so they can be properly sorted when using the table sort function.
- I removed the second manager as it seems he was the assistant to the other one, not co-manager. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the managers with multiple titles table, recommend adding an emdash to the blank cells.
- Done NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On the last two tables, I don't think you need to duplicate the section title and table title. You can use {{sronly}} to keep the descriptive titles for accessibility without showing them visually.
- I did this and then realised that it leaves the refs hanging above the table, so I've left it for now. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You can put it at the bottom of the table too. Take a look at Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) for an example of this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did this and then realised that it leaves the refs hanging above the table, so I've left it for now. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the abbreviated links in the Nationality and Country columns should use {{Abbrlink}}. Most people don't know country acronyms off the top of their heads.
- I've removed the abbreviations and used the full name. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review: Passed
- In Ref 2, 5 and 6, why abbreviate "Rec. Sport. Soccer Statistics Foundation"?
- The full name is used not the abbreviation. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For Ref 1, I would recommend changing "bibliography" to a sub-heading of the "References" section and then add an additional subheading titled "Citations". An example of this is at Packers sweep.
- Done NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All other references appear appropriate for the information being cited. All references are formatted appropriately.
- Spot checks on 10 refs did not bring up any issues.
- In Ref 2, 5 and 6, why abbreviate "Rec. Sport. Soccer Statistics Foundation"?
Please ping me when you have had a chance to respond. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks of the comments @Gonzo fan2007:, I've addressed your comments and responded above to some. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I added one response above but it wouldn't prevent my support, so feel free to take it or leave it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks of the comments @Gonzo fan2007:, I've addressed your comments and responded above to some. NapHit (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alavense
- The competition was discontinued in 2004 with the introduction of the FIFA Club World Cup - The FIFA Club World Cup was introduced in 2000, though.
- I've reworded this to reflect this. Let me know if it needs tweaking as I wasn't 100% confident in my change. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like that, but maybe following the introduction in 2000 of the FIFA Club World Cup, which features better. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to your suggestion. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like that, but maybe following the introduction in 2000 of the FIFA Club World Cup, which features better. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworded this to reflect this. Let me know if it needs tweaking as I wasn't 100% confident in my change. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the caption, it would be worth stating that the picture dates from the 1970s, if that's the case.
- Is it from 1970, though? According to the description, I guess c. 1970 or something like that would be better. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Added c. 1970 instead. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it from 1970, though? According to the description, I guess c. 1970 or something like that would be better. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A comma is missing before respectively.
- There's a problem with the caption of the grouped images. In mobile view, the order is slightly different, with Sacchi in the middle, so it makes it confusing. Would there be any way of fixing this?
- I think I've resolved this now. Think the issue was that image 1 was last in order. Switched it around and that seems to have resolved it for me when I opened the app. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still not working for me. I still see Sacchi in the middle? Maybe someone else knows how to solve this? Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to resolve this for mobile, or if you can. Guess one solution is to trim the images down to two instead of three. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, PresN. Do you know how we could solve this? Thanks in advance, Alavense (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe try putting their names in |caption1/2/3, and then in the overall caption you wouldn't have to state e.g. (left). --PresN 11:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've done that now. Let me know if that's better @Alavense:. NapHit (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe try putting their names in |caption1/2/3, and then in the overall caption you wouldn't have to state e.g. (left). --PresN 11:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, PresN. Do you know how we could solve this? Thanks in advance, Alavense (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to resolve this for mobile, or if you can. Guess one solution is to trim the images down to two instead of three. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still not working for me. I still see Sacchi in the middle? Maybe someone else knows how to solve this? Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've resolved this now. Think the issue was that image 1 was last in order. Switched it around and that seems to have resolved it for me when I opened the app. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the headers, Ref(s) should be Ref(s). And please use {{abbr}} to state that it stands for "References".
- This hasn't been looked at yet. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realise you meant to include the full stop as well (I think that's what you're suggesting), so I've made that change and the abbreviation is there too. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This hasn't been looked at yet. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If "Country" refers to the club, wouldn't the column have to be after that for "Club"?
- I get what you're saying here. This is the common way of referring to the nationality of the club on WP:FOOTY articles, especially as we can't just use the flag per MOS:FLAG. I'm not sure it would be better if the nationality of the club was after the club itself, but that could be just because I'm used to it being this way. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to have the columns arranged in this order: Year, Winning manager, Nationality, Club and Country? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems more logical to me. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, it's kind of how it's always been done for these WP:FOOTY lists, of which there are multiple ones with the same format that are featured. Of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean I'm right so I'm open to a second opinion on this from the FL directors, @ChrisTheDude: if you have any thoughts on this given your experience with football-related lists, or any other interested editors. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to have the columns arranged in this order: Year, Winning manager, Nationality, Club and Country? Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems more logical to me. Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I get what you're saying here. This is the common way of referring to the nationality of the club on WP:FOOTY articles, especially as we can't just use the flag per MOS:FLAG. I'm not sure it would be better if the nationality of the club was after the club itself, but that could be just because I'm used to it being this way. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Link the teams both in a) and b) notes.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments @Alavense:, I've addressed them all and left some comments above on specific points. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied to some. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied to some of the points you made above @Alavense:. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not sure about the order in which the columns are arranged, but never mind. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Replied to some of the points you made above @Alavense:. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied to some. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): PresN 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Back with another mammal list, #42, and we turn the page to the 2nd-to-last order of mammals: Chiroptera, or bats! I took a break before starting this to adjust the scripts I use to generate the initial tables to make it easier on myself to deal with recent taxonomic revisions, and also went out and bought a 10-pound, 800-page reference book so that I can stop pawing through google books results. The result is bat family #1/20: the hipposiderids. This list follows conventions for the previous lists, with two changes: these bats all eat roughly the same things, so it's just listed in the lede instead of every single row; and I've added the arm/wing length, because it's relevant to flying creatures (and I had a consistent source!). In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "A member of this family is called an hipposiderid" - is it really "an" hipposiderid? Not "a".....?
- Maybe link "cicada"? Not sure this is a commonly understood word on a global level.....
- That's all I got - awesome work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Done and done, thanks! --PresN 16:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
- Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
- "mammal order Chiroptera" should be "mammalian order"
- "Chiroptera, and part" Comma unnecessary.
- "microbat suborder grouping" Doesn't make sense, should be either "microbat suborder Microchiroptera" or just "microbat suborder".
- "hipposiderid, or an" Comma unnecessary.
- "They are named for the shape of their nose-leaf." Saying they're called leaf-nosed because of the shape of their nose-leaf seems weird, maybe "for their elongated, leaf-shaped nose"?
- "the Hipposideros genus of roundleaf bats" Reads weirdly to me.
- "Anthops, or the flower-faced bat;" Why the duplink?
- I'm not sure that mentioing the common names after the genera is necessary, the names aren't unique to each genus and don't seem to form monophyletic groups.
- Everything else seems fine.
- Nice work overall; wish Enwebb was still active, I bet she'd be happy to see the bat lists finally getting some love. AryKun (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: All done, thanks. She actually pointed me towards the source that I'm mainly drawing on for sizes earlier this summer, so hopefully she's seen them (and if not, I just posted on her talk page!) --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @AryKun, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, yeah, I'm comfortable supporting on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @AryKun, just following up to see if all of your concerns have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @AryKun: All done, thanks. She actually pointed me towards the source that I'm mainly drawing on for sizes earlier this summer, so hopefully she's seen them (and if not, I just posted on her talk page!) --PresN 22:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review – I checked a sampling of images, including the lead photo, and everything I reviewed had proper licensing, captions and alt text, and maps had appropriate sourcing. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list I've been working on alongside my revamp of Mongol Empire-related articles on WP. I am indebted to the authors of List of Chinese emperors for a considerable amount of the detail, and to the authors of the FLs for the emperors of the Han dynasty and of the Song dynasty for the layout. If successful, this nomination will be used in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Attempted to reduced the power of the minister Temuder" - remove the d from reduced
- "Briefly ruled before killed by El Temür" => "Briefly ruled before being killed by El Temür"
- Notes b and c need full stops
- That's all I got - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed ChrisTheDude, thanks for your time! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
- There are two problems here, both of which I think have the same solution. The portraits don't have alt text, and the image column is the one set as the row headers but has no text to read out. Putting alt text on the images as the name of the ruler (e.g.
[[File:YuanEmperorAlbumGenghisPortrait.jpg|110px|alt=Genghis Khan]]
should sort that out, as the alt text would be read out for both cases. For the rows with no image, please add invisible text for the cell, so e.g.<span style="display:none">Oghul Qaimish</span>
. - I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MOS:COLHEAD, it isn't recommended to "place column headers in the middle of a table to visually separate the table". Either separate the table into two or convert that fact into a sentence or two just before the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already explained in prose, so I have just removed the column headers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire
Nice work.
Prose comments (usual disclaimer that these are suggestions, not demands, feel free to decline any of them):
- The Yuan dynasty was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China - The lede needs to be the most tightly written section of an article, and the most accessible to casual readers. I think "antepenultimate" might be too fancy a word here for the first sentence (ngrams says it is a very rare word in modern English). I'd just remove it and say "an imperial dynasty." (Or, if you really want to bring it up, then to split off a sentence on dynasties and move it there rather than have it in the first sentence - maybe "...by Kublai Khan. It was the antepenultimate imperial dynasty of China, which succeeded the Song dynasty and preceded the Ming dynasty." But just removing it is fine too.)
- Removed.
- "subsequently split into four autonomous states" Nit: I'd suggest the wikilink better fits "split into four autonomous states", not "subsequently split" (which seems like a more mysterious wikilink).
- Good call.
- I know that "rump state" is a term of art and fine for specialists, but the Northern Yuan ruled a still fairly huge swath territory for over a century, and I wonder if the term might suggest the Northern Yuan were punier & less significant than they really were. (Like, we wouldn't say "The United Kingdom is a rump state left over from the decline of the British Empire", and the modern UK is probably smaller than the Northern Yuan. If much more densely populated, of course.) Is there a better term to use here? It can still wikilink to rump state somewhere, of course. "His descendants continued to rule a state of reduced size in Inner Mongolia until 1634 in a polity known as the Northern Yuan." perhaps?
- I'm comfortable with the current phrasing. Despite their large size, the Northern Yuan was fairly insignificant and very often not a coherent state at all.
- While on that note, in the realm of easter egg links in Ukhaghatu Khan's notes. I'd definitely assume that "a rump state" linked to the rump state article, not the N. Yuan article. I know concision is important in tables, but I'd say it's worth writing "the Northern Yuan, a rump state in Inner Mongolia."
- Done somewhat.
- Nit: On the collapse in Background... it's not a big deal, but I could see reading "Forced to flee" as something like "Toghon Temür was captured and told to go into exile" (which is incorrect). But strictly speaking, he chose to flee. Could maybe reorient the sentence to give him some more agency, like "...an economic crisis led to a breakdown of the social order. Toghon Temür fled from the powerful warlord Zhu Yuanzhang, who conquered the capital of Daidu and established the Ming dynasty in 1368." Potentially a similar change in the actual list row's entry if you agree it'd be an improvement.
- I don't think he really had much agency or choice, and prefer the current wording.
- after it ended she quickly lost influence and died This could theoretically be misread as both her loss of influence and her death as being quick, but it's just the former. Maybe add a comma after "influence"? (If that's too many commas in one sentence for taste, could remove "But" and start a new sentence.)
- No, her death was quick IIRC—just a few months after her loss of power.
- she was found complicit in their rebellion and executed. This makes it sound like she was executed as a political foe, which sounds like it was true in reality, but she was "officially" executed for witchcraft. I recognize that these are short blurbs and not full biographies but this seems kinda relevant in the same way that Joan of Arc being executed for heresy is relevant (not for supporting the "wrong" king of France). Maybe "due to her opposition of Mongke, she was found guilty of witchcraft as a pretext, and executed."?
- Somewhat adjusted.
- his legitimacy was always suspect; he attempted reconciliation by purging those who had brought him to power. This is a very dour assessment of Yesun Temur. Paludan calls him "a respected steppe ruler" and Chi-Ching writes this his post-ascension purge was a "masterstroke" at restoring his legitimacy. Neither reports revolts or coups until after he died. In other words, this was no mere "attempt" at reconciliation, and his legitimacy does not seem to have "always" been suspect. Maybe "His legitimacy under question due to the assassination that brought about his ascension. He purged the coup plotters to restore the blot on his honor." or the like? Also, both sources spend time specifically calling out Yesun Temur's commitment to government impartiality with regard to religion, which seems very cool and worth a brief sentence.
- Adjusted.
- Is it worth throwing in a link to List of emperors of the Ming dynasty somewhere? Maybe the very end of the list? Totally optional, of course (I know you could get to it from the See also link to "List of Chinese monarchs", but that one is a little more relevant as the immediate successors).
- I'd then probably have to include links to the Jin and Song dynasties. Annoyingly the infobox doesn't have appropriate parameter.
Source review:
- Any particular reason Töregene Khatun doesn't have a posthumous name listed? The WP article says it's "Empress Zhaoci (昭慈皇后)" and Moule 1957 says "Lu Huangho" (which is... really far off, that sounds like it might be a different name rather than Wade-Giles being weird). I skimmed Broadbridge 2018 but I couldn't find her discussing her posthumous name - does anyone know for sure?
- I don't think anyone does.
- Setsen Khan (i.e. Kublai) is listed as having his reign start in 1271. But Rossabi 1994 writes "Khubilai ascended to the throne in China in 1260", Moule 1957 simply writes "May 5 1260" for reign start, and Paludan 1998 says "declared himself 'Great Khan' in 1260" while holding lots of Chinese territory. Paludan does offer a later date than 1260 in her timeline on p. 148, but that's 1279 (not 1271) when he becomes emperor of "all China" and wins the war. I get that the declaration of emperorship in 1271 is worth calling out somewhere, but it seems Kublai ruled de facto earlier, and also backdated his emperorship to start then as well. (Atwood's entry on the Yuan dynasty explicitly mentions 1279 as the start date to some Chinese historians too, so definitely a date worth calling out in the notes IMO.)
- Correct, I don't know why I put 1271. Added a note.
- Was Ragibagh Emperor? Moule 1957 lists him, but Paludan 1998 says "he is not included in the official list of Emperors" and Chi-Ching does not bother to give him a section header. I'm not saying to remove him, but List of English monarchs puts Jane Grey in italics and has a big "disputed claimant" warning, which seems the closest equivalent. Maybe deserves a different shading, italics, and a "Yesun Temur loyalists acclaimed this kid was Emperor but they didn't win the ensuing civil war" disclaimer. (Irinjibal seems a less controversial inclusion, though Paludan makes a similar remark about him not being in the official list. But Irinjibal also ruled twice as long and not during an immediate conflict trying to depose him.)
- It's difficult to say much about a child who died after a month of rule. I don't see enough arguments in modern scholarship about whether he was emperor (contrasting with LJG) to justify saying he was a disputed claimant.
- Verified the Wilkinson 2012 & Broadbridge 2018 cites.
- Spot checked a few citations from Atwood 2004, looks good. (I focused most of my attention on the Yuan post-Kublai as that seems the most relevant time period for Chinese history, as the earlier rulers are presumably already well-covered by Mongol history, but checked a few here anyway.)
- Spot checked the dates from Moule 1957, looks good. (The names are in Wade-Giles so those obviously don't match the Pinyin, but that's fine, it's clearly the same names.)
- Spot-checked most of the citations to "The Cambridge History of China, Volume 6", looks good.
- Spot checked various citations to Paludan 1998, looks good. There are a few differences but they're where she differs from Moule / Cambridge (e.g. she thinks Shidibala only took the throne in 1321? But the other two say 1320. Maybe even just demote her from being cited at all there, that seems more like a mistake than intentionally disputing when he took the throne.) Well, she doesn't use a Romanization with diacritics, but I'll presume the ones in the list are accurate. Also since some leaders have different Romanizations, you obviously have to pick one (I see Cambridge was favored for "Khaishan" vs. "Haishan", etc.), so that's fine. One other nitpick: the citation for Temur Oljeitu seems to be more appropriate to p. 154-156, not 156-158?
- Adjusted the last.
Overall, great work! SnowFire (talk) 21:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for an exhaustive set of comments SnowFire, responses above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the edits.
- On Toregene's death: To be clear, I mean a reading of "quick" being the manner of death, e.g. dead in her sleep or shot through the head with an arrow, vs. an agonizing 2-hour long execution or a week-long severe illness. The source didn't seem to report the manner of death at all, ergo whether it was quick or not is unknown. If I wanted to emphasize that the death was merely shortly after in time, then "quickly lost power, and died soon afterward" perhaps? But I think just a comma is still enough space. (Ultimately up to you.)
- On a List of Ming emperors link: Consistency is overrated. I say throw it in "See also" if there isn't a better place to fit it, but up to you.
- On recent edits: Why did you remove the image File:YuanEmperor Kusala.jpg Eupakistani added? I've looked at the Metropolitan Museum's description of the image, a very reliable art history source, and it seems accurate enough. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/37614 : "Prince Qoshila" as the second marking in the bottom left corner (surely "Kusala"), and "At the bottom are portraits of the patrons, from left to right: Tugh Temür, the great-grandson of Khubilai Khan, who briefly served as emperor of the Yuan dynasty, his older brother, and their wives." It looks good to me.
- Anyway, support, remaining issues above are nitpicks. SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alavense
- comprise both Kublai's successors as rulers of China, and his predecessors up to his grandfather Genghis - I think there's no need for that comma.
- and a regime in China, which was ruled by Genghis's grandson Kublai Khan - I think that relative clause is defining and, if so, the comma would not be needed.
- An alternative view, favoured by some later Chinese historians, place - places?
- They continued the tradition, dating from the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC) of the ruling head of state being known as huangdi - A comma is needed after the parenthesis.
- Toghon Temür died of natural causes - That's the only instance in the whole column in which the name of an emperor is mentioned.
That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No pressure or rush, just following up to make sure you saw this feedback @AirshipJungleman29. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those should be sorted now, Alavense. Thanks for the comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for featured list because it is well-sourced and, IMO, meets the basic requirements of a featured list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Great work and a topic kinda close to my heart as my son currently attends one of the formerly all-female colleges, but I feel like you need to explain the set-up of these women receiving degrees for the first time in a bit more detail, specifically the fact that the first degrees were awarded in 1920 but the women in the table "graduated" anything up to 41 years earlier. Presumably the degree awards were in essence retrospective? Also, how did the women originally "graduate" without receiving a degree (most people reading the article would understand the concept of "graduating" as "receiving their degree". Did the earlier women essentially just, I dunno, leave.....?)
- Some more nit-picky comments:
- Image caption: "First women colleges at Oxford" => "First women's colleges at Oxford"
- "Before 1920, it is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford" => "Tt is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford before 1920"
- " The first woman unofficial accepted at Oxford" => " The first woman unofficially accepted at Oxford"
- "The last survivor of the 1920 conferral ceremonies was Constance Savery who graduated in 1920" - last four words are redundant given how the sentence starts
- Image caption starting "former" needs a full stop
- Suggest linking "jurisprudence" in the table as it's a rather obscure word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude, I've gathered and added as much info as I could in a "History" section. I've also made the minor edits you have suggested and added the links too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Omnis Scientia, thank you for writing the article and expanding the coverage of women at Oxford. In response to ChrisTheDude's question, the exams available and taken by women changed during the period. From 1876 the university's Delegacy for Local Examinations (DLE) offered Women’s Examinations, equivalent to Responsions, and pass or honours final examinations.[1] By 1894 women could take university examination papers through the DLE, which awarded a certificate of the results of the exams.[2] From 1896 Somerville or the Association for the Education of Women issued a diploma listing the exams a student had passed at the end of her studies.[3]
- Suggest replacing Graduation date with Final examination in the table, if that is what the date represents
- Suggest another paragraph explaining about the exams available and the certificates and diplomas mentioned above
- LMH, Somerville and the Home Students all opened in 1879. LMH uses a foundation date of 1878 as its founding committee was set up in that year, but I think that is not relevant to this article
- I believe that in "By 1895, Oxford and the University of Cambridge were the only universities in the United Kingdom to deny women degrees" the UK means GB and NI, as Trinity College, Dublin was not awarding women degrees. Suggest replacing United Kingdom with Great Britain
- Suggest that "The five women's colleges were not given equal status to men's colleges until 1959" should say "the men's colleges" as it refers to the group of existing fully accepted colleges, not men's colleges in general.
St Catherine's College, OxfordSt Peter's College, Oxford and St Catherine's College, Oxford did not get full college status until 1961 and 1962. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]- @TSventon, thank you for the additional info! Being honest, I didn't FULLY understand the whole exam diploma/certificate system so I wrote in one line that they were given certificates at the end of examinations, along with a reference. You're welcome to expand on the examination process if you want.
- I've also added most of the rest of your suggestions. I do think graduation is correct term since they did complete their studies. They were just not given a degree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, would like an update on this. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Omnis Scientia apologies for the delay. I have expanded the sentence on exams and certificates as requested, please copy edit as necessary. I have looked up "graduation" e.g. at Collins and it has at least two separate meanings, 1 completion of studies and 2 degree ceremony, so the way it is used in the table is correct, but confusing. That is a detail so
- @TSventon, would like an update on this. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TSventon (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, thank you! Much appreciated! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
Comments by Alavense
Excellent work, Omnis Scientia. I saw nothing other than maybe a comma missing in "was Constance Savery who died"? Support. Alavense (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense, I've fixed the comma. Thank you for the kind words! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by UC
An enjoyable article on an important topic. Some points below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead seems terribly short -- I don't see that it includes much from the history section, which would seem to break MOS:LEAD -- unless things work differently for lists?
- A pedantic one -- matriculating is something that the student does -- therefore, people aren't matriculated, they matriculate.
- The history of the Oxford women's colleges is a bit complicated, and I must admit to not understanding it very well. However, I'm looking with some confusion at the sentence In June 1878, the Association for the Education of Women (AEW) was formed, aiming for the eventual creation of a college for women in Oxford. The first women's colleges at Oxford opened the following year: Lady Margaret Hall, Somerville Hall and the Society of Oxford Home-Students (later known as St Anne's College).. St Anne's didn't technically become a college until the 1950s, and the Society of Oxford Home-Students needs a bit of explanation as to what it actually was -- it certainly wasn't formally a college, but was practically quite a different beast as well (this may need an EFN when it comes to the table). Both Somerville and LMH were also technically halls of residence instead of colleges (Somerville formally changed over in 1894), but I'm not sure how important the distinction was. Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls?
- The five women's colleges were not given equal status to the men's colleges until 1959: what does equal status actually mean, in this context?
- For accessibility, better to move the Times blockquote to the right, to maintain a consistent left margin.
- I'm a little uncomfortable with the sourcing in the history section -- it's almost entirely publications from the university itself, and for that matter, almost all a self-published, non-scholarly web page -- whatever we think of the quality of Oxford's research, we shouldn't extend the same deference to their PR team. This doesn't meet the "independent" site of WP:HQRS -- we shouldn't allow Oxford to mark their own homework.
- This was a huge step towards women being granted full membership: both a cliché and perhaps a bit back-patting?
- the statute which established the Delegacy acknowledged women as Oxford members for the first time as well as the five women's colleges, with the University assuming formal control and supervision over them: this is a run-on sentence, and it becomes quite unclear as to whether it was the colleges or the women who were formally controlled.
- It would be another ten years of campaigning before women were finally admitted as full members: we haven't really talked about this campaigning at all.
- Notable women conferred degrees in 1920: what's the criteria for inclusion here?
- I would make the college and degree subject columns sortable.
- Being pedantic again, is it a graduation year if you didn't receive a degree (gradus)? I do see the Collins point above, but in this particular context it's clear that nobody -- including the women themselves -- would have seen themselves as "graduating" in e.g. 1886 (otherwise, why turn up to "graduate" again?). Suggest "Final year of studies".
- The citation to "Dorothy L Sayers: A Biography" is oddly formatted, and the link is broken. Her ODNB page says that the degree was in modern French (it brackets 'medieval', but to me that sounds like Sayers got her degree in 'modern' (post-Latin) French by offering papers in medieval French, like someone might get a degree in Archaeology and Anthropology by studying human evolution).
- The citation formatting is a bit inconsistent -- check dashes for ranges, dashes or no dashes for ISBNS, dots and spaces after p, and the other little pedantic things. Using citation templates throughout would help.
- @UndercoverClassicist: I have posted a link to your questions on @Omnis Scientia:'s talk page and will try to answer your questions about colleges.
- what does equal status actually mean, in this context? The University of Oxford currently has three types of “colleges”. Most are colleges of the University of Oxford (full colleges), which have royal charters and are governed by their fellows. There are also permanent private halls, which are governed by religious institutions, and societies, which are neither colleges nor PPHs.[1] The women’s halls were not recognised by the university at all until 1910. A college head said they “are in Oxford, but they are not of Oxford, and are no more known to the University, as such, than Holloway College, many of whose students pass University examinations but will be jealously excluded from degrees.“ [2]: 272 In 1910 they became “recognised societies” and in 1920 “societies of women students”. [3]
- In 1959 the women’s societies became full colleges, which meant that they were accepted as equal to the existing (men’s) colleges. A prerequisite for the status of a college of the university of Oxford was that governance was in the hands of the principal and fellows rather than external trustees. Also, according to the Oxford Magazine, college heads could be appointed as vice-chancellor.[4] The next colleges to be recognised were St Peter's College, Oxford in 1961 and St Catherine's College, Oxford in 1962.
- Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls? The women's colleges were recognised as societies from 1910 until 1959, rather than halls or full colleges.
- LMH, Somerville, St Hugh’s and St Hilda’s opened as halls of residence, without any teaching staff (see chapters of the Victoria County History). As student numbers increased they started to employ tutors and, apart from LMH, take the name of college. For example Somerville changed its name “in the belief that it would not only improve the educational status of Somerville in the eyes of the public, but would be understood as implying the desire of the Governing Body to raise it above the level of a Hall of Residence.“ [5] The four women’s colleges received royal charters in 1926 (see chapters of the Victoria County History).
- The home students were supervised by the AEW from 1879 to 1910, but only given their own principal and committee in 1893. From 1910 they were supervised by the Delegacy for Woman Students and from 1920 by the Delegacy for Home-Students. In 1942 The home students took the name St Anne’s Society and in 1952 they received a royal charter and took the name St Anne’s College.[6] TSventon (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this -- it certainly helped me clarify things, and I hope it will find its way as necessary into the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist, I will add on that "notable women" are women who have article on Wikipedia.
- Also want to thank @TSventon a lot for their contribution here. They know a lot more about this topic than I do. I started this list in part to listify a category and learned about the subject as I was creating it. Quite a bit of info was added by TSventon and he provided a lot of missing names to add on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Wikipedia for all the women who graduated in 1920–1921 academic year according to the Oxford University Gazette and found 69 names. The is as complete as I can make it but I may have missed a few cases where the names in Wikipedia and the Gazette are different for some reason. TSventon (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If the ambition is to make this a complete list (even if that ambition may never be fulfilled, because some of the women won't have good sources about them), I think we should cut the word "notable" in the subhead, which implies that it's only ever going to be a curated one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I have expanded the section about women's colleges as discussed.
- As to completeness, the list currently includes about 65 names out of about 650 graduations in the first year and I don't think there is any ambition to increase that significantly.
- On sourcing, I agree that we should not over rely on university websites. Within those, some pages are written by academics, especially firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk, which names a team of academics and archivists. I think that is a high quality source, but not an independent one. TSventon (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, great work, thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: the FL criteria require a "lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". Do you know any examples of FL where an inclusion criterion is Wikipedia notability or having a Wikipedia article? TSventon (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, I can't think of one. I do think that the criteria of the list is explained in the lead of this particular article. My bias opinion, of course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot see any statement in the lead of the inclusion criteria for this list, which leads me to believe that the list theoretically includes all the women awarded degrees in that first ceremony. I would say that formally setting the criteria at "has a Wikipedia article" would be an odd choice, since we don't consider Wikipedia to have any scholarly authority in itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I agree the criteria should be explained, but lists of notable foos seem to be accepted in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The list was originally based on Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford, but is now based on women's graduations between October 2020 and December 2021 listed in the Oxford University Gazette, digitised here, where I have found a Wikipedia article. In Stand-alone lists, WP:LISTPEOPLE says
- I cannot see any statement in the lead of the inclusion criteria for this list, which leads me to believe that the list theoretically includes all the women awarded degrees in that first ceremony. I would say that formally setting the criteria at "has a Wikipedia article" would be an odd choice, since we don't consider Wikipedia to have any scholarly authority in itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, I can't think of one. I do think that the criteria of the list is explained in the lead of this particular article. My bias opinion, of course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: the FL criteria require a "lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". Do you know any examples of FL where an inclusion criterion is Wikipedia notability or having a Wikipedia article? TSventon (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, great work, thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If the ambition is to make this a complete list (even if that ambition may never be fulfilled, because some of the women won't have good sources about them), I think we should cut the word "notable" in the subhead, which implies that it's only ever going to be a curated one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this -- it certainly helped me clarify things, and I hope it will find its way as necessary into the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:
- The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
- The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.
Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it (i.e., citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject).
- There's a distinction between "meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article", which is reasonably defensible (because it essentially means "has been noticed in good scholarship"), and "has a Wikipedia article", which is much harder. WP:LISTPEOPLE applies really to potentially very large lists -- as we have an exact and fairly small number for the total population eligible to be listed here, I think we should be aiming to get all of them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I personally prefer the current criteria over including a complete list. For ordinary degrees the current list has 52 names out of a total 733 degrees awarded, ignoring the Oxford MAs. It would be possible to import a spreadsheet with all the names, but that feels WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Also the current list has name, college, subject and exam year, while the lists in the Gazette only have name, college, degree (mostly B.A.) and graduation date).
- The list as submitted included the criterion "notable", so red links could be included. Also articles which don't meet the criteria for the list can be excluded. TSventon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; my view would be that if someone who would meet (say) GNG is excluded from the list purely because they do not currently have a Wikipedia page, that list cannot claim to be sufficiently complete or comprehensive under the FL criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, @UndercoverClassicist, if you think a complete list is good then I'm for it. We can divide the names so its easier to navigate the page. By that I mean "A-G" "H-P", "R-Z" or something similar. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes; my view would be that if someone who would meet (say) GNG is excluded from the list purely because they do not currently have a Wikipedia page, that list cannot claim to be sufficiently complete or comprehensive under the FL criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
- ^ "Organisation". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
- ^ Brock, Michael G.; Curthoys, Mark C., eds. (2000). "10 'In Oxford but…not of Oxford': The Women's Colleges". The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. 7: Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 237–308.
- ^ "Somerville College, Woodstock Road". Kelly's Directory of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. 1939. p. 206.
- ^ "Gaudeamus Nuffieldenses". The Oxford Magazine. 1957. p. 502.
it will , as a New Foundation , not be listed on the roll of those eligible to present for the Vice-Chan-cellorship
- ^ Salter, H. E.; Lobel, Mary D. (1954). "Somerville College". The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 3: The University of Oxford. London: British History Online. pp. 343–347.
- ^ Salter, H. E.; Lobel, Mary D. (1954). "St Anne's College". The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 3: The University of Oxford. London: British History Online. pp. 351–353.
Source review
I'll do a source review, and add any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there are quite a few tweaks needed, but nothing fundamental - mainly consistency across citations. Please feel free to challenge or to ask for clarifications. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- I think that where there is no author stated, there should be a blank rather than "_____,", but let me check.
- Not all online sources have access dates (e.g. Constance Savery". Bethlehem Books; "1894-1896". University of Oxford; "1896 Towards Degrees for Women". Somerville College.) Y
- There should be consistency in whether sources are linked. (e.g. St. Anne's College, Oxford is linked in ref 8, but Somerville College isn't in ref 17) Y
- There shoud be consistency in whether publication loctions for books are given. Y
- Shuld be consistency in how page numbers are given (like "p.12", not like "p10") Y
- Surprisingly, 'They couldn't go on the river with a man on their own' - the changing lives of Oxford's female students" requires registration, so it should have a url-access=Registration parameter Y
- Who's Who (refs 35, 53, 112) is considered "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP Y
- Repetition in " 'University Intelligence', The Times, 26 June 1912, p.12; 'University Intelligence', The Times, 27 June 1912, p.6." - is it one article continued across pages 6 and 12? (I have access to the Times Digital Archive, so can check this if you're not sure) Y
- Doesn't look like "(Following the Oxford custom a BA not a BSc.) University Intelligence, The Times, 28 June 1920, p10" is formatted quite correctly. Y
- Brittain, Vera (1960). The Women at Oxford. appears three times, with inconsistent details. Y
- Sure thing, will fix these issues. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I think I've gotten most of them, @BennyOnTheLoose. If I missed something, make sure to ping me.
- I should add that most of inconsistancy and repetativeness is because I took the sources from the articles themselves and their formatting was varied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Thanks for the responses so far. I've made a few formatting tweaks suggested by scripts; please review these and revert any which you disagree with. "Rx" below refers to "reference number x". I'll take another look after you've replied to the points below, and haven't forgotten that I said I would check about ""_____," Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
- Not a requirement for FL, but you could use https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/ to standardise the formatting of the ISBNs. Y
- Not a requirement for FL to change it, as far as I'm aware, but it's unusual to see FLC citations not using a citation template (e.g. the first five refs) Y
- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are inconsistent. (e.g. Not all have the red padlock, some have authors, R27 has a date, some don't have the doi, not all have accessed date, R98 doesn't have the wikilink, R104 has the abbreviation) Y
- R12 - missing ISBN
- R14 - missing publisher
- Still missing publisher. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- R15 - missing ISBN
- R17 - Missing access date
- Still missing access date. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- R22 - Missing access date
- Still missing access date. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- R33 - incomplete details (missing page title)
- Now R35, still missing page title. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- R44 - Missing access date
- R46 isn't this published by "Somerville College" rather than by "University of Oxford WWI Centenary" ? Y
- What makes melaniespanswick.com a reliable source? (I see lots of books, but wasn't fully convinced) Y
- Authors don't all use first/last parameters:
- last=Parkes, Susan M. Y
- author=Mavis Curtis Y
- first1=Catherine M. C. Haines with Helen M. Y
- author1=Dimand, Robert William|author2=Dimand, Mary Ann|author3=Forget, Evelyn L. Y
- author=Frances Lannon Y
- Fernanda Helen Perrone (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
- Constance Savery (R51; not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
- Giles Brindley (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
- Philip E. Bennett (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) Y
- Vera Brittain could have an author-link Y
- Rosemary Mitchell could have an author-link Y
- Textile History could be wikilinked Y
- National Library of Wales could be wikilinked Y
- Pitt Rivers Museum could be wikilinked Y
- Book titles are inconsistently capitalised. I think these should be amended: A danger to the men? : a history of women in Trinity College Dublin 1904–2004, A biographical dictionary of women economists, Brief biographies of British mycologists, Traditions of social policy : essays in honour of Violet Butler; International women in science : a biographical dictionary to 1950. Also "Oxford dictionary of national biography" Y
- R68 - publication is via isuu, not by it Y
- As far as I know, we usually omit "Ltd/Limited" from the publisher name in citations Y
- A couple of web citations have the url displayed in the citation, e.g. trowelblazers.com, www.newulsterbiography.co.uk. I think just the site name should be shown. Y
- Still some inconsitency in whether sources are wikilinked. Y
General comments
- Michaelmas term could be wikilinked, rather than Michaelmas Y
- Ticking the ones as I finish them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BennyOnTheLoose, okay I think I've gotten most of them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BennyOnTheLoose, anything else? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- R6, Handbook to the University of Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1965. has an ISBN despite pre-dating the ISBN system. Is it right? Y (I'm assuming its the isbn of a new addition. Have removed it.)
- R56, Savery's work diaries. Is this a published book, or something held in the University of Oregon archives? Y (removed since, yes, its held by the University of Oregon and is not accessible.)
- R73, Glenday & Price. Could use its OCLC (779055717) if there is no ISBN. Y
- R76, Rayner-Canham. Missing ISBN. Y
- What makes fantastic-writers-and-the-great-war.com a suitable source? Y (fair point; removed)
- R83, Richardson. Missing ISBN. Y
- R84, "DR ENID STARKIE" should not be in all-caps Y
- Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are nearly all now consistent, except that only one (R30) lists the author. Shouldn't all the authors be listed, and shouldn't there be access dates as it's the online version? Y (access-dates require URL; the "cite ODNB" template required the doi and the title; there are more options but the rest isn't required)
- There is still inconsistency in whether publishers are linked. Y
- Okay so I've decided to NOT link the publishers since some don't have articles. The rest, I will tell you as soon as I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BennyOnTheLoose, okay that's done. Hopefully correctly. Ping me if there is more to be done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly there. I've made, and will probably make a couple more, minor tweaks. Please review and let me know if any are objectionable. In two cases it's not entirely clear to me whether the WorldCat site, or the book it refers to, is being cited. (If a cite web, then it doesn't need the OCLC, if a cite book then it doesn't need the WorldCat url.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly there. I've made, and will probably make a couple more, minor tweaks. Please review and let me know if any are objectionable. In two cases it's not entirely clear to me whether the WorldCat site, or the book it refers to, is being cited. (If a cite web, then it doesn't need the OCLC, if a cite book then it doesn't need the WorldCat url.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a point that affects FL status, but are the two Further Reading books deliberately ordered by date rather than surname?
- I swapped out one WorldCat ref for a book. I don't think the current sources for Ivy Wiliams (R89, R90) verify the info; although the wording in On This Day She could maybe be interpreted as supporting it. I think that's the last point! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the help! And yes the books were deliberately ordered by date, to answer your question.
- I will look into Ivy Williams further too. Best regards to as well. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another general comment:
- I think it should be "honorary" rather than "honourary" degrees. Optionally, a link to Honorary degree could be added in the caption. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the spelling, but the degrees by decree were not honorary degrees as, unlike honorary degrees, they conferred the normal rights of a degree, see the 1866 Oxford University Calendar. Honorary degree#Customary degrees (ad eundem or jure officii degrees) has some background information, not all sourced. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the spelling, but the degrees by decree were not honorary degrees as, unlike honorary degrees, they conferred the normal rights of a degree, see the 1866 Oxford University Calendar. Honorary degree#Customary degrees (ad eundem or jure officii degrees) has some background information, not all sourced. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @BennyOnTheLoose and Omnis Scientia: I have replaced the existing lists with complete lists of 1920 graduates sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, which meant that I removed references R23 to R110 inclusive. I think that resolves your query about Ivy Williams, but are you still happy with the sourcing generally? TSventon (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, overall happy but is there a way to add the papers with the list of women as references into the tables? Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Omnis Scientia, do you want me to replace 134 with <ref name="Gazette 1920–1921" />{{rp|p=134}}, etc.? That should be possible. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm keeping an eye on this; I have no issue with the change of sources. Please ping me once the article's ready for a final going-over. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, yes that would be better. Also replace the Page header with Ref.. Though wait a minute on that. I'm just making the tables accessible per the rules. Will ping you when I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @TSventon, okay that's the accessibility of the table completed. You can add the references in place of the pages as you see fit. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Omnis Scientia, do you want me to replace 134 with <ref name="Gazette 1920–1921" />{{rp|p=134}}, etc.? That should be possible. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Complete list
@Omnis Scientia, UndercoverClassicist, BennyOnTheLoose, Alavense, and ChrisTheDude: I have compiled a complete list of graduates from the Oxford University Gazette as suggested by UC and saved it here on the article talk page. I have only done up to December 1920 to give you all a chance to comment on whether it is better than a list of wikipedia articles and to suggest improvements to the format.
Notes: I have removed transcription errors as far as I could. I have noted where the woman was Mrs. as it makes it easier to look for the names elsewhere. I have put each degree on a separate line and ignored Oxford MAs. Only two women, Mary Lindsay Gordon and Ivy Williams, received two degrees. The names of colleges could probably be shortened by omitting college. I have given Wikipedia articles their own column so the table can be sorted for "has Wikipedia article". The last column is a page number but could be a full reference if necessary. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia and UndercoverClassicist: I have replaced the tables with complete versions sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, but they will doubtless need further tweaking. I have just added 1920, but 1921 could be added at a future date. I think it is helpful to allow sorting on most columns. TSventon (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work, @TSventon! Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility issues
Noting that the table does not have column or row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh, will get to it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh, done. The table was changed just a while back so that's why none of the column or scope rows were there. Table's still being tweaked but do check if everything is good now. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh, I have done my corrections.
- @Hey man im josh, done. The table was changed just a while back so that's why none of the column or scope rows were there. Table's still being tweaked but do check if everything is good now. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite excited to present my third Olympic medal table nomination, which is based largely on other recent nominations, such as 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, 1964 Summer Olympics medal table, and 2018 Winter Olympics medal table. I believe it meets all of our criteria and, as always, I will do my best to respond quickly and address any and all feedback or concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Phelps image caption needs a full stop
- "due to medals reallocation" => "due to medal reallocation"
- CAS should be written in full
- "The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ
- You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......?
- "an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright
- That's all I got - great work as ever, Josh! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phelps image caption needs a full stop
– Done.Example text
– Done.CAS should be written in full
–"The IOC has not yet redistributed the medals" - should be medal singular as this cell only relates to one DQ
– Done. I was thinking "medals" because, if redistributed, the gold would go to second, the silver would go to... well... the thid place person is under investigation, but the idea is it would go to them, and so on. Hence, I was thinking of multiple reallocations. Never the less, for the time being, singular actually makes sense.You mention Nijat Rahimov's DQ and the lack of reallocation of the medal to date in the prose, but not the other similar case......?
– I've converted it to a note now, but"an 87th country was later awarded a medal at the 2008 Olympics, tying the record" - should probably also mention in this section that the figure for 2016 subsequently went down to 86 therefore the 2008 games now hold the record outright
– I've added to the note, I hope it makes things more clear.
- Thanks so much for the feedback @ChrisTheDude!! I very much appreciate it and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Please do let me know if I can do better. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @ChrisTheDude, sorry, just to follow up on this... Which version is correct? You asked me to remove a full stop from an image at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2018 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1, but you asked me to add it in this case. Both captions, the other being at 2018 Winter Olympics medal table, are formatted the same way except for the full stop. Just seeking clarity so that I can be consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Image captions that are a complete sentence need a full stop e.g. "Dave Smith won the most medals at the 2064 Olympics." I misread the image caption on the 2018 article and thought it wasn't a complete sentence so didn't need one, turns out I was wrong on that. But, in short: complete sentence needs one, sentence fragment doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I'll do a source review, and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: Only the SB Nation source is concerning. Nothing in my general comments that is a blocker. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Is the use of SB Nation appropriate, given the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_437#SB_Nation?
- Everything else looks like a suitable source for the info supported.
- I didn't see any issues with citation formatting.
- Spot checks on "On 18 August 2016, Kyrgyz weightlifter Izzat Artykov was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's 69 kg event after testing positive for strychnine. Luis Javier Mosquera of Colombia, who had been the fourth-place finisher before Artykov's disqualification, was moved into third place" - no issues
- Spot checks on "On 8 December 2016, the CAS disqualified weightlifter Gabriel Sîncrăian of Romania after he tested positive for exogenous testosterone and boxer Misha Aloian of Russia after he tested positive for tuaminoheptane. In the men's 85 kg weightlifting event Denis Ulanov of Kazakhstan was moved into third place. In the men's flyweight (52 kg) boxing event Yoel Finol of Venezuela was moved into second place; the released bronze medal has not been awarded to anyone." - no issues.
- Spot check on "Serghei Tarnovschi of Moldova was stripped of his bronze medal in the men's C-1 1000 metres canoeing event after testing positive for GHRP-2, a growth hormone-releasing peptide." - no issues
General comments
- "The golds are purer than any presented at all preceding Olympics." - "The golds were... " for consistency? Although I suppose "are" is true.
- I like "the mint that minted" but you may want to reword to avoid repetition.
- Hey @BennyOnTheLoose, I'm so sorry I missed your review!!! I never would have let this go long without response had I realized sooner. Anyways...
- SB Nation discussions are often tainted by the fact people widely evaluate the parent site, SB Nation, along with its hundred of sub sites (typically one for every professional team). Their main site is actually typically pretty okay and doesn't *usually* have anything significantly wrong with it. That's, in my opinion, the reason why we haven't moved to actually placing them in the unreliable source category. For that specific usage of the reference, the only thing that it's verifying is the number of people that were a part of the team. I've had a real tough time verifying how many people were on the team, and it felt relevant to call out the fact that everyone that's "independent" in that context was actually from Kuwait. Unfortinately... 2016_Summer_Olympics#Number_of_athletes_by_National_Olympic_Committee was of no help since it's unreferenced.
- As for the other two suggestions, I've made relevant changes. Thanks so much for your review! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pass for source review in light of the reply above. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as IMO the FL criteria have been met. Thanks, Hey man im josh. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007
A total of 11,238
-> deleting "A total of" would be more conciseOverall, 87 teams
-> same thing with "overall"Host country Brazil won seven gold medals, their most at any single Summer Olympics
I often try to avoid sentences that may go out of date. I will also note that in 2020 they won 7 gold again. Maybe clarify or rewrite to state that the total of 7 was the most up to that point.winning 46 gold and 121 total medals respectively.
->The United States led the medal table both in number of gold medals won and in overall medals, winning 46 and 121 respectively.
"Respectively" means that you are listing off totals from the previous phrasing, so no need to repeat.
Just a few comments for now. Ill come back later for more. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The design for the Olympic medals for the 2016 Summer Olympics featured the largest medals in terms of diameter of any medal presented at the Olympics.
-->The 2016 Summer Olympic medals were the largest in history.
Ok, I'm not sure what exactly to change this too. I just wanted to show that the sentence is overly complicated. "Olympics" is said 3 times, "medals" is said 3 times, and I can't think of any other way that a circle would be measured other than diameter. Recommend really tightening up.Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself.
"Much of" doesn't equate to 40%, per the source. I would rephrase to "a little less than half" or something more accurate. I also think this strays a little in CLOP territory:- Source:
And 40 per cent of the copper used in the bronze medals came from waste at the Mint itself.
- Article:
Much of the copper used in minting the bronze medals came from recycling waste from the mint itself.
- Recommendation:
Just under half of the copper used in the bronze medals was recycled from normal operations at the Brazilian Mint.
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Source:
- You state that the "obverse" side is Nike, while the source says the "reverse" side. I think you mean reverse.
That's all I got hey man im josh. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Gonzo fan2007, I'm sorry I missed your comments until now! I'm just about done for the day so I'll make sure this is all addressed tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey @Gonzo fan2007, is "respectively" really meant to be left out? I find it more confusing to say "winning 46 and 121" and stopping there. I believe I've addressed everything else that you've brought up though and I very much appreciate your feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I mean that repeating "medals" isn't needed. So you can just say
winning 46 and 121 respectively.
. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]- @Gonzo fan2007: Gotcha, done! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I mean that repeating "medals" isn't needed. So you can just say
- Hey @Gonzo fan2007, is "respectively" really meant to be left out? I find it more confusing to say "winning 46 and 121" and stopping there. I believe I've addressed everything else that you've brought up though and I very much appreciate your feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. --PresN 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another Olympic list just in time for the end of the 2024 Summer Olympics. Will probably reply a bit late for personal reasons but I promise that comments will be responded accordingly. Arconning (talk) 09:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Infobox image caption needs a full stop
- "While Cameroon, Mongolia, and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals." - this isn't a complete sentence
- "winning six medals with four gold and two silver medals." => "winning six medals with four gold and two silver." will suffice
- "won the most medals at the games, winning seven medals with two golds, four silvers, and one bronze medal." - as above, "won the most medals at the games, winning seven medals with two golds, four silvers, and one bronze." will suffice and avoid repetition
- "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event after a competitor lost their semifinal, as opposed to fighting in a third place tie breaker." - this doesn't seem quite right, I suggest "Two bronze medals were awarded in each boxing event to the losing semi-finalists, as opposed to them fighting in a third place tie breaker"
- That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude I have done all of this. Let me know if you have any more. :) Arconning (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Steelkamp
- "Mexico City, Mexico" is redundant, and can be shortened to just "Mexico City".
- "These games were the first games to be held in Latin America." Change to "These were the first games to be held in Latin America."
- "and 39 of them". Is this referring to 39 nations or 39 athletes?
- "Teams from Kenya,[7] Tunisia,[8] and Venezuela won their nations' first Olympic gold medals.[9] While Cameroon,[10] Mongolia,[11][12] and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals." I suggest merging into once sentence: "Teams from Kenya,[7] Tunisia,[8] and Venezuela won their nations' first Olympic gold medals,[9] while Cameroon,[10] Mongolia,[11][12] and Uganda won their nations' first Olympic medals."
- "...at any edition of the Olympic Games." Can be simplified to "...in the Olympic Games."
- "He and the rest of his team were subsequently disqualified..." Simplify to "He and the rest of his team were disqualified..."
Steelkamp (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steelkamp I believe I'm done. :) Arconning (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Support. Steelkamp (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Alavense
- The issue with the captions hasn't been solved yet. The one in the infobox needs a full stop, while those about Francisco Rodríguez and Tömöriin Artag don't.
- In the references, what does "MNOC" stand for? I think it should be "Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 1969a, p." and "Organizing Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, 1969b, p.".
That's all I saw, Arconning. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alavense Done, I think. :) Arconning (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the missing full stop at the end of the infobox image's caption myself. Nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
Source review: Passed
- Reliable enough for the information being cited
- Consistent date formatting
- Consistent and proper reference formatting
- Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
- Spot checks sources match what they are being cited for
Feedback:
- I added col scopes myself to the final table
- I fixed a few hyphens for consistency
- Ref 15 should have been United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee instead of "Team USA", but that was the only thing left, so I just did it.
Support, source review passed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.