Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 5)/archive2
- 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 Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009 [1].
- Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 5)/archive1
- Featured list candidates/List of One Piece episodes (season 5)/archive2
Toolbox |
---|
- Notified: NocturneNoir and Rambo's Revenge
- Not notified: Dabomb87 (on vacation)
Since the last nomination, it has been copyedited. References to the ANN encyclopedia, which was recently declared non-reliable, have been replaced. Everything else was checked and re-checked, just to make sure. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My concerns, found at my talkpage, have all been addressed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: NocturneNoir reconfirmed their support.[2] -- Goodraise (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All sources are reliable and the summaries are easy to understand. Nice work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As per Tintor2's comment. Extremepro (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I confirm my vote of support per the new FL criteria. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#New criterion discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the summaries need some copy-editing, which I will do tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to go through all the episode summaries, my only comments are:
- "The next three episodes are called "Shutsugeki! Zenii Kaizoku Dan" (出撃!ゼニィ海賊団?, lit. "Sortie! Zenii Pirates")", not true is it? I thought the episodes have individual names (as indicated in the table) and the 3-episode arc is called this.
- Reworded. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you use "webcitation.org" for so many references where the original page still works fine. It just seems a rather round about way of doing things.
- Webcitation.org archives on demand. Once the original pages stop working, I won't be able to archive them anymore. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing issues I previously brought up have been resolved in discussions between us. I am happy this page is reliably sourced. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved (taking into account new criteria). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm copy-editing, but these are questions that I have:
Note I confess I had forgotten about this, I'll try to return tomorrow or Tuesday, so don't archive this nomination just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to finish tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are the last issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose - this is the first time I have seen this list so my comments will be from the perspective of a prospective new reader. Apologies if I repeat something already mentioned.
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.