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] 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)

[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)

[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)

Oppose

  • Okay, this is radical, but following my own nominations of List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals and Premier League Manager of the Season, I think the lead here is too short and should be expanded to describe the matches each time round. This is the only article (i.e. it's not just "CZW Iron Man Championship winners") so it should comprehensively cover the subject matter.
    • Not really sure what else there is to say. I've done several of these we all know, and I've included everything in the lead that is normally noteworthy. Only things I haven't included is which cities the title changed hands at, that CZW is an Ultraviolent promotion, and pretty much a detail of each title reign.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's why I said it was radical. It would be nice, in the prose, to describe the various championship fights in more detail than just the bare facts... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • If you want I can add the notes from the table into the lead, which I believe would suffice what you are asking for in my opinion?--WillC 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Infobox caption needs a period.
    • Done--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Why link vacancy to Wiktionary and then to Wikipedia wrestling terms? Be consistent (prefer Wikipedia).
    • Hadn't noticed I did that.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "is a professional wrestling championship" I thought it was defunct, so surely "was"?
    • To an extent, however it is still a championship, just not active so I thought is would be better.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "The title is currently inactive, having been deactivated on July 11, 2009. Prior to deactivation, " repetitive use of "active" in various forms.
    • Flipped them around a bit.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In the table, why do en-dashes sort between the 0's and the numbers above 0? Same for location, N/A really shouldn't split the real locations.
    • The vacancies are not supposed to be of the overall history, which is the reason they are sorted in that way.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, so they're not part of the overall history but they sort within the history, i.e. after the 0's and before the numbers? Shouldn't they sort before the 0s? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Its however most of the tables are sorted, always been difficult finding which way to sort them as this is brought up in every FL. They are sorted as 0.0 to remain out of the normal sorting. I guess I could find a way where reign 1 is sorted before them if that is what you want?--WillC 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wrestler name sorting needs looking at, I don't really see, for example, why Brain Damage sorts as D (Damage isn't his surname, is it?!).
    • I'd see Brain Damage as a two part name like any normal name, with Damage being the last name and Brain being the first. That is the reason it is sorted as such. Wrestlers with a pure ring name such as Franky The Mobster sorts by F, while DJ Hyde sorts by H.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Ref. should be Ref(s).
    • Done--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Massive dependency on CZWrestling.com, is this significant outside of its own world?
    • Yes, I assumed to the PWTorch and Solie refs would help solve this issue. In the process of looking around for more results for each of the later reigns.--WillC 22:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 10 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)

[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 [1]. 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)

[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)
  • 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)
    • 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] 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)

Comments by Jivesh
  1. Prose
  • a Barbadian R&B recording artist - Remove R&B
    Removed R&B Aaron • You Da One
  • as well as collaborations with other recording artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums the structure and wording looks repetitive.
    Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
  • on the singer's debut album Music of the Sun - the singer's can easily be replaced with her in this sentence
    Changed to "her" Aaron • You Da One
  • Critically acclaimed - This is fanaticism. You can instead use Grammy-winning
    Changed to "Award winning" Aaron • You Da One
  • produced 10 songs - co-produced?
    Changed to co-produced Aaron • You Da One
  • The songs lyrics were written by Evan "Kidd" Bogart and J. R. Rotem.[5] - This sentence should come before - to avoid confusion.
    Moved to before the sample. Aaron • You Da One
  • The release of Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad, included a combination of songwriters and producers whom she had previously collaborated with as well as some new additions. - The release?
    Removed "The release" Aaron • You Da One
  • Sturken and Rogers contributed significantly less songs - Does not make sense to me
  • Sturken and Rogers contributed significantly less songs to the project than they had previously done so, writing and producing two songs out of 13. - This is in need of proper structuring and re-writing.
    Reworded Aaron • You Da One
  • New writers and producers - Is new the correct word to be used?
    Changed to "Different" Aaron • You Da One
  • The release of the album, Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, featured new songs written by former boyfriend Chris Brown and Maroon 5. - The release?
    Re-worded Aaron • You Da One
  • Why "Tricky" Stewart?
    I have previously said 'Christopher "Tricky" Stewart', so the second time I said "Tricky" Stewart Aaron • You Da One
    Since you are talking about the wring process, it should be Christopher Stewart. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    Changed to their names. Aaron • You Da One
  • Stargate do not penned, they produce under that name.
    Changed to "produced" Aaron • You Da One
    You should have written their names Aaron. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    Changed to their names. Aaron • You Da One
  • The lyrical content of Rated R cast an ominous, dark and foreboding tone over the album - Does it sound good?
    I think so lol. Aaron • You Da One
    The lyrical content of Rated R cast an ominous, dark and foreboding tone over the album. See it now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    Re-worded Aaron • You Da One
  • more lighter persona - Are you sure it was lighter? Wasn't she on the contrary showing her insecurities on that album?
    Rated R was darker and more vulnerable, Loud was not an insecure album, it was the opposite. Aaron • You Da One
    So "was darker and more vulnerable" = Lighter? Lol :P Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    What? Rated R was dark and vulnerable. But this point is about Loud, which was not vulnerable.
    Oh My God in Heaven. :D Aaron, you are contradicting yourself... "was darker and more vulnerable" and "more lighter persona". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry partly my mistake. I misinterpreted your sentence because of that comma. Remove it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • Rihanna's fifth studio album, Loud, displayed the singer return to her dancehall roots seen on Music of the Sun and A Girl like Me. - Bad structure
    Reworded Aaron • You Da One
  • penned three tracks for the album, - add including
    Added Aaron • You Da One
  • the reggae infused song - Source it
    Sourced from MTV Aaron • You Da One
  • The singers - Spot the mistake
    Apostrophe added Aaron • You Da One
  • The singers sixth studio album in as many years, Talk That Talk, offered a dance-pop, which tracks produced by Calvin Harris, Dr. Luke and Stargate - Reading and understanding this is a pain. :D
    Lol. Reworded. Aaron • You Da One
I see you have added information about chart performance of some singles. I don't know if they are needed here. Better ask someone else's opinion. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:16, 30 January 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)
Comments by Status
  • Unreleased songs can't possibly have a year attached to them. The released song section denotes the year the album was released, which doesn't apply to unreleased songs.
    Removed. Aaron • You Da One
  • No need to say "soundtrack" at the end of any titles. Unless it's the literal name of the soundtrack.
    Yeah it is apart of the name, as Confessions of a Shopaholic is a film. Aaron • You Da One
    What I mean is the title of the soundtrack isn't "Confessions of a Shopaholic Soundtrack" it's something like "Confessions of a Shopaholic: Motion Picture Soundtrack" or something like that, which is usually just shortened to the film's name. — Status {talkcontribs 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're gonna do the Other performer(s) section like you do, you might as well just rename it to Artist(s). And add Rihanna's name to each where she performs solo. Either that or remove the out of place "feat." in the section.
    I don't get what you mean? Could you do an example on "All of the Lights" please? Aaron • You Da One
    Do either this or this (B section). — Status {talkcontribs 19:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

— Status {talkcontribs 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I did the first one. Thanks. Aaron • You Da One 22:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • There is absoultely no reason to include chart positions in the lead. This isn't a discography; it's about the song's itself. Their sound, producers, etc. — Status {talkcontribs 17:00, 4 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)

[edit] List of LSU Tigers head football coaches

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the four previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee and Arkansas). Hopefully I have caught most of the issues, but there is always something after a fresh set of eyes looks at it. Thanks to all who take the time to look at this as all comments to better the list are greatly appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments quick ones I'm afraid...

  • Not keen on the empty cells in the key.
  • The empty cells are included as part of the {{List of College Football Program head coaches key}}. In previous revisions, the key looked like this. I feel the template works better in that it provides for more uniformity across other college football coaches' lists. However is consensus here is to utilize the previous format, I will be more than fine to change it back. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Other than the blank cells TRM notes above, I found no issues with the list. I'm sure an adequate compromise can be dreamed up, so I won't withhold my support. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. In my opinion this list fully meets the featured list criteria. My only suggestion is that you might want to use WebCite to archive your references to reduce the risk of them going dead. This is certainly not required for FL status, however. –Grondemar 02:13, 11 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?
  • "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] 2000 Summer Paralympics medal table

Nominator(s): 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. We have an existing FL which is directly comparable 1968 Summer Paralympics medal table, and I have sought to build on its strengths. 99of9 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • "This event was the eleventh Summer Paralympic Games, quadrennial competitions...". Should the last part be "a quadrennial competition" instead?
  • To me there are many levels of potential plurality here (divided by year, sports) - note "Games". But I agree it could be considered singular, and don't have a strong view either way. So if you think it is better singular... Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Wish the "Amongst" starting a sentence could be replaced with "Among" (one of my pet writing peeves).
  • Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "surrounded by the games arenas." "games" → "Games'"?
  • Done. --99of9 (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • You link medal the second time...
  • Done. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • " This event was the" I don't see a real need for "event" here.
  • Done. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't you link "Individual Paralympic Athletes " rather than say "independent" athletes?
  • I think "independent" means they'd declared their independence from Indonesia, but it hadn't been recognized as a country. But I'll check this in a couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've checked this, the phrasing is correct IMO. There were multiple athletes from East Timor, competing as a team. --99of9 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting. That article is not sufficiently sourced to prove their case on the term (since both would have the acronym IPA). My strongest source is this. I'd say it's pretty compelling, but it's possible that both terms were used. I'd still prefer to stick to the one I know to have been officially used over one from an unsourced wiki article. --99of9 (talk) 12:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "countries won medals, of those countries, seven won a " -> "countries won medals, of which seven won a "
  • Done, thanks, this removes the verbosity I was concerned about in the first reviewers comments. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is that the total list of multiple-medalists?
  • No, these were the ones noted by the press. I particularly tracked down press mentions of the top medal winners. A complete list of multi-medallists would be long. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • If a nation is tied on silvers, when sorting by silver, what determines the order of those tied?
  • I'm not sure. This is specified in a protected template. I will look into it in a couple of days. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently it's a mediawiki issue. Here's how it works: Help:Sorting#Secondary_key. You basically have to shift-click the secondary column. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Same for total number. If a nation is tied with another on total medals, surely they should then rank by golds then silvers, then bronzes?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed. That sounds like the equivalent of always using "Rank" as the secondary sort key. --99of9 (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Apparently it's a mediawiki issue. Here's how it works: Help:Sorting#Secondary_key. You basically have to shift-click the secondary column. --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support No issues found.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:18, 9 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)

[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)

[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)

[edit] Older nominations

[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] List of Queens Park Rangers F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now complete and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I've based this article off the recently promoted List of Brighton & Hove Albion F.C. seasons, although since this is easily my largest table to date. Unusually for these types of season articles it includes the wartime results since I had the results and tables for them (results in the cited book, and tables via RSSSF). Miyagawa (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • The semi-colon after "playing in the West London League" should be a comma instead.
  • "which are not counted against player's official statistics...". "player's" → "players'".
    • You removed the apostophe, when one should be at the end of the word (not before the s as before). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • History: "The team's name was suggested by E.D. Robertson as compromise between the two sides". Add "a" before "compromise"?
  • Remove the comma in "1 November, 1890". Do the same in other similar instances.
  • "However, eight placed Tottenham were elected instead". "eight placed" → "eighth placed"?
  • "The 1982–83 season saw QPR return once more to the First Division, and finished in fifth place with Venables leaving to join Barcelona." For the structure to be correct, "finished" should be "finish" here.
  • 03–04 should be 2003–04.
  • Surprised that their most recent promotion to the Premier League isn't included at the end of the section. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Made those edits as stated - although added the line about the Premier League which was an oversight. Miyagawa (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • One more while I'm here: In "but lost 1–0 in the reply courtesy of a penalty scored by Glenn Hoddle" from History, is "reply" meant to be "replay"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Yep, that was meant to be replay. Fixed as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


  • "they set a record low score for the Division with only 21 points" odd turn of phrase, we don't tend to describe the number of points as a score.
  • Changed to "when they scored only 21 points, a record for the division" Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry to be picky but I still don't like that! Perhaps "when they ended the season on 21 points, a record low for the division"? I'm just trying to avoid the concept of "scoring points" which I simply think we don't normally say in UK football... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed as suggested. Thinking about it really - in UK football you score goals, not points! Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments. Glad to see that others are reviewing the prose, so I haven't looked at it in detail. Apologies if I'm repeating points already made by others.
  • For competitions that don't have a WP article, might it be worth a footnote saying what each competition was?
  • Sorting. The goals for and against columns have entries >99, which don't sort in the correct order.
  • Table. Why does it only start in 1899? According to the history, they played their first competitive match in 1890 and entered the FA Cup in 1895.
  • Because they only turned professional in 1899. Miyagawa (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Further note: The official QPR history doesn't even have details of those earlier amateur leagues, and the stats only start when they turn professional. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Not even the names of the leagues they played in? if they're really not available, then obviously they can't go in. But results in the FA Cup certainly are available. For completeness, as per criterion 3a, or as close to completeness as we can get in the absence of league information, don't you think those should be included? Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've searched and searched and added what I can find so far. I'll keep looking, but I have a feeling I might have to make a trip to the British Library to look at the computerised archives of the West London Observer which should contain the results from the earlier period (the newspaper created the cup and the league). Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't feel obliged to go to that much trouble, and thank you for making as much effort as you already have. It was the absence of the readily-available-online FA Cup results that particularly bothered me. As to the Amateur Cup, did QPR enter in seasons other than the one you've added? because User:ChrisTheDude, who created the FL List of FA Amateur Cup winners, used to have access to a book with results from (I think) the first round proper onwards. I don't know if he owns the book or had it from a library, but if he still has access to it, he might be able to complete any other Amateur Cup performances for you if you asked him. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would imagine they are in it in other seasons, I only included the cups where I could find them in the Times online archive. Unfortunately the whole Queens/Queen's thing tends to throw the search engine, and searching for "park rangers" alone is well... lets say it's hard pressed to find the football related stories. :) And searching for Queen's Park brings up the Scottish team as well. I've been meaning to head down to the library anyway, but I'll have to ask the wife which night the reading rooms are open late (she works there). I know the search engines in the library are a lot better as I pretty much sourced most of List of FA Community Shield matches through them (which also reminds me that I really ought to bring that up to FL at some point when I've improved the history section!). I've dropped ChrisTheDude a message on his talk page, but thanks to that FL I should be able to reserve the book used as a source to refer to at the library too if he doesn't still have it. Miyagawa (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What are the sources for seasons after 2009?
  • Added sources for the league and the two cups. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And the top scorers? Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Added missing citation. Miyagawa (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Where "Other competitions" have a season article (UEFA Cup, some Full Members Cup and FL Trophy seasons) could you consider linking the result to the season article, as with FA/League Cup seasons.
  • I've implemented the change for the Charity Shield, UEFA Cup, Full Members Cup and FL Trophy. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Think I probably meant linking the entry in the result column to the appropriate season article, and leaving the entry in the competition column linked to the main article for that competition. Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you add publication dates (dates of last update) to the RSSSF references. Those pages do change from time to time, when new info comes to light.
  • Done, although I haven't been able to do it for one of the RSSSF references as there isn't a date listed on the page. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The 1917/18 one's wrong (shouldn't be the same as the other three). Struway2 (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Note n is wrong (you've copypasted without changing all the bits that needed changing).
  • Would it be helpful if the sources for the various columns were placed in the column headings, rather than as a string of links below the table?
  • Moved the references into the table except for the general ref that covers most of the table. Miyagawa (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your comments and apologies for the delay in responding to the remaining ones as I've been laid low with a virus for the last couple of days so my edits have dropped off considerably. I'm feeling a lot better today and so I'll be aiming to resolve these remaining issues over the weekend - particularly trying to find information on QPR's league results prior to going professional. Someone somewhere must have written about the West London League, as I know Fulham was the most successful club from that division. Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances)

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

My current nom has three supports and now actionable opposes or comments, so should be alright nomming this. i feel the list meets the criteria, I know there are a lot of redlinks and I will endeavour to remove these over the course of the nomination. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support, good job. – Lemonade51 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Happy to support this now, well done! Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments – Not sure if this has been covered before, but did we ever establish whether LFC History was a reliable source? Also, can we find a better source for historical information than Sparticus Educational, which looks like a school-related website? Surely there's something stronger out there. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It has been established before, but no harm in clarifying the situation, the sixth paragraph on this page should establish the sites reliability. I managed to find a reference from the telegraph, which covers ww1, can't find one that explicitly refers to both, will that suffice? NapHit (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
In a perfect world there would be another cite covering World War II. I figure you should be able to find something from a reliable source discussing it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Managed to find a source which should cover it. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. That nominators put in time and effort to perfect their own work should go without saying, but I'd just like to say how impressed I was with how much time and effort Matty put in to review the content of someone else's work in such thorough detail. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Basketball USA

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I find the subject interesting and different from most current FLs. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Suggest remove the infobox picture, as too much space below.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I thought spacing like this was fairly common and innocuous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe because I like compactness; I nonetheless support its promotion to featured status.--♫GoP♫TCN 14:28, 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)


[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)

[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)

Still think another editor should go through the prose carefully, but I don't have time to do so myself now. I'll try to come back sometime during this FLC, but I make no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Coming back after some time away from the list, and I still see some issues to sort out...
  • Highest-grossing films: Try not to start a sentence with a number, like the year 2009 toward the end of this prose section.
  • "and 2011 currently stands at five." It's 2012 now, so this could use an update of some sort.
  • High-grossing films by year: For the prose part, MoS recommends against ampersands (except for tables and such, but they appear in the writing here). For all the cases where they appear in parentheses, a simple "and" works just fine.
  • Timeline of highest-grossing films: "The Birth of a Nation played a large number of ... engagements". Should "at" be added before "a"?
  • En dash needed in "$50-60 million".
  • "it is likely it did not overtake The Birth of a Nation in total revenue until a much later date, which was still being reported as the highest earner up until the 1960s." The part after the comma is referring to the movie, correct? It reads like it's talking about the date, which is confusing. A re-wording is in order.
  • Highest-grossing franchises and film series: Add "of" to "with a total over $12 billion at 2011 prices."
  • Publisher of refs 10 and 31, and 90 from box-office sources (Turner Classic Movies) needs an s at the end.
  • Spaces needed in the access dates of refs 12 and 13.
  • In the box-office sources, most dates are fully spelled out, while refs 8, 9, and 13 use a shortened format. These should be made consistent throughout; just changing those few is probably the easiest way to do this. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for going over it, I've addressed most of the issues. I've been through the article with a toothcomb, but I've worked so long on it I think I probably just see what I want to see now. As for point 2 (i.e. "and 2011 currently stands at five."), we may be in 2012 but to all intents and purposes we are still effectively in the 2011 season. There are still several 2011 films working their way towards the list, so I've tried to clarify in the prose the 2011 tally isn't finalized. There really isn't anything to say about 2012 as yet, except that there are no 2012 entries, and there probably won't be until June or July at the earliest. I can always add that, but historically we've always waited until there is something to comment on before incorporating a new year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 12 February 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)

[edit] List of India Twenty20 International cricketers

Nominator(s): —Commander (Ping me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This was nominated for FLC at the time of its creation but was not promoted due to lack of content. The list was designed based on the one for England and List of India Women ODI Cricketers, and has been significantly updated with statistics up to date. —Commander (Ping me) 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • Excess "India." after refs 4 and 5 needs removal.
  • Excess period is still there, though the India is gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In the Suresh Raina photo caption, "international" could use capitalization. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support NapHit (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Im wondering why you have listed the players starting with most matches. In the Test and ODI Indian cricketer lists, its chronologically on who played first, i.e. depending on when you debuted, your listed starting with those who played first. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • It was listed like that before I started working on the list. Is it mandatory that players have to be listed in the order of who played first when we have sortability. —Commander (Ping me) 11:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I was just wondering why its different. Normally, Iv seen the lists the other way (debut first, listed first). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. It has to be in that order. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. Support Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment I was alerted to this nom on my talk page, I have spotty internet access for a while, but I just found one minor issue -- "having played 31 T20I matches with 16 wins and a tie against Pakistan." To me, this reads like the 16 wins and one tie were against Pakistan, a comma after wins or parenthesis for "against Pakistan" would be helpful. Otherwise, it looks good to me, and I think I'd support the list (just don't have enough time to check the table deeply). —SpacemanSpiff 08:58, 29 January 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.[3] 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)

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)

[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.
    • 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)

[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)

[edit] List of colleges and universities in North Dakota

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive, helpful, and easily navigable collection of all post-secondary institutions in North Dakota. It will be particularly helpful for high school students who are beginning to plan their college journey. The list is pretty short compared to my last one, and shouldn't take much time to review for interested editors. I should mention that this is a Wikicup nom. I look forward to your comments. Thanks in advance! Ruby 2010/2013 20:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Seems solid and I'm happy enough that it satisfies the criteria. GRAPPLE X 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of municipalities in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator(s): Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. A previous nomination failed due to low participation, but all concerns have been addressed then. As the list has been stable for months and no other problems have cropped up, I believe it is time for another attempt. Kurykh (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Table needs row and col scopes per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Done. --Kurykh (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support can't see any major issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment You need to add rowcsopes as Trm stated, you only added the colscopes, i've done the first cell as an example. Apart from that the list looks fine. NapHit (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Aren't they only used for row headers? There are no row headers in the list. --Kurykh (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Fixed your example and added the other rowscopes. --Kurykh (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Nearly you need to use an exclamation mark, instead of the pipe, as I did in my example. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Done. Changed some formatting and text alignment, but should conform now. --Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Not sure you're supposed to alter the colour of the row headers it's supposed to be a different colour to indicate it is a header, so I think you should remove the colour formatting and then everything should be fine. NapHit (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
            • I don't see how that's not allowed under any guideline; for the purposes of this list that column isn't a header column anyway. In any case, color is an important part of the list (a different color is used for county seats), so using the darker default header color may create more confusion instead. --Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
              • That column is a row header therefore it should stand out to indicate such, I fault to see how it would confuse anyone when all the row except the ones in green would be the same colour, if that's the case then surely they would be confused now. No other list that has been promoted or is at FLC has formatted the colour of the rowscopes so I don't why this list should be an exception. NapHit (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                • I see no reason to color it as a row header for the sake of default formatting rather than to benefit the reader. We're supposed to make life easier for the reader, not to blame them for potential misinterpretations. Also, just because other lists haven't done it does not mean this list can't do it; FL standards change all the time. --Kurykh (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Its not being coloured, its for the benefit of people using screen readers so they know what parts of the table are rows and what parts are columns, adding this text would confuse their view of the table. I think the readers are clever enough not to misinterpret data, how would they misinterpret anything? Green indicates a county seat thats it, where would a reader get confused? surely they'd assume they every other row indicates that that one is not a county seat. FL standards don't change all the time, they change over a period of time, and they haven't changed over this issue. All the examples in MOS:DTT use scope=row without colour formatting, so again i would stress that you remove colour formatting and just leave scope=row. NapHit (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • I wasn't talking about screen readers or the efficacy of rowscopes; rowscopes have been added already, so that's a nonissue. I was merely discussing the coloring of a column for non-visually impaired visitors. FL standards change gradually, but they do change dramatically over time (I've been here quite a few times and the standards were different every single time). I don't understand why we need to ask for even a bit of unnecessarily guesswork on others, but if current standards demand that we follow rules for the sake of following rules then so be it. It's a disappointing and regrettable attitude and I don't have time for that, so I'm not going to press the issue and have removed the coloring in question. --Kurykh (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
                      • FL standards do change over time but not in the 10 days since you nominated this list. Anyway you've done what I asked so I support. NapHit (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I made a minor tweak to the lead - please check to make sure you're OK with my revised wording. Other than that, everything looks good, so I'm happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent list --♫GoP♫TCN 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Lopez filmography

Nominator(s): — Status {talkcontribs 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this article to be a featured list because I feel that after creating the article from scratch, and putting about a month of really hard work into it, it now meets the FL criteria. — Status {talkcontribs 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - No dead links or DAB needed to be fixed. Image looks good. Could you get an ISBN number for FN 1? I think you might be able to find it on the Google Books abstract or Amazon abstract. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, more comments:

  • "Following the show's finale in 1993, Lopez made guest appearances in the television series South Central, appeared in the made-for-television movie Lost in the Wild (1993) and starred as Melinda Lopez in the television series Second Chances (1993)" - be consistent on whether or not you add serial commas (commas before "and")
  • "which were both met with negative reception." - either "which were both met with negative reviews" or "which were both received unfavorably."
  • Remove all instances of the word "both" and "also" in this article. In all cases here, it's being used redundantly.
  • "Lopez retained box office success co-starring in the 2004 film Shall We Dance?" - missing word, maybe an "after"?
  • Not too fussy with the word "Unknown". How do we know that the stage names of the creators of DanceLife or Como ama una mujer are not "Unknown" and simply unknown?
  • FN 20 does not support fact that she was Rosie Romero or that it was Direct-to-video.
  • FN 80 does not support cited info. This source also says show was produced from 90 to 92, not 93.
  • I didn't check all sources, just a few. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The source says she was a member of the show from 91-93. The lead was incorrect, the show lasted until 1994. I've fixed that. For Shall We Dance she got success with the film, not after it. — Status {talkcontribs 23:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, how's the work coming along. Have you addressed my comments? :-) Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, leaving a cell blanked seems a bit unprofessional when the Creator is an important detail. You can use dashes and have a note ("—" denotes an unknown creator/"—" denotes an unknown budget) at the bottom of the tables. For consistency, you can also apply this style to the 2 Film roles tables. I'm this close (*puts thumb and index finger in an about-to-pinch position*) to supporting by the way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm gonna go on a witch hunt to find out the creators of those. — Status {talkcontribs 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I wish you luck. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Quick, non-reviewer comment from Michael Jester

I may have missed this, but what exactly does the "N/A" mean in the box office column? Does it mean it is unknown due to a lack of sources or was it not released in theaters? I am a tad confused.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 02:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The movies marked with "N/A" denote ones that weren't released in theatres, yes. — Status {talkcontribs 03:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Is there a way you can make a note saying that? Because I think I may not be the only one who would get confused with the "N/A".
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, "N/A" usually stands for "not applicable" or "not available"; but I don't really see how I could add a note on it. I suppose I could try something like that are on discography tables? "Blah denotes blah blah"? — Status {talkcontribs 18:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool. That clarifies it.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see any changes in this article that I pointed out in its peer review :/ Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 03:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I've been taking my information all from Allmovie, and that's who they credit her as. I don't see a need to go off on other sources for certain names. Some places use first names, some don't. That's how it is. I thought I said that on the review, but I guess I forgot to. xD — Status {talkcontribs 02:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Imdb is not considered to be a reliable source. I had this problem on JLO's discography. If you can find another source, I will be sure to add it. Thanks for the Selena budget. I never heard of that site before! — Status {talkcontribs 02:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Yea I know that's the only source that is on the Internet, odd. You're welcome :-) Best with the nomination, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The DVD itself could probably be sourced. That's what I had to do with the Janet video. Do you happen to own it? Or know where scans of it could be, to see if she is credited? — Status {talkcontribs 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course I do mister ;-) I would have to check it out when its the afternoon over here 'cause I'm very tired. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 06:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The "Siempre Hace Frio" music video was on this VHS as well. You can use {{cite video}} for it, however, this source does not give any credit to Lopez. Can't you just put her as "un-credited"? Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 01:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Since she's uncredited, I don't believe that she should be credited. You know what I mean? I've never understood this "Name (uncredited)" stuff. — Status {talkcontribs 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
True, well I now support the article to be a FL. Good job, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:11, 24 January 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] List of Israel State Cup winners

Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC), HonorTheKing (talk · contribs)

Honor and I are nominating this for featured list because we believe it meets the criteria. We worked together recently on List of Israeli football champions, a similar list which now has FL status, and have brought this list up to a similar standard. Referencing is thorough; prose is, I believe, more than adequate; presentation is good; images are well-chosen and accompanied by appropriate captions and alternate text; finally, there are no accessibility issues, so far as I can tell. The result, I hope you will agree, is a list of a high standard. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 04:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Eric B. & Rakim discography

Nominator(s):
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on this article extensively, and I feel it meets the featured list criteria. All comments are greatly appreciated. Thanks to everyone in advance.
—Michael Jester (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Quick comment – In one of the reference 7 cites, the owner of Allmusic is listed as Prometheus Global Media. Elsewhere in the refs, it's given as Rovi Corporation. Would you mind double-checking that one cite to make sure the owner is correct? Giants2008 (Talk) 04:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow. I can't believe I made a mistake like that. Sorry. I fixed it.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and happy holidays! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you, WP, for taking time to review this article, and hope you have a happy holidays as well!
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
      • No problem. Thanks! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – excellent page. Great work! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Rufus! I appreciate that you took time out to review this article.
    —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 18:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • No picture?
    • I have not found a picture that I can use. I've checked Flickr and Google Image Advanced Search.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Disappointing, but I suppose a picture isn't absolutely necessary for this kind of page.
  • "None of the albums charted." – Exchanging the for these might make this a little bit clearer.
  • I don't use a screen reader, but I suspect users of such software are likely to miss explanatory text to a table if that text is stored in the very last line of that table.
    • That's just what has been on every FL discography and is suggested at WP:DISCOGSTYLE.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • So?
        • It doesn't need to change. If it was a problem, it would have been address when the other 156 FL-class discographies were nominated.
          —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The see also section is redundant to the navigational template. It should be removed. (See WP:SEEALSO.)
  • Allmusic often uses > in place of dashes or colons. They should be replaced. (See MOS:QUOTE.)
    • I'm confused? I use ">" in the Allmusic references.
      —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Reference titles are quoted text. When quoting text, we adjust it to our house style. For instance, we don't keep ALLCAPS for words that aren't abbreviations. Likewise, we shouldn't keep website specific styles, like using > instead of dashes.
        • The Allmusic references are fine. There is no ">" or dash in the title on the webpage; ">" has been used for I don't know how long. It's never been a problem before.
          —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
          • It's a problem now.
            • How? The use of ">" also helps clarity of the article. Having "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim – Overview" makes it looks like the main article is "Classic", then I clicked "Eric B. & Rakim", then clicked on "overview", which not the case. The use of ">" makes it known by everyone that the title of the page is "Classic – Eric B. & Rakim" and the sub-section "Overview" is clicked.
              • Having a consistent style across Wikipedia or at least across individual articles is desirable, if only to make us seem more professional. Using greater-than signs this way is highly unorthodox. But what do I know. Let's just dump the MoS and do whatever we please.

Goodraise 00:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Revisited. Goodraise 02:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Revisited. Goodraise 03:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Revisited. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Revisited. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Revisited. Goodraise 21:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ TRM asked me to take a look at the question of dashes, and I'd like to make a couple of observations:

  • Visually-impaired users are generally quite savvy about the use of abbreviations, so I'd generally expect most visitors to assume that a dash meant "no value" (or more specifically in this case "did not chart") because it's such a common usage of the dash both here and on other websites. As a result, I would be much less concerned about anyone missing the key in this particular case.
  • The recommended style at DISCOG has taken on board so many improvements to meet accessibility concerns, that it seems almost churlish to point to the dashes when there has been so much effort put into decent captions, column and row headers, accessible colour schemes, proper lists, etc.

It would be very best practice to place an informative key immediately before the table that it refers to, so Goodraise is not wrong to raise the issue. You could suggest removing the last line of the table and placing it an explanatory sentence before, but frankly, I think there's so little to be gained in explaining such a common meaning that I'd prefer to congratulate the nominator for their diligence in meeting so many other important aspects. I would certainly support this nomination on accessibility grounds; it's really almost as good as it gets (well, you know I'd prefer the year in each row, rather than row-spanned, but that's minor). For the record, I think all of the contributions here have been valuable, and I'm heartened by the amount of collegial work that goes into this process. I hope I haven't trod on anyone's toes with my comments as I appreciate the effort the nominators and reviewers put in. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

At issue here aren't the dashes, or the doubtful necessity of explaining them, or where such explanations should be placed. It's where such explanations should not be placed. While these particular explanations may not be crucial to the understanding of the tables in this article, there are lots of tables on Wikipedia which cannot be understood without proper explanations. Featured lists serve as examples. Any imperfections we tolerate in them may, and often will, propagate to other lists. Therefore, "almost as good as it gets" isn't good enough as far as I'm concerned. Goodraise 23:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that featured lists are used for examples. With that being said, a FL discography is an example for other discography articles. So, with that being said, it should be good enough. I highly, highly doubt someone is going to use a discography article to model something like list of castles in England (something that needs a key to describe the table). That user is going to model their list with another article within that WikiProject.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken if you believe that featured lists only influence lists of their particular kind. To give just one of many examples: An editor pioneering a type of list is likely to look at featured lists of other types for guidance. Goodraise 14:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen something—or heard of something—like that. Why would a user try to base a list of castles article off a hip hop group's discography page? If one is going to attempt to bring a list-class article to featured list, they're going to model it off of a similar list.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Have you ever been to a restaurant? If so, have you ever ordered less than the whole menu? It may be hard to believe, but it's possible. Goodraise 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a restaurant. Anywho, you're obviously not going to change you mind no matter what I say, so I'm going to stop trying to convince you. I do appreciate your other comments however.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1960s

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This is my first nom in a while. --TIAYN (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

With all the remodeling that has occurred in the past weeks, I'm not sure how or why some of the changes ended up as they did, so I'll ask again here:

  • Done I'm still uncomfortable with the repeated citations for How the Soviet Union is Governed in the General references section. Why not just "Fainsod & Hough 1979, pp. 230–231" as I suggested above?
  • Done (added them to the lead) What happened to the notes about who can vote? Did you decide those are no longer important? It seems that you could add some explanatory text right after the List of members heading, so the reader has an idea of the significance of the two tables.
  • Done (I really cant solve the table issue; Its stil a puzzle for me why it didn't work in the first place) Im also still a bit unsure about the separation of tables. I know it's more accessible, and it's technically cleaner in terms of semantic mark-up, but now we have doubled-up entries. Perhaps a mention of this right before the tables (like after the voting rights explanation above), explaining that X candidate members later became full members, and therefore appear in both tables, while the rest didn't (Y of them were shot, maybe, and Z of them just died in office; poor Demichev was in there for 24 years as a candidate and never made full member (do we know why?), although he was there the latest of any of these guys).
  • Done Speaking of Demichev, this page calls him Peotr, but the WP article is titled Pyotr Demichev. There's a redirect, but does this need correcting?
  • Done (added two templates; one which has existed for a while, and another long-needed template for the CPSU)Would some See also links be appropriate, say to List of members of the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1970s or # List of members of the Presidium of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1950s? Or is there a nav template? (If there isn't one, please don't make a template just to pass FLC; I'm just mentioning the idea as an alternative or supplement to See also links).

Sorry for throwing in the new items about See also links and Demichev's first name. As you can perhaps tell, I'm having trouble supporting the nom without reservation, although I do see it as much improved. TIAYN, I appreciate your patience and continued efforts. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For some weird reason this guy is not responding, what should I do? --TIAYN (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - Looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Fails criterion 3b. Considering how the main article stuffs essentially the same data into a single graphic, I'd expect much more detail here. Either expand, or merge. Goodraise 00:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a list... I'll expand the Politburo article just as I will expand the Central Committee article (which I am doing).. A user is for some weird reason bent on adding the old table. + Is this a good enough reason for opposing a list? It seems a bit random! --TIAYN (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
+ that graf (which you saw) is factually inaccurate. --TIAYN (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the nominator. We have 9 lists, and merging them all into one article is absurd.--♫GoP♫TCN 15:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Agree with Pumpkin, I see no issue with 3b for this one. Everything seems in order to me. GRAPPLE X 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer

Nominator(s): PresN 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm back with another science fiction award list. Having finished up the Hugo Awards a few months back, I now take a step sideways to the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, an award that is presented with the Hugos, voted on in the same ballot as the Hugos, but is not actually a Hugo Award. In that vein, I use the same format as the Hugo lists, so it's the same long white-and-blue table you've seen so many times before. Everything about the award is in this list, as it's not as well-known as the Hugos so it can't support a regular article on top of the list. Let me know what you think! --PresN 23:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –

  • Ref 2 has a pp. for a single-page cite, which should be p.
  • Some refs (95, 97, 98, 101, 103, 106) are missing en dashes in their page ranges. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed and fixed. --PresN 03:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • 103 is missing a range entirely now. The other stuff is fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Whoops, now fixed. --PresN 00:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • First sentence: is awarded annually to the best new...writer whose first work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published in the previous two... - sounds a little awkward. Perhaps "is an award given annually to the best new...writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy appearing in a professional publication was published within the two previous calendar years."
    • Intro: and who is considered one of the most important and influential - this is rather blunt. Can this be re-framed more factually? Like, "The prize is named in honor of science fiction editor and writer John W. Campbell, whose science fiction writing and his role as editor of Analog Science Fiction and Fact made him one of the most influential editors in the early history of science fiction."
    • Second paragraph: clarify here that the nomination procedure for the Campbell Award is the same as the Hugo Awards, because references 4+5 only say "Hugo Award". maclean (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed all of these. --PresN 19:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Two more comments: (1) Should The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction be italized? (2) After re-reading that intro sentence, perhaps the phrase "science fiction or fantasy" doesn't need to be repeated. What do you think about " is an award given annually to the best new science fiction or fantasy writer whose first professional work of science fiction or fantasy was published within the two previous calendar years." —maclean (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, it should be (now done) and yes, that's much smoother (also done). --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. All issues resolved. I've fact-checked the list of writers and the prose content. All the refs are to reliable sources (mostly The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction). maclean (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lede is a bit long - four paragraphs in the lede, plus another paragraph in the "Winners and nominees" section. Could that be shortened a bit? And is the separate section necessary? I know your most recent Hugo FL is similar, but it struck me as a bit long.
  • Images - with that many notable authors, surely there are a couple images that could be added?

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • It's a bit long, but that's because there's no corresponding "article" to go with the list, so I had to put all of the information here. The separate paragraph was originally a sentence or two, but with each of these nominations more information seems to get added to it. I've added in an infobox with a relevant image; is that enough? I could add in some authors, but I'm not sure about adding in a bunch of photos just for decoration. --PresN 01:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
I can understand the lede length, and it's not a show-stopper for me.
Despite comments below about authors not being notable for their looks, but rather for their writing, I don't think that's appropriate. This is a list of people. Having images of those people (where appropriate and copyright-friendly) makes the list that much better. I can't support it as an FL without them. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the images requested by other reviewers, I'd like to say that I disagree. While I'm usually the first to ask for non-essentials to be added to lists, I think, considering the subject matter, it might not be appropriate to force images onto this article. Writers become notable for their writing, not their looks. I wouldn't recognize my favorite author if I met him on the street. They're not politicians, pop-stars or professional baseball players. We shouldn't treat them the same just to spice-up our articles. Goodraise 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Goodraise 22:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - After reading through this list and looking at the sources, I find no issues that would prevent me from supporting this list's promotion to FL. To comment on a couple of issues brought up by previous reviewers: I think that the lead is a proper length for a list that does not have a corresponding article, and really a proper length overall for an entry that exceeds 70 KB. I find that I agree with Goodraise above with regards to images - they would be rather useless, IMO, because authors are not famous for their looks, they are famous for their work. If, at some point, copyright is removed from the covers of any of the works, it might be interesting to have those included, but that will most likely be decades in the future, so not something we have to worry about now! So, overall, I am happy with this list as it now stands. However, I might suggest that the nominator put neutrally worded posts on the talk pages of the editors who have commented above to see if they have further comments or concerns that are preventing them from supporting the nomination - this list has been on the page for two months now and has attracted quite a few comments but only one specific support/oppose declaration. Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for reviewing; I've posted to the commentors asking them to return. --PresN 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 Major League Baseball expansion draft

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I initially thought of bringing this up for GA, but was told it works better as a list. I will happily take this to FL status. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm going to be on vacation from December 23 through January 8, so if there are any further comments between now and then, please keep them on ice for me and I'll address them when I return. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Harrias talk
  • First a quick note: I can see from your comment above that you won't be around for a while: but I figured I'd post my questions while I'm here, and you can look at them when you get back.
  • A couple of things strike me regarding the "All-Star" emphasis: firstly, what reference is backing that information up? And secondly, when was the player an All-Star: the article doesn't state whether the player had been an All-Star when they were picked, had been an All-Star before they were chosen, were an All-Star for the team that drafted them, or were an All-Star at some point in their career for someone.
  • In the Procedure section, it states that: "Colorado won the toss and chose to pick first overall leaving the second and third overall picks to the Marlins." but in the table, Colorado picked first, Florida second and Colorado third: appearing to contradict the previous statement. Could you clarify for me please?

That's all from me at the moment. Harrias talk 17:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

    • I thank you for your comments, and understanding that it took me until today to address them. To your comments, (1) I added a sentence mentioning who had been All-Stars in their career, using a reliable statistics website to source that they were All-Stars. I debated discussing it in greater depth (as in who was an All-Star before the draft and who after), but chose to leave it this way so the reader can peruse articles and see when these players were All-Stars. I can change that if it's a sticking point. (2) That comment in the procedure section was an error. The Marlins did not chose second and third, the teams alternated picks. I struck the erroneous bit from the sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Support your comments seem reasonable, nice work. Harrias talk 19:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support

  • The "Position" column doesn't sort correctly. You may need to change "Right-handed pitcher" to {{sort|pitcher|[[pitcher|Right-handed pitcher]]}}.
  • I can't find it, but I know there's a guideline somewhere about linking every instance of an element in a table. Having all the instances of "Colorado Rockies" and "Florida Marlins" as links in the "Selected by" column is overwhelming. Similarly all the items in the "Position" column.
Other than that, the list looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments from the baseball ignorant Goodraise (talk · contribs)
  • "This expansion draft was conducted by Major League Baseball (MLB) to stock the rosters of the Colorado Rockies and Florida Marlins, new expansion franchises that were set to start play in the 1993 MLB season." – I think there's something wrong here, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
  • I can rewrite the sentence, but I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with it as is.
  • Let me put it differently: I don't understand this sentence. Perhaps it's because of my lack of knowledge of baseball. Perhaps it isn't. Until I do, I can't support.
  • Looking at it again, was that comma supposed to be an apostrophe?
  • No, it wasn't. I rewrote the lead paragraph in a way that I hope is more clear.
  • Better, but now the last sentence leads to believe it is referring to another expansion draft than the one this article is about.
  • Fixed.
Revisited. Goodraise 20:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Revisited. Goodraise 17:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Revisited. On the verge of supporting. Goodraise 18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] List of culinary nuts

Nominator(s): Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list after rewriting it to bring it up to FL quality. This is part of an effort to contribute more articles to the Food & Drink FL category. Waitak (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It is too far from my comfort zone to give an in depth review, but to my opinion you should avoid abbreviations. Not everybody is familiar with the latin names. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean in the sublists, like F. grandifolia under Beech Fagus spp.? Waitak (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed what I mean. Abbreviation can make a sentence unreadable or confusing. Night of the Big Wind talk 03:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I like the abbreviations, they seem easy enough to "decode", and I'm not coming from the point of view of a scientist. It can be practically useful to know the name Fagus grandifolia. Gzuufy (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do here. I personally prefer them, but I just removed them in response to Night of the Big Wind's comment. I've put in a request over at WikiProject Plants for clarification. Given that there's some question, I'll revert the changes I just made and wait until someone more knowledgeable provides some feedback. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The feedback from WikiProject Plants is that the standard guideline is to abbreviate the genus in situations like this one. That said, if the consensus is to spell them out, I'm happy to do that. Waitak (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the page is valuable and well done. I found the thorough list of tropical nuts very interesting! WP:Plants knows best, I guess, but it seems to me spelling out those names would be helpful for the lay reader not familiar with the genus abbreviation convention. Either way, I support the nomination, but I'm not as experienced as others at evaluating featured article criteria. Araucana (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've unabbreviated all of the genus names. Waitak (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment The table is a little bit disturbing or even distracting; could you make it horizontal?--♫GoP♫TCN 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've converted it to a bar chart. Is that better? I have no objection to losing the production section altogether if it doesn't seem to fit the article. Waitak (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't really mind the format, but having it in the lead I do find problematic. It should be in a section of its own. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Moved to its own section, and added a list of which countries produce the major nuts (because having the chart alone in a section looked a bit sparse). I've wikilinked all of the country names in the list, creating a bit of a sea of blue. Is that okay? Waitak (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • That's even better! Thanks♫GoP♫TCN 19:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll endeavor to review properly later in the week. My opening observations are that the major peanut-producing countries aren't listed, but that the list otherwise contains what I'd expect. —WFC— 03:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC) Done
  • Good spot. Fixed it. Waitak (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Everything looks in order just one thing I noticed, you need to format=PDF to the refs that are PDF's. NapHit (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Done

  • Fixed! Waitak (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Support NapHit (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • The lede is a bit short on wikilinks. Maybe it's just me, but I sort of expect several words in the first sentence to be linked - "culinary nuts", "fruits", "seeds". Don't know if it's necessary, but it struck me as something that was missing. Done
  • The "peanut" wikilink is missing a closing "]" Done
  • I would move the "Production" section to the end. Done

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Could I ask others following this review for an opinion on moving the Production section? Waitak (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • In the absence of any opinions to the contrary, I've moved the Production section to the end as SatyrTN requested. Waitak (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Does not satisfy criterion 3a. I'm willing to assume that "all of the major items" are present, but the additional information provided is insufficient. From a featured list, I expect more than the item's name and a random fact. Also, I think the list would benefit from using tables instead of bullet points. Goodraise 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I'm not sure that it's fair to characterize the entries as just "a random fact". The entries give information about where the nut is grown, what they're used for and (where appropriate) how long they have been used in a culinary role. I would have thought that that's sufficient to satisfy the criterion ("where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items"). In any case, I'm in the process of adding more on culinary usage as WFC suggested. I can go through them and see if there's anything else that seems appropriate to add. Is there anything else in particular that you'd like to see? Waitak (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the facts are chosen at random, making them random facts. I see nothing unfair about calling them that. What I'm objecting to is nothing in the article, it's what isn't in the article. I'd like to see a table of culinary nuts sortable by name, scientific name, place of origin, length of history as a culinary nut, amount of annual worldwide production, name of the plant producing the nut, with a column for pictures of the nuts and another for additional annotations. Though, if that, or something similar, is unfeasible for some reason, I may reconsider my opposition. Goodraise 22:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The way that the entries were written was by looking at the best sources available, for each nut, and summarizing what the sources recorded as the most key facts about them. The concern was to faithfully reflect the source, and to trust what they chose as most important to mention. The list is modeled after FL List of vegetable oils, and was rewritten from an earlier (and, IMHO, very poor) table-based list. The problem was that the individual nuts are sufficiently different in role, history and origin that a table design did a poor job of helping the reader learn about the nuts and, more particularly, about the groups of nuts, as they're reflected in the article. As an example, world-wide production is available for only a small portion of the nuts in the list. By adding a column in a table, we'd effectively be spending a significant amount of screen real estate just to make the point that don't have that information. All in all, I thought that the bullet-point based list was a better fit to the available information. Waitak (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I prefer the bulleted list. --♫GoP♫TCN 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – I, for one, have no issue with the present format of the page, and wonder if some of the information proposed to be added is even avaliable. To me, this meets the FL criteria, and that's all I can ask for. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Conditional support. I've given Goodraise's comments serious thought. The two main issues are whether this would be better presented as a table (criteria 4, and 5a I suppose), and – given that it is appropriate to annotate – whether all entries are accompanied by useful and appropriate information (3a). Subject to my comments below, I'm satisfied that it meets 3a. All entries contain the nut's scientific name where different to common name, and before I support they will all have relevant information on their use as food.

The table I considered more carefully. I concluded that length of history as a culinary nut or amount of annual worldwide production are unlikely to be known for many nuts, and that having a column for the plant name is often pointless, as in many cases the scientific name and the name of the plant are interchangeable. I agree that each entry should ideally have a geographic element to it, but think prose is a more flexible way of doing this than a table column. For some nuts the true "origin" won't be known. For others, an origin it might give a misleading picture of modern-day production (English walnut for example).

The specific outstanding things that concern me are:

  • The entries for Almonds, Cashews, Pistachio, Mockernut hickory are not specific enough about culinary use. I did find additional instances of parent/sub nuts lacking detail, but this is fine because the sub nuts/parent nut had good descriptions.
  • The claim that "vast majority of soybean production is not for use as nuts" needs an inline citation. If you have a suitable ref but aren't sure how to cite a footnote with an inline citation, ping me on my talk page and I'll make the edit.
  • I think every nut should be accompanied by some sort of geographic information (one of where they come from, are eaten, are produced etc). What needs to be be said will vary from nut to nut, so I'll leave it down to your discretion. The following nuts are the ones I think need something geographic to be added: Filbert, Malabar chestnut, Almonds, cashews, Mockernut hickory, Shellbark hickory, Jacknuts, Stone pine, soybeans.

Once these are resolved I will fully support. Sorry again for taking so long. —WFC— 01:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • This is what I love about the WP review process. Having several people, over a period of time (okay, maybe not quite this long a period of time, but fine) contributing thoughtful suggestions on how an article can be improved leads to articles of a quality that no one author would have attained by his or her sole effort. I'll have at it over the next day or two, and hopefully we'll be able to put this to bed and move on to the next food and beverage related FLC. Waitak (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Good work. I found the bullet point approach to be perfectly fine. I'm not sure tables would be a good idea for this one. GRAPPLE X 03:49, 12 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=476396187"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages