Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Battles of the Russo-Japanese War/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 not promoted 16:14, 8 May 2008.

Battles of the Russo-Japanese War[edit]

Self-nomination New list, modelled on Battles of the Mexican-American War, but with a pretty little color scheme. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 23:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)
  • The blue background is a little glaring and strong. You could either lighten it up, or make the text white; I would prefer the former, though. #5cf seems to look pretty good if you want to continue using black text (which you really have no choice because the links will stay blue even if the text is white.) Gary King (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

  • Articles shouldn't be pretty just for the sake of it
  • Follow the style guide at WP:COLOURS if colours must be used -- personally I don't see why they do
  • The reader would be better served if the location column was after the battle column
  • Remarks column is prose, so it doesn't need to be sortable, it should probably be renamed Notes in line with most other lists, and references should be added for each battle
  • The lead section is only one sentence long. Per WP:Lead and the FLC criteria, it needs to be longer. The section "Background" could be used instead. It needs citing, though (13 by my count).
  • Make the image in the middle of the screen a Lead image, thumbed in the top right of the lead section
  • Reference section should be plural

All big issues, though easily fixed, which means I have to oppose at this time. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm fully aware of that policy. It was a little joke on my part.
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Changed name. I'm not sure how to make it un-sortable. As for citations, I took the information from the articles for each battle. They all use the same sources, which are listed at the bottom.
    • Done, though I'm not sure about the citations; the opening section is lifted verbatim from the main article.
    • Done.
    • Done. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 02:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still oppose. The colours are ghastly, and the information would be better if written in the Notes column. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comments Colors of the table are still bad and must be changed. Makes the text difficult to see; think about low vision readers and color blind people, let alone the rest of us. Hmains (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • The lead has no references.
  • First two sentences could be merged.
  • No real reason to split into two tables based on year, just include the year in the date column. Also alleviates the current problem of the siege of Port Arthur which spans the years.
  • Agree with all the concerns above re:"pretty" colour scheme, it's hard to read.
  • Merge the tables but if not, you have Notes in the first table, Remarks in the second, be consistent.
  • To make a column unsortable, add class=unsortable| before the column heading.
  • Since you've got sortable columns, links such as Manchuria should be made on every row since there's no guarantee that the first one will be the linked one.
  • Can you just confirm that Sedwick doesn't have an ISBN?

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments...
  • Not sure but the version I'm looking at now still splits the battles into years, still has remarks/notes as headings, still uses the brown colour scheme... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from JKBrooks85 (talk · contribs)
  • Might I suggest a mild blue instead of that harsh brown? Maybe even a mild red, since we're talking about Japanese victories?

JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You cannot communicate information through formatting alone, per accessibility guidelines. You need to have a column saying who won, rather than relying on color alone. (and, personally, if we had a column, then we could dispense with the color altogether) --Golbez (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—formatting and other things.
  • The title is wrong: MOS requires an en dash (Russo–Japanese, not Russo-Japanese). Analogous items in the text will need to be piped with correct punctuation.
  • Why are plain years linked?
  • No citations in the lead.
  • Pukey colour-scheme in the table. Can you tone down the pink—it's harder to read the text apart from the aesthetic impact. The white without internal boundaries is messy and misleadling. TONY (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Battles_of_the_Russo-Japanese_War/archive1&oldid=1136457497"