Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1920s jazz standards/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [1].
List of 1920s jazz standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox |
---|
This is the second part in a series of lists of jazz standards. A well-referenced list on an interesting topic, and as far as I can tell it now meets all the criteria. Two peer reviews have been made: The first one before List of pre-1920 jazz standards was split from this article, and a second one after the split. Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Initial comment Is the definition of a standard clear enough that this is a completely finished list of them all? If it's not clear this is 100% of them I would say this needs {{Dynamic list}}. However, definitely complete enough for me to support eventually (as opposed to some other dynamic lists I've commented on). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from KV5
I agree with Stax on the use of the dynamic list template. The other major concern I have here is that the entry for nearly every song starts with a sentence fragment. These should be removed, expanded, or otherwise altered to get rid of this grammatical error. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer replacing "Song". Song composed by Composer. with "Song" is a song composed by Composer. or similar? Jafeluv (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be just fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I'll update the pre-1920 list as well later. It has the same problem, although it didn't come up in the FLC. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be just fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – upon a second review, I find that I have no other qualms with this list. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments very interesting!
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well written and well referenced list. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.