Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

One of the FL directors, either Dabomb87, Giants2008 or The Rambling Man, determines the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects
Shortcut:

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (for example, YesY Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews
edit · history · watch · refresh

The following lists were nominated more than 20 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Contents


[edit] Nominations

[edit] 1984 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria. My third Olympic medal table, although only my first for a non-London based games. As such I've attempted to use American English wherever possible (major instance is center vs centre). The article wasn't in a terrible shape prior to my edits, but I've modified the table in include row scopes and fix the sorting. Also added citations and found out why the medal totals don't match up. Miyagawa (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Public holidays in Rhodesia

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of members of the Iraqi Regional Command under Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not... It seem to be a good list (I believe so at least...) --TIAYN (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments
Intro

  • The chronology and context are a bit unclear and the introduction assumes too much prior knowledge:
    • Links to Ba'athism and Arab socialism would be useful.
      • Can't see how that helps - this is not about the Ba'ath Party's ideology...
        • As I say, it's about context. The introduction states that the party was structured on a Marxist-Lenist model. Given its later domination by Hussein, I suspect many people may not realise that the Ba'ath party was socialist.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Did the Iraqi regional command exist before al-Bakr's period in charge and, if it did, who was in charge before 1966?
      • I don't know, sources are unsure, either al-Sadi or Hazim Jawad.
        • Is that all sources or just the ones used? It seems a fairly fundamental thing not to know.--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
          • That's the problem, this is not the Soviet Communist Party, hence the disinterest.
    • I think it would be useful to discuss al-Bakr's political position outside of the party. For example, following the Ramadan Revolution in February 1963, he was the Prime Minister of Iraq. Therefore what was the regional command's role at this time?
      • Why? Al-Bakr controlled the Regional Command from 1964/66 until 1979 (sources are not specific), its explained how the Regional Command ruled Iraq from 1968 until 1979, isn't that enough?
        • It's about context again. I don't think it is explained that the regional command ruled from 1968 to 1979. Where does it say this?--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Now you're saying that he may have controlled the regional command from 1964 not 1966. That's a fairly fundamental issue. --DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
            • No, I say that he dominated the Military Bureau, and through that the party, by 1964, but became secretary in 1966. --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The wording in the sentence about the 1963 is not clear that the coup was from inside the party, who Ali Salih al-Sadi was or what role he played in the coup or why this is relevant to a list which starts in 1966. It also does not mention that the national president, Abdul Salam Arif, was involved in removing the Ba'athists from power.
    • It should be made clear that the 17th July revolution was in 1968. The previous sentences are about 1963.
    • "In January 1977 Hussein successfully expanded the Regional Command's membership." Presume this means 1974.
    • "Seven months later, these new appointees were given seats in the Revolutionary Command Council" so this was in August 1974.
    • 16 July of which year? I assumed 1977, given the context (although that appears to be an error), but reading Al-Bakr's biography and the table below, I see that it was 1979.
    • "Of the 21 members in the Regional Command 14 of them were pro-Hussein, while 10 supported al-Bakr" 14 + 10 = 24. There are also 23 in the list, so I assume the 21 means the members other than al-Bakr or Hussein.
    • I think it is important to say which of the members supported al-Bakr and which supported Hussein.
  • Why is it assumed that al-Bakr was persuaded or forced to resign? His biography says "health reasons", so that at least should be mentioned. It does not mention what al-Bakr's other posts were, i.e. that he was the President of Iraq.

List

  • Do we not have full dates for the joining and leaving of the regional command?
    • Nope.
  • Why are there two lists? Did they really leave office in 1974 and take up to posts again, or was the regional command simply expanded?
    • Elected at Regional Congress.
      • That does not answer the question--DavidCane (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
        • No it does, a group is elected, than the Regional Command is dissolved, and they are re-elected by the Regional Congress
  • Were those that left the regional command before 1974, replaced? If not the committee seems to have dwindled to just five people by then.
    • Doesn't seem like it... Members were elected through the Regional Congress (at least at the beginning)
  • Which sources are used for the table?

--DavidCane (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll rewrite the lead, seeings to vague and all :) --TIAYN (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Vanderbilt Commodores head football coaches

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the five previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas and LSU). Hopefully this will get through with minimal issues, but as always am grateful for any comments to make this list even better. Thanks to all who take the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester United F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s):
– HonorTheKing (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria. The list takes similar format from FL article Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent and the bellow FLC Liverpool article. but unlike those two, it uses goals for and goals against instand of first and last competed season.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Quick-fail check: The list is close enough to meeting the FL criteria. Quick-failing unnecessary. Goodraise 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 13:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline of the 1990 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

After some unsuccessful FACs, I have decided to attempt an FLC. I am nominating this article for featured list because I firmly believe that this meets the criteria for FL; it was edited/revised in accordance to the standards used in the Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season and the Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season (two very recent FLC candidates). As always, if you disagree with my assumption that this should be an FL, please comment about what needs to be done below. Finally, I would like to note that this is a nomination for the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Prose still needs considerable work:

  • "with 14 tropical cyclones becoming named storms" is sloppy construction. You can either remove "becoming" or rephrase to something like "during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms."
  • "Although Tropical Depression One formed on May 24, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones develop in the Atlantic basin." In this sentence, grammatically, "although" contrasts both "began on June 1 and ended on November 30," while it's supposed to be in contrast with only "began on June 1."
  • Because reviewers learn and grow, and as such they identify new mistakes. I'm not sure what it is you're accusing me of here. Auree ★★ 04:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wikilink major hurricane (it redirects but it's still useful).
  • Why do you mention deaths and damage totals? Those are not discussed by the timeline.
  • "formed roughly halfway between the northern coast of Honduras and Cape San Antonio, Cuba" Honduras' northern coast is pretty big. Anything more specific?
  • "Tropical Depression One attain its" grammar
  • "Tropical Depression One made landfall near Guasimal, Matanzas, Cuba with winds of 30 mph (45 km/h)." Needs a comma after the country (Cuba); check for consistency throughout.
  • Fixed every occurrence throughout the article--12george1 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "0000 UTC (8:00 p.m. EDT May 31) - The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season officially began." Why the change in tense? It switches to present tense again at the end of the timeline. Please be consistent and per convention change everything to present tense.
  • I'd much prefer present tense since that's conventional in timelines. Auree ★★ 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Everything in this article is now in present tense.--12george1 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing inconsistencies in the ways numbers are rounded and estimates are given. If converted from nautical miles or knots, please round to the nearest 5 digit, and when rough estimates like 1,000 mi are given, converting to a more precise value of 1,610 km (rather than 1,600) is rather inconsequential.
  • I tried to be as accurate as possible, without using decimals. Would you rather I say 1,609.334 km?--12george1 (talk) 03:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, quite the contrary. 1,000 is an estimate, so the kilometers value should be an estimate too (1,600 rather than 1,610). Auree ★★ 05:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I checked the TCR again and it actually wasn't 1,000 miles, it was 1,000 nautical miles. So 1,000 nautical miles is approximately 1,150 statute miles. In conversion, that would be near 1,850 km. So I corrected this.--12george1 (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If this one had the problematic conversion, you should check if others might too. Auree ★★ 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hyphens are used in the timeline throughout, when really they should be replaced with en dashes.
  • I have used & nbsp;-, just like it is on the Timeline of the 2002 AHS--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, you need en dashes (–) here, not hyphens (-). Please change this in the table as well, where wind speed ranges are currently denoted with hyphens.
  • Alright, now I have it for sure.--12george1 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • But they aren't PDF files--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Several of the File: pages might benefit from some clean-up though. Goodraise 13:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I have resolved all of your issues--12george1 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Support. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • First sentence: "The 1990 Atlantic hurricane season featured the most named storms at the time, during which 14 tropical cyclones became named storms." The part before the comma doesn't flow at all with what comes after it (most at the time, during which?), and there's a prose redundancy with "named storms". Needs a rewrite.
  • The "most named storms at the time" part appears later in the lead, which is a bit redundant in itself. At least vary the language a little.
    • Still needs an "of" between "number" and "named". Giants2008 (Talk) 18:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, now it should be fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • October 5, 1200 UTC entry: "Simultaneously, the attains its peak intensity...". Was this supposed to have "storm" in it? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have fixed those three issues. On the first one, I decided that it would be best to split that sentence in order to prevent the redundancy and "most at the time, during which" thing.--12george1 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Waqar Younis

Nominator(s): Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the FL criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram... Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Tables need row and col scopes (if appropriate) per MOS:DTT.
  • "fewer than 40 bowlers have taken more than 15 five-wicket hauls at international level in their cricketing careers.[4][5]" I haven't added up the ODI and Test fifers for each cricketer, are you sure that your "fewer than 40" is accurate? Perhaps it would be better (and easier to reference) if you stuck with delineating records in Test cricket from ODI cricket.
  • "he took 4 wickets " -> four.
  • "As of December 2009" it's now February 2012, can this be updated and checked? He looks way down in Tests and top in ODIs... Again, perhaps instead of merging Tests and ODIs, treat them separately so they can be individually verified.
  • No reason for bold in the wickets column.
  • When sorting by wickets, and there's a tie on both wickets and runs conceded, sort by lowest number of overs as best result (e.g. the two 6/78 innings)...
  • Previously been some debate over why not use full names every time or same forename abbreviation style every time. Would suggest consistency.
  • "Match drawn" just "drawn" is fine, you don't have "match won" or "match lost".
  • References need en-dashes and not spaced hyphens in the titles.
  • Cricinfo needs publisher information.
  • External links call it ESPN Cricinfo, be consistent.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Check Test 18, runs/econ need to be swapped.
  • When ordering by wickets, for equal wickets the best should sort with the fewest runs and the worst should sort with the most runs.
  • Ian Botham doens't need a Sir.
  • Would expect column widths to be the same for each table.
  • Playing Sri Lanka in Kenya, isn't that a neutral ground as well?
  • You have three links to Cricinfo in the references, either link all, just the first, or none.
  • Still an issue with references calling it Cricinfo and external links calling it ESPNCricinfo.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • "A fast bowler who represented his country between 1989 and 2003, Younis is one of the greatest right-arm bowlers in the history of world cricket." An extraordinary claim like this needs at least one source, and probably more (especially without some attribution as to who has said this).
  • Add "the" to "where he took four wickets in first innings."
  • Capitalize "test" in the next sentence?
  • "He has gone on to take ten or more wickets per match on five occasions." Since he's retired, try replacing "has gone on" with "went on" to reflect past tense.
  • Remove period after Sharjah at the start of the third paragraph.
  • "he is thirteenth overall in all-time Test five-wicket haul takers". "in" → "among"?
  • In the ODI table, the 10th entry has a blank wickets column. What's the reason for that?
  • In the economy column, the 5 for entry 10 isn't sorting in the proper order. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool F.C. league record by opponent

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria. The list takes its format from luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, granted that list was promoted nearly three years ago, so guidelines might have changed, cheers NapHit (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

  • The semi-colon after "against whom they have contested 185 league matches" should be a regular old comma instead.
  • In the post-table footnote, check the last year in the title of the Pead book. I think it may be off by a century. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed both of them. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick drive-by comment - "The records include the results of matches played in the Lancashire League (from 1892 to 1893), The Football League (from 1893 to 1992, and then again from 1920 to 2009) and the Premier League (from 1992 to the present day)" has an error in it........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Ta Chris, can't believe I didn't spot that, fixed it. NapHit (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nebula Award for Best Novel

Nominator(s): PresN 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having learned nothing from all of my previous scifi/fantasy award list nominations, I've come back to you all with another. Here is the Nebula Awards, which are up there with the Hugo Awards for American genre literary prizes. Unlike the Hugos, these are selected by authors, not readers (though about half of the Nebula winners are also Hugo winners, not to mention the nominee overlaps), but like the Hugo lists, this has... basically the same list format! Hooray for consistency- this makes 17 times you've all seen the same table format of books/authors, so... sorry. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Quick-fail check: The list is close enough to meeting the FL criteria. Quick-failing unnecessary. Goodraise 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment the Russian version of this (which is featured) has many images of the authors which has brightened the page up quite a bit. Could you (or would you consider) using some of these here? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Malmö FF seasons

Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

After a very thorough peer review done by Cliftonian and several improvements to both the lead, history section and the table itself I believe that this list is now ready for FLC. This is a list that covers all seasons played by Malmö FF, the most successful club in Swedish football in terms of total number of trophies won. I hope that you find the list interesting, well written and complete. Thank you. Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. As Reckless says above, I gave this list a good going over during its peer review and have watched the nominator bring this list up to a very high standard in every department. I have no qualms about supporting. —Cliftonian (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support NapHit (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of accolades received by David Lynch

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My dog barks some. Mentally, you picture my dog—but I have not told you the type dog which I have. Perhaps you might even picture Toto, from The Wizard of Oz. But I can tell you my dog is always with me.

I believe this list meets the criteria. Having learnt from my previous foray into FLC territory, I've decided to go with something much meatier, as the last attempt faced opposition over criterion 3b. I don't believe this to be an issue here, as this collates information related a wide range of films, television programs and the strange love felt for the man by the French, in a manner which could not simply be shoehorned into any one given article. I've also taken any other relevant feedback from that prior nomination on board with this one (mostly about where to place the table references, although I'm completely open to moving these if it's deemed necessary or preferable). GRAPPLE X 04:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – Ref 27 needs a publisher, outside the title. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Got it. Apparently I'd listed the publishers but not actually added the "publisher=" parameter in the template. Oops. GRAPPLE X 03:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft

Nominator(s): –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I based this new list on the current FL List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts. I also pulled from the NFL draft FLs as well as my previous FL Huskies of Honor. I believe this list fully meets WP:FLCR and invite your review. Note that unlike this Oklahoma list this is a list of only women's basketball players; I believe 23 draftees is plenty for a stand-alone list. I plan to build List of Connecticut Huskies in the NBA Draft subsequently. –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Image review: File:WNBA Sue Bird cropped.jpg should use {{cc-by-2.0}} instead of {{self}}. Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed as requested. –Grondemar 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Criterion 3b. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be included as part of a combined NBA and WNBA Draft list, like Oklahoma's. I just checked how many men's draft picks Connecticut had, and the number is actually one fewer than the Sooners. We're talking about a net difference of 11 players from Oklahoma's list to what a combined Connecticut list would contain. I don't think that's enough to support two lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Giants. Goodraise 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I strongly disagree with the rationale behind the two above opposes. I will provide a full response later today. I request patiences from the FLC delegates until I can post my full response. –Grondemar 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the above oppose rationale provided by Giants2008 and concurred with by Goodraise, I object on the following grounds:

  • It proposes merging two different subject areas into a single list: men's basketball and women's basketball. While basketball is indeed a single sport with a common set of rules, there are significant differences in both the rulesets and the style of play between men's and women's basketball at both the collegiate and professional levels. Among the differences at the collegiate level include length of the shot clock (35 seconds in men's, 30 seconds in women's), location of the three-point line, and certain violations such as ten-seconds-in-the-backcourt. Similar rule differences exist between the NBA and WNBA. The style of play between men's and women's basketball is even more of a apparent difference: men's basketball is characterized by "above-the-rim" play with slam dunks while the women's game plays more "below-the-rim" as in general women do not dunk.
  • It is not consistent with how reliable sources treat the subjects. Reliable sources treat men's and women's basketball as two independent sports. ESPN, as an example reliable source, has separate pages for men's and women's basketball at both the college and professional level: [1] [2] [3]. You will be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that simultaneously discusses both the NBA and WNBA Drafts. The two drafts occur months apart. While the WNBA is still managed by the NBA, most of the WNBA teams are now independent of NBA teams. The NBA and WNBA are separate entities drafting from different sets of players. It does not make sense to insist on the merger of men's and women's basketball content in featured lists when no reliable source organizes itself that way.
  • It is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles are structured. In general, the format for university athletic department articles is to have an overview article at UNIVERSITYNAME NICKNAME such as Connecticut Huskies or Oklahoma Sooners. These articles then if needed per WP:SUMMARY have subarticles on each sport, such as Connecticut Huskies men's basketball and Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. You'll notice that Connecticut Huskies basketball is a disambiguation page, not an article about both programs. If there is any university that has a common article for both their men's and women's basketball programs I would be interested in learning about it. This draft list exists as a stand-alone list rather than an embedded list because merging it into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball would be WP:UNDUE. The standard for whether a stand-alone list should exist should be whether it would overwhelm its parent article, not whether it could be merged into another list with another defined scope.

I am very interested in your response. Thanks, –Grondemar 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose struck. Connecticut Huskies basketball being a disambiguation page is the argument that convinced me. In my opinion, the nominated list does not presently violate criterion 3b. Goodraise 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your reconsideration. –Grondemar 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • In the second paragraph, the hyphen in "win-loss record" should be an en dash.
  • Alt text for the images would be a nice luxury.
    • After all of the debate on alt text over the years I notice that WP:ALT isn't labelled a policy, a guideline, or even an essay. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus to include alt text and of what that alt text should consist. For now, I added "refer to caption" to the alt parameters of each of the images. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In the Notes column, I don't believe the "Champion" in "WNBA Champion" warrants the capitalization.
    • Changed as requested. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] CZW Iron Man Championship

Nominator(s): WillC 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

First FLC in I don't know how long. Did the CZW World Heavyweight and World Tag Team Championships before, thought I'd introduce you all to the Iron Man/New Horror Championship.--WillC 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


  • Image review: According to File:El Egotistico Fantastico.jpg, its copyright lies with Commons user ExtraTNA. However, File:Egotistico Fantastico.jpg names Randy K. Youmans as copyright holder of the former picture's original. I don't believe cropping creates a new copyright. This needs to be addressed. Goodraise 00:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Switched picture to original version from commons I believe.--WillC 07:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Tables don't comply with WP:ACCESS at the moment, MOS:DTT provides details of how to rectify this. Basically you need to add col and rowscopes to the table and a caption as well.
  • At the moment, the reader is unaware the tables are sortable, as there is colouring obscuring the sort keys. There are two ways around this; either remove the colouring altogether, or add -color to style="background to get them to show up. Up to you which one you choose I have no preference as long as the sort keys are visible
  • I would a caption to the key table, just so the reader is aware that is the key to do this simply add |+Key
  • "At 364 days, Steen's reign came to an end when he was pinned by LuFisto" is there a wikilink for pinned? some readers may not be aware of wrestling terminology
  • "The title was vacated twice during it history before being retired in July 2009" typo in this sentence
  • Sami Callihan can be wikilinked in the history section

NapHit (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Scheduled Monuments in Maidstone

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a complete list of the Scheduled Monuments in the borough of Maidstone, Kent. Scheduled Monuments are sites of historic importance that are protected by legislation against change. The lead explains the meaning of the Scheduled Monument and describes the borough and provides a description of each of the monuments.DavidCane (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support

  • I notice that List of Scheduled Monuments in Cheshire (1066–1539) (a Featured List) has a note which explains where the term "schedule" comes from and it may be worth adding here (relevant bit in italics): "A scheduled monument is a nationally important archaeological site or monument which is given legal protection by being placed on a list (or "schedule") by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." I think I'll do the same at List of Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester.
    • Good idea. Done.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As "scheduled monument" is lower case, shold "Scheduled Ancient Monument" also be lower case for internal consistency? (I've seen both terms using either form so I don't think it's a case of being right or wrong, just aiming for consistency.)
  • Should "18th century mortuary" be "18th-century mortuary"?
  • "Remains of buildings associated with a undiscovered Roman villa.": I know what's meant, but this may strike readers as odd, because how can a villa be undiscovered if we know there was one. Perhaps change it slightly to something like "Remains of buildings associated with a Roman villa, the main structure of which is undiscovered."
  • In the descriptions for Boxley Abbey and Leeds Priory I think it would be worth mentioning when they were demolished.
    • Neither of the Pastscape sources for these give demolition dates. My other usual source (www.british-history.ac.uk), also comes up with nothing. I'll see if I can find anything elsewhere.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know there are only decently four lists of Scheduled Monuments (aside from this one), and this is consistent with the format and layout of those. The main difference is they covered counties (Cheshire and Greater Manchester) but I think this list's approach of using a local government district works. The GM list was as far as I know the first of its type and doesn't have that many, hence why a single list can handle an entire county. There are over 200 in Cheshire so a single list was less practical, especially with detailed descriptions as seen here. The coutny's SMs aren't evenly distributed between its districts (not even close) because they're different sizes: two small and two much larger. Dividing by district wouldn't have been useful so instead time period was chosen. I don't know how SMs are distributed in Kent but the 13 districts don't seem as varied in size as those of Cheshire which might help create a more even distribution, and conservatively assuming there are 15 per district a list for the entire county would probably be too long to be user friendly. In conclusion, this list's format has my full support.

  • Kent has 417 scheduled monuments according to the National Heritage List for England (NHLE), including 73 in Medway (a unitary authority in its own right).--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Having put together this kind of list before sorting the date column can sometimes be tricky, but it seems to work here. The descriptions are illuminating while keeping brief and to the point. Overall I'm impressed with the list. I'm not sure if it counts as a spot-check, but having taken a peek at the sources on the castles I can confirm the article matches what the sources say and there were no concerns regarding plagiarism. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I've manually forced the sorting of the date column using {{Hs}} to get it in the right order.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also note that when I was putting together the Greater Manchester list part of the challenge was ensuring no site was missed. As DavidCane uses this site a lot I assume he used the search tool to double check the results, and it makes life much simpler than checking the individual counts on local government websites (while weren't always easy to find). Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  • The NHLE includes a definitive consolidated list of various heritage classifications including scheduled monuments. I obtained the list for Maidstone Borough by doing an advanced search with location district set to Maidstone and Heritage Category set to scheduling. The items included in the list on the NHLE don't often include the descriptions of the monument, which is why I cross referenced to PastScape as the main source for these. I've also used it to prepare Grade I listed buildings in Maidstone for which I am gradually working through the redlinks before it comes here for review.--DavidCane (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I've switched to support as the one outstanding issue (demolition date of the religious houses) aren't deal breakers. I look forward to seeing the Grade I listed buildings at FLC. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Quick comment – No need for two English Heritage links in the lead; one will suffice. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I havn't done a full review, but like it and consider that it satisfies the criteria for FL as it stands. Some suggestions:
I should like to see where Maidstone is geographically in the first sentence, ie that it is in Kent and that Kent is in England (for overseas readers).
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As you mention the different listing grades, a key would be helpful. You could copy one, say from here.
As most of the scheduled monuments are not listed buildings, I don't think the key is necessary, but I have added an explanatory note into the text (note 1) on what listing means.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The {{GeoGroupTemplate}} adds to the interest of the list, but I don't know if it works with GRs; (I usually use coords). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I've seen that since I nominated the list and it doesn't work with Grid Refs. I would like to add it and, if I get time at the weekend, I will do the necessary conversion to make it work.--DavidCane (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Done.--DavidCane (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The list is fine as it stands; with the template would be even better. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 04:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of churches in Moscow

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫TCN 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Moscow was before the Revolution a very religious city; around the 10s, more than 1000 churches and other religious buildings had room in the capital. Since the revolution, the majority of churches was destroyed or reconstructed, at the begining of the 90s there were "only" 250 churches. However, since the fall of communism there was a revival, now there are after all about 300 churches. This is a great list of not all but the most important churches, and I believe it meets the criteria.♫GoP♫TCN 11:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Where are the references for the years of completion? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 10:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The main reference for the date of the completion of the Orthodox Churches is [4]. According to the site, it has all Orthodox churches and monasteries in Moscow. The rest from other sources in the External links or the Further reading section. I did not include it as it would take too much space (but if you want I can do it). Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, please do so. Also, reorganise the footnotes section -- "Further reading" shouldn't come first, "Notes" should, followed by "References", then "Further reading", before ending with "External links". --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Done the latter. I will do the referencing later. I don't have much time in real life so it might take a few days.--♫GoP♫TCN 18:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • However, I believe it is ok to use the links in the external links section as general sources. I just don't think it makes sense to reference the dates. I would like to know if others agree with Phil's proposal. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 18:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue I have with this list is it isn't just the dates in the table that aren't cited, but the entire table. For this nomination to have a chance, I urge you to source the contents of the table in some way. If the external links cover all of the content, then it's fine to have them as general references. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, they cover the whole information, except the translated title.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments before stance Conditional support until an image review is carried out. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • "which don't occupy"
    • Done
  • "(including pure baptisterys, memorial chapels and similar)" My interpretation regarding the uage of including is that not everything is listed, so I'd tweak it to "(including pure baptisteries and memorial chapels)". What do you think?
    • Good idea. Done
  • I think the first and second paragraphs should be referenced more, especially after every statistic or figure.
    • I added one in-line citation in the second paragraph. The first is supported by the first reference.
  • No retrieval dates are needed for print media (last source of "Further reading").
    • Removed
  • MOS advocates the inclusion of alt text.
    • I am afraid it will not only take hours to do so, but most churches are hard to define, as, firstly, they do not differ very much from each other, and secondly, I might include difficult terms which might be problematic for the majority to understand them.--♫GoP♫TCN 13:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think it's unreasonable to ask you to write alt text for all the photos, so I'll waive my request.

[edit] List of Ohio class submarines

Nominator(s): --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... the list has recently undergone a very successful A-class review which saw its promotion only seven days since its creation. I think the list is ready for the next step. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Regretful oppose per WP:FLC 3b. I don't believe this list meets the requirements for being a stand-alone list as it could easily be integrated as an embedded list in the article Ohio class submarine. Currently the article Ohio class submarine is only 1340 words, while the length of the prose in this list is 583 words. Much of the text in the list, as well as the list itself, would fit nicely within the main Ohio class article. In fact, there is already a simpler version of the list in the Boats of the class section. I recommend merging the list and article and redirecting this page to the main class article; when cleaned up, the main class article can be nominated at WP:FAC. –Grondemar 01:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have had a think about this, and decided that embedded lists would only be suitable for articles such as Seawolf class submarine, Vanguard class submarine, Trafalgar class submarine, and any other classes have less than 15 vessels (the Ohio class is the third-most numerous after the Los Angeles and Sturgeon classes). If the list in question is to be merged, don't you think the detailed information (date order, launch, commissioning, status, etc) is too much for, and would dominate, the article? For the records, there is a similar list at List of Los Angeles class submarines. Please read my comment over carefully, and tell me what you think. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 06:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree it's a tough call. I'm not sure that I can agree that there should be a hard cut-off when an embedded list should be split from an article, although I definitely agree that List of Los Angeles class submarines needs to be separate from Los Angeles class submarine. To me the key question is whether, when Ohio class submarine is brought to FA status, would including this list in the prose of that article be WP:UNDUE weight. I invite other editors to weigh in on this subject; if the consensus believes that this list should be stand-alone, I'll withdraw my oppose. –Grondemar 01:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • C and D class destroyer is the only example of a decently developed article on a large class of ships (14 in total) I can think of. It has a table with the relevant data like this list, followed by several paragraphs that sum up the activities of the ships. I am really on the fence about whether it should be a stand-alone list or not. I doubt these boats have all that interesting service histories, so I don't think it would be overkill to do something like the C and D class example. Removing the photos from the table would go a long way to shrink the table, making it more manageable if it is merged in. Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Given the amount of effort I have invested in this list, and the fact that most of us are on the fence, I think this list should remain as it is, instead of being merged. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Just a few things:
    • "is currently, as of February 2012," - "currently" can be removed per WP:DATED.
    • As those are American submarines, why not convert to mdy format?
    • Maybe a see also section for similar submarine classes?--♫GoP♫TCN 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Not sure why this wasn't brought up earlier, but the list needs to differentiate between the SSBNs and the SSGNs.
  • There are only four SSGNs, so I thought it would be better to merge both types of boats. Also, the main differences between the two have been outlined in the intro -- I wouldn't know what extra information to add if I was to split the SSGNs off. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need to split anything off. Technically, the SSBN/SSGN is part of the hull number and should be included in that column. All you need is a note explaining the difference between the two. Parsecboy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've explained about the SSGN in the lead. You want me to further add a column called "Notes" and say what weapons and payload the SSGNs carry? --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think that should be in the table. You might consider replacing the unit identification code column with the weapon suite - I don't know what real value the UIC is to the average reader, but I think many would be interested in what weapons the boats carry. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just noticed: Henry M. Jackson is listed as SSGN-730, but the armament column has Trident IIs - which is correct? Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, why are there redundant sorting methods (i.e., color coding and symbols?)
  • See below.
    • I don't know if this has been considered or not, but do the colors chosen work for color-blind individuals? Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's the point of the inclusion of both symbols and colour coding -- the symbols help the colour-blind readers, while the colours are for those who can see colours. User Matthewedwards insisted that I use both types of classification during a previous FLC. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Cornwall

Nominator(s): Jowaninpensans (talk), Zangar (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, on behalf of Jowaninpensans and myself, because I feel it meets all criteria. This list has been significantly upgraded over the last few months, modelled on the other SSSI featured lists, with all of the entries now being blue-linked. All feedback welcomed! Cheers, Zangar (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Good work so far on this list, guys. I have a question before expressing an opinion on this article's eligibility for featured list status. Could you tell me how many of the blue links point to (a) an article solely about the SSSI in question or (b) a section on the SSSI in a broader article. If the majority of them do then I think we're well on the way to featured list status. I ask because for a few articles that I checked, the link just appeared to take me to an article on a nearby village or one that has the same name as the SSSI, with minimal mention of the SSSI, still less its wildlife or geological interest, in the article. My concern is that the bluelink-count is artifically inflated. SP-KP (talk) 12:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. After going through the articles I've worked out that they fall like this:
  • (A) 77 (46%) Own article
  • (B) 25 (15%) Detailed in relevant "parent" article
  • (C) 24 (14%) Given own section in a relevant article
  • (D) 41 (25%) Detailed in article of the civil parish or island that the SSSI is located
Category (B) are SSSI's such as Lynher Estuary, or Upper Fal Estuary and Woods which have direct parent articles on the river and we felt was best served by residing in these articles. Category (C) are the SSSIs that we felt were given better context by being given their own section within a slightly wider-scoped article (or covered a very similar area), such as Belowda Beacon or Gwithian to Mexico Towans. We put SSSIs that were either very small, or had little information, in category (D) articles, but these do include quite well expanded information, such as those within Bryher, Isles of Scilly#Natural History.
You can see how we came to these loose decisions on the talk page. I was hoping to keep cat (D) SSSIs down to 20% or under. Although we put these here in the attempt to avoid very short stubs such as Friar's Oven from List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset FL.
But I do feel that those in cat (B) are right to reside there to give better context to both the SSSI and the parent article, or else you are leading to unnecessary content forking, the same goes for most of cat (C). So that does mean that over 60% of the SSSIs are rightfully (IMO) located. If you would like us to turn some more over to their own articles to get cat (A) up to 50% or more, let me know and I'm happy to do that (I'll be away over the weekend though). Thanks for your input, cheers, Zangar (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I don't think that having Category A covering less than 50% is necessarily an issue. Category B is a pragmatic solution that's been adopted in other counties. I think that Category C is OK as an interim status - other counties have created stub articles but both approaches seem equally OK while there is little content. I feel you need to link the entry in the list to the section on the article, rather than just the article itself though, for clarity. Category D is the problem category in my mind - but if you were to upgrade all the Category D articles by creating a new section for each SSSI within the article, then I think we're on to a winner. SP-KP (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
✓  Good suggestion. All those SSSIs in category D should now be detailed in their own section, either headed under their own name or a heading akin to "Protected areas". For those SSSIs in village parent articles, I've put them under the heading "Geography" to keep inline with WP:UKGEO's guidelines on writing about settlements. All those entries in the list now link to the section (either through piping or their redirect). Cheers, Zangar (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

  • In the first sentence, England and United Kingdom are such common terms that they really don't need wikilinks. All the links really do is make the lead more blue than it needs to be. I could say the same for items like tin, copper, and lead later on.
  • Usually, the prose gurus wouldn't like the hyphen in "densely-populated". Minor point, but worth addressing all the same.
  • See also should go before Notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done All fixed, thanks for the comments. I kept arsenic linked as that's slightly more uncommon. Thanks, Zangar (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Older nominations

[edit] List of songs recorded by Rihanna

Nominator(s): Aaron • You Da One 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have worked tirelessly on this article to completely overhaul it and make it a better standalone list of all Rihanna's song. Issues from the previous FAC have been address, as inline citations for songwriters have been provided. Media is provided throughout as well. Aaron • You Da One 18:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support I am satisfied with both the prose and the table. Good attempt overall. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Titles that start with "A", "An" or "The" should be alphabetized under the second word in the title. You need to fix this. Jimknut (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    Have move "A Girl like Me", "A Million Miles Away", "The Last Song" and "The Last Time" to sections G, M and L. Aaron • You Da One 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see any reason for the third paragraph to be on its own. It can certainly fit into the second, for now.
  • I don't like the first sentence. It doesn't flow very well with me. Maybe split "...and has collaborated with other artists for duets and featured songs on their respective albums and charity singles." into a new sentence?
  • "After signing a six album record contract with Def Jam Recordings" --> Doesn't really matter how many albums the contract called for.
  • "songs included on her" --> included isn't needed.
  • "Award winning songwriter Diane Warren co-wrote the title track,[2][3] while Grammy Award-winning singer-songwriter Deniece Williams co-wrote the song "Willing to Wait"." Not sure why these two songs are important.
  • Let's use either "Christopher "Tricky" Stewart" or "Tricky Stewart" for "Christopher Stewart", as he is commonly known as "Tricky".
  • "The re-release of the album, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, featured new songs written by former boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5." --> "The album was re-released in 2008 featured new songs written by then-boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5."
  • "Rihanna's fourth studio effort" Not sure about the use of the word "effort". It makes it sound like it's her fourth try to get something right.

— Status {talkcontribs 05:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Soft Oppose on:

  • All pictures need alts — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    I just saw you already started to doing the alts, however, they should be more detailed. Please look how they look at "Unfaithful".— Tomica (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    They are fine lol. Aaron • You Da One
    I doubt. They should be informational. — Tomica (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    I've expanded ones which can be expanded. Other's there is simply nothing else to say. Aaron • You Da One
  • The caption on the first picture is awkward. I mean you are preparing this for featured list right? There should be a near perfection level.— Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    It's fine. That's what he did. Aaron • You Da One
    Who? Plus in also needs alt. — Tomica (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    Sean Paul? The first one you mentioned? Aaron • You Da One
  • Many of which have been released as successful singles around the world. ---> Mmm, I know that this is a fact, but I am not sure that it should be included in the leads prose. It's just not for the lead, in my opinion. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Award winning songwriter Diane Warren co-wrote the title track,[2][3] whilst Grammy Award winning singer-songwriter co-wrote the song "Willing to Wait". ---> Can't understdand for who are you talking in the section part of the sentence? — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    Ooops, it's Deniece Williams. Aaron • You Da One
  • In the unreleased songs section, "Saxon" is actually "Red Lipstick". Originally it should have been released under that title, cause its basically the same melody as the song "Saxon" by Chase and Status. It's credited in the booklet as it contains the sample. So it should be removed. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
    I can still see it. lol — Tomica (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    I thought I'd removed it. Aaron • You Da One
  • I really don't think Jamie xx picture is needed. They are kind of non-notable for the list, and co-wrote only one song.— Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    If they are mentioned in the article then they are allowed to stay. Aaron • You Da One

It's a really good effort, but are think they are still here and there issues that should be resolved. Obviously, my vote can change or at least removed when the issues are resolved. — Tomica (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You resolved all the issues, however, I still don't like how the alts look. For example, look how Timberlake's caption looks, A picture of a man. Awkward. This picture was part of "Rehab" and look how the alt was back then, A profile picture of young man who is speaking into a microphone. You can use this one and improve others one. There are a lot of alts which are poor. — Tomica (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Profile picture is wrong though. A profile picture is like on facebook. A profile shot is right. Aaron • You Da One 18:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Happy that the list now meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


My two cents: Fully agree with The Rambling Man. The list looks much better and is easier to navigate through. His point was proven right when he said "How do I sort all the songs that appear on Talk That Talk togther please?" Further discussion was not necessary after that. Using invisible anchors and a TOC instead of the headings is a really nice idea too. An FL is an FL; it doesn't matter what the FL is about. Also, this isn't a very interesting way to begin a list: "Rihanna is a Barbadian recording artist." The sole fact that she is Barbadian and a recording artist does not explain what this article is about. Finally, refrain from using the work "whilst" too. Not going to oppose, because I'd like to have a closer look later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks worse, but whatever. Aaron • You Da One 20:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Now you've changed the table would mind addressing my other points as well? Also i suggest looking at the tombs list to see how you can use anchors to allow readers to navigate by letter, seeing as this was one of you concerns. NapHit (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I will. I do have a life outside of Wikipedia. I don't spend every waking moment on here! Aaron • You Da One 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Calvin, co-operating with reviewers makes the difference from an oppose to a support. Everyone has a "real life", just remember that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Where is this list of tombs? Aaron • You Da One 22:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, you need to calm down, I'm trying to help I know you have a real life, but as you had changed the table I assumed you would have done the other comments as well, no need to get aggressive. The tombs list is mentioned on this page, in TRM's initial comment. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how that has been done at all. Looks confusing to me. Aaron • You Da One 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Copy the coding and use Trial and error, have a go in a sandbox. That's what I do when I'm unsure of how to do something. NapHit (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Selena albums discography

Nominator(s): Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has gone through a copy-edit, a peer review, and had received feedback from three other users. If there are any more issues, I'll address them. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay Jona, concerning Selena's discography, the first refernence absolutely needs to be fixed, and also the infobox colors for the remix albums and box sets should be different from one another, and each other for that matter. Other than that, not too bad! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. I fixed the 1st ref, however, the colors I used won't change :/ Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I have fixed the colors.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Status
  • Just a few comments for now, I will add some more later.
  • Remix albums ARE compilation albums. Compilation albums insist of greatest hits, remix albums, etc.
  • Just going to echo something that was mentioned in my FL for JLO's discography: there is isn't really a need for the taglines on the table, unless they give additional information that is not supplied. If you so wish to keep them (which I believe would be your preference) at least expand on them more. "List of albums, with selected chart positions" I also see sales and certifications.
    • So instead of "List of albums, with selected chart positions" it is more accurate to say "List of albums, with selected chart positions, sales and certifications". — Status {talkcontribs 22:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • For the certification, how about using "RIAA Latin" instead, or at least make the "Latin" smaller than the rest.
  • No need to say "standard" in the certifications. Differences is denoted by "latin".
  • This is just a suggestion, but I think if you set the article up like Madonna albums discography it would be much better. Selena seems to have a lot of compilations, most of which were released after her death. "Limited releases" isn't the right title, but maybe "Other releases" or "Minor releases" would do, as they aren't really part of her main discography.
    • Done. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • My two cents on this: is "Minor releases" really the correct title? In my opinion, an album that's charted at number one on multiple charts isn't a "minor release". In reality, I don't see why the sections are needed. I understand it's needed for Madonna's article because she has several, several limited releases. However, for Selena, is it really necessary to separate four albums from nearly 30?
        —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The infobox says 5 boxsets, I only see 3.

— Status {talkcontribs 11:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Why is there no image featured in the infobox?
  • Title should be "Selena albums discography" in the infobox.

Oppose - suggest a decent copyedit before nominating. Some quick, quick notes from the first two paras of the lead.

  • " five box sets" - says three in the infobox.
  • Our own article calls it "Ven Conmigo", not "Ven conmigo", should be consistent.
  • According to WP:ALBUMCAPS for Spanish titles, it should be spelled Ven conmigo not Ven Conmigo. This was just made a rule recently, as the article was created several years ago. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "and became the first to" -> "first artist"
  • "by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) by a Tejano vocalist" ... "by... by..." confusing.
  • "her extensive touring and relationship woes with Chris Pérez" reads poorly and a bit tabloid ("relationship woes").
  • "Within a month of her elopement," what "elopement"?
  • These Latin album names etc are all over the place with capitalisation issues. Needs some serious work.
  • "certified six-times-platinum, Latin type, by" what does "Latin type" mean?
  • It's a Spanish certification, not a standard certification --> 1x Gold (standard) is 500,000 shipments whereas 1x Gold (Latin type) is 50,000 shipments. Plus it is wikilinked at it's first occurrence just in case if anyone don't understand. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "later as Live!. " one too many periods.
  • " 6× platinum (Latin type)" again, no real clue what "Latin type" here means, and would prefer six-times since it's prose.
  • Should clarify the the Top Latin Charts are actually Billboard charts.
  • "and she became the second " no, you just talked about her album, not her, so you can't just say "and she..." you need to reiterate Selena.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think the discography should include Baila Esta Cumbia (1992) and Quiero... (1993), two compilation albums released in Mexico that were the first releases by Selena in the country, and Mexico was her second biggest market.
    • Those albums promote her as "Y Los Dinos", this discography is only her solo career (first para states this). Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 19:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tracklisting for Baila Esta Cumbia: Baila Esta Cumbia, Cariño, Cariño Mío, Como La Flor, Terco Corazón, Quiero Ser, Contigo Quiero Estar, Ya Ves, La Carcacha, Ven Conmigo, Yo Te Amo, Siempre.
  • Tracklisting for Quiero...: Siempre Estoy Pensando En Ti, No Debes Jugar, Yo Me Voy, Las Cadenas, Que Creías, Yo Te Sigo Queriendo, La Llamada, Si La Quieres, Tu Robaste Mi Corazón, Quiero.

Jaespinoza (talk) 04:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica

Nominator(s): Savidan 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is modeled after the already-featured List of extant papal tombs and List of tombs of antipopes, with the eventual intention being to create a featured topic. Savidan 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments (a few for now, and only format-related):

  • I believe that the per-century table of contents would be better placed just above the tomb table.
  • Use en-dash consistently in the pontificate date ranges.
  • Could you use a less darkened gray shade in the table? It becomes hard to read the text in such a poorly contrasting background (it's even worse for the visually impaired).
  • Where are the sources for the Gardner and Mann notes?
  • Is note 68 correct?
  • Note 56 should have an en-dash in the page range.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think my recent edits have addressed all these except the color. What color would you suggest? The table already looks perfectly readable to me, so, since its unclear to you, I'll go with whatever you suggest. Savidan 17:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Nah, leave it. This tool says it's a good background color. Must've been my eyes, yesterday... not functioning properly. The rest is fine; I'll review the prose soon. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Check alt text exists for each image.
  • Second sentence in lead is mighty, could use one or two more splits.
  • Sometimes basilica is capitalised, sometimes not, in the lead. What's the criteria?
  • "a "monstrous" tomb" to whom is that "monstrous" quote attributed?
  • Notes which have multiple sentences should end with a full stop.
  • Why the use of bold in the pope name? I thought WP:MOSBOLD disagreed with the use of bold for emphasis.
  • That column is "Common English name" but in most cases there are multiple names in there.
  • Darkened background could probably use a symbol too, like a dagger.
  • Pontificate col doesn't sort correctly.
  • Check your image captions for consistency of use of full stops. (e.g. "The tomb of Pope Innocent VIII was the first to depict a live pontiff" needs one...)
  • Why is O.S.B. in bold italics?
  • Reardon publication year not in parentheses while other two are. Check consistent formatting.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of a few of these. Is there no way to sort numbers as numbers? Savidan 04:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Numbers sort fine if the whole col is just made up of numbers. At least one entry is "text only" so in those cases you need to force the text to sort as an appropriate value using the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)

Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I contributed the page through whole the year, not constantly though. However, in the end I wrote the lead and I think it really can pass Wikipedia's FL criteria. I am a Rihanna fan, and she was successful on the Hot 100 this year, so for that I will be really happy If I make this a FL.— Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Why is Rolling In The Deep wikilinked twice in the lead? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Ooops. I unlinked it. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments I did some tweaks in the lead today. Hope those help. My concern (major one) is this sentence about Adele: She became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year. Is it true? Can it be verified? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Sourced it. There it is. — Tomica (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Comments by Status
  • Would it hurt to have them sortable? I think it would be nice for the reader to see in the chart how many times one artist appeared. — Status {talkcontribs 17:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't that cock up the row spanning? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I kind of don't have an idea what are you talking about. Can I get an example Status? — Tomica (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of cities and towns in California

Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

As of this writing, my nomination of List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area has two supports and no actionable items, so nominating this shouldn't be much of a problem. Anyway, the format of this list mirrors that of the Bay Area list, even using the same lead section and table formats. After overhauling the entire thing, I believe it should be FL quality at this point. Kurykh (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Surprisingly couldn't see any issues (noting that I am not a Californian, so a native might see something I don't). The ordering of the images by population size was a nice touch. Well done with the list, Ruby 2010/2013 18:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - I read through this earlier and meant to comment at that point, but got distracted. So, I've read through it again, and everything looks good! Prose and references are solid, image licensing looks OK to me (though I'm not an expert), and the table is easy to use and understand. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of heavy cruisers of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Another list of German warships, this one comprises all of the heavy cruisers built or designed by Germany in the 1920s through 1940s. The list has already passed a MILHIST A-class review (see here), and is the capstone to this project, which will be ready to head over to WP:GT once this article makes FL. I feel this list is very close to FL quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring it meets the criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

  • Alt text for the images would be nice.
  • For the ships with 10,000 t displacement, the lead shows them as having 9,800 long tons of displacement, but the body shows 10,000 in multiple places.
  • The text says Lutzow was scrapped in the 1950s, but the table says 1960.
  • Ref 10 should give the page range as pp., not p. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't really like messing with alt text, since, as far as I'm aware, they still haven't figured out what exactly is useful for alt text.
    • The tonnage discrepancy was a convert template error, should have been 10,000 long tons, not metric tons.
    • A result of a disagreement over the eventual fate of the ship - one source says 1958-59, another says 1960. Updated to reflect this.
    • Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support NapHit (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. By the way, the lead image could use some cropping. Goodraise 23:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Overall looks good, just one comment:
    • D class, "In 1933, Hitler authorized...". Although I have a hard time believing anyone might not know who Hitler was, I would suggest giving his full name, position and linking to his article on the first occurrence of his name.
  • This comment does not effect my support, as it is quite minor. Prose, sourcing and images all look solid. Dana boomer (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That's a fair point - added first name, link, and position. Parsecboy (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you! Everything looks good now. Dana boomer (talk) 12:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Keri Hilson discography

Nominator(s): Oz talk 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working hard on improving the article for quite some time now, basing it on FL listed discographies such as Katy Perry discography. I believe it now meets the FL criteria. Oz talk 12:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support just one thing I noticed, the MTV refs use the work parameter yet they are not italisced. I noticed you added two apostrophes to the cite template, you don't need to, as it puts the italics in automatically. I've fixed ref 49 as well, should have been cite news, as it the ref was from MTV news, other MTV refs are fine as cite web. NapHit (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Done

[edit] Birdman discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked extensively to get this page up to standard, and think it meets the FLC criteria. Although I cannot guarantee that the page is already perfect, I feel it will not take too long to fix any issues anyone has. Based on my successful nomination of 50 Cent discography, I've formatted the page with the basic template I was given there, so it should be alright. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Support as I see no reason not to. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Premier League Manager of the Season

Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this meets WP:FLC. I created this very list five years ago, yet never had the time to complete it – it has since recieved a Peer review and mirrors the other Premier League awards already listed as FL's: the Manager of the Month and Player of the Month. Any feedback, critique, suggestions would be welcome. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, have you notified/co-nominated with the major contributors? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, you are a major contributor to this I apologise, HonorTheKing, MickMacNee too. Will notify through talk. – Lemonade51 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Here to inform that will also help fixing the issues it might raise. Lemonade51 did a fantastic job on improving the article, sourcing, and what not.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So I'll co-nom since it seems that not much was done to the list since I last edited it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it wanted that Wenger is linked 10 times in the table? Shouldn'T it be oly the first one? Or is that because of sorting? -Koppapa (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I assume you mean Ferguson, and yes, it's because the table is sortable, so each time an item is linked, it should be wikilinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, could use a lot more work, e.g. like the recent List of UEFA European Football Championship finals FLC, which has a nice "history" section which this could easily accommodate, especially since it's so short. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I would also suggest that any history section added is copyedited thoroughly... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Will do. Need to add sources too, thanks for your feedback. Done, will go over it after a dose of forty winks. That and Parutakupiu's comments. – Lemonade51 (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support gladly. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


Support. Thought I already had, sorry. Meets FL criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of New York Yankees captains

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My last FLC has three supports, so here is my next one. I have a question about how to present the officially recognized vs. unofficially recognized captains in the table, though, and I'm looking forward to that feedback. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

  • You should not apply boldface in the first sentence, as per WP:BOLDTITLE.
  • Is "This is a comprehensive list of these captains." entirely necessary? Isn't it the primary purpose of the list?
  • Apart from the first sentence, the remainder of the lede's first paragraph comprises a definition of what a baseball captain and an historical perspective of his function. It would sound great in Captain (baseball), but not that much (at least as detailed) in this specific list.
  • 'Yankee captains' or 'Yankees captains'?
  • It would be interesting to add a history section (short or not – up to you) explaining how the different captains came to be.
  • Do not define specific column widths to the table, it leaves a lot of unaesthetic blank space.

— Parutakupiu (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment – My major concern with this list on my favorite baseball team is whether it passes criterion 3b. The last time I remember a captains list at the FL process, it was delisted for failing 3b. That had a parent list (not multiple lists), but the number of entries in the table was very similar to this list (14 here, 12 plus one entry signifying the lack of a captain there). I want to gauge the community's reaction on 3b before reviewing further. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - In my opinion this fails 3b, the information could easily be included in either a players list or the main article (which is what happened to the list that Giants highlighted). NapHit (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure it'd survive 3b either. There exists New York Yankees all-time roster which could be enhanced to include this kind of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Sorry, forgot to put this page on my watchlist. I will address the above comments. First though, I feel this page meets the 3b guideline, as a notable role receiving a great deal of press attention. Another similar list, List of Boston Red Sox captains, passed FLC (granted that nomination was years ago). – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of highest-grossing films

Nominator(s): Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is as complete as it I can make it without more information being made available. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just curious. What's up with no 1917? No source for it? Jhenderson 777 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources have 1917 down. The Numbers and Variety really start at 1920, and the AMC Filmsite starts at 1915 but misses out 1917 and 1924. Wikipedia's film year article reckons it was Cleopatra and they have been right in most cases, but they don't have a source for it or any figures. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As I reckoned was the reason. That's a bummer too. I am not really a reviewer so I will give you the summary of what I feel on the article. I feel the list article is well organized and taking care of (by you I might add). The article is very reliable at telling the source's side of the story and the notes are really appropriate when there's two or more different sides to the story as well. I don't feel I should vote yay or nay on supporting it as a featured list article because I have edited it but I do feel that you (as a editor) deserve a thumbs up for all the work you put over it. Congratulations on that. Jhenderson 777 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy that the data meets FL standards, and that the lead covers the right points. For the director's benefit, I should point out that I haven't covered criteria 1. —WFC— 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS
I hope you don't mind, but I've updated the † symbol to the {{dagger}} template, because † is often unreadable by the screen readers used by the visually impaired, while the template is intended to be universally readable.
In general, this is a most impressive collection of related lists and the nominator should be congratulated for the work put into it. I have a few comments to make about accessibility:
  • The images all have sensible alt text which greatly benefits accessibility.
  • Three of the All four of the tables have captions, which is a real bonus for anyone using JAWS or similar screen readers.
  • I have problems with distinguishing blue/green hues, so I find the colour "lightblue" (#ADD8E6) a poor choice as background against a wikilink (#0645AD). It's not too bad for most folks, but it would be nice if a different colour were picked that gave better contrast with the blue wikilinks.
  • The accessibility of tables generally benefits from marking the column and row headers with scope="col" and scope="row" respectively. The section at WP:DTAB gives examples, or you could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia as an example of where the row header is the second column (in this case the Title would probably be a better row header than Year or Rank).
  • The table "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" is interesting as it contains collapsible tables within the main table, and some of the collapsible tables contain multiple sub-tables. The mechanism works well for sighted visitors, but is clearly not designed with screen readers in mind. All of the content is available in the html delivered to the browser, so a screen reader could work through all of the information one item at a time. In that sense, it is not inaccessible, but since the headings at the top (Rank, Series, Total worldwide box office, No. of films, Average of films, Highest-grossing film) are actually in a different table from other pieces of information, the visual appearance of a single table is an illusion (This can be seen at 800x600 where the columns no longer line up - I know we don't support 800x600 but this is only to illustrate what is happening). The result of this is that none of the headings can be connected with the data to which it should be related (other than visually) - and this means that a screen reader will be unable to navigate around the information in the way it could if this were a single table.
I'd recommend scoping row and column headers for the first three tables, as this is easy to do and produces quick benefits. The fourth table is a problem, as I can understand the visual appeal of its structure, but I believe it falls short of our best practice for accessibility of data tables. Perhaps someone like Graham87 could be persuaded to look at the table and comment on how it sounds to him through JAWS. If he found it acceptable, I'd be willing to set aside my reservations in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the dagger issue so thanks for sorting it out. I've added a title to the chart that was missing one and I'll get onto the row and column scoping tomorrow. Have you got any suggestions for the color highlighting? I'm not that precious about it so I'm happy to go with more or less any color scheme. As for the franchise table, I appreciate it is unorthodox, but there were some very good reasons at the time for its construction, namely all these reboots and spin-offs blur the lines between what is in a series and what isn't, so the soft groupings we have more or less solved that problem—interestingly we haven't had a single edit war since we created it over the summer. Rather than getting side-tracked by accessibility issues, it may be simpler to make the whole chart "go away" and port it into Film series since technically "highest-grossing films" is a topic distinct from "highest-grossing film franchises". Each of the other charts explicitly deal with the subject of the highest-grossing film, so the franchise chart is a bit out of sync and it may be more appropriate for it be in an article that actually covers film franchises. I think we'd still have comprehensive article without it, just a bit more focused and tighter in its scope. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding that caption; every little bit helps. If you need any help with the scoping, just ping me. Generally, yellows give the best contrast with the blue wikilinks and something like   #FFFF66   meets WCAG AAA standards. However, you're using yellows for the sub-tables in the last section, so it might be confusing.
I still like the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" and it would be a shame to get rid of it. If you were willing to remove the collapsible stuff, it could be written as a normal wikitable and improve its accessibility. Let's not worry at the moment and see what other reviewers say. If you want, I could make a version of the table in a subpage so you can see if you like how it would look? Let me know. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem with removing the collapsible elements is that we either have to ditch all the stuff in the sub-tables i.e. giving the table a permanent collapsed form (thereby sacrificing about 90% of the information in the table) or we construct it to have a permanently expanded form retaining all the information that we have in the sub-tables, but by doing that we lose the distinction between the primary and secondary content which will make it look like one huge muddled mess (just expand all the tables and sub-tables and see what a monstrosity it would be). The first option gives us a table that is drastically reduced in its information value, the second a table that will be so unwieldy it will be virtually unreadable. Both options dramatically reduce its effectiveness for the vast majority of readers. If there was a good alternative solution we probably would have thought of it, but the choices seem to be between incoherence and reducing the information we can provide. The current table allows a reader to make comparisons at franchise level, at series level, and in some cases such as the Bond films at actor level, and I don't see how else we can do that, and if we don't do that we fall short in what we currently offer to most readers—it seems perverse to offer less to everyone because not everyone can have more. Could we do something along the lines of an appendix for the screen readers if they can't read the table? I appreciate all the article content must be available to everyone, but I honestly think that the collapsible table delivers the content in a way that is of maximum effectiveness to the majority of the readers; I think if we can include the content in two forms then no-one is penalised at the expense of someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame that nobody else has pitched in on the issue of the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" table. I do understand your desire to present the table in the most usable form for sighted readers as they will be in the majority. I wanted to make sure that you understood the trade-off that it entails for the visually impaired, who are actually presented with the expanded "monstrosity" as a sequence of tables, and can't navigate sensibly within any table. Anyway, you've done your best to make the rest of the article as accessible as possible, so I expect that reviewers will recognise that in this case, we can't achieve perfection. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, honestly speaking, I can't 100% appreciate the trade-off because I don't exactly know what a screen-reader does with the table. However, I still think an appendix that renders the table into list format is a viable way around the problem for readers not in a position to comprehend the table, since if the information is available elsewhere in the article, then I think the accessibility of the table isn't such a big deal. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I regularly visit the page to see the ranking... and seeing the other day that it had evolved into this detailed analysis impressed me. igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Refs 22,64,65 don't point to any citation.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I've sorted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments First of all, good on you for taking on this list. It covers quite a significant topic and receives thousands of views each day. The comprehensiveness and detail of information is amazing. Just a few picks:

  • "The superhero genre has also seen a revival" - revival from when? Source?
  • In the 'High-grossing films by year', what do the figures in brackets mean?
  • I suggest anchoring the asterisks like you have the other notes.
  • The Bond 'Eon productions' sub-set and its sub-sub-sets are a bit confusingly laid out. Not sure if much can be done about it, though.

—Andrewstalk 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've initiated the changes you have recommended:
  1. I've altered the wording as per this edit. It's hard to track down references that analyse the emergence of the superhero film in recent years, it just kind of happened. I've worded it so it comes across less as a claim/analysis and more like an observation of the data with a link to a list of superhero films (as you can see from the wikipedia list of superhero films, there were only two feature length movies prior to 1978, and since Superman 4 there have only been two calendar years where a superhero film hasn't been released).
  2. The grosses from the original theatrical runs are included in brackets. This is done because many of the Disney re-releases have seen the Disney films take over the record. On one hand it speaks of the enduring popularity of these films, on the other it isn't a straight fight when other films from the year where more popular in the original market, therefore I feel it is best to present both perspectives. The bracket notation is explained in the introduction to that section in the first paragraph, but I guess many readers (myself included) sometimes look at charts without reading the accompanying text, so I've added an explanation to the key for the chart.
  3. I've anchored the asterisks.
  4. We're kind of limited with what we can do with tables. I think being able to expand and collapse tables aids the reader in indentifying what belongs to what because the reader can just study one entry, and the expansion helps to make it clear what films belong to which series. The Bond franchise entry is the most complicated table, because you have three separate series, and within the Eon series we've divided by actor too. We could get rid of the actor divisions and maybe simplify it slightly, but I think we would be losing information if we did this. Each Bond actor's set of films tend to be regarded as a cohesive serial, and covered in those terms by published literature.
  5. On another note, I'm in two minds over the inflation map caption. The map looks like it is updated periodically, so I'm not convinced we should label it as a "2009" map, since it will possibly be updated to a 2010 or 2011 map at some point and the article caption will become incorrect. The aim of the map is not to really show inflation rates of a particular year, it's just illustrating the concept that they are different across the world. Anyway, it's not a big deal, and I can live with it either way, but if anyone else has a view on that I'd like to hear it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Re the inflation map: yes, fair enough, it makes sense to remove the year. Also note per WP:CAPTION that there should be no full stop/period at the end of the caption. —Andrewstalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very comprehensive and well-written. Well done. —Andrewstalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some initial thoughts

  • First up, after RexxS's comments about the concealed info, I would point everyone to WP:COLLAPSE, which, as part of the MOS, means this list currently needs some work before it meets that criterion.
  • A few issues in the lead, turns of phrase like "Traditionally", "diminished the importance", "theatrical earnings are still an important metric"... which, while I'm sure are true, don't have any basis in fact (verifiable fact, that is!) that I can see.
  • It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny.
  • Don't repeat unambiguous first names (e.g. Steven for Spielberg) once you've mentioned them in full once.
  • "($10,000,000R)" looks very odd to have that footnote inside the closing parenthesis.
  • Ref here should be Ref(s) since there are many examples of multiple refs.
  • Dislike blank cells, so those with "unknown" budgets should be positively marked as such.
  • Would make sure refs are in numerical order (e.g. look at Frankenstein which has 72 followed by 57).
  • "The Birth of a Nation was essentially the first Hollywood blockbuster." what does "essentially" mean here? And is this referenced anywhere?
  • "Timeline of the highest-grossing film record" why are some years in italics?
  • Series wikilinks in bold italics? Is that compliant with MOS?
  • Ouch, just seen that triple-mutiple embedded "show" for James Bond, really, really inaccessible.
  • " is playing in the week commencing 10 February 2012 in theaters around the world." how do you know what films are playing around the world? This needs constraining. (I know that they're still playing Octopussy in Udaipur...)
  • Wall Street Journal is The Wall Street Journal.
  • Ref 14 - " "All--Time Box-Office Hits By Decade and Year" that double hyphen should be a single hyphen.
  • Ref 19 has a spare period.
  • Should add publisher info about works like The Daily Telegraph (and location info for global information).
  • Ref 30, author can be linked.
  • Box office source 6 needs a space.
  • Ref 57 has a spare period.
  • Refs 63 and 64 point at the same Google book but are formatted differently.
  • Ref 131 has a spare period.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your observations. Most I have taken on board, a few others require further discussion:
  1. This seems to be the biggest issue for reviewers. However, there are strong reasons for the collapsible format. This is what the chart looked like in the middle of last year. Since a franchise can have many divisions, some editors felt it had neutrality issues, and it needed to be clear exactly what films we were including in this chart. The collapsible table received strong support because it was able to facilitate the multiple points of view. I feel it would be detrimental to go back to this type of table and reintroduce the neutrality concerns, so the only other option would be to break it down into a list of tables. By doing this I think you then lose the aesthetic advantage of actually having a chart (just fully expand the chart to see what I mean) and being able to compare the franchises at different levels. The collapsible table received a strong consensus in the discussion—in fact not a single editor voted against it. Now I'm aware that it goes against a guideline, but the guideline is only an accessibility consideration, and I did propose above including an appendix which would make all the data available; an appendix would satisfy WP:COLLAPSE which permits collapsible elements in tables to conceal information if it is only consolidating what is already available in the article. If this is still not acceptable personally speaking I would rather abandon the pursuit of an FL grading, since I don't think it is in the interests of the article to ditch the collapsible table.
  2. I've rejigged the lead to make it sound less like analysis and more like an observation of what is covered in the article. Hopefully it is compliant now.
  3. It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny. – You should wonder, that is kind of the whole point of the section! There is a debate that questions the validity and motives of the industry metrics; however, as editors it is not our place to question the legitimacy of industry practices, we only require it to be verifiable, and it is in major trade publications. That said, there are two other charts on the list which are not affected by the issues outlined.
  4. Removed first names.
  5. Taken the "R" out of the brackets although I'm not 100% convinced of this, because when it was in the brakets it was clear the note referred to that figure only. Do you think having "R" outside of the brackets could cause readers to think the note applies to both figures? I am worried it is ambiguous.
  6. Added an (s) to "Ref".
  7. Added "TBC" to blank cells; let me know if there is something more appropriate I can put in there (other than the actual budget figures of course).
  8. I haven't put the refs in numerical order. I've tried to order the refs in the order the information appears i.e. refs for grosses first, and then refs for budgets. Obviously this puts some of them out of numerical order, but it seemed more logical to me. However if you still think it's is better to have them in numerical order I will do it.
  9. Birth of Nation is generally perceived as being the first proper film, in terms of its techniques, its structured narrative etc, and instead of making thousands in a few local theaters it made millions nationwide, and as a consequence the first real blockbuster. It is included in one of the sources, but "first blockbuster" is subjective anyway, and I don't want to get bogged down in an analysis of its impact on the medium since it is only an image caption, so I've tried to convert it something that doesn't really require a source.
  10. Some years are in italics to indicate years that are not record setting years; for instance 1940 is when Gone with the Wind took the record, but added to its gross with reissues (1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971); its 1971 record was the record that was defeated by The Sound of Music. I'm not explaining this very well, but I wanted to distinguish between years where a film took the record and years where it just added to its record. I thought it was clear, so I will have to think about how to approach this.
  11. There is not much that can be done about the bolded series titles; that is just how Wikitable code renders the titles.
  12. I think the embedded tables for the Bond films actually make the information much more digestible. It is clear which films are part of the Eon series and which aren't, which actors did which films, all at the click of a button. If we had half a dozen tables vertically stacked down the page I think it would make the information much more difficult to comprehend. For instance, it is instantly clear how much the Pierce Brosnan films have made in comparison to the Connery films, and with a click you can see how the Roger Moore films compare with each other. If these tables were all sprawled out then it would make it much more difficult to compare the franchise at its different levels. If you have a table for Craig films, and for Moore films, and then Connery films etc it becomes much more difficult to see how they rate against each over; this way they are in a condensed space, you can see how they performed relative to each other at a glance without having to scroll up and down the page and you can refine it to the level you want.
  13. how do you know what films are playing around the world? Well we have a source for the table, and it uses the same key. We are basically just emulating what is done here: [7]. They don't make it clear how they define what is playing, but my guess is films that are on general release that they are tracking. I could put that in the article but it would possibly be original research. In practical terms highlighting indicates to readers that the data for the highighted film is subject to change, and it also aids editors in identifying which films need to be updated. We could simply change our caption to read "subject to change" or something like that if it is unacceptable as it is. Obviously I can't really tell you what "currently playing" actually means, since the source isn't explicitly clear on the matter.
  14. Wall Street Journal corrected
  15. Ref corrected
  16. Ref corrected
  17. I don't fill in the publisher for national newspapers like The Daily Telegraph simply due to the fact I was made to remove them a while back in a GA review on the basis that we don't use the publisher parameter for nationals. I was told it was for regionals, and was directed to the guidelines for news citations: Template:Cite_news states This is commonly omitted for major publications and This parameter should normally be left blank. I'm happy to go ahead and fill them in provided someone isn't going to come along and ask me to remove them again, so I think we should clarify this first at the sourcing board. Personally speaking I don't care either way, but there is something like 200 references in this article so I'd like to be sure on this matter.
  18. Ref corrected
  19. Ref corrected
  20. Ref corrected
  21. I'm aware of the different citation format. Both references refer to the same book, with the same ISBN, however, they are hosted on Google books in two different forms. One has page numbers and the other doesn't. They both have different parts visible, so the one that doesn't have page numbers can't be accessed using the page number version. However, the best I can tell they are exactly the same book, just hosted in two different forms on Google Books and unfortunately I can't provide page numbers for some of the citations, just a link. If you have any suggestions as to how to get around this I'm happy to implement them, but it seems to be a quirk in Google's hosting of the books so I dealt with it as thoroughly as I could.
  22. Ref corrected
Betty Logan (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
A couple of responses. Not sure still if you have adequately explained to the reader what the italic years mean, and as for the bolding in the series title, that's not as a result of the wikitable, it's down to the {{Highest-grossing films franchise}} template which really should be adjusted to not use bold. I'm still nervous about the multiple nested collapsed tables but won't oppose over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd actually forgotten about explaining the italics, it had gone out of my mind, but I will get onto it sometime today. I don't know how to remove the boldtype from the series headings; I tried to use "plainrowheaders" but it didn't remove the bold, and the Help manuals don't seem to explain how to do it so I just assumed it weren't possible. I think it helps to distinguish the series titles from the film titles so it didn't bother me that much, but if someone can show me how to remove the bold I'll be happy to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on the list over the past week or so and think that it is ready for a shot at FL. Because this is the first list of this sort that I've worked on, I've based it off of List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana, which became a FL in 2010. Thanks in advance for any comments - I look forward to seeing them, Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS
Thanks for the nomination, Dana. Although I know almost nothing about Michigan, I found the list very interesting and the introduction well written. The statistics and the detailed map in the lead went a long way to establishing the context for me.
Standards have tightened, I think, over the last year or so, and FLC has become more sensitive to the issues surrounding accessibility, principally because of the fact that tables are prominent in most list articles. I'd like to make a few points that I feel would improve the list if they were addressed:
  1. The use of colour – we should not be providing information through the use of colour alone. If you imagine that you were reading the article to a friend over the telephone, would they get the different meanings that are in Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend from the way the colours are used in this article? I can see that you added '†' to indicate 'Historic District', but there's no audible cue for 'Landmark'. This would make it awkward for anyone using a screen reader to distinguish the two categories used here. In addition, '†' is not accessible in the sense that many screen readers read it as '?'. The characters that can be typed from a standard keyboard are usually read accurately by screen readers, so I always recommend '#', '+', '*', as good choices. We have created templates for some of the common inaccessible characters like {{†}} and {{‡}}, which use an image plus user-definable alt text to make those keys much friendlier for screen readers. You might, for example, use {{†|alt=Historic District}} and {{‡|alt=Landmark}} throughout the table and key. This would produce a very similar visual appearance for the sighted, but a much more satisfactory experience for the blind.
  2. We also need to be aware of the effect of colour contrast on viewers who may not have the same colour responses as the general population. The standard called 'Web Content Accessibilty Guidelines' (WCAG) gives us guidance on what colours we can use as background against a given text colour. There's a useful tool at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html which shows that 'NHL color' (i.e. #87CEEB) and 'NHLD color' (i.e. #00CED1) are marginal for black text with the small small point size used, but the latter fails even the lower AA standard if the text is wikilinked (colour is #0645AD). I understand the desire to retain a project-wide colour scheme, but the scheme really needs lighter or less blue colours if they are going to be fully accessible. I'm not suggesting this is anything you can rectify individually (other than abandoning the NRHP scheme in favour of the default wikitable colours), but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia if examples of our very best work don't match up to world-wide standards for accessibility.
  3. Data tables now have a recommendation in the Manual of Style that they should identify column and row headers where possible, and mark them up as headers with the relevant scope. So column headers should have ! scope="col" and row headers should have ! scope="row". The benefit of this is to allow users of screen readers to hear the row and column header for each cell if they choose. In that way they can navigate in any direction within the table and still receive useful information. The alternative is to restrict them to having to hear the contents of the table cell-by-cell from left-to-right, then top-to-bottom. Imagine trying to find the date of designation for St. Ignace Mission, if you had to hear every piece of information in every cell for every row above it first. I suggest that it would be a major benefit to mark up the first row as column headers with ! scope="col" and the Landmark names in the second column as row headers with ! scope="row".
  4. Finally, images benefit from having alt text, because it is read out by screen readers. If we don't specify alt text (as with some of the images in the table), the wikimedia software supplies the filename as alt text which means the screen reader reads out the filename twice (because there is a link that is also read out). That must be incredibly annoying to visually impaired visitors. I don't know how easy it will be to fix but the alt text for the map in the lead is "List of National Historic Landmarks in Michigan is located in Michigan", which I find rather odd.
I'll keep this page bookmarked, so if you need any clarification or assistance, I should notice it. I'm also quite certain that any of the regulars here will also be happy to help out if needed. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rexx, and thanks for your comments. Although I don't know that much about accessibility guidelines/policies on WP, I will try to answer your questions as best I can.
  1. This also came up in the FLC for the Indiana list, which can be see at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Indiana/archive2. The answer given there made sense to me, so I'm going to copy it here. In a list where "most of the cells were not colored, and the colored cells were different, [they needed] explanation by a color/symbol key. Here in this list, the light blue coloring is the base coloring, and only the differently colored cells need explanation." Is this wrong?
  2. I really don't want to put this list out of step with all of the other national register articles/lists. So, I have left a message with the NRHP WikiProject to see if these colors can be changed throughout the project.
  3. I think I have all of the column and row markers in the right place (I didn't really understand your explanation of placement, so I'm basing it off of another featured list I did where someone else added them in for me). Let me know if they're not right.
  4. The lead "image" is actually a template, transcluded from Template:Michigan NHLs map. I have no idea how to (or if it's even possible to) add alt text to templates. I have added alt text to the rest of the images, although AFAIK this is not a requirement for FL status.
Thanks again, and hopefully the work that I did improved the accessibility of this list. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
You've made some useful improvements to the list, and its accessibility has increased as a result. I'll re-examine the points:
  1. I'm afraid I'd have to disagree with doncram's interpretation of the guidance. Where there is no information to be conveyed, then no colour and no symbol is obviously correct. If some information is to be conveyed and a colour is used to convey it, then providing a corresponding symbol will be helpful to the visually impaired. I don't agree with the concept of a base colour in this case. Let me put it another way, if this were a list of "important buildings in Detroit" and some were National Historic Landmarks, then any 'no information' item (i.e. not a NHL) would not have colour or symbol, but the NHLs would have both. In this list, you are providing two classes, NHL and NHLD, both of which convey information; both of which are coloured, and both of which would benefit from a symbol. I can see that you're suggesting that NHL is a base property of all of the list items and treating NHLD as a higher designation, but the introduction seems to imply that it is more an alternative. You're also still using the symbol '†', despite the fact that screen readers may read it as '?', or worse, silently drop it. There's a series of discussions at User talk:Bamse/Archive 2#Re: Dagger and double dagger with JAWS, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (C)/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 11#Accessible symbols if you want to understand the issues more clearly.
  2. I would be good if the colours could be adjusted throughout Wikipedia, but I don't expect that to be a quick job. As long as you don't place a wikilink on the NHLD colour, the contrast is acceptable, if sub-optimal. I must admit I have to strain a little to read the [5] reference link in the top-left cell, but I have poor blue-green discrimination anyway. Incidentally, is that footnote required in its present form? It lists several designations that are not used in this article, so it may be confusing.
  3. Have a look at WP:DTAB that I linked above to see the recommended markup. You've made a good step forward with the markup you used, but I wouldn't have picked the number as the row header. Let's say a JAWS user wants to know the dates of designation of several sites. They can set JAWS to read row and column header before each cell, then go down the 'Date of designation' column. At present they would hear: "1, Date of designation, 1987"; "2, Date of designation, 1989"; etc. If, instead of the number, the Landmark name were marked as the the row header, they would hear: "Bay View, Date of designation, 1987"; "Calumet Historic District, Date of designation, 1989"; etc. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be much more informative for the screen reader user. You may want to add the plainroweaders class to restore the left-aligned, unbolded appearance to the names if you do mark them up as row headers (it's ! scope="row", not |! scope="row", by the way). You could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia for an example of where the row headers are in the second column. I should mention that on my browser, the column headings are rendering as very bold because they are now marked as row headers (bold) and also have the '''Bold text''' markup as well. The latter isn't needed, and double-bolding doesn't fit with MOS:BOLD.
  4. Thanks for adding the missing alt text on those images. Looking at other FLCs, I don't think that a list would currently pass if accessibility concerns were not addressed because WP:Featured list criteria number 5 requires compliance with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages (which includes WP:ACCESS). I've added "Map of Michigan with National Historic Landmarks named and marked by a dot" as alt text to Template:Michigan NHLs map.[8] If you prefer different alternate text, it should now be simple to change it. Looking at the map in Firefox 9.0.1, I see the list of Detroit NHLs much more widely spaced compared to how they display in IE9, such that Pewabic Pottery is lost. The problem does not manifest itself in Google Chrome, but I'll have to boot up another PC to check in other browsers. This is probably something beyond your control, but I thought I'd flag it up.
If you'd like me to find other examples of best practice, or make some illustrative edits to this list, please feel free to ask. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
  1. Whatever. Done.
  2. Done.
  3. I have no idea what you're talking about. The coding in this list is already way beyond my pay grade. If you want to change it, have at it.
  4. Looks fine. I don't know about the map - I didn't make it and I'm not enough of a coding guru to change how it displays.
I'm sorry if I sound snarky on this, but it feels like I'm being asked to do things that are not part of the criteria. There are several other (older) nominations on the FLC page that are lacking alt text - some of which have been reviewed by one of the featured list directors, who really should know the criteria. Also, there are several on the list that include color coding with no markup, and this has not been challenged, nor has the readability of certain colors according to an external site been challenged on any of the nominations I looked at. If you're going to make lists conform to your (stricter than normal) standards, please do so consistently. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm at a loss how to respond at this point. I did not feel that my standards were any stricter than the normal ones, or that I was being inconsistent. Other things keep me from reviewing many articles, but I try to as often as I can, so I really can't comment on lists that I have not reviewed. I'll ask for some other opinions and adjust my comments as necessary. --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I found that the Template:Michigan NHLs map was setting the width of the div (the box that the text goes in) to 6em wide by default (that's about 6 characters). Somebody had prevented the line wrapping by inserting &nbsp; between each word, so that each item was forced to be on one line. However, Firefox (but not IE) reserves space for the lines that it would need if the text wrapped, resulting in blank lines between each item. For future reference, there's no need to put &nbsp; between words, just add |line_width=12 (or whatever number works) to make the containing box wider like this. --RexxS (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Apologies for not revisiting sooner, but I've been on a wikibreak. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of Dana and TRM, the article is now as compliant with our expectations for accessibility as possible, and I'm more than happy to recommend the awarding of FL from the standpoint of accessibility. I do understand that it can be difficult for editors to appreciate the difficulties that visually-impaired visitors can have when reading our articles, but I believe that our standards are being raised across the 'pedia – and our featured content can take much of the credit for those improvements. Well done Dana! --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, Rexxs! I apologize again if I was a bit snarky above - table formatting makes me slightly frustrated on the best of days, but I shouldn't have taken that out on you... Dana boomer (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome, Dana, and there's nothing to apologise for: you've worked hard on this. Formatting tables for accessibility is a relatively new innovation and nobody can be expected to take it all in without considerable practice, but we pride ourselves at FLC that we do our best to iron out problems as far as we can. I hope I haven't put you off from nominating more lists in the future :) --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • General Motors Building: Oddity here, as there seem to be two competing descriptions.
  • Grand Hotel: Double period at description's end (one inside quote marks, one outside).
  • Highland Park Ford Plant: Remove "were" from "Automobile manufacturing operations were begun in 1910..."? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi Giants and thanks for your comments! I apologize for taking a while to get back to you - I haven't been on WP all that much in the past few days... The above should be addressed. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't see neither the keys nor the indicated green/blue background...--♫GoP♫TCN 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have absolutely no idea what is going on with those tables. The last time I looked at it (granted, that was probably a week ago) both the color and the keys were there. Now, I agree, they're not. All of the formatting is still there, it's just not showing up in the reader screen. Nothing has been done to the article - maybe something's going on with the table formatting on the back end? Anybody else have any ideas? Dana boomer (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
If you mean the # National Historical Landmark (in blue) and the + National Historic Landmark District in turquoise key, I can see it fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I can see the key itself fine. It's when I scroll down to look at the rows of information for each landmark that there is no formatting. Where previously some rows were blue and some were turquoise and some had one symbol and some had the other...now there's nothing. It's just all gray. Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I see. I'll have a closer look.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks like it was this edit when you tried to force the sorting and used a display=none bit of coding.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Rightyho, I've trialled one change, it looks promising. You may need to use the {{sort}} template (with a preceding couple of zeroes for safety!!) but follow the guidance of what I did here should do the trick. If not, I'll retire, scramble my password and delete my user page..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Ah, don't do that!!! Then I won't have anyone to tell me how I managed to screw up the table this time :) Anyway, I think I've managed to complete the rest of the changes to make the pretty formatting come back...please let me know if I've managed to screw anything up! Dana boomer (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support The major issue was resolved, and otherwise the list is excellent.--♫GoP♫TCN 19:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of National Hockey League players from the United Kingdom

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria, and (I think anyway) is an interesting list on something that I had wondered about for a while. It is loosely based on the current FLs List of Major League Baseball players from Australia and List of Major League Baseball players from Puerto Rico, but not too closely. As always, all comments and suggestions are appreciated. I should also point out that I am taking part in the WikiCup, so this nomination is tied into that. (For what difference that makes?) Harrias talk 17:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you might want to go through the list of all the NHL players as I am pretty sure you have missed a number. Sid Finney is the first one that I noticed that was missing. The list just seems very short as there were a lot of people from the UK who played in the NHL in the early years. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've gone through the list of players from England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United Kingdom on the Legends of Hockey website, as well as the Hockey-Reference lists, and Finney is the only other player I can confirm is from the UK. Two others, Bobby Kirk and Jack Riley are listed as being from places that I can not find on Google to confirm if they are Southern or Northern Ireland, and thus are not verifiable. Browsing around prior to nominating this list, I found a lot of UK-born players appeared in the NHA and other pre-NHL leagues, but this number of players seems to be about right for the NHL: unless you can add anything else? Harrias talk 20:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Nope I trust you. Just wanted to point out that I saw one so was concerned there might be others. Good work on the list. I will leave it to others to review more thoroughly for other featured criteria. -DJSasso (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing that: I'll have to do some more research into that pair to try and pin down where they are from! Harrias talk 20:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, provided a few fixes are made:
  • "The modern form of ice hockey is generally considered to have began in the mid-19th century, when a group of Englishmen from the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment played a game in Kingston, Ontario.[2]" - I'd suggest just removing the whole sentence, as it is uncertain where and when ice hockey originated. The first part of the sentence is sort of alright, the last part just don't make sense... it implies that regiment created the game.
  • I've seen this from a fair few sources: the consensus seems to agree that this was probably the first game played with a puck. Should I state more specifically that is what I mean? Harrias talk 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • But looking around now, I agree that there is a lot of variation. I'll look at whether I should cut this entirely or just "soften" it a bit. Harrias talk 17:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How does it sound now? Harrias talk 11:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "In the United Kingdom, a five team league was established in 1903" - what was the name of the league? It might be a good link, even if it is still red.
  • At the moment I don't know, but I am trying to find that out! Harrias talk 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it makes more sense to put the pink highlighting of a Hall of Famer over his entire row, and not only the name. This is just a stylistic concern, as in "it look weird to me". If you think it's fine, ignore this comment.
  • Done. If anyone else particularly objects I can undo it again, but I'm not over bothered either way. Harrias talk 17:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The article is orphaned as of my review; I'm going to add links on the player pages, but other links could be useful, too.
  • Yeah, I need to look at that! Harrias talk 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Maxim(talk) 16:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments from –Grondemar:
    • I notice you only listed the debut team for these players, rather than all the teams these players played for over the course of their careers. I randomly picked out a sports FL showing a list of players and representing their entire careers rather than a single year or draft, 50 Greatest Players in NBA History. That list showed all of the teams each player played for along with the years. I realize that including this information would hurt list sortability, but I think it would be good information to include. I could be persuaded otherwise, however.
      • See below. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I realize you included "RS" and "PO" in the key, but still when I first glanced at the list I had no idea what they meant. I suggest adding another header row, with "Games played" over both of these statistics.
      • Done. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but I think the table would look a bit better (and maybe be a little more accessible) if the RS and PO headers were under the Games Played label, rather than over. –Grondemar 03:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree, but I can't find a way of doing that which doesn't mess up the sortability unfortunately. If anyone else can sort this, feel free! Harrias talk 18:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It might be a good idea to add statistics such as goals scored, assists, points, and (for goalies) GAA; however I can also see how that might clutter the list.
      • See below. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You might want to consider renaming the article List of National Hockey League players born in the United Kingdom, since that is more precisely what the article is about.
      • Yeah, fair point. Done. Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Another consideration for data to be added to the article, in addition to the Hall of Fame, would be Stanley Cups won, All-Star appearances, and other trophies won.
      • References are hard to find for these, and I would be quite worried that I had missed someone! Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hope these suggestions are helpful. –Grondemar 01:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • In answer to a number of the points made, I felt that adding too much information would clutter the page up too much. More information can be found on all the players on their own page, and I figured that this was the best balance. You might be able to argue the addition of some more, but the problem comes that a couple more can lead to a lot more, and we need to be wary that not everyone has a hugely wide screen! The decision not to list all the teams came from the baseball lists that I based the article upon, though they did admittedly list the last team too. With regards to further statistics, because hockey seperates these stats for the regular season and playoffs, it would create a lot lot more information that I don't think would fit on the screen! The goalie stats also pose a problem, would goalies then be listed seperately, or would this create even more columns? Harrias talk 14:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • You make good points here; let me think on this and get back to you. –Grondemar 03:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Surrey Central

Nominator(s): maclean (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I want a formal review to definitively ascertain whether these electoral district articles are list-class or not and to identify what is expected for a featured-class electoral district article. This was the simplest electoral district I could find: it is defunct and only held two elections, both in modern times. As seen in others (like Victoria (electoral district)) they can get quite long. The only other electoral district to undergo a formal review was Lorne (electoral district) which got GA-class in 2007. I propose these are actually list-class articles; they are lists of elections and politicians; the only reasons for the electoral district to exist are to hold elections and have a politician represent people within a defined geographic area. maclean (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I posted a notice asking for a review at WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada maclean (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • If, as I suspect, this is akin to a peer review where we may see considerable changes to the article in a short space of time, I would suggest you request archival of this nomination and a renomination, if appropriate, in future. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't expect fundamental changes. The wikiproject only has a couple of consistently active participants (but many incrementalists who update elections as needed) who can provide comments here. This article follows the standard template of all such Canadian electoral district articles. From the WikiProject perspective, the only deviations from the norm are that I filled in the Geography/History/Demographics section which usually have minimal content (like Fleetwood—Port Kells) and created a narrative for the local elections. From the FLC perspective, I expected a formal check on whether the referencing is clear and the structure optimal. But if someone does think fundamental changes are needed, then closing the review would be the correct move as it could have wide-ranging impacts. maclean (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: For what it's worth, I don't personally believe that the GA and FL processes are mutually exclusive, and would be quite comfortable reviewing this page or others like it at GAN; the "Note" parameter of the nomination template there can also be used to inform reviewers that you have an eye to bringing it to FLC in the future and to treat it as a prose-heavy list. On a more specific note, the phrase "Its dismemberment sent the western side..." doesn't sit right with me for some reason. Now, I know nothing about electoral districts beyond Belfast South and Upper Bann, so if "dismember" is actually the correct technical term that's fine, otherwise it seems too figurative a word to use in an encyclopaedic context. If the word is just being used figuratively then I might suggest replacing it with "reapportioning" or rephrasing as "The new delineation sent the western side...". Other than that I don't see an issue with this one. It's an interesting enough genre of article I'd never really encountered before. GRAPPLE X 07:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. Your point-of-view as someone who has not spent much time on these types of electoral district articles, beyond the two you mentioned, is valuable. The "dismember" was used figuratively, and "reapportioning" does sound much better. I made the switch here. maclean (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it's extremely odd that in a potential Featured List, the lists are hidden and the user needs to click the [show] button. From an WP:ACCESS standpoint, this is unreasonable, especially since the largest of these boxes is 15 rows by 10 columns. Let's hope no one wants a printed version of the page or has disabled javascript because they using a slow browser. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Agreed, the version I reviewed did not have this format, it was introduced here by a change of template. See WP:COLLAPSE. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I changed the template, so now the reader can collapse the content if he wishes. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 16:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in responding (busy out of town). It appears to have been a template edit that caused the automatic collapse, but GreatOrangePumpkin has made the box show as a default. Is this ok, or is there another action that needs to be done? maclean (talk) 05:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well it's better, for sure; but still, I don't know why you'd want to give the reader the opportunity or option to hide the very thing we're saying is what makes it stand out above the rest. <shrugs> I've stricken my oppose anyway. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Chartjackers episodes

Nominator(s): VoBEDD 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the necessary criteria. It might a little shorter than other episode lists, but that's because the runtime of the entire series doesn't come to even 90 minutes, so there's not much that can be said about it. This is my first foray into the world of featured lists, so I'm sorry if there are some massive errors that I'm overlooking. Thankyou all in advance. VoBEDD 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments I think the four teens who did the show should be mentioned in the lead, especially as two of them have articles.
✓ Done Moved their names to the second sentence.
The summaries for episodes 4, 5, 8, and 9 are in a different format (it appears double-spaced on the mobile version of Wikipedia).
✓ Done The only way I could think to solve this problem was just to stick the notes at the end of the paragraph. This has fixed the issue, but I'm not sure if it's now as visually appealing.
"Pudsey Bear" just redirects to the Children in Need article.

--Glimmer721 talk 01:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

✓ Done Removed wikilinks. VoBEDD 13:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm thinking the notes shouldn't be italicized, in parentheses, or even with "note" in front of it...for example, the last sentence of the Episode 4 summary could simply be "The episode also featured a cameo from indie band The Young Knives, who sent the group a video message wishing them luck for their project". Also wondering if there is perhaps an image that could be used--like maybe File:Alex Day ChartJackers gig for Children in Need.jpg. Glimmer721 talk 02:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done both I've removed the italics, parentheses and "Note:"s, and have put the photo of Day in the top-right hand corner. VoBEDD 04:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good to me. Glimmer721 talk 21:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Ha, I remember watching this show when it was on. Gosh, has it really been two years already? I've had a brief look over the list, and, although I'm not particularly familiar with episode listings on Wikipedia, this seems to meet WP:WIAFL by my reckoning. One thing I would say is that the citations from the summaries of Eps 4 and 9 should be moved to the ends of their paragraphs. I also think it's kind of odd to have an image of only Alex Day in the right-hand-corner of the article, since obviously he was just one of the four guys on the show. Are there any free images of all four of them available, say, on Flickr? That being said, the absence of such an image isn't something that I would oppose over. Nice job! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 03:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done Have moved the citations to the ends of the paragraphs. It seems that there are a whole load of great Chartjackers-related photos on Flickr, but none of them seem to be free use, unfortunately. If a free image of all four bloggers becomes available, I'd definitely use it to replace the current one. Thankyou for the support. VoBEDD 09:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. Is, uhh, this allowed? I could swear that I've seen it done elsewhere on Wikipedia (although, now that I think about it, maybe not at Featured List Candidates). If it is a little audacious then I will apologise, and remove the self-support - I just wanted to give it a shot. Chalk it up as being bold and ignoring all the rules, if you'd like. Cheers all! VoBEDD 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • We don't really count the nominator's support as it's implied when you nom a list at FLC. I'd be scared if you didn't think it met FL standards. :-) Giants2008 (Talk) 19:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ahh, fair enough then, I guess it was worth a shot. Thankyou for the response! VoBEDD 03:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for removal


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=478946648"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages