Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! 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 must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those 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 another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. 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 in a timely manner; or consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. 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 leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Reviewing procedure 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. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your 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. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, 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. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, 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.

The following lists were nominated more than ten days ago, and have had their review time extended because objections are currently being addressed or because they have not garnered enough support votes. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

• Green Wing (series 2)
• List of Minnesota Wild players

Nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:18, 14 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by AOL

Nominating for WP:FLC. Gary King (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could you write a bigger lead? Doesn't seem like enough prose for an article its size. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've expanded on the largest acquisitions that AOL has made. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, the lead looks better, but I have a few more comments. There needs to be non-breaking spaces after all numbers. Also, could you create stubs for the redlink company names in the chart? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which numbers are you referring to? I think I've got   on all the ones that need it, but I might have missed one. Red links should be gone in about 10 minutes. Gary King (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• The numbers in the lead. Just use &nbsp with a semi-colon, right after all numbers. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all numbers need a non-breaking space after them; only the ones that are connected, like $1 billion needs one otherwise the $1 is out of place if the billion is on another line. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Computer resolutions are different, however, so even if on your computer it's on a different line, preferably you should still add them. Otherwise, the article is looking good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Please list your Support for the list if you think it should be promoted. Gary King (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find other minor stuff, but for the most part it looks good. Support Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - per my previous concerns, a number of the acquisitions actually redirect to something different. If they're notable enough to be considered part of the list then they should have their own article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All done. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up question: Are all acquisitions in the list, or only notable companies? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

All. Gary King (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I think there needs to be some consistency in the portion of the acquisition list leads as to where and how we see the information about what is contained in the list, which foms most of the first lead paragraph on this one. In some of the acquisition lists, it's at te end of the lead, in some it's at the beginning, in some it isn't there at all. Also, Ubique shows up on the list as being USA in the country category, but the article says it was founded and is based in Israel. Similar problem with AdTech, which the article says is based in Germany. Marrio (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  Fixed. Also, the leads were once all very similar, but in their respective FLCs requests popped up that wanted them changed, so that's where we are at now. Gary King (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unfortunate. It's a problem of the system, I guess, since we review lists on their individual merits and not by style of list. Not your fault as author.

Support - Marrio (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Question I was going to support, but I noticed that several of the companies value columns were empty. Is this because you couldn't find the amount or because it was never disclosed? If the latter is the case, maybe you should put a key at the top saying that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, in the lead it states "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." and I have this for other similar FLCs. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Whoops, guess I missed that. Another minor issue, there is some over linking in the references section. Usually only the first use of a source should be linked. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
      • As I said in another FLC, but I will summarize here, I prefer to link all the publishers so they don't have to always change if references move around. Gary King (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I'm fairly convinced the list is comprehensive, however it would be nice to see the lead expanded a bit more (I realise it already has been). Possibly a bit more about AOL itself or other interesting purchases. It would also be amazing to see a graph of cumulative acquisitions over time or something similar. Things like graph are rare in Wikipedia articles but really put articles among our "best". Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 21:48, 2 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by Symantec

This list is similar to my other list, List of acquisitions by Google, a recently promoted Featured List. Gary King (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. I maintained this list for several years. Gary has done a great job on it, but there is no guarantee it is comprehensive. Some of the company names such as Leonard Development Group and Fifth Generation Systems are redirects to articles which don't mention the name in the redirect. I've discussed this with Gary and he's not creating any more such redirects, but the existing ones leave the list weaker than I really like for featured content. I'll change to full support if these remaining "weak" redirects are fixed by adding mentions of the companies to the relevant articles or the redirects deleted.-gadfium 09:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing to full support.-gadfium 22:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Those redirects have been deleted or requested for deletion now. Gary King (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I'm concerned over the number of red links in the article. In previous reviews I've been concerned with company names redirecting to general articles, not specific to link.

I'd find it hard to support without the red links being resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• It's hard to find information on a lot of these software companies that have been around for only a few years, and especially the ones before the Internet was around, which made documenting events a lot easier. I doubt I can find any notable information on most of the red link companies. Gary King (talk) 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this list be renamed to List of acquisitions by Symantec, so that it would be consistent with similar lists? --Crzycheetah 20:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, good catch. Done. Gary King (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Short lead. Statements seem padded or unnecessarily verbose. You can find a more succinct way of saying "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." I'm not sure I believe "If the value of an acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed." A company on the stock market has to publish annual/quarterly reports and this information will surely be in them. I just think you haven't looked hard enough. The VERITAS deal is described in the sources as a merger, not an acquisition. Can you define and explain the difference? Colin°^Talk 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  Lead has been expanded and copyedited further. Public companies that acquire private companies do not have to disclose information regarding these types of acquisitions, as far as I am aware. I have footnoted the VERITAS deal. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. My only suggestion is that you merge the footnote section into the References section and rename it "Notes." That would allow you to streamline the page a little more. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  I disagree, especially when there are so few level 2 headers in the article as it is; I'd prefer to keep it so that there are no subheaders :) Gary King (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  I don't think you'd need a subhead if you changed it to "Notes", which could include both. It's personal preference, though, so I don't mind not changing it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  I'd prefer keeping it as it is :) Gary King (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - How certain can we be that every acquisition is on the list? Is there an authoritative list which this merely expands upon, or was this list created by searching for acquisitions at their press center. Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a company that solely exists to document the acquisitions of other companies; this list was created from press releases and I also looked for other acquisition lists to find company acquisitions that did not have press releases, and then checked news archives to verify their acquisitions. Gary King (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 02:05, 24 December 2008 [1].

---

List of University of Waterloo people

previous FLC (20:12, 11 May 2008)

After adding a few more hundred people, I think this list is now ready. Gary King (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• What is the inclusion criteria for the list? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  This list, like List of Wilfrid Laurier University people, was missing a lot of people before. After nominating and having successfully passed List of Wilfrid Laurier University people, I realized that I had to go out and do more research to find people that weren't in the list. I just spent a few weeks looking for more people to add and finally came up with this list. It's significantly more comprehensive than it was at its last FLC nomination; of course, it will never be completely comprehensive, but most of the university's notable graduates are in the list. Gary King (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy fail due to it being a list about an inferior university How come you didn't add any honorary degree recipients this time? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  For one thing, I added honorary degree recipients to Wilfrid's list because there weren't as many people associated with the university. Another reason is because WLU offers a handy-dandy list that shows all honorary degree recipients. Waterloo, however, does not offer such a list. Gary King (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 00:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The list is drawn from faculty, alumni, staff, and former University presidents." Why is "University" capitalized?
• "The school has approximately 135,000 alumni in 140 countries." "approximately"-->about, it is simpler.
• University of Waterloo doesn't need to be linked in the caption.
• Images need checking, but it shouldn't be a long job. One of these days, I will get around to reading the Featured Content dispatches so that I can check images myself.
• Full year ranges should have spaced en dashes.
• Sources
  • Ref 87 needs to be formatted.
  • There are inconsistencies in the linking of University of Waterloo in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now formatted the image pages where necessary. Here is the current status of the images:

• Image:WaterlooMathBuilding.jpg – self-made
• Image:Erik Demaine et al 2005 cropped.jpg – confirmed to use the correct license on Flickr
• Image:Rick-green.jpg – self-made
• Image:Mark Tilden Oslo.jpg – confirmed to use the correct license on Flickr
• Image:Dana Porter.JPG – can be found here; search for the "Reference Code" with "C 3-1-0-0-460". I would like directly to the image if I could, but I can't, so you'll have to search for it manually. It claims that the image was taken on 1948, and the PD-Canada tag states the photo is in the public domain if it's taken before 1949.
• Image:David Lloyd Johnston(Brubacher House).jpg – self-made

Gary King (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources and images look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Killervogel5

I believe Lynne Woolstencroft is the "mayor" of Ontario. *clears throat*... Otherwise, cheers, looks good. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch; fixed. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support: Thanks for your kind responses to my concerns. The list looks good and appears to meet all FL criteria. --Eustress (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Eustress' concerns (resolved)

Comments from --Eustress (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I believe all publishers in the citations should be hyperlinked (Wikilinked, ideally)
• If I counted correctly, 160/242 references (66%) come from the University of Waterloo. Does this violate NPOV?
• I understand that since this is a list, the name of the article need not be repeated verbatim in the first sentence of the lead (see MOS:BEGIN), but the current first sentence does nothing to capture what this list is all about. You might mirror FLs GA Tech alumni, BYU alumni, and Dartmouth alumni to assuage this issue.

I'm basing this list off of the recently promoted FL List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. Publishers don't need to be linked; I personally prefer not to link them because it just creates a bunch of blue links in the references, which takes away the focus from other more important links. I don't think the UW references violate NPOV, as they just list the students that have attended their school, etc. Gary King (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The opening sentence provides general context on the topic and is engaging. We at FLC have stopped using the formulaic This is a list of..., which has been effectively deprecated for the past 4–5 months. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

I was thinking of putting the template immediately below the TOC, yet still above all the section headers. It's just a thought, I liked how it looked. Either way, I support. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, I would prefer having it above the TOC rather than directly below, because I think it looks better when immediately after the TOC comes a section heading. In my opinion, that should always be the case. Gary King (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of acquisitions by Microsoft

previous FLC (13:10, 4 May 2008)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 19:05, 4 May 2008.

---

List of national instruments

I thought this would be an interesting list to work on (and it was), and I think it worked out pretty nice. I didn't think I'd find as many free pictures as I did (though see below). I think it meets all the criteria, and would be glad to satisfy any concerns. A few points:

• I included Hornbostel-Sachs numbers without sources for the specific number (background: this is a system used to classify musical instruments, using numbers, so that 321.322 connotes a "necked bowl lute" for example), which I suspect some might call original research, perhaps thinking of it as similar to biological classification. The key difference is HS numbers are objective - if I have a source that calls an instrument a "necked bowl lute", that will always be 321.322. In contrast, if we cite a CNN article on a new animal discovery and CNN calls it "furry", it would be original research to say the new animal is in the order Mammalia because we don't know if that's the case (tarantulas are described as "furry" too...). A "necked bowl lute" can't turn out to have a different HS-number (it's not like we'll discover it's secretly a double-headed barrel drum masquerading as a necked bowl lute) unless the source is mistaken or I misinterpreted it (both of which are possible with or without the numerical system).
• Should I strictly use only images and sounds that are representative of the tradition in question? For example, there are similar, if not identical, instruments listed for Sakha and Tuva - neighboring regions of Russia, but we have a picture of only one; I used the same picture for both because I'm fairly certain that any differences between them are indistinguishable or nearly so from the photograph, and because it's better to include a photo than not, even if it's not the perfect image. The instrument in question (a jew's harp) looks like it may very well be factory-made anyway, in which case it seems probable that the same model is sold in both regions, despite any traditional differences. Similarly, the "guitar" and "accordion" is listed for several countries, and I've done my best to include the most useful possible photos, but most of the images of guitars on the Commons (and elsewhere) don't even say where the instrument is from. Even if there is a difference between the Argentinian guitar or accordion and other such instruments, I suspect that, in practical terms, many Argentinians probably don't use "Argentinian guitars" or accordions. Similarly, even if there is something significant visually to distinguish between an "African American banjo" and a different banjo, most African Americans have probably used more-or-less the same banjos as others (i.e. they're probably made in China). And anyway, are we looking for a fiddle made by or played by Dutch people (as another example), and how are we really supposed to know? So, I came to the conclusion that we should cast a wide net for pictures, even if the image isn't perfect. But then we come to the Serbian/Macedonian/Yugoslavian gusle, and the issue becomes closely intertwined with nationalism and such, so I haven't used the picture of the Serbian gusle for the Macedonian entry, though as far as I am aware, there is no difference between the Serbian and Macedonian gusles. (for background: the gusle is a stringed instrument used across much of the former Yugoslavia. I found a source calling it the "national instrument" of Yugoslavia, and one for Macedonia and Serbia, both former parts of Yugoslavia. Since the image and sound sample are both very clearly labelled Serbian, I strongly suspect some might object to using it for the Macedonia entry, even if it is the same instrument (AFAIK there are no differences whatsoever). If it wasn't labeled with a country at all, I don't think anyone would bat an eye.)
• Lots of instruments could be seen as "national instruments", and I searched as widely as I could for uses of that term, including essentially all instances that I found. But a list like this can't be guaranteed comprehensive - in fact, I'd wager there are sources out there that would expand this list (the Japanese shamisen for example, which I specifically scoured the Internet for to no avail). I think it is reasonably comprehensive, and omits no major component in that the term is in very wide use for maybe a dozen or so instruments, all of which are included (Welsh triple harp, Finnish kantele and Guatemalan marimba, are three big ones). The rest I found a source or two for, and more could definitely always be added (most indigenous American, Australian and African tribes probably have at least one instrument that could reasonably be called a "national instrument", which could theoretically add hundreds to this list... but this only lists documented examples of actual usage, even if there are other instruments that are just as much a national instrument as some of those on the list.

Sorry if all this is long and confusing, but I'd like to get feedback from a wide audience. I brought it up during the recent peer review, and the sole commenter supported my position. Tuf-Kat (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Wow, some list! Some brief comments...

• It's very long. Over 100Kb makes it not entirely universally accessible.
  • True, but there are, I believe, both featured articles and lists that are longer. I'm not sure where it would be possible to split the article either, exception by making a separate historical article for defunct countries like ancient Greece and Yugoslavia. But it wouldn't be clear where to draw the line (the reference to the bell being the national instrument of England comes from Handel ultimately, so it's kind of a historical claim even if England still exists). And there's only a half-dozen or so historical entries, so that wouldn't help very much with the overall length anyway.
    • Why not remove the images? It would speed up loading time, plus they don't really do anything for the list (you click a link to see what it looks like, don't you?). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, but I think being able to see them (even small versions of them) can be informative. Maybe I'm not normal in that, so I'll bow down to consensus, but the length doesn't seem too bad for me. Tuf-Kat (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
• Citations should be (a) in numerical order and (b) not have spaces between them.
  • B done
    • Not quite. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• After the last full use of Hornbostel-Sachs, put (H-S) so it's clear what the abbreviation in the table means.
  • Done.
• Other names Image column is badly named and confusing.
  • I've revamped the layout considerably.
• Why sort on Description? Is it useful?
  • It's somewhat interesting to do - the first word or two is almost always a general informal classifier like "bagpipes", so sorting by description does produce some useful groupings. But if it's possible to make it not sortable by that column, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Someone more technically inclined than me might also be able to merge the H-S number and description column in such a way that it will sort by the number. I'd be fine with that too, but don't know how to do either solution.
• You have a list of "national" instruments but then it's listed against "Tradition". It's confusing for the non-expert to understand the linkage.
• Is the H-S column sorting correctly? I'd expect the lowest at the top and highest at the bottom (and vice versa) - doesn't seem to work that way for me.
  • I think these two are fixed in my revamping.
• Some instruments are in italics, others aren't. Why? It's unclear.
  • All non-English words are italicized. Do you think they shouldn't be? Tuf-Kat (talk)

That's a starter from me, a lot of issues here, so I have to regretfully oppose for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Self-Comment: I redid the code for the table and knocked a couple kb off the total article size. It looks fine now, I think, except that one picture, the duduk, is extraordinarily large, and I'm not sure why or if there's a way to fix it without going back to the old method. Does anybody know how to fix this? Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Any missing images should be given an mdash, not a hyphen, per the MOS
  • Fixed.
• Not sure they all qualify as "nations". "African American" and "Arab", and a whole lot more are enthnicities.
• Some names are countries, while others are demonyms, such as Bashkir.
• Hawaii is a US State, not a nation. Also, is there no national instrument of America or Canada?
  • Not true according to nation, and irrelevant anyway. I included uses of the term "national instrument" without editorializing on what should qualify. I used countries when the source used a country, U.S. states when the source used a U.S. state (e.g. Hawaii and Texas) and ethnic groups, nationalities, religions or linguistic minorities when the source used those groupings. I'm not aware of any source that describes any national instrument for America or Canada. As I noted in my nomination, it's possible to describe lots of things as a "national instrument". The question is whether or not anyone (or a reliable source, anyway) does so. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• With so many missing images, it might be better to present (some of) what is available as a gallery instead.
  • I don't tend to like galleries, personally, and don't think this would benefit from it. They always look ugly, IMO. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nation doesn't mention "Hawaii", so I'm not sure what you mean by "not true". Hawaii was a nation, in the 1800s or something, but it has been a US state for over 50 years. That the word "nation" is being used in the column which has things that are not nations is incorrect, as would be the page title of "National istruments", as some given are not national instruments. Either change the wording, or remove the instruments that are identified with religions, ethnic groups, linguistic minorities or states. The first sentence of the lead, "This is a list of national instruments, containing musical instruments of symbolic or cultural importance within a nation, ethnicity, tribe or other group of people" contradicts itself. An instrument used by a group of people doesn't make it a national instrument. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of nation defines the term: "A nation is a defined cultural and social community". Hawaii is definitely that. In any case, a reliable source calls the ukulele a national instrument of Hawaii. It would be original research to limit the scope of this list using our own judgement about what should qualify; all we can do is list instruments that others have described as national instruments. The first sentence you quote is arguably redundant (since ethnicities, tribes and other "groups of people" in the sense meant here are all nations as well), but not contradictory. See also the American Heritage Dictionary, Ardictionary and Encarta on the word "nation"; also the Collins Thesaurus lists a number of synonyms in addition to both "country" and "state". Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments

• Since you had to explain to me the meaning of the use of italics, I'd suggest a key.
  • I've explained it in the lead.
• Why embolden the instruments?
  • To draw attention to them - it's a "list of instruments", after all, even if the most useful ordering is by nation, the instrument is still what makes the list. The emboldening makes it clear that it's sorted by nation so you can find what you're looking for, which is probably the name of an instrument.
• The Barbara Stewart you link to is a New Zealand politician, is that who you intended as your kazoo impresario?
  • Fixed, it's at Barbara Stewart (composer).
• If alternative names are given then it'd be worth either having a key to say that or explain why the instrument has more than one name.
  • I've put an explanation in the lead. I don't really think it's necessary to explain why specifically. There's an article on every instrument, which does or should go into more detail, and it's not really relevant directly to this subject. They're mostly variant spellings and other rather boring things, like the ancient Greek aulos, which is singular, but since some English sources use the plural auloi, I included that too. If you really want an explanation, I guess I could, but it would be a lot of work for some linguistic tedium better suited to other articles, IMO.
• Do all alternative names (e.g. for the didgeridoo) have citations?
  • Yes, there might be a few of the spelling variants that don't, but I could supply one if someone really wants. All of the didgeridoo-like totally different alternative names are included in the citations given. (the didgeridoo all come from the same source, I'm pretty sure it was the Rough Guide, but could be the other one, if you really want to know I can find out, but not easily at this moment)
• Some countries have more than one instrument, eg Brazil. Is it worth mentioning this in the lead?
  • This is a good point. I've added A number of countries have more than one instrument listed, each having been described as a national instrument, not usually by the same source; neither the presence of multiple entries for one nation, nor for multiple nations for one instrument, on this list is reflective of active dispute in any instance. (which is a bit tortuous)
• Still need to work on citations per WP:CITE, i.e. placement and numerical ordering.
  • Fixed, I think.
• Sometimes you link zither (for example), sometimes you don't. Be consistent with linking.
  • They all link now (will double-check tomorrow, as I probably missed a few).
• References which have page ranges need to use the en-dash to separate them rather than the hyphen, per WP:DASH.
  • Fixed.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Orlady (talk · contribs)

I've only reviewed this superficially, but I'm not ready to support it. (Oppose for now.)

•  Done The title bothers me. "Instrument" has many meanings. (Before I looked at the article, I thought it was probably about music, but I wondered if it might be about national constitutions -- a form of "instrument" -- or possibly something completely different.) To avoid ambiguity, could this be revised to List of national musical instruments?
  • I don't think that's a good idea - if you do a google search for "national musical instruments", almost all of the results are using it in a much broader sense, meaning something like "any instrument that is part of a nation's distinct musical instrument repertoire". (I think people who use that term are mostly thinking of "national music" (i.e. the music of a nation), then specifying which field within it (instruments). The term "national instrument" has totally different results on a search, all of which are talking about a specific instrument in the sense meant in this article. National Instruments is the name of several companies, and I think the term does have some sort of legal sense, possibly along the lines you're suggesting, but I figured if it was all that important of a term, we'd probably have an article about it by now. I'll move it to list of national instruments (music), which I think is better, and I'll make a dab page, so maybe somebody can define it in a legal sense. (I'll ask at the Law WikiProject)
    • I did a Google search on "national musical instruments", and the results appear to me to be using the term in exactly the same context as this WP article. (Apparently you are seeing a subtle distinction that escapes me.) Here are a few representative hits: thinkquest article about Morin huur in Mongolia; About.com article about the mbira in Zimbabwe; web page about music of Kyrgyz culture and the instruments used and identifying the komuz as a musical symbol of Kyrgyz; and page of factoids about the accordion, identifying it as the official musical instrument of the city of San Francisco and the source of "a signature sound for music from Italy, France, Germany, Russia, Argentina and more" (does not actually use the term "national musical instrument"). --Orlady (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • (There must have been a typo in my original search or something, because I'm getting a totally different array of articles this time) But still, I get less than 800 Google hits for "national musical instrument" (with quotes) and more than 63,000 for "national instrument" with music. It's just by far the standard way of referring to this idea. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
•  Done I don't think the names of the instruments should be in bold face. WP:MOS discourages use of bold face for emphasis. (Here I'm agreeing with The Rambling Man.)
  • Okay, I fixed it.
•  Done I'm no template maven, and I don't see where and how Template:List of national instruments forces column widths, but the table appears to have excessively wide fixed widths for all columns except "Description" and "Image". Can that be adjusted?
  • I'm also no template maven, but I don't think there is a fixed width (it would be at Template:List_of_national_instruments-_start. Those columns are wide because a few entries are much wider than the others (like the didgeridoo's alternate names stretching out the name column). But I could be wrong.
    • Alternate names should not stretch the column width unless you have unnecessarily forced nonbreaking spaces between them. The column width that bothers me the most is the one for the numbers. It appears that the wide width for that column is enforced by the entry "422.112.2-62+422.221.1-621", Is that a single number, or does the plus sign indicate that two different numbers are used? If this is two different numbers, the plus sign should not be used in that manner. If those are two different numbers for the same instrument, probably the most straightforward way to render them would be on two separate lines (separated by a line break). --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the plus sign is the official method of denoting a Hornbostel-Sachs number for an instrument that is made up of more than one instrument. It's one number, the plus sign indicates that there are two instruments combined into one unit. Tuf-Kat (talk)
•  Done Why is the "Image" column sortable?
  • I don't know that it's possible to make some columns sortable and some not.
    • It's easy to make some columns unsortable when the table specifications are contained within the article. I'm sure it's also possible when the table specifications are embedded in a template, but as I've said I'm no template maven. --Orlady (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I fixed this one by editing Template:List_of_national_instruments-_start. Meanwhile, I see your reasoning for sorting "Description," but it's not clear to me that the wording of descriptions is sufficiently standardized to merit sorting. --Orlady (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Not a big deal, I've made it unsortable (thanks for figuring out how!)
• After reading the intro, I looked in the table for sound files, but did not find them quickly. They aren't mentioned in the table headings, and it wasn't obvious to me that they would be under "Description." I don't know how I would handle this, but I think it should be more obvious where to find them.
  • I've adding "Recordings" to the heading for the description column, but I'm not sure if that really looks good. Moving the recordings to the image column would be ideal, I think, but that would extend every row with a sound sample since the pictures always fill up the box more than any other column, so it would add a bunch of white space.
•  Done I would like to see more internal wikilinks. For example, it's not immediately obvious why some nationalities are linked in the intro, but not others. (Be consistent in the intro; link all nationalities even if they are also linked in the table.) Also, can terms such as "stringed instrument" be linked?

--Orlady (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I've added some linking in the lead, and some elsewhere in the list. I was specifically avoiding linking stringed instrument because it's used very often, and adding so many links would be redundant and add to the article's size (not it's length, but it already takes a while to load). I could just link every seventh use or something, but that tends to not last, as casual editors continually add more links. If you really disagree on that one, I'll link them, but I think it's a bad idea. I think more than half of the instruments listed are string instruments.
    • Link terms such as "stringed instrument" the first time they are used. It definitely would be excessive to link them every time they appear. There's some good advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've linked the first use. Tuf-Kat (talk)
        • Thanks. :-) However, I gave that just as an example. There may be other music terms or musical instrument terms that still deserve links, such as fret, cane, soundboard, and diatonic. (I don't know the terminology or the WP articles well enough to know what can be linked.) --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, I had already linked a whole bunch others, including, i think all those. Tuf-Kat (talk)

I've checked off several of my comments that I think are now fully resolved. I am still concerned about the way the sound files are identified in the heading; maybe someone else has a good idea on that...

• I am a bit bothered by the matter of determining what belongs on this list. Two items in the article that don't seem right to me are:

(1) The comments in the introduction about the movement to make the kazoo a national instrument in the United States. As near as I can determine, this "movement" consists of Barbara Stewart, and it appears to be a tongue-in-cheek proposal (almost a hoax). I don't think that deserves to be highlighted in the intro, unless perhaps the paragraph focuses on the fact that although there are few government-designated "national instruments" some musicians get media attention for their campaigns to get their preferred instruments so designated.

I don't think that's really a tongue-in-cheek campaign. She's a well-accepted composer who has performed at Carnegie Hall and the Lincoln Center, and worked with the Smithsonian. I don't know how many people agree with her, but she seems to be serious. I don't see anything that indicates it's tongue-in-cheek (and even if it is, she's notable enough that I don't think that matters; she's the only "notable" person in the world, AFAIK, who is actively attempting to make a particular instrument a "national instrument", whether it's for serious musicological or academic reasons, or if it's frivolous, is irrelevant.). Tuf-Kat (talk)

(2) The entry indicating that the accordion is the national instrument of Texas. Not only is it questionable whether Texas can claim the status of a nation or ethnicity, but it appears to me from the cited source that accordion's only claim to being a national instrument in Texas is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek suggestion by one person, Joe Nick Patoski.

Texas is unquestionably a nation, and Patoski has written numerous articles on Texas and music (bibliography). His writings run the gamut of Texas music, from Willie Nelson to Stevie Ray Vaughan to Selena. I don't see any evidence that this is tongue-in-cheek either. Note that while he is attempting to make the accordion the official national instrument, this is treated differently than Stewart and her kazoo because she is attempting to make the kazoo the national instrument, while his source implies that he is trying to get Texas to recognize the accordion, which he sees as already being the national instrument. Tuf-Kat (talk)

One reference to the accordion as "National Instrument of Texas" in one blog post by a journalist does not create a fact that needs to be memorialized in Wikipedia. Similarly, Stewart seems to have gotten a lot of positive P.R. visibility from talking about the kazoo as a national instrument, but I don't see any evidence that she is seriously working to make it a national instrument. --Orlady (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you linked to this. It's not the source I used. I cited Texas Folklife, a nonprofit organization. It's not a "blog post", and he's not merely a journalist - he's written several books about Texas, and has been writing about Texas culture, especially music, in major newspapers and magazines (local, statewide and national) for more than a decade; he seems perfectly well-suited as a source for the importance of the accordion in Texas culture. Regarding Stewart, as I said, I don't think it needs to be "serious" - the kazoo isn't on the list, it's mentioned in the lead as an example of an instrument whose "national instrumentness" is actively manipulated. She's clearly notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and she's the only Wikipedia-notable person I'm aware of who's doing that (FTR, I'm not aware of any non-notable people who are doing that either). Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to "I don't know why you linked to this"; I linked to that blog post because you pointed me to this link to indicate the scope of Mr. Patoski's work. Earlier I had read the cited source, where the reference to the accordion as Texas' national instrument struck me as offhand and possibly tongue-in-cheek. After seeing your new reference, I searched his website for the term "national instrument" and found only that one blog post. I see that he's written a lot, but having skimmed some of his writings I don't see Mr. Patoski as a reliable source on the subject of identifying "national instruments". --Orlady (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

He's not presented as a reliable source on the subject of identifying "national instruments" - he's presented as a reliable source on Texan culture. His claim is identical to saying "the accordion is and has long been an instrument of particular cultural importance to many Texans". It doesn't require any special abilities or training from the musicological end, only knowledge of Texas, which is demonstrated in abundance by his bibliography. Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if any of the other entries are based on equally ephemeral designations. --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. I have trouble with the notion that there's a clearly defined national instrument for all of these countries: says who, in each case? We're not told in the list whether it's by declaration of the national parliament, by widely accepted tradition, or is just conjectural. For example, who says the didjeridoo is Australia's national instrument? This is a bad case of an idea for a list that doesn't quite fit reality—not widely, anyway. And why is the concept one of a single instrument? In the case of indigenous Australia, why not the clap-stick, which is indeed universal, as opposed to the d. This list just creates category problems and fosters cultural distortions; I think it should be deleted, or at the very least renamed with a less presumptuous title, such as "List of examples of musical instruments from around the world", because that's about all that could be claimed. In terms of the requirement that a FL be properly embedded in WP, relating usefully to related articles, well, I think it weakens the body of knowledge contained in the linked articles on specific instruments. So many cultures do not map onto European-imposed nation states. China as a single musical entity? No way.

Let's take one example: The didgeridoo is a trumpet? When you say "indigenous", are you referring to both indigenous races, or just one? The use/existence of the instrument varies significantly from place to place on the continent. TONY (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is explained in the lead. Each instrument is described as a "national instrument" by the source cited. The clapstick is not listed because I'm not aware that anybody has ever called it a national instrument of anybody. I don't understand your point with this: This is a bad case of an idea for a list that doesn't quite fit reality—not widely, anyway -- yes, it's a messy and debatable concept, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Some instruments are more important within a given culture than others, and many of them are called "national instruments". I'm sorry that there's no objective way to evaluate that, but that doesn't make it irrelevant, unreal or uninformative to cover. Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't have to go through the work of deciding if the clapstick should be a national instrument, we cite sources instead. Your objection seems to be that the term "national instrument" is vague, which is true but irrelevant, as it's a widely used concept which is only used here where a notable source used it.

The concept is very much not one of a "single instrument" - did you even skim through the list? The lead says some entries have more than one instrument, and there are a number of examples of that. The didgeridoo is in the general class of trumpets (try googling didgeridoo and trumpet - more than 200,000 results). If you'd looked at the sources cited for the didgeridoo, you'd see the claim comes from the following quote: “It has not been a national instrument until quite recently, the previous range was primarily in the northern third of the continent.” which I think answers your question on that. Cultures do not need to map onto European nation-states to fit this concept (there are many entries that are not European nation-states, such as Swedish Estonia and the Ryukyu Islands), and nothing on this list says that China is a single musical entity. Each "nation" is given as described in the source using the term "national instrument" (so if the pipa source had said it was the national instrument of the Han Chinese, that's what I'd put). Tuf-Kat (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think if you asked most Australians what their national instrument(s) were, you'd receive a blank stare. And clap-sticks are a functional musical instrument, and much more widespread than the d. Musical instruments (of the traditional type, especially) typically don't map onto modern nation states, and you're conceiving them as such. And you're forcing a binary category on, say, all of the traditional instruments in Chinese musical cultures (yes, there are many): some are somehow "national" and others somehow fail to make WP's list. I think it's a very difficult boundary to call, and should not be attempted. A lot of people would be upset if they saw it—that is, if they had access to a computer and knew where to look. For the rest of us, it compartmentalises so much rich, multilayered human culture in a way that might make us feel satisfied that all is controlled in little boxes, but it doesn't get at the true picture, either large or small. Sorry to be so negative. I studied ethnomusicology for a while, and I've no doubt you have expertise in that field. TONY (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS and to be legalistic, I think it fails the "completeness" criterion. It's neither "finite" (knowable) nor "dynamic", is it? TONY (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't understand your objection. It is not up to you or I to decide whether the didgeridoo or the clapstick or anything else is a "national instrument"; we need to cite sources that do that, even if you or I agree. While somebody could certainly make an argument for the clapstick, maybe even a good argument, it doesn't matter because no one has. I understand very well that clapsticks are a real musical instrument, and they may very well be much more widespread than didgeridoos (neither functionality nor widespreadness are related to "national instrument" status - a national instrument is one that is of particular social or cultural importance, especially as a symbol of cultural identity. The Welsh triple harp is very commonly described as a national instrument, but it hasn't really been a major part of music for people in Wales for centuries, I think. It's still a symbol of Welsh identity for some people.). Please stop referring to "nation-states" - it has nothing to do with this list, which includes numerous entities that are not modern nation-states, from Swedish Estonia to the Ancient Egyptians to the Lobi peoples of Ghana; the term "national instrument" is entirely unrelated to the term "nation-state", and nothing in this list implies that there is a connection. Your objection to the Chinese entries is unfounded -- the presence of entries for China on this list doesn't mean anything more than the existence of an article on the music of China, and in any case, your quarrel is with the source that calls an instrument the national instrument of China, not with this list which reports that fact. While you're right that the term "national instrument" oversimplifies music, that doesn't make it irrelevant or unworthy of being covered in Wikipedia. It's a commonly-used term, even if its usage is sometimes arbitrary or inconsistent; we just need to only use the term when it is cited to a reliable source.
  • It is "dynamic", I think. Currently existing nations have cultures that change, and what was once an instrument of no real importance could become a symbol of national identity in the future; scholarly understanding of past cultures can change to, leading to a reappraisal of the importance of an instrument in a historical nation. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 23:23, 18 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts

This list is based off List of acquisitions by Yahoo! and List of acquisitions by Google, a featured list, both done by User:Gary King. I believe I have written this list well and it is of featured quality. Hello32020 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Place (EA) after the last time you use Electronic Arts in favour of the abbreviation.
• Same comment as on the other acquisition lists, three ways of describing (and linking) to US$ is too many.
• Several red links - they ought to be resolved, even if just stubs.
• I'm sure there must be categories other than Acquisitions which could be used here.
• The list is virtually an orphan - consider linking to it from some of the articles mentioned within.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed most of the problems and will do the rest tomorrow. Hello32020 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Every comment, but the other categories one, fixed, what would you suggest, since they were all acquisitions. Organize them into video game developer acquisitions, website acquisitions, et al...? Hello32020 (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I was referring to the list categorisation at the foot of the page. The category for the entire page. But it's no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Added EA category. Hello32020 (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment a couple of the original acquisitions simply link to their derived products. Gary King has done this as well, creating the redirects himself. He's now asking for the redirects to be deleted. I think a consistent approach may be needed across these acquisition lists for such links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear on what you are proposing. (A few things I think that you could be referring to.) Hello32020 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For example, DreamWorks Interactive just links back to Electronic Arts. As does Manley & Associates. As does JAMDAT Mobile. Gary King has removed these redirects and written stubs. That's my major concern that this list won't be consistent and have links to the actual companies. For instance, JAMDAT Mobile sold for over half a billion dollars, it must be worth an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Created articles on all of the original companies. Hello32020 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comments for the next nomination in the list (Yahoo!). TONY (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, anything else? Hello32020 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, you haven't at all addressed my misgivings below. I have to say that the lead is far too short and is superficial. Even when it has the chance to round-up the numbers in the table below, it doesn't. It says nothing to position this surge of acquisitions in the industry as a whole, in terms of its US competitors and foreign companies. What was the corporate strategy behind it? Was it a particular CEO or board that was behind this? Is it regarded as a successful business plan by the company and by others? Has it led to synergies in terms of product innovation, etc? There are lots of questions. You don't have to answer them all, but the lead pitifully fails to do what Criterion 2a says it should do. And 28 refs at the bottom: can you do the readers a favour and drag out morsels from them to let us into the topic? (A succinct drawing on highly relevant info in the larger article would be good: only what's strictly relevant, but double the current size of lead would be good. Any room for the company logo? Refs: I see not one author listed. What makes them reliable? You know how clubby and lemming-like the finance industry and journalists are. Do the refs provide, as a whole, NPOV sourcing we can trust? TONY (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fairly hard to find good information on this, I hope what I've done is sufficient. Hello32020 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggested two sources: the related article (which would need to be reworded if you draw on its information—not hard) and the ?28 references you've provided at the bottom. TONY (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Already provided an example of how EA uses a new acquired company to expand its fields, now added practices in EA in regard to newly acquired companies. Hello32020 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I've copy-edited the additions. The nomination is certainly better than it was. TONY (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems like the section of the first paragraph (after the 1st citation) that describes the information provided on the list may fit better either at the end of the elad or as an introduction following the section break before the table. - Marrio (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved to the end of the lead. Hello32020 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - Marrio (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Odd image placement in the lead, and this quote doesn't make sense to me: we intend to build a leading global position in the ... business of providing games on mobile phones." That ... isn't in the quote, so maybe it should be in brackets? Other than that it looks good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Added brackets for quote and I can't find a better placement for the images, other positions I've tried look more strange. Hello32020 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quickie review
  • EA's logo can be seen pretty clearly in the free image. Could you remove the non-free one and just use the free one?
  • Add an external link to EA's official website.
  • I've made a few tweaks to the lead, feel free to revert.
• That's actually just about all I can find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, I have implemented your requests and your edit was good so no need to revert. Hello32020 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've looked it over, and I think it looks good to me; I can find nothing wrong with it. Noble Story (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Boston Red Sox seasons

previous FLC (18:08, 24 April 2008)

List of Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department officers killed in the line of duty

previous FLC (15:22, 26 April 2008)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 16:14, 8 May 2008.

---

List of acquisitions by Yahoo!

This list is based off of List of acquisitions by Google, a recently promoted WP:FL that I also nominated. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I think rather than a blank cell for the Value, it would be better with an emdash (—), just so people don't think the information was accidentally not included.
• There's one date, September 2004, which is linked; I always thought it should be full dates only, but I don't see anything in the MOS:DATE to say whether it allows it or not.
• I noticed some of the derived products are the same, but the column isn't listed. Is there a reason for this?
• I would sort the value column too, though I get why it isn't with the missing values, so that goes either way for me.

That's it, I think! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• What do you mean by the "column isn't listed"? Also, the rest are done. Gary King (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• My apologies. I meant to say, "I noticed some of the derived products are the same, but the column isn't sortable." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

For previous lists, it had been suggested that it not be sortable because some rows had more than one item in that column. I'll make it sortable for this particular list because the items in this case are comparable. But for instance, the list for Apple have more than one item in Derived Products, so sort is not as suitable for that. Gary King (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I was the one who kept asking for them unsorted, too! Ah well. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• No further issues with this list. Meets the criteria. Well written. Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Please see any relevant comments I've made at the Apple Inc. FLC, such as sorting columns, USD representation, Bay area siting and linking.
• "company founded on March 1, 1995. " - prove it. And actually that goes for Apple Inc. FLC too.
• "which made co-founder Mark Cuban" not 100% clear he was co-founder of Yahoo! or the other company...
• Kimo points to a dab page.
• You use em-dashes here for "not known", on the Apple list I seem to recall it was blank cells. Be consistent.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• All above is done. Sorting the Value column was tricky for some reason, and I finally managed to get it to sort properly. If I change the width or make (US$, in millions) smaller, then for some reason it stops sorting correctly. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The Value column doesn't sort properly.
  • I've made it unsortable. The problem lies with {{nts}}. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't a field about which I know very much. Your sources Search Engine Watch and GigaOM seem to be blogs; are these reliable sources? For instance your ref #34 cites a blog posting which links to an article elsewehere; would it be better to use the blogs to find the original sources and then cite the originals?
  • Those refs should be better now, using more reliable sources. Gary King (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Formatting, language, Criterion 2a.

• Gary, what does "the respective company" mean? I see this here and in at least one other nomination above.
• Please spell out "US$".
• Do we really need to link "American"? And "United States", twice in four lines? Please link strategically to encourage readers to follow the high-value ones.
• Remove "then".
• Remove "US" from subsequent currency items (see MOS).
• Commonwealth? Of Massatusetts? [sorry, it's perversely difficult to spell]
• This seems to be one of a cascade of company-acquisition nominations. They seem to be churned out to a very similar formula in the lead. IMO, there's insufficient information about the company and its acquisitions in the lead. Thus, the list is ... rather boring. TONY (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded. Should be better now. Gary King (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Following review comments needs to be addressed:

• "Each acquisition is for the respective company in its entirety." - re-word sentence as it is difficult to understand. Possible alternative - All acquisitions is to 100% shares of the acquired company.
• "The majority of the companies acquired by Yahoo! are based in the United States." - please be specific, list the number of non-US acquisitions vis-a-vis US acquisitions
• Where the acquired company doesn't have a wiki page by itself, please avoid wiki-fying the name of the company and linking it to Yahoo. Instead let it be a non-wiki term or add atleast a stub level page for the original company. for eg: either add a wiki page for Net Controls or remove wiki link
• Suggestion: There is no sub $1 million acquisition. Specifying the overall value makes it difficult to read. List amount by "US $ mn" instead of "US $"
  • I'd prefer to leave it as it is. It's just easier to read for each individual row. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Please address these comments and leave a note in my talk page. --Kalyan (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

All done above Gary King (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Support list for FL --Kalyan (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Marrio (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it might be good to add a descriptor like in the Electronic Arts acquisition list: "Each acquisition listed is for the entire company. The acquisition date listed is the date of the agreement between Electronic Arts (EA) and the subject of the acquisition. The value of each acquisition is listed in U.S. dollars, because EA is headquartered in the U.S. If the value of the acquisition is not listed, then it is undisclosed. If the EA service that is derived from the acquired company is known, then it is also listed." Marrio (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one that started that trend, and removed it in this article and will do so in subsequent articles because it was considered multiple times to be detrimental to the list's quality. Gary King (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see itt as detrimental - it provides context for the list, and is therefore useful to the reader. Marrio (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of acquisitions by Apple Inc.

previous FLC (09:15, 6 July 2008)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 19:10, 28 April 2008.

---

List of Israeli cities

This article is based on List of United States cities by population and is of a high standard. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Definitely an interesting, well-constructed list. I do have a few suggestions however:

•  Done My main concern is with the two population columns. Since Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for statistics, I don't see any point in having two columns for two different years. Only the most current population is necessary. However, I would argue that those columns are necessary in the tables where the change is actually important, namely "Cities with a declining population" and "Fastest growing cities". So I guess I'm just saying there's no point in it being in the main cities table.
•  Done The widths of rows should ideally be kept consistent between tables.
•  Done The images don't need to be numbered.
•  Done In general, columns with numbers should be center aligned.

I tried to see how to do this. Can you please give some guidence.

No problem: it's pretty easy, but might be a little time consuming. Each cell that needs to be center aligned should start with So the code for the Betar Illit row should be:

Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Also in general, the name of a column shouldn't be a symbol (ie %).
•  Done "(formerly separate towns)" should be a footnote, not in the table itself. Drewcifer (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The data in percentage change columns should have a percent sign in each cell. ie. "70.9%" "49.1%" and so on. Drewcifer (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why not List of cities in Israel by population?
• You could also remove the area column, and make a List of cities in Israel by area article
•  Done I don't really understand the need of the second paragraph of the lead. I would say that poulation#s to importance may be true for a lot of cities in all parts of the world. One sentence begins with "Because", too, which is gramatically incorrect, and the parenthesesed part, "(and people's perceptions)" should be referenced.

Other than that I agree with all of Drewcifer's comments. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. To be honest, I was weighing up making two lists in my own mind before but just thought with the sortable tables it would give two almost identical pages so I personally am not sure whether it is worth doing this although if you feel it would be very beneficial/the general feeling is this, then I will go ahead. Is there a way of ordering it automatically or is it a manual job? I removed that paragraph also. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

•  Done A bit of over-capitalising - Common Name could just be Common name... etc.
• Can the area be given in metric and imperial as well please. You could embed the {{convert}} template in a {{sort}} template to ensure sortability is maintained.

Sorry - I dont understand how to do this.

Well you need to first use the {{convert}} template to convert from km2 to miles2, and then use the {{sort}} template to ensure it still sorts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Probably best to right-align the population so the commas align. Same for decimal point alignment of area.

I have an issue here as I was told by Drewcifer3000 to center align the numerical figures. Either way, I still dont know how to do it.

You can right align large numbers like this by using align=right in the relevant cells... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was told by Drewcifer to center align them! Im not sure what to do.

• Population doesn't seem to sort correctly for me - Jersualem is in a weird place.

I dont seem to have any issues. Let me know.

I have problems in Safari with both Jerusalem and Kafr Qasim when sorting on population. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dont use Safari - its fine on IE. I dont really know what to suggest here.

• Why do two entries not have Arabic translations? Worth a note.

I'm getting these at the moment.

•  Done References should be in numerical order, there's a [6][4] for instance.
•  Done 12% is an arbitrary level of growth, isn't it? Is there a reason why it's not 10 or 15%?

I have no idea why that's like that but its now 10%

•  Done "large immigrant population" - large is POV.
•  Done "Immigrants are considered those who arrived in Israel after 1990." - according to whom?
•  Done Note c could use a full stop.

Some issues there for me with POV, so I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Ive now addressed the bulk of these issues. The arabic names should be on their way. I dont really know how to do the conversion template although will be happy to do so, and dont have any issues on my comptuer with the sorting. Theres a contradiction between you and Drewcifer over alignment - what do I do here. Thanks for your comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. As per previous nominations, I do not believe that the status of the cities in the West Bank is adequately explained. The sentence "The list includes three cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty with which it is roughly contiguous" is virtually unreadable - I certainly can't figure out what it means. What is "roughly contiguous" with what? In order for me to support this list, I think it needs three things:

•  Done Rename to "List of Israeli cities" rather than "List of cities in Israel", in order to define the cities by what rather than where they are. A city which is in the West Bank is ipso facto not in Israel, just as the British embassy in Paris is not "in" Britain, even though it might be considered to be British territory.
•  Done A paragraph in the intro properly explaining the status of the three (four?) West Bank cities, including some mention of the view of the international community as well as the Israeli view.

I've put it under List of Cities though because I dont feel it is notable enough to be plaed in the intro.

•  Done Some similar explanation of the status of Jerusalem. It may not need a full paragraph, but at the very least it needs to state whether or not the figures for population and area include East Jerusalem (I assume they do) and why that might be controversial. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, this is in the same paragraph as the West Bank

Hope this is ok. Thanks for your comments. I dont see why the Jerusalem and West Bank bits cant go as notes because they only apply to 5 of 74 but if it is neccessary I have no real issue keeping it here. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Much improved, thanks. I'm still not sure about this sentence: "The list includes four cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty". It's not clear whether "not applied its sovereignty" refers to the West Bank as a whole or whether to just the four cities - I assume the former, but it's ambiguous as written. Subject to that being clarified, I'm moved to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now support. Thanks for your rapid responses. One other small point - could you please have a look at footnote C. It uses the same awkward wording that I pointed out around "roughly contiguous". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Coherent, understandable, and informative. A spot check of references turned up no problems, and a cursory glance through the article revealed no glaring grammatical or factual errors that I could detect. I might suggest editing some of the prose for smoothness and flow, but even as it is now, it's still better than 95% of the prose I've seen on Wikipedia. Good job by all involved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all requirements. Good work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

List of Detroit Lions head coaches

This is an excellent list. However, with the lack of free use images, there are none next to the table. Other than that - looks good. - Milk's favorite Cookie 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom.

Comments Just a couple of little things

• Shame there's no free images. Did you look at Flicker yet? If there are some that are copyrighted to the user, it might be worth asking them to free it so it can be included on Wikipedia
• "...including coaches for the Portsmouth Spartans (1930–1933), of the National Football League (NFL)." It sounds like only the Spartans were of the NFL
• "...a play off of the..." "Off of" is a little poor
• Per COLOR, do not use only colours to highlight. Some sort of text, such as an asterisk, caret, dagger or double dagger.

And that's it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixes needed.

• There is no link to either Detroit Lions or head coach, which is unhelpful to readers. Can probably be done best in the bolded text in the lead.
• I have a feeling Portsmouth, Ohio should be just Portsmouth, Ohio. I don't think there's anything in the MoS but I remember reading it in another FLC nom the other day... not sure on this one.
• Note 7 says Clark lost 1 playoff game, whilst the lead and table say he won the superbowl/1 playoff game (respectively).
• I don't like the key being a completely separate section to the table, personally; it looks disjointed from it.
• The lead claims Mornhinweg is the worst coach statistically by win%, yet the table says Karcis has a win% of .000. I think Mornhinweg should still be mentioned - his record is particularly poor over so many games - but Karcis should be added simply because it's contradictory not to have him noted.
• The lead seems strangely formatted... I would probably merged paragraphs 2 & 3, then have "Statistics correct as of [...]" in a separate one myself, but this is up to you. Something to consider at least.

NB, I disagree with the above editor on the WP:COLOURS thing. It doesn't mention anything about using colours as a backdrop in tables (and infact shows examples of it being used on the main page). I've seen other lists pass FLC without anyone else noting this, and personally like them. But this is your call, just airing my opinion. :) Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:COLORS#Using colours in articles, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - all concerns dealt with, good work. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Hal Griffin should have an article, even if it's just a stub.
• External Links should be External links (per WP:HEAD).

Otherwise, Matthew's right about the colours, and that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll also support if an article on Hal Griffin is written. Wizardman 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And  Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished everything - except the images. I couldn't find anything. - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm ready to support, as long as the green shading is used with some sort of text identifier, per the MOS quoted above. Also, there was no real need to remove the Hall of Fame shading, as long as some text identifier was used alongside, otherwise it doesn't follow the style set by other Head coach lists. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good list. Nice work! Gary King (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - all concerns dealt with, good work. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can you throw in a See also section? Seems incomplete without it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, looks great. Very well done list. Support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "changed their name to the Lions.." spare period.
• See Also and External Links should be See also and External links per WP:HEAD.
• "...in terms of winning percentage, with .000,..." - why not just say he never coached a win?
• "Regular Season" in the table, why not just Regular season? (i.e. small season?)
• The asterisk in the key should say "Elected to the Hall of Fame", not just "Hall of Fame".

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all good, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

SFWA Footballer of the Year

Here's yet another list based on the same format as existing FLs PFA Players' Player of the Year, FWA Footballer of the Year, etc. Let me know what you think........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Can't find anything wrong, although the colums for Country and Club in "Breakdown of winners" needn't be so wide, and references 6 to 12 are footnotes, but it's no big deal. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, my comments were dealt with at the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good list. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Tiësto discography

previous FLC (00:36, 22 April 2008)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

Record home attendances of English football clubs

A list of the record attendances of the 92 clubs in English league football. When I first came across this list it was more or less complete, but lacked references. Now it is fully referenced and has had a productive peer review. I am therefore now submitting it in the hope that it cuts the mustard at FLC. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, some comments before I give unequivocal support.

• Last two claims in the lead are unsourced. Now, if they're sourced in the main list then fine but you've sourced the previous statement so it creates an anomaly.
• Since the table is sortable (and as you have done for Maine Road) the competition column should be referenced in each row since it could sort any which way.
• No need to allow the ref col to be sortable, and I'd personally opt to centrally align it.
• "As of April 4, 2008" - I'd write "Statistics correct as of April 4, 2008."
• Does Group Stage need that capitalisation?

These are all minor issues; their resolution will result in my support for an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All done, I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't linked the competition in each line... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So I hadn't. Now done. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support with the most minor of minor points. Does the rank column need to be sortable? It's the same sort as the attendance column. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support This looks like a great job. Good job. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Very well researched list which satisfies the FL criteria admirably. The nominator has clearly put a deal of work into it, taken it to peer review, left the peer review open long enough to gain a decent amount of comment and suggestion, and actively responded to said comment. A few odds and ends:

• Is the title of the list misleading? especially in the light of the ongoing Arsenal players list FLRC. It's called ...of English football clubs, yet in the lead we find out it lists only Premier League and Football League clubs.
• Should the image caption use St Mary's Stadium rather than the abbreviated St Mary's? Either way, the article name hasn't got a dot after the St
• When the competition column is sorted, it looks rather odd with the FA Cup rounds sorted alphabetically, i.e fifth, first, fourth, etc
• Do you know in which round of the Amateur Cup Barnet's attendance record was set?
• If you're using citation templates for formatting references, I'd prefer to see them completed as per the documentation, specifically that the distinction between "work" and "publisher" be properly made. For instance, note currently #9 has the "work" parameter set to The Football Association, which is in fact the publisher; perhaps this should be changed to publisher, or the work should be The Football Association website, as you've done with the football club websites cited. There are (only a very few) others.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not claiming to be Record home attendances of all English football clubs, and I do not think we should treat readers as if they have an absolute lack of common sense.

2) I have removed the rogue full stop. It is almost universally referred to without the "Stadium" appellation, so I don't think leaving it out it a problem.

3) I have no idea how to resolve this.

4) It seems it was the fourth round, now added.

5) I've made the changes, though I still maintain the distinction is of no consequence :)

Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Agree entirely :-)

5) In terms of showing clearly where your information comes from, I'd agree it doesn't make any difference. But if you're going to choose to use citation templates to format your references on an article which you then nominate for featured status, I can't see an argument against filling them in precisely.

3) I've carried on where Peanut left off and got the cup rounds sorted. If you'd like me to do the league divisions similarly, for consistency, let me know.

Thanks, I've now sorted the league divisions. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • 3) I've done the first. Basically use {{sort}}. Though you'll have to keep it consistent with the divisions as well I suppose. I'll leave it up to you if you want to revert my change, or apply them more consistently. Peanut4 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Los Angeles Police Department officers killed in the line of duty

previous FLC (00:36, 22 April 2008)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

---

List of National Parks of Canada

This is one that I had been meaning to clean up, but never got around to it... Until now. It is modeled after List of areas in the United States National Park System (which I am actually considering nominating for removal because it doesn't have stats like area) and is fully sourced. Any comments are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "...is a List..." no reason why List is a proper noun so decap it.
  •  Done
• Captions full stops are the wrong way round - the lead image is a full sentence so full stop yes, all others are fragments so full stop no.
  •  Done
• "The goal of the national park service..." needs citation.
  • It does. The citation is a couple of sentences later.
• "feasbility" - typo.
  •  Done
• "For a list of National Historic Sites, see: List of national historic sites of Canada." - isn't this what "See also" sections are really for?
  •  Done
• Wikipedia:MOS#Color_coding says don't use colour alone to depict particular properties.
• "Year Estab'd " - no capital E required, and why not write the whole word out? You've got space. Use a
if you like.
  •  Done
• Area should be shown in acres (or similar imperial measurement) as well.
  • No, this is a list about a Canadian subject, so we're allowed to use the metric system.
    • Featured content should be accessible to all and that includes the hundreds of millions of people who use the imperial system of measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, I'll experiment with it, but it might screw up the sortability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consider right aligned area col so commas align correctly.
• I would consider merging the proposed and abolished tables into the main, colour code and/or reference accordingly. The abolished/proposed date can go into the ref. Then you get a nice contiguous table.
  • I would prefer to keep the seperate, I think it works better when it is the seperate tables.
• Polar Bear can be polar bear - neither word is a proper noun.
  •  Done
• Do National Park Reserves table have year established available to make it consistent with the previous table?
  • I think they are already included.
• Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.

Starter for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Done, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A few minor things from Suicidalhamster (talk · contribs)

• Park Canada is first mentioned in the third sentence, a few sentences later it seems to be introduced again with Parks Canada–the governing body for the system–. These two sentences say similar things (if administered and governing body mean similar things). Could they be merged?
  •  Done
    • Actually what I wanted to see change has not. I made this edit to show what I was on about. Feel free to re-word. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Can the year the parks were abolished be added to that table.
  • They were already there, I had accidentally mislabeled the table header. It has been fixed now.
• I take it there are no newer statistics than 2005 for progress?
  • None that I could find. I doubt there would be any because during that stretch they only announced one new park. Three new ones have been created in the last year, so I expect there will be new stats soon.
• I've probably missed something but I count 7 national park reserves (excluding Kluane) in the table, however the lead says there are six.
  • One is a future park, which isn't open yet. It has been moved to its own table.

Cheers Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could the Lead be slightly longer? There must be so much that could be said on this topic, seems quite mean to leave it so short. And it'd balance the lists better. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OK, this could be annoying because it's been discussed somewhere, but I'd expect to see one list, not several. This way, you can't easily scan them all alphabetically or by size etc because they've been broken up by type. Surely some creative work with an additional column could allow a single table to display all of them without being misleading? (I'd omit the putative future ones from tables but include it as footnote or text or something, as they're not actually national parks, so have no place in a list of such) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While I am open to merging the National Parks and National Park Reserves column, I think the rest should be kept seperate. I think adding an additional column would make the table look worse and it would seem unnecessary since there are only 2 NMCAs and 1 Landmark. As for the future parks, I suppose they could be merged into one table, but they really should be included for completeness, because they are National Parks that have been confirmed, they just aren't open yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll go along with your thoughtful response. Slightly confused by this though: "

Future National Marine Conservation Areas

Four more Marine parks will be established as part of the Marine Conservation Areas Act." says four but only one listed... I can guess why, but needs some explanation. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Curious about tenses in "National Landmark". They're a mix of future tense and past tense about something that does seem to exist, although not in the manner originally foreseen, perhaps. Could this be sorted (and my {{cn}} dealt with - could be in following ref, I know). --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the Lake Superior thingy has been announced, but not yet established. I guess this from the lack of established date, but the text isn't clear on this. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I trust Scorpion to deal appropriately with my remaining issues. Good job, nice article. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When I see a list at FLC by Scorpion, I just assume that it will pass now. Another great list, all issues addressed, no reason to oppose. Qst (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - My comments have been addressed. Great list. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

---

List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients

This is another of the Victoria Cross recipients lists. It follows on from List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and its "sublists" Australian and Canadian recipients, all FLs. It meets all the criteria as far as I can tell and it has built upon comments in previous FLCs. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (no groaning please...!)

Hopefully these won't be too irksome...

• Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
• (Post-nominal...) doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "The Victoria Cross was the highest war honour..." followed by "The Victoria Cross (Post-nominal letters "VC") is a military award for extraordinary valour..." - I'm confused a little here. I guess the first sentence remarked on when it was awarded in the "old days" but the sentences switch tense, the second instance of Victoria Cross is emboldened and its post-nominal explained (which should happen first time round). Perhaps a little work could be done here.
• In fact, the first para of the lead switches pretty much every sentence from "is" to "was" and repeats itself a little.
• There are 169 and while I accept they're awarded rarely, is it worth stating that "As of April 2008, "?
• I think the lead could use a couple of citations, statements like "Both Catholic and Protestant officers and servicemen born in Ireland served alongside each other in the British Military." for example.
• "8 Irishmen" eight.
• Several of the recipients have images you can use - I don't want to impose style on anyone but you could illustrate the article more like Wisden Cricketers of the Year. But that's purely a personal opinion and feel free to ignore me entirely.
• "5 people were awarded " - five.

Otherwise a great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not too irksome at all! (Still apologetic about that!) Done all the little fixes now. The Lead was confused, I think I have fixed it with a rewrite and a citation.

With regards to the images: I don't think it would work for this list or many of the VC lists. They are cramped enough as it is, when I went down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I switch between 1024 wide and 2 x 1600 so I guess it's easy to forget. I'll re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it just that 169 was wrong? You've got 188 now (in the lead, I haven't counted!). I've moved the explanation of VC back on sentence. Otherwise I'm virtually done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had updated the "War" tallies earlier, but forgot about the main tally. Thanks for your fix and review. Woody (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing, and forgive my ignorance, but you have "Nourse's (Transvaal) Horse" and "Imperial Light Horse (Natal)" - it seems inconsistent to me but since both are red-linked I wouldn't really know. Can you shed some light for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am more of a Navy man, and am in no way an expert on the intricacies of the Army Battalion structure. It is linked to Battalions and Regiments. There is the Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey) and then 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment of Foot, just look at the Lineage of Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment for an example of how complicated it is. You could try over at the British Milhist task force or the more active talk page if you want a deep explanation.

As it is, I have reworded it to Nourse's Horse (Transvaal) after reading [2] Woody (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns rapidly addressed, great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support Before I make any decision, I was wondering if there was a specific reason that some of the recipients have notes, but most don't? Cromdog (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The notes are for extraordinary circumstances say the Andaman Islands recipients who weren't "in the presence of the enemy". It also lists the couple of cases where if you go to the page e.g. Robert Scott (VC) it says he was an English recipient, so I added in the notes to avoid confusion. They will become redundant once I get the articles up to scratch I suppose. Woody (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, that sounds good to me. Cromdog (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment James Joseph Magennis's unit is listed as HMS Stygian (P249), but in the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy it is down as HMS XE3. I suspect that HMS XE3 is the more accurate, as Stygian towed the midget submarine into the area, stood by whilst Magennis & Co did the deed, and then picked them up and towed them back after it was done, but then perhaps there's a reason for listing Stygian? Benea (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the sources said the Stygian, but I checked Ashcroft which said it was the HMS XE.3, and Magennis's VC was the first one Ashcroft bought so he has researched it a lot. I believe that they must have listed the Stygian as the ship, due to it being the base of operations. Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - another excellent list. Benea (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job. This looks like a great list. Gary King (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

---

Wisden Cricketers of the Year

previous FLC

After some recovery work performed by me, User:Dweller and User:Jpeeling, I feel now that this list is worthwhile of featured status. It was a previous FL which was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead. That's fixed, and besides that we now have a nicely illustrated set of tables with comprehensive references and nationalities included. I'm invoking my own carpe diem clause to get the ball rolling here at WP:FLC and will happily attend to any comments and criticisms as soon as I can. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was happy to work on this in memoriam, ALoan. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• John Wisden (1913, 29 years posthumously and 50 years after he retired from first-class cricket), : I guess you have to mention that this was to honour him in the 50th year of publication.
  • Sorry but do you have an explicit reference stating as such? I'm not in possession of the 1913 almanack. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The online edition of 1913 doesn't explicitly talk about the connection. Is this sufficient - "The jubilee issue of the Almanack was in 1913, and for that year the editor, Sydney Pardon, chose a portrait of the founder, John Wisden." (Wisden's cricketers of the year : The first century, 1989) ? . There are also indirect references like these - "John Wisden, founder of the Almanack, to whose memory the whole feature was devoted in the Jubilee issue of 1913" [3] For more specific references, we may have to poke Johnlp or Jhall1.
      • I think that's fine, I've reworded the text and added an appropriate reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also found that Wisden was not the CoY - there was no official CoY in 1913 - but as mentioned above the 1913 edition carried a personal recollections section Tintin 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jayasuriya's award was exceptional in that he did not play in England in that season but was treated as a special case. May be worth a mention.
  • Note added. Good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wisden Cricketers' Almanack: each annual edition from 1889 to the present. -> Why does this go to an internal link ? It is linked from the very first line, and should rather be linked to the Wisden archive.
  • I've reverted that internal link to an external, general link to the Wisden Almanack site. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seventy percent of the photos are of non-Englishmen though the Brits have won some 75% of the awards. I know why, but it doesn't look too good. Tintin 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I suspect that's my PC mind gone haywire. But we are stuck with the images we're stuck with. I'll have a dig around. By the way, have you seen the non-English flag version in my sandbox? That would reduce the number of images further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, replied in WT:CRIC Tintin 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Photos reorganised, with a more pro-English approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Great work and looks really good. A nice, neat, easy to read layout. Some quick points:

• "Nationality for internationals reflects the team they played for, while for non-internationals, country of birth is shown" This means I am unsure if the flag next to Bill Alley, Mark Waugh and Ottis Gibson means they were named as Cricketers of the Year playing for their nation or only that they were born in that country.
  • Ok, well perhaps a reference here or there will help alleviate your confusion! Stick with us! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Use of the new South African flag before 1993 is a little anachronistic, perhaps? The same with the Indian flag pre 1948. I'm not sure the flags add much at all to be honest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I take the point about pre-x year flags, but one of the reasons this was delisted was because it didn't contain the nationality info. So I think excluding ENG is a fair compromise. However, I'll def. look into those pre-x year flag. Funnily enough I felt that as I was adding them in. Silly old me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• "was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead", if you disagreed with its delisting, then you should have commented, the FLRC was open 30 days and the Cricket WikiProject was notified. There were two commenters, and nobody left any comments that it should remain listed. Besides, it was actually delisted because of a lack of sources in general (the only ref pointed to a general Cricket site), and because it was poorly formatted, not because of a "lack of sources in the lead". Surely you can agree that the current versions is WAY better than this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just talking facts Scorpion! I was too busy on other lists to hit this one hard. Anyway, it seems that even now we can't satisfy everyone, looks likely that the nationality information will have to go, this list should not become a repository of every fact about each cricketer listed, it's about who won this award. I thought the current version is way better, that why a few of us have worked really hard on it. But it's gradually devolving back to the delisted version. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• Has the list been copyedited? I've spotted a few places that seem to be basic grammatical/MOS errors that would likely be caught during a copyediting.

1. "Where nationality is questionable or changed during the course of a player's career, it has been derived from teams represented during / preceding the season for which the award was made" sounds dangerously close to being OR? What is the basis for this derivation?
2. There seem to be a lot of notes in the footnotes that would seem to be something to note in the actual article itself, and why not put the notes on those people instead of in a notes tag? Why are the first two entries sharing one cell while the rest have individual table cells?
3. A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?
4. What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections? I can kind for the Wars from the lead, but why split out "after 1981"? What changed to cause those to be separate?
5. The flags are a short way to do nationality info, however I believe the way it currently is done does not comply with WP:MOSFLAG.
6. The general references are still way to general; just giving a link to http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/current/story/almanack does not provide a reference for anything not appearing on the front page. The second general link is the only one containing specific information easily identifiable in the list (namely the list itself). Where is the nationality information coming from? Where is everything listed in the notes coming from? You can't just say "X was born in" in the notes, as that is not a reference, only a remark. References are still needed.Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the original was in part criticised for lack of nationalities. Where someone didn't play international cricket doesn't mean they had no nationality. We've been as clear as can be both in this general comment and the footnotes how we derived a nationality for each individual. By doing so, I hope we avoid slipping over the OR line. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not quite. The original was partly criticized for not saying what teamed the played for, not necessarily their nationalities. ;) Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the sandbox below, most of the notes have been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?" Is this not explained adequately in the Lead? If it's unclear, we can clarify. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections?" To make the sections manageable but I'll happily merge the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly arbitrary sections removed - tables merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Really the last two sections were the most arbitrary, but the single table looks better I think. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd make my simple brain ache less if you pointed to the section of MOSFLAG you're referring to... Actually, on second thoughts, I'm going to bed :-) --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an alternative which you'd find acceptable? e.g. (AUS) after the name? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the comment about the general references. What do you mean? Re the nationalities - do they constitute extraordinary claims? Do you really want each man's nationality cited? There's been a lot of winners - cricket's been around a long time and Wisden's 5 per year approach will make the thing littered with citations and probably unreadable. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First people want the nationalities and now they want each and every nationality cited! This list is not the place to cite their nationality. Perhaps we should revert to the version that was delisted without any nationality information. That way we'd avoid any contravention of MOSFLAG as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but I would agree with that approach. I don't know if I would revert to the last version as this list looks great to me, but regarding nationality it is trying to do too much. This is most definitely a problem with listing cricketers as of West Indian nationality (West Indies is not a nation) All the notes about players being born here, there and everywhere is probably overkill too. I would suggest if you are going to list by nationality, only mark those who were named as a COTY as part of a touring team, although even that is probably not needed. The list does not need nationality to pass as a featured list and I would have defended the list at FLR if I had seen it on that basis. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sandbox it and see what people think... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with a featured article/list it doesn't matter if its an "extraordinary claim." Unless it is general knowledge (sky blue, etc etc), it must be sourced. The removal of a lot of the notes has helped here as did the removal of the flags all together, however refs 10-24 are footnotes with no sources for the name. Some note need to be added to indicate how you know it was renamed.. Also, they should be moved to the year or another field and just drop the notes column all together. It just makes the table look like it has a lot of empty spaces now. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does the list stand in terms of the copyediting? Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. (a) I'll move the notes. (b) Copyedit? Can you point to anything you have specific issues with? There's not a great deal to copyedit... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes now moved and notes column removed. The source for the name is the general reference. Do you want me to reference each reference as well and remove the general one? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine I just wanted to be sure what the source was :) I'll look at the lead to see what I noticed and post some notes later today. Collectonian (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph reads awkwardly to me, but not sure how to reword it to flow better. The " should come after the . not before. I made a suggested change to the paragraph structure to get the topic sentences together and to the table header. Feel free to undo, as both are just a suggestion. :) I like the change in picture to the cover. Is there any reason given for why only one person was selected in some years? Are the Australian Cricketers of the year and the cricketers of the century included in the list? If not, maybe remove that sentence and make those two links see alsos? Collectonian (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Only unaddressed issue is the need for the lead to be copy edited as some of the writing fells stilted and is not flowing well. Collectonian (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues I had have been adequately addressed and I feel it is now ready to regain its FL star. Collectonian (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Okay, to assuage concerns over citation of nationalities, depiction of such with flags, contravention of MOSFLAG etc, I've created a new sandbox version of the page here. I'd appreciate some quick comments to see if we're getting any closer. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so confident it's better (in a different way) I've made the same modifications to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support the revised version. It looks great without the flagcruft and the references are now much more appropriate and navigable. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my concerns. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Johnlp (talk · contribs)

1. . The picture of John Wisden is less appropriate than the previous picture of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, since the Cricketers of the Year were instituted years after Wisden's death and are the choice of the editor based on deeds in the game of cricket in the previous season. Wisden himself was featured in a commemorative section in the 1913 almanack, and no Cricketers of the Year were selected that year (possibly because 1912 was such a disastrous season!). The almanack in recent years has carried a list of Cricketers of the Year: for 1913, it says "John Wisden: Personal Recollections". Before the present table was constructed, Cricketers of the Year were identified in the long list of "Births and Deaths of Cricketers" by "CY" and a year: eg "Subba Row, R. CY 1961". The John Wisden entry does not identify him with a CY note.
2. . The word "Winners" at the head of the table seems odd in this context, since this isn't a competition that is "won" or even entered for. It's an honour in the gift of the editor of Wisden. Perhaps it should just say "Cricketers of the Year".

John, thanks for your comments. Okay, so we'll rework Mr Wisden's entry and change the image. And I've modified the winners heading accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - The list now looks pretty good to me. Two points:

• 1. I don't know if it's because I use 800x600 resolution (being short-sighted), but the pictures don't appear to the right of the table but precede it. Thus you have to scroll down a long way through the pictures before reaching the table. Would it be possiblt to intersperse the pictures between sections of the table?
• 2. In view of the discussion above about John Wisden not actually being a true CoY, in the table the 1913 entry for him should either be removed or at least have footnote 7 attached to it.

JH (talk page) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're using Firefox? It renders fine in IE7. I'm not sure what it looks like in Safari (I'll check tonight). As for the footnote, I'll add that in asap. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm using IE7. I suspect that my preferred screen width of 800 pixels means it isn't wide enough to fit the pictures in alongside the table, which has a fixed width. I've now confirmed that by using IE7's facility to set text size to "smallest", when the pictures ddo appear alongside the table. Since few people will be viewing at 800x600, I'm content for things to be left as they are. JH (talk page) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I'm running 1600x1200x2 here but running down at 800x600 I get the same problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So, John, are we done? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. :) Thank you for all the work that you and Dweller have put in. JH (talk page) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly tweaked the wording and the footnote about the 1913 award to better reflect the comments made here. Please feel free to criticise or fix.

I've also expunged "winner" from all the captions and I'll also do one last flick through the Lead text to ensure "winning" isn't there. This is despite my own feelings that they are indeed winners - they have won an award, a fantastic, historic honour and a supreme accolade. Best of all, they have won immortality. Not bad, huh? Anyway, I'm a consensual editor ;-) and the word's gawn. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John, far be it from me to canvass your opinion, but are you now prepared to, dare I say, support this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support the article as it currently stands JH (talk page) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support from me too. Johnlp (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support This article looks great. Good job! Gary King (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dweller insists that I find some error in the article, so shall try my best.

• Hobbs was first recognised in 1909, but was selected a second time in 1926 to honour his breaking W. G. Grace's record of 126 first-class hundreds;[4]

The reference goes to the CI page of Hobbs. What is the reference for ? If it is to prove that Hobbs did it twice, ref.3 is sufficient. If it is to cite the reason for the second CoY, the CI Hobbs page - as far as I can find from a quick check - does not mention it. A link like http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153105.html will serve the latter purpose better.

Exactly the same comment for Warner and ref.5

• From 2000 to 2003 the award was made based on players' impact on cricket worldwide rather than just the preceding season in England, but the decision was reversed in 2004 with the introduction of a separate Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World award.[7]

Ref 7 talks only about the Leading cricketer of the year. If you want to cite the "2000-2003", ref.3 does that better.

Looks good. Tintin 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tintin, thanks for your careful notes. I think I've used the suggested refs accordingly, if you'd be so kind to check. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Tintin 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero II

Self-nomination - I have followed the same approach for the first List of songs in Guitar Hero in fixing up this list, and have already asked Drewcifer for an off-the-cuff check of the table (as there's some new formatting that needs to be done for this list). --MASEM 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Good work! One last minor suggestion: the year column is wider then it needs to be. I'd recommend putting the sortable button thing on the line below "Year", since you've already got room for it. Drewcifer (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• That sorting icon is not easily placable, I've forced a small column width to make it drop onto a second line. --MASEM 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Whatever you did, it looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Oppose for now. Looks pretty good, but there's one fatal flaw: the sources. Namely, the fact that the article references Wikipedia itself. Also, it sources blogs. Albeit, the blog is Major Nelson's, but it would definitely be preferable if you could find alternate sources (which I'm sure you could). A few other less pressing issues: the publisher values of the first two citations should be IGN, not IGN.com. Also, only wikilink in the first citation a publisher is mentioned. I am still wary of the notes for Guitar playable and the video preview thing. The video preview in particular seems reaaallly uneccessary: I can't imagine that contributing anything to the reader's understanding of the game or the songs. The rythm guitar/bass thing makes the list read more like a guide (see WP:Guide then a list). The same can be said for alot of the Main setlist prose. Column titles should only use capitals for proper nouns and the first word. So "Master Recording" should be "Master recording", "Release Date" should be "Release date", etc. The release dates should probably be spelled out. The list looks good so far, it just needs a bit of fine-tuning before I can support. Drewcifer (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia refs I saw, and left them in but added a more appropriate source before nom ,as not sure how they'd be taken. Although I should be able to find duplicate information in other sources (given that GH2 is very popular), I will point out that Major Nelson's blog is generally considered the most reliable source for Xbox Live release information since he's basically cataloging everything that comes out each, regardless of popularity.

On wikilinking publishers, I know you'd normally do that in the wikitext, but given how reference order can change easily and automatically when using citation templates and when clearing other articles to FA, I've been told to wikilink the publisher at all times in the templates.

I agree that the rhythm guitar/video preview thing is not necessary or part of a general reader's understanding (though I think rhythm guitar may be of interest to some musicians), but I also think that moving them to symbols doesn't detract from the many purpose of the list. However, if there's more commentary against them, I can also see removing them. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, of the points above, I've addressed all of them except the wikilinking publisher one, and the rhythm guitar part (I did take out video previews). --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. A few more comments:

• The blog references are still a problem.
• I'm not a fan of the new My Chemical Romance picture: mainly because in low-resolution monitors such as mine (1024x768, which is a pretty common resolution), it squeezes the table into an uncomfortable size horizontally, making it unnecessarily big vertically. That, and the column widths no-longer match the other tables.
• I'd recommend making a subheader in the Downloadable content section for the second table. Having two tables back-to-back isn't good form, especially when they list different things.
• As for the green/black checks thing, it's not really a big deal, I just figured black was more neutral than green. Drewcifer (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, pic gone, {{ok}} used for checkmarks, added the subheader. I did add additional, more reliable sources to augment the Major Nelson's blog sources, and though while I feel that while a "blog", it has at least become to be considered as an RS within the gaming community. However, if this is a sticking point, it is possible to remove them, so... --MASEM 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Good work so far (my past comments are hidden below). The Major Nelson blog still seem unnecessary to me. Of course there's the fact that it's a blog, but now that each blog source is echoed by another source, why are they necessary there at all? I think it would just be better to take them out completely since they're not adding adding anything now. Drewcifer (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed them, since you're right about them no longer needed.--MASEM 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Agree with Drewcifer over the blog references, though I can't see where it references Wikipedia.
• The article talks about having to unlock the tiers, but then auto-sorts the songs alphabetically. I think they should be sorted to the PS2's Tier, as it was released first, and is probably how most readers of this page will want it presented to them.
• What does the dagger represent?
• Nevermind. The dagger note should be above the table, with the mdash; note and master recordings note.
• Use Y or Y ({{ok}} or {{tick}}) instead of the image, if you have to have a check mark.
• Again the dagger note and the double-dagger-or-whatever-it's-called Xbox exclusive notes should appear before the table. That double dagger is too close to the dagger, too, which would be fine if it was being used to show which songs include bass, but I would choose an entirely different symbol to highlight the XBox tracks
• Should the cost, even in funny money, be included per WP:DIRECTORY?
• ¶ key should be before the table

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs)

The alpha order, and the current checkmark, is based on Drewcifer's comments from the previous List of songs in Guitar Hero and comments. First, that these lists need to be less specific about the gameplay and more about the songs (thus the reason it's closer to a discography than a level list), thus sorting alpha on title is more appropriate. Secondary, he was the one to suggest the use of the black checkmark instead of a colored one for the checkmarks. Costs are a bit tricky, since it is noted in the Guitar Hero II article (albeit standalone from this) that these are considered 'expensive' and that a lot of money has been made on the DLC. Look at WP:NOT, I don't see these falling absolutely any of the cases for sales catalog (it may be that these all can be considered "competing products"), but it has been the case that most downloadable content from XBox Live, PlayStation Network, or Wii Shopping has been included across many other articles. I think this is a good question for the WP:VG project to consider, but for now I think they should stay in, but I can remove them if necessary. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the points listed above, I've fixed the mini-keys to be above the table, removed the cost and size info per a discussion on WT:VG and WT:NOT. Again, see above for the alpha order and the use of the black checkmark symbol. --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a good list. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support RkOrToN 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agreed, everything looks good and well-explained. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 08:25, 16 April 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Detroit and List of tallest buildings in Tulsa. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Eleven of the 20" looks odd with words and numbers in one sentence. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words doesn't mind words over ten being spelled if they use only one or two words. Personally, I prefer words over numbers, but the rest of the article uses numbers, and it's not a big deal as long as its consistent.
  •  Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• "(after Philadelphia)" and "(after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia)" needn't be in parentheses
  • Well, if they are not listed in parentheses, then the sentence would contain 6 commas without any breaks (Overall, Pittsburgh's skyline is ranked (based on existing and under-construction buildings over 500 feet (152 m) tall) second in Pennsylvania, after Philadelphia, third in the Northeast, after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, and 13th in the United States.) Personally, I think it is better with parentheses, as they make the sentence much easier to read. -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Notes B and C could be referenced
  •  Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, good list! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support try as I might I can't find anything beyond Matthew's comments. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing wrong with it but I think is better for the lead than the current. Just because the panoroma gives that same view as the current image in the lead. Alaskan assassin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, a great addition to the Featured Lists. I also agree with Alaskan assassin about the picture. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done - Image changed. The problem I had with Image:PittSkyline082904.jpg was that it doesn't show as much detail of as many buildings (U.S. Steel Tower, the tallest in the city, is not very visible), but it is more aesthically pleasing. Cheers, Rai•me 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - list looks great. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Nice job! Gary King (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 04:07, 29 April 2008.

---

The Simpsons (season 5)

Another season of The Simpsons. Personally, I think each of these lists is better than the last. Anyway, it is fully sourced and I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Haven't noticed it before, but do all the other seasons' infoboxes match the colour of the DVD?
  • Yes. I did that because the normal blue/yellow colours clashed with most of the DVD case colours.
• "who executive produced 20 episodes this season" → Personal preference, but I don't like the "this season"
  •  Done
• The wikilinks of Region 1, Region 2 and Region 4 all redirect to the same place, DVD region code
  •  Done
• "Several of the shows original writers who had been with the show since the first season left" is repetitive
  •  Done
• ""Cape Feare" which was" needs a comma
•  Done
• "hold overs" in the lead, "holdover" in Production
  •  Done
• "Jay Kogen, Wallace Wolodarsky, Sam Simon and Jeff Martin wrote their final episodes for the season four production run" wouldn't this be better placed on the season 4 article?
  • Yes, but I figured it would be worth mentioning who had left.
• Did Jean and Rice return during this season, or a later season?
  •  Done
• You link to the thirteenth season, but not the first season
  •  Done
• Ref [6] appears mid-sentence
• "One-time writers for the season include David Richardson and Bill Canterbury, who received two writing credits." sounds contradictory
  •  Done
• "The season started off with "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" because it guest starred George Harrison." More explaination needed, I think
• "but the writers managed to win the argument" how? what argument?
  •  Done
• "TV Shows on DVD.com" in ref [43] should be "TVShowsonDVD.com", all one word. Ref [44] concerns me as much as seeing Amazon on many other articles in that it's a shopping site
  • I was concerned about its usage too, but it is the official shop for The Simpsons, and the reference is used for the DVD's special features, not something potentially controversial like sales figures or opinions.

That's all from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "Release Dates" header in the DVD table should have had a little d, per WP:HEAD so I changed it. Meets the criteria, and follows MOS, so I Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Good stuff. Although I do think at times it verges on over-detailing certain things, it looks all good to me. After tweaking a weensy bit of grammar myself, the only issue I'd have to bring up is Compared to previously produced episodes, the episode featured several elements that could be described as silly and cartoonish. This was a result of the staff's careless attitude towards the end of season four. The episode ran long which led to the creation of the rake sequence, which became a memorable moment for this episode. Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again.[9]
  • Firstly, a source would be great for "silly and cartoonish" - this could be considered POV. If ref 9 at the end of the paragraph does support this, it would be nice to have a secondary source if one's available.
    •  Done
  • Secondly, "the staff's careless attitude" might need to be reworded. Reading it as it is, I'm not sure if they really just couldn't give a damn, or if they just weren't trying as hard, or any other possibility. What does the commentary say?
    •  Done
  • I'm taking "the episode ran long" to mean that it went overtime - which led to the creation of the rake sequence? Wouldn't they add in all the extra rakes if the episode ran short? I swear I'd heard that. Am I wrong?
    • I think an IP must have changed that, and we missed it. It's supposed to be short.
  • "Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again." Could we lose all of this? This is the kind of over-detail I was talking about. The article's about season 4 as a whole, and shouldn't spend too long highlighting individual episodes. I don't see this serving much of a purpose unless it's supposed to be talking about the staff's "careless attitude", in which case trimming a bit might be nice.
• I'll be happy to support with changes made or some kind of reply. —97198 talk 09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made all of the changes. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Looks great! —97198 talk 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Are there any information about ratings? Also, it would be better if this page had a reception section where you could mention some quotes from TV experts; both positive and negative comments if available. --Crzycheetah 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You have to remember that this is a fifteen year old season, so there isn't much from reliable sources on the internet. As for ratings info, I probably could try to dig something up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There are many archives on the internet nowadays, though. Glad to see the ratings section. One more question, for the 86 - 5 episode, you use both "&" and "and" in the writers' column, shouldn't you use a comma instead of the "&" symbol?--Crzycheetah 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The reason is that the episode was split into four parts. The first was written by Greg Daniels & Dan McGrath, the second by Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, the third by Bill Canterbury and the fourth by Conan O'Brien. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I see, then I would just add a <br /> after Canterbury and remove "and".--Crzycheetah 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe, but I'd prefer to keep it to three lines rather than four. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I made two minor edits in terms of style. References show not be put in the middle of sentences. They should go after punctuation (commas, full stops, etc.). ISD (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

---

1976 Summer Olympics medal count

This is modeled after the 1928 Summer Olympics medal count which is a current FLC. The list is fully sourced. It includes which nations won their first medal and who won the most, but I decided not to get too much into individual/nation achievements because it's a list of the games medal count, not a list of medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Why does Iran sort before Italy?
  • Because r comes before t.
    • Wow, I must have been tired...! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• "divided in 198 events" into?
  •  Done
• rugby points at a dab - it should be rugby union.
  •  Done
• "and most overall medals (129)" in the lead, 125 in the table.
  •  Done
• " in 23[7] different " put [7] at the end of the sentence.
  •  Done
• "pommel horse and men's horizontal bar events, and a second-place tie in the women's vault " link pommel horse, horizontal bar and vault.
  •  Done

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have any comments, as I think it looks very nice and meets all the featured criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all the criteria as far as I can see. Has appropriate image, well sourced, table sorts properly. Appropriate Lead. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Although I find the use of "medaled" distasteful, it's possibly just a personal thing. I'm also unsure about the use of dashes in the Lead, but that's a small thing and you're probably fine (I regularly have to re-read WP:DASH and I'm tired right now) --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I removed that part because it wasn't specific to the 1976 games. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• 'Needs sprucing up. Examples only: "a total of ... a total of" in the same sentence, and another further down in the lead. "South Africa" not a person. "Athletes of"? "Won one"—awkward. Semicolon after "medals.". En dashes, not hyphens, for interrupters in piped refs. TONY (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed all of the "a total of"s except two, I have fixed everything you mentioned, and I've done a little rewording. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 21:49, 2 May 2008.

---

Timeline of prehistoric Scotland

A comprehensive overview of the major sites from the Mesolithic, Iron and Bronze Ages, with brief scene setting introductions to each section. Self-nom. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC) Italic text

Comments

• Don't think there's a need to mention the English Channel as being dry land, not because it's called the English Channel, but because it's so far away from Scotland
  • I've amended the wording in a way that hopefully makes the issue's relevance more obvious i.e. that it was possible to walk from the Northern European plain to Orkney at the time.
• Link to broch in the image caption
  •  Done
• "although the acidic conditions tend to dissolve organic materials" What acidic conditions? Is a ref possible, too?
  •  Done "Wickham-Jones (2007) page 25" at the end of the next sentence was the ref, but I've changed the wording slightly and added a longer explanatory footnote with refs.
• "However, there are also..." Don't start a sentence with a conjunction
  • • "However" not a conjunction and is best at the start of a sentence, to orient the reader to the upcoming angle in relation to the previous statement(s). Tony (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done
• Link to arable land so the townies understand
  •  Done
• "A number of the sites span very long periods of time and the distinctions between the Neolithic and later periods are not clear cut." As a general rule I don't like the last sentences of paragraphs to go without a reference, but this definitely should have one if it's saying there could be some ambiguity.
  •  Done There is considerable ambiguity, especially as the presumed dates are different for different parts of Europe. Moffat says: "The Neolithic is generally followed by two more categories, The Bronze Age and the Iron Age.... They are not very helpful tags and require so much qualification and explanation that it is better to use dates where they are available."
• Consider putting the key into a small wikitable
  •  Done
• Link to Mesolithic period
  •  Done
• Link "glaciated" to glacier
  •  Done
• "Nonetheless" shouldn't be used to start a sentence
  •  Done
• There's alot of jargon and complicated/confusing stuff in the tables
  • I've gone through it and provided a little more explanation and added more links. I may be too close to it to see what else might be done and suggestions are welcome.
• I don't understand the burn hazelnut shells thing. Is this an archaeological find, or a synonym to something else? Why is this important to prehistoric Scotland? I can stick hazelnuts in the oven for 2 hours an burn them.
  • It is just as it says - a large pit containing the charred remains of a huge volume of hazel nuts. Its existence is something of a mystery. The gatherers must have removed just about every last nut from the island, and almost certainly had encouraged the growth of the trees in the first place, yet there is no evidence of any repeat performances. The collectors may have cut down most of the trees for the harvest! The main midden is surrounded by smaller roasting pits. It is certainly an archaeological find, and although not every last Mesolithic site is listed this is one of the larger and most significant ones - even it its significance is not clear. I'd be happy to amend the wording but I am not sure how else to put it.
• "shell midden" jargony
  • It is the correct technical description and is also Scottish English. "Shell kitchen rubbish dump" would be the English English. Sorry, I was forgetting this is Wikipedia. I've linked to the Midden article.
• "burned", then "charred". Again with the hazelnut shell thing.. Is it a find, how is it known to be prehistoric, etc?
  • The dates are known via carbon dating. These are finds clearly indicating human activity. A few burnt shells may not seem much but until quite recently the 7700 Rùm find was the oldest in Scotland.
• Why is "An Corran" in itallics?
  • Its Gaelic. I'll check if there is a common English usage: there does not seem to be an English language equivalent so it commonly appears in this form in English publications. I've removed the italics.
• "(S,O)" and the others should have a space after the comma
  •  Done
• Does the picture of Oronsay beach depict anything mentioned in the list?
  • Only Oronsay and Jura that are mentioned in the list. Both sites are close to the sea and its the closest I could find to an image relevant to the Scottish Mesolithic. I've added something to the caption.
• Link to hunter-gatherer
  •  Done
• "Development is not however linear." is stubby
  •  Done

That's all from me -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll follow up on the rest asap. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've now attempted all of the above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support well-written and referenced, good use of images. I have some suggestions (but already support the list for FL):
• Any reason why these are not sortable lists?
  • Two reasons - the text is designed to be read in chronological order, and the lists are neither long nor contain much information that someone might want to sort. Having said that, there is no reason not to have them sorted and there may be some benefit if (for example) someone wanted to put the Mesolithic Types together or by alphabetised location. I'll put this in if you think it might be valuable.
    • I would not sort the "Details" column, but the dates could be sorted in reverse order if desired, or one could sort by location as noted, or by type and see all the S(tone) finds or whatever. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I've made the tables sortable, but the width parameters (necessary to enclose the Details) seem to prevent the adding of an unsortable column - or at least I haven't found a way to do it. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I knew how to do this and took the liberty of doing so just now - revert if it is somehow not what you wanted. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks - its easy when you know how! 08:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Would it help to give the rough dates for the Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze and Iron Ages?
  • The problem is that the periods are differentiated by indeterminate events. The Paleolithic lasts until the retreat of the ice, the Mesolithic until the adoption of farming, the Neolithic until metalworking. They might begin at different times in different parts of the country. See also above quote from Moffat. I've put in some extra text in the lead along above lines.
    • That makes it clearer - my numerical brain just noted that the Mesolithic was all before about 4300 BC, the Neolithic was all between 3900 and 2400 BC, and the Bronze and Iron were between 2000 and about 100 BC. The text addition makes it clearer, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• I see Last glacial period is already linked in the lead (as "ice retreated"), but I wonder if it would also be a better link for "glaciated" than glacier in Mesolithic. I know the glacier link is from User:Matthewedwards, so only change if you both think it better.
  • Not sure - I'll sleep on it.
    • I am liking glacier more, the more I think about it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• In Key to predominant "Type": why are some terms linked, but others are not?
  • Sheer idleness! Actually I wasn't quite sure what the links should be yesterday. They are fixed now. Stone is a dab page but the finds refer to more than one meaning of the word.

Excellent list and hope my suggestions are useful, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied above - as noted my ideas are only that, not commands, so do as you see fit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments on the first sentence (I haven't gotten any farther into the article), which currently says "This Timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important sites":
  • "Timeline" should not begin with a capital letter. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done
  • I'd like this sentence, or possibly a new sentence immediately following it, to include some words about what these sites are important for. (Don't assume that the reader knows what makes a "prehistoric site" an "important" site.) Presumably this could use terms such as archaeological sites and megaliths, and could mention evidence of human habitation and material culture. --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added an additional sentence that I hope covers the first point. At first glance I think much of the second sentence is covered lower down - I'll have a longer look this evening Insha'Allah. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I am open to suggestions but I am not sure what else to add. The last para of the lead section indicates the three main periods with reference to the main cultural and material changes that they incorporate and both the lead and first section make it clear that we are talking about the earliest known examples of human habitation. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Oppose for now. My concern is that the article does not adequately explain the scope of the list. Item 1B in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria requires that "the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set, or, in the case of dynamic lists, by not omitting any major component of the subject"; implicit in that criterion is a need for a clearly defined scope. This is a list of "important sites" from the period defined as "prehistory," but it does not explain what "important" means, nor what a "site" is in this context. Archaeological site contains some good thoughts on this topic, but because I think it likely that some of Britain's "important sites" have not been and are no longer capable of being "investigated using the discipline of archaeology", it may not be a complete definition of "site" for this article.
        • I have linked to 'Archaeological site' in the lead. The next sentence identifies the criteria i.e. earliest/most notable. It is not possible for a list of this nature to identify every archeological site in Scotland - there are about 570 brochs alone. Narnian timeline only lists the events considered significant, Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori does not list every experiment and still less Timeline of chemistry. In other words this is a dynamic list which ( I believe) does not omit any major component of the subject. If there are key examples omitted I'd be happy to include them. 'Site' does not cover the environmental events and I hope the wording explains that clearly. Done?
  • Ideally, the first sentence (or perhaps one following it) would include a link to the Scotland article and a definition of "prehistoric" (as the term applies to Scotland). --Orlady (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done There was a link to Scotland a little lower down. I've added as sentence at the close of the lead indicating when prehistory ended. --Ben MacDui
      • I still have a concern that the beginning of the lead section does not effectively define the article's scope. A person completely unfamiliar with the subject should be able to discern the subject matter from the beginning of the article. For example, since this is a focused article on one aspect of Prehistoric Scotland, that article should be linked early in the initial paragraph. Currently, however, the only link seems to be in "See also" -- that would be OK if this were a vestigial sort of list, but it is not sufficient for featured content. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done I'm afraid I don't have a very high opinion of 'Prehistoric Scotland' half of which seems to be about geology and little of which is properly referenced. I've linked to it in the lead nonetheless.
          • Poor referencing notwithstanding, there is a good reason for Prehistoric Scotland to include geology. Geologists and paleontologists happen to believe that the time before history also includes a time before human occupancy of the earth. The word "prehistoric" is often used to comprise all of time before the advent of written history. See, for example, Category:Prehistoric life. Ideally, this "timeline" article would indicate not only when "prehistory" ends in Scotland, but also when it begins (i.e., with the first archaeological evidence of human habitation). --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
            •  Done I believe - further comments follow below.
• I think both Prehistoric Scotland and this list article should contain a brief explanation of the Dark Age. This is desirable because there are few written records from that period and sites from the Dark Age can be confused with prehistoric sites (particularly by ignorant readers like myself, but also occasionally by experts). In this article, a logical place for this information might be Timeline of prehistoric Scotland#Sites of uncertain date, since that part of the list includes a site that is "probably of Dark Age origin, although it may be older." --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done at least for this list. The Prehistoric Scotland is another issue for another day.

I have attempted to answer these further questions above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the changes you have made. I continue to be bothered by the lead paragraph. As written, it still assumes far too much knowledge on the part of the reader. I don't want to write your lead section because I don't have enough knowledge of your topic, but I've been wanting to see more information packed into the lead paragraph. To illustrate the kind of thing I want to see, I tried to rewrite the first paragraph to add information and reduce extra wording, and ended up with the following:

This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland before the beginning of written records and of major events affecting Scotland's human inhabitants and culture during prehistory. The archaeological sites listed are the earliest examples or among the most notable of their type.

 Done I have amended this para along the lines suggested with a couple of minor changes including a link to List of time periods#Prehistorical periods,which I hope further clarifies ('prehistory' is also linked lower down). Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, in the last paragraph of the introduction, consider linking "various periods of human history" to List of archaeological periods. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Support A well written and thoroughly referenced work. Easy to support. Dincher (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Great pics too, especially the chambered well. Dincher (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you indeed! Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Still oppose. I very much want to support this list, because it is an important and interesting topic, the article is attractive (for example, it makes me want to book a trip to Orkney to visit some of these sites), and I know it was a challenging list to create. I admire the ambition of users who work to bring complex lists to FL status. :-) I appreciate the improvements made in response to my comments, but I still have a vague concern that the scope is not as clearly defined as it should be (I am not arguing for a compendious list, but rather for a definition of scope that is unambiguous and supported by sources) and as I delve into the tables I find that some information within the tables may not be as solidly sourced as first meets the eye. While some of the entries are supported by citations to works by recognised authorities, those citations seem to be intermingled with less reliable sources such as this website for a tourist attraction and this newspaper article, archived on an amateur archaeology website. If the topic of the article were not inherently scientific, those sources might not bother me so much, but I am bothered when scientific information is referenced to that kind of source.

Fair enough. I have run out of time today and will add further refs soon. Orkney is well worth a visit of course.

 Done Re references. I did add a bit to the lead too - and thanks for correcting the capitalisations.

Other specific concerns:

• • Why are the Allerød and Loch Lomond Stadial discussed only in an offhand fashion as part of a discussion of a find of a projectile point? Shouldn't they have separate entries in the table as environmental events?

I have added a note explaining that this is the only archeaological find for this period found to date in Scotland and an addition to the Moffat footnote adding a little more context. Given this (which I agree was not clear in the earlier version) I don't think three separate rows for a single find is necessary.

I agree that the arrowhead is insignificant except for its being the only archaeological find of its antiquity. However, this article is identified as a timeline of events and sites, not merely a chronological list of archaeological finds. It seems to me that a timeline of prehistoric Scotland ought to list the Allerød and Loch Lomond Stadial as significant events. --Orlady (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have given the Stadial a box of its own. The presumed date of the Islay find is very inconvenient in this regard as it looks like it may relate to this later colder period rather than the Allerod. I have put an explanatory note to the Stadial. If I give the Allerod a box too I think it may just get confusing.Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

By analogy, I wonder if the Holocene climatic optimum should be added to this timeline. Is there evidence of how this period affected Scotland? Also, on the subject of events, I would expect to see major movements of peoples in the table, if any are recorded. --Orlady (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) I have added a link to the Holocene climatic optimum. I fear its impact is largely guessing games rather than hard science. The slightly cooler weather towards the end of the Neolithic may have played a part in the decline of the megalith builders, although it did not seem to affect the northward spread of the Beaker folk. Similarly:

We know next to nothing about the provenance of the people of Balbirnie. They were there for nearly a millennium, then vanished. It is tempting to draw modern analogies about an advanced culture fleeing rising sea levels, but it's currently speculation.

The megalith builders of Orkney were a highly advanced culture for their time, but the reasons for their decline and repalcement by a genetically different (and arguably technologically inferior) people are unknown.

Similarly, there is controversy even in the historic period. Almost all the pre-Viking placenames in Orkney have been lost. Is that because everyone stopped speaking P-Celtic (the assumed language of the Picts) and took up Old Norse, or did those naughty Vikings simply put the aborigines to the sword? It is not known.

I'll add a short note about the Beaker folk to the Iron Age introduction. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 11:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Timeline of environmental events ought to be linked in this article somewhere.

 Done

• • The internal links in the legend are misleading. When the heading says "Type" I expect the links to "bone" and "pottery" (for example) to take me to pages that tell about bone material and pottery in an archaeological context, not pages that tell me what bones and pottery are. Similarly, I would expect the link to "environmental" to explain what "environmental" means in the context of this table; the link to Natural environment is uninformative. If there are no articles to explain what these terms mean in the context of this list, the legend should provide that information. (Links to pages such as bone and pottery could be included in those explanations, but the stand-alone links are not sufficient.)
    • Further to the above comment, I note that Stone is a disambiguation page that does not seem to link to any articles about stone in an archaeologic context. There are several articles about stone in archaeology, however, including Stone tool and numerous more specific articles listed in Category:Lithics. --Orlady (talk) 21:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that several different meaning of 'stone' are involved e.g. stone tools, stone used as a building material, standing stones, natural stone features. The 'Stone' page does at least hint at this as it links to standing stone, Rock (geology) and refers to the 'the building of structures from stone' albeit in the context of masonry. I agree it is not a perfect solution, (although I'd like to think that readers would know what 'stone' is).

 Done I have created an expanded table with explanations. There may be other articles that could be linked to. I notice that Archaeology (a former FA) does not even mention the word 'pottery'!

• • In the tables, there is no explicit indication that the notes in the "Type" column support not just "Type," but all of the information in the given row. The heading should communicate the contents of the column more completely. (My preference would be to insert each notes next to the dates or other detail(s) that it supports, but I know that FLC participants express a strong preference for grouping notes in a separate column.) I don't have a clear idea about the best way to resolve this...

 Done Note placed under 'Type' box.

• • Could the details for each site include some information on the notability/importance/significance of the site? This information is provided now for some sites, such as Knap of Howar and Scourd of Brouster, but its inclusion is not consistent.

This is tricky as the criteria need to fit the context. There are very few Mesolithic sites of any significance, so even the scant evidence on Rum is worth noting, but Orkney alone has such a rich Neolithic history that superlatives are easier to apply. I'll take a look at this again soon.

 Done Attempted - accepting there is always more that can be done I have a minor concern that the article is on its way to becoming a narrative with boxes rather than a list.

• • The breezy tone of the introductory text in the Bronze and Iron Ages section does not seem encyclopedia-like, and it leaves me wondering if I am already supposed to know all about topics such as the priests of Traprain Law and the mummifiers of Cladh Hallan. I think it needs a thoroughgoing revision to conform with WP:MOS.

I have provided a revision that attempts to deal with this.

• • The "Details" for the first table entry for the Bronze and Iron Ages start out "Further developments at Cairnpapple Hill...". One might reasonably ask "Further to what?" Write this as a stand-alone; do not assume that the reader will instantly remember the earlier entry.

 Done

That's all I have for now. --Orlady (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe all the above have now been addressed. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Note on the capitalisation of fauna issue:

I often write articles that incorporate references to both flora and different animal taxa. MOS is total mess on this issue with different projects using different systems. There are various possible solutions and the one I use is to capitalise species and use lower case for entries that are not species such as eagle or bilberry. I can't say you are wrong to use lower case, but then I don't think you can say upper case is wrong either. (It has certainly been used in various FA's and GA's.) I should probably try and get WikiProject Scotland to agree to a coherent system, although I fear the Celts may be no readier to form a consensus than the biologists. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 20:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not supporting at the moment, but it looks excellent. I do have a few thoughts.
  • Is there a reason the footnotes are in the Type column? It looks like they support the type and not, presumably the whole entry's info. It would be better in the Details column, I think.

In principle, the reference also identifies the 'Type' and there is a brief note after the Type box about this, but they could be moved if you think it's important.

It seemed more important last night, but I'm not too worried about it.

• • Why is the Maeshowe pic used twice? It's the most boring picture there, I think, and it isn't apparently more relevant than any of the others.

 Done This was just a slip of the copy button in an edit last nite. Duplicate removed.

• • Aberdeenshire should be linked each time it is used, since it is in different areas of the list and if I wanted a link to it, it wouldn't be obvious where to look.

 Done

• • The lead would be better off with a single picture, a bit larger than either of the two that are there. I think the Jarlshof pic is the most visually interesting, but YMMV.

 Done (Dun Carloway remains at the top, but its not a major matter as far as I'm concerned.)

• • The see also should be trimmed or eliminated, with the links added elsewhere. Prehistoric Scotland, at the very least, should be linked in the lead if it is not already. Heart of Neolithic Orkney is so much more specific than the article's scope, it would be better off linked elsewhere if possible. Timeline of environmental events should be just plain removed, I think - why include it all? Lots of other articles, even other timeline articles, include info relevant to this page. World Heritage Sites in Scotland I could live with in the see also, but would be better off in the lead, I think.

 Done 'Prehistoric Scotland' is linked in the lead, but its via a pipe so I have left it there. 'Heart of Neolithic Orkney' is now a pipe for Orcadian monuments and has gone from See also. I was asked to include 'Timeline of environmental events' above. I have put it in as a pipe to 'Environmental' in the Type box. I have left 'World Heritage Sites in Scotland' as it it covers a wider scope than prehistory and I couldn't think of an obvious way it could be linked elsewhere.

• • I'm not sure any of the external links are necessary. Do they meet the guidelines at WP:EL?

 Done Sand has since become a reference and has gone. The Broch list was a recent addition and would be better off at Broch. So I have removed it too. The Wikipedia article on Jarlshof is weak so I left that and Archaeolink is (I think) a useful educational link, but I am by no means attached.

• • Standardize the Details column so it uses either full sentences or not - probably better to use full sentences in this case. If you decide not to use complete sentences, don't put a period at the end. (Or a full stop, as I have been led to believe the period is called by the barbarians on that side of the pond:)

Started. (I am proud to be a barbarian, and regularly hunt haggis by the light of the full moon).

My brother went to Scotland once and was attacked by a whole pack of rampaging, be-kilted, bagpiping haggis. You must be so brave! Tuf-Kat (talk)

I think these are now fixed. The article began as, well a list with fairly terse entries. As time has gone on here these entries have been expanded and what you were seeing were the remnants of the earlier style. I am not at all brave and never go out alone in the dark. I trust your brother's mental scars have healed.

Still a few (both mental scars and incomplete sentences) - South Ronaldsay, Stones of Stenness, Maeshowe (which also appears to be missing a word), Rùm, Islay

• • On that same note, is "co-incide" standard Scottish/British English? It looks weird to me, and Google doesn't seem to familiar with it either. I'd use "coincide"

 Done Fixed, thanks.

• • Also, the Details column ought to include the most important data first - for example, A marine core taken from the sea bed between Norway and Shetland included a flint scraper would be better off A flint scraper, found in a marine core taken... because the finding itself, which is what's relevant here, is the flint scraper, not the marine core.

 Done

• • Knap of Howar Neolithic farmstead, probably the oldest preserved house - make it clear what each linked term is. I thought the Knap of Howar was the name of the farmstead found, then that it was the name of the place where it was found, and after reading the article, it is apparently a place (the article's not really clear either - is it just a piece of an island, or does it have some significance?)

The Knap of Howar article is misleading you. 'Knap of Howar' is the name of the archaeological site on which the house/farmstead sits. There is nothing else there, as this Ordnance Survey map shows. I tweaked the image wording to make this more clear here.

• • Similarly Cairnpapple Hill. Pottery bowls and stone axe heads indicate rituals in the early period - is Cairnpapple Hill the place where these things were found; if so, make it Pottery bowls and stone axe heads, unearthed at Cairnpapple Hill

 Done

• • The remains of a temporary camp that produced more than 3,000 artefacts, including about 300 stone tools and fragments - the archeological dig produced these things; we have no way of knowing how many items were produced by the camp itself, presumably some number well above what was found.

 Done

• • The Jura entry gives a date include "c.", presumably indicating it's approximate. But all the dates must be approximate. Is there something unique about the Jura find? If not, better to make the column head say "App. date" or something similar.

 Done The original reference was somewhat vague, but just '6000' will do now.

• • Scotland was still glaciated when the cave paintings of Lascaux in France were created, circa 14,000 BC. - so?

The "brief scene setting introductions to each section" attempt to provide a snapshot of Scottish finds in a wider context. Thus, Orkney could make a claim to be the home of the most advanced society in the world in the Neolithic, but in the Bronze Age, Scotland becomes more peripheral. In the Mesolithic, the climatic challenges mean that Scotland makes a slow start and on the face of existing evidence is a rather backward society. It is this idea that I am rather clumsily attempting to explain. I have attempted some additional explanatory wording.

• • portray a radical departure from hunter-gatherer societies and the emergence of complex societies capable of creating substantial structures - awkward, as it sounds like they're departing from both the hunter-gatherer societies and the emergence of complex societies.

 Done

• • Although some large stone structures continued to be built, from 2500 BC there was a decline in both the creation of large new buildings and in the total area under cultivation. - this is really awkward for at least five reasons

 Done I have amended this and added and additional reference.

• • chambered well at Burghead was discovered in 1809. It is a structure that is unique in a Scottish context - pronouns should agree with the previous noun they agree with in number or gender, which would be Burghead, which is not a structure (or maybe 1809, but either way, it's not right).

 Done

• Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

First pass of replies above. Will return to the rest asap. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A few more done. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 08:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I think that is all the above attempted. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Though I note there's still a few incomplete sentences that I'd like to see fixed, I can now support. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for you assistance and support. I have tidied up the 'incomplete's mentioned above. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Not well-written, on my initial sampling. Opening: "This timeline of prehistoric Scotland is a chronologically ordered list of important archaeological sites in Scotland before the beginning of written records and of major events affecting Scotland's human inhabitants and culture during the prehistoric period." of ... of ... of. There's grammatical confusion. Sentence is long and complex; I have indigestion. "chronologically ordered"—is that "chronological"? Inhabitants and culture? "during the prehistoric period (I'd want a rough idea of when if you're talking "period" here)—why not "prehistoric" human inh ...

Fix attempted. No excuse - reason was re-wordings requested above led to confusion rather than resolution. Part of the problem is (I now suspect) a clash of GB and US English. In the former, 'prehistoric' generally seems to pertain to the human condition only, but I am not sure about this yet.

 Done hopefully.

• At random, I picked: "Scotland was still glaciated when the cave paintings of Lascaux in France were created, circa 14,000 BC. Human settlement thus began later in Scotland than in southern Europe,..."—"thus" is a little presumptuous: will our readers already know when human settlement began in southern Europe?

TufKat queried this too, and I must be missing something. Is it wrong of me to assume that readers will understand that: a glaciated country has no inhabitants; that France is a fair way south of Scotland; that Lascaux is world-famous for prehistoric paintings? I will spell it all out if need be. Will also look for other sentence structure problems.

I have amended this a little, which hopefully makes it clearer.

• En dashes for page ranges in the bib. Not mandatory, but minimum two-digit closing range is better. Ref 17: really no apostrophe in their title? Refs need an audit.

Have attempted but will go over again asap. One day I will discover why '&ndash' is so popular. I have looked at Dash, but I may have nodded off. I didn't grok the comment about two digits, but I think it means 33-34 is better than 33-4. Will fix.

There is no apostrophe in the title in this reference, although one is used in some other references to the project.

'Two-digits' issue also looked into. I'll look at it all again tomorrow as well.

 Done hopefully.

Fasctinating topic, but this needs work, Ben. Tony (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) PS refs full of inconsistent formatting.

It is an interesting topic and I have resisted the temptation to enlarge on mysteries such as 'what happened to the Balbirnie people, for whom we don't even have a name. Were they the escapees of rising sea levels whose advanced culture is unknown to us? How and why did the megalith builders eventually succumb? Not to mention the amusing Tollmann's hypothetical bolide idea.' Back to the work, however. Barkis is, as ever, ..... Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

More comments by Orlady

• Why does the section on Bronze and Iron Ages say "The Neolithic monumental culture spread south from northern Scotland into England"? Was your intention to present a contrast between the direction of movement in the Neolithic and the direction of cultural movement in the Bronze and Iron Ages? If so, the passage needs rewording.

 Done It was my intention and I have re-ordered the sentences in an attempt to make it read more smoothly. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• In the Bronze and Iron Ages section, I find no information on the timing of the Iron Age. (Are there archaeological sites that are identified as "the first evidence of bronze manufacture in Scotland" or "the first evidence of ironworking in Scotland"?)

--Orlady (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Tricky this. In theory the 'Iron Age' was still trundling on in north and west Scotland centuries after the arrival of the Romans in the south, and as it says in the intro the later periods are very unsatisfactory. I'll look into this again asap.

First of all, thanks for adding the additional links.

(Unindent) The problem with these transitions is that the nomenclature itself is misleading. The idea of the 'Bronze Age' is one that prehistorians use "as a handy tag rather than a description of any general reality" (Moffat p153). Copper artefacts were being used in the late Neolithic. The earliest evidence of the assumed existence of a 'Bronze Age' is the change over to cist graves and the Beaker type pottery c. 2000. According to this Jarlshof, which spans the Neolithic to the late Iron Age, is the earliest site, but there are several others such as Cairnappaple that were probably inhabited continuously. The earliest dated cist burial I know is at Kilmartin circa 2200BC, but again the site was used for centuries and the transition is gradual, not abrupt. The Inverness find may well be the earliest metal work. There was 10 inch long bronze blade found in Fife in the nineteenth century of a similar age, although as no-one is now sure exactly where it was found, it has not been dated. Another very early find is a wooden yoke dated to 1950 BC - again not exactly a dramatic step-change. Note also this Scottish government press release about an important Bronze age find. It is a flint arrowhead and to the lay person much the same as the Islay one from 8 millennia earlier.

 Done Having said all that I have found a decent date for Migdale which hopefully does the trick for the early Bronze Age.

For the Iron Age Understanding the British Iron Age:An agenda for action notes that "there is no part of Britain where the Iron Age chronological framework is understood in more than outline terms. For many regions even this would be an overstatement, and for some there is no Iron Age chronology at all. Without some chronological backbone, interpretations of the Iron Age beyond the more intensively studied areas cannot progress. Even in regions which have seen much modern work, such as Atlantic Scotland, interpretations are riddled with chronological uncertainties." The brochs are definitely Iron Age, but there is a great deal of controversy as to their origins and there is no defining event or date that marks them out from their Bronze age precursors. I'd like to be more definitive but I hope that the above gives you a hint of the difficulties involved. I will have a further look. I'm going to put in an addition about the first use of a wheel, then I'm off for some Iron Brew. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had another look through D. W. Harding's 2004 "The Iron Age in Northern Britain: Celts and Romans, Natives and invaders". On several occasions he repeats statements along the lines of 'continual occupation since the second millennium BC' about Iron Age sites in e.g. Kildonan, or in respect of crannogs generally. I can't see anything that appears to be a definitive 'this was where the Iron Age began in Scotland' type of comment. My guess is that if archaeologists could start again we might see something like a Mesolithic - Neolithic - early Metal Age - Celtic - progression for Scotland rather the the current well understood, but rather misleading nomenclature. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support — Fantastic work by all involved. The present-tense "scene setting" isn't something I would've thought of, but it's consistent throughout the article and works well. The pictures are well-chosen, the descriptions are clear, accurate, and grammatically correct. A spot check of references turned up nothing wrong, and the prose is a fine example of how even an encyclopedia article can be made interesting. The only fault I can find is that two of the pictures: Crannog on Loch Tay and Eildon Hill, overlapped onto the table. Easily one of the finest lists I've ever seen on Wikipedia. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are most kind - it is much improved thanks to the gracious diligence of all above. I have attempted to create the overlap you mention without success, so I am not sure what I can do to fix it. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 12:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

---

List of North Carolina hurricanes

I based this list off of List of Florida hurricanes, and I feel it is featured-worthy. There is one potential problem I should address right now. The article is based off of the four sub-articles, all of which are featured (except one, which is one FLC) and thus perfect sourcing is near-impossible. I hope that's not a problem, and I'll address any comments or concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "Floyd is considered the worst modern natural disaster " isn't Floyd a hurricane and did Floyd cause the worst modern natural disaster?
• I'd expand the lead to two paragraphs.
• " 17.5 percent" why not just 17.5%? And other instances..
• "occassionally " should be occasionally.
• 1900-1949 should use en-dash so 1900–1949, same for 50-79.
• Since this article is the overview, direct/indirect fatalities should be explained.
• Suddenly the windspeeds switch to knots in the table. Why?
• "Landfall Location" - Landfall location.
• Why are some "unnamed" linked to named hurricanes? (I think I asked this before but can't remember the answer!)
• Why are only some years linked in the table? And why the italics for one hurricane only?
• I think you need some references for the 1900-1949 and the 1950-1979 sections.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the Floyd thing, and added a ref. Regarding the lede, I opted to keep it short, since that's what List of Florida hurricanes did as well, and I figured that any more info would be redundant with the climatology section. Regarding the percentages, WP:MOS states Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article, with % usable for more scientific articles. Though this article is scientific, it usage is more for statistical purposes, so I think percent and not % is more appropriate. I added an actual table for deaths, which explains direct vs. indirect deaths. Regarding windspeeds, I opted not to put both mph and km/h in the table, and went for the less controversial "knot". I added the name to one of the unnamed hurricane links, since that is a more accepted name, but the other I left as a link; the Wikipedia title of the other one was the 1933 Outer Banks hurricane, but because the table specifies the landfall location (which was the Outer Banks), I thought it was redundant. I added the links to the years. The italicized names did mean those names are not official, but it wasn't that important, so I removed the italics. I hope that's good! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether this should be here or on FAC. I'd clearly pass either one, so support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderfully written, greatly detailed, and should definitely be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Nice job! Gary King (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good article as ever by Hurricanehink 02blythed (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks like The Rambling Man already mentioned all the issues, and they were all fixed perfectly. I can't see anything that should prevent this from being featured. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Auburn High School people

previous FLC (13:06, 4 May 2008)

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 21:49, 2 May 2008.

---

Blue Heelers (season 13)

I am self-nominating this list because it has had a lot of work go into it of late and I believe it now meets all featured list criteria. The episode summaries are concise and are not too long and not too short. I believe it satisfies all applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have modeled it on and compared it with other featured lists of a similar nature such as Lost (season 3), The Simpsons (season 1), The Simpsons (season 7), etc. and believe it has reached FL level. I will address any problems or comments anybody has and would be more than happy to answer any questions. I support.

Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

• The first sentence says it's the third season. I'm guessing this is an error. I think the article would benefit from a little more time 'in the wild', being less than a week old. --Golbez (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As the result of a recent discussion, many Blue Heelers articles were split into individual season articles and much information was merged into their respective season lists. Much of the content on the page has been simply moved. Daniel99091 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC).

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)

• Comments
  • Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title
    • Link removed, link in infobox will suffice
  • "third" - "thirteenth"?
    • changed, quite a stupid mistake. Probably what you'd call "making a bad impression"
  • "concerns about the decline of Blue Heelers" in what sense?
    • changed to "decline in ratings"
  • "and, when it came time for its contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), although its future proceeding this was still unknown." - bit clumsy reading this.
    • changed to "When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided."
  • "John Wood, who portrays Tom Croydon" - "..who portrays Croydon..." will suffice.
    • changed to "..who portrays Croydon..."
  • "and is, undisputed," undisputedly?
    • changed to indisputably
  • Worth emphasising that The Bill is a British cop show.
    • emphasised
  • "did not, in fact, " in fact is redundant.
    • changed to "...failed to..."
  • "Awards-wise, this season proved a winner for ..." reads like a newspaper report...
    • changed to "This season was very successful in regards of awards, particularly for John Wood..."
  • "the Gold Logie, Wood had been nominated for, but not won, for ten straight years" not sure I can read this correctly...
    • terrible sentence; changed to "Wood had been nominated for the Gold Logie, but not won it, for ten straight years;"
  • "It is currently unknown when, or if, the thirteenth season of Blue Heelers will be releases on DVD." so remove the sentence.
    • removed
  • Guest actors aren't cited.
    • now cited
  • First para of Production is uncited.
    • now cited
  • "show's storylines; The second ending was used" uncap the "The" after the semi-colon, and use "the latter ending..."
    • changed to "the latter ending..."
  • " start producing Heelers again" Blue Heelers.
    • changed to full programme title
  • Check your times meet WP:DATE.
    • changed "PM" to "pm", removed commas from dates (eg. 14 January, 2006 becomes 14 January 2006)
  • "record, which was, and still is," reads oddly and may go out of date so provide an As of...
    • re-written the sentence and removed the reference to current time
  • "These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is this a sentence? Why is half of it in italics?
    • forgot to end the italics after Blue Heelers
  • "In this, Blue Heelers' final year" I think this has been emphasises enough.
    • removed a few references to the final season
  • Half of the awards section is uncited.
    • now cited
  • Synopsis should be prose, not a load of bullet points.
    • done
  • " police for the deat "? death?
    • typo, changed to "death'
  • "what could happen to him in the hands of him?" don't get that at all.
    • clarified and changed to "what could happen to Rory in the hands of this fearsome criminal?"
  • "Inspector Falcon-Price " no need repeat Inspector twic in a single synopsis.
    • changed to "Inspector Falcon-Price gleefully takes over the operation of the station and also becomes suspicious about Tom's whereabouts, questioning Kelly. Amy begins to get frustrated when the Inspector does his utmost best to hinder her case of a brutal home invasion and assault; only to be taken off the case when their opinions begin to differ.".
  • "she tries to find dirt of Joss's new girlfriend." what does this mean?
    • sorry, idiom, changed to "she tries to find some negative information about Joss's new girlfriend.".
  • " DVD Release" heading should be DVD release. And is it worth a section if it's unknown both when or even if it'll be released?
    • I thought I would try to have as much consistency over each season article as possible but I see your point, I have removed the section.
• So a lot of work to do, I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Try and find a free image to use in the list. Might be difficult as it is a television series, and not necessary, but it would boost the "appeal" of the list, if you like. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Matthewedwards (talk)

Comments

•  Done"due to its cancellation by the Seven Network. The cancellation was a result of Seven Network concerns about the sharp decline in ratings of Blue Heelers." could be "due to its cancellation by the Seven Network as a result of concerns about the sharp decline in ratings." Same information, less repetitive and clunky
•  DoneAfter the first use of "the Seven Network", couldn't simply "Seven" be used instead?
•  Done"When it came time for Blue Heelers' contract to be renewed in late 2005, the Seven Network allowed it to continue filming to the end of the year (2005), but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had henceforth canceled Blue Heelers" could become "When the time came to renew Blue Heelers in late 2005, Seven commissioned ten further episodes to be produced, but its future after this was still undecided.[1] In January of 2006, the Seven Network announced that they had canceled Blue Heelers".
•  DoneFurther to this, Ref [1] suggests that these episodes are from season 14, as season 13 had just wrapped: "Producer Gus Howard told the cast and crew on Monday - a day before series 13 wrapped for the year - that Seven had commissioned 10 more episodes. That takes Heelers to 510 episodes"
  • the show had "wrapped for the year"; Blue Heelers episodes are not live and need to be filmed some time before they go to air, as Blue Heelers usually started airing immediately after the Christmas hiatus. I will try to integrate this in.
    • I'm still confused then. To me it sounds like they were a day before finishing the thirteenth season. Then they're told they can have 10 more episodes. Those ten more episodes it seems are the ones listed here. So either they're a part of season 13, in which case where are the rest, or they're actually season 14. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I see what you mean. I think that this writer has just made a mistake; a few mistakes actually. I'm guessing "a day before series 13 wrapped for the year" should read "a day before series 12 wrapped for the year". Furthermore, where the writer states "That takes Heelers to 510 episodes, beating the 509-episode record held by Homicide for 30 years.", is also wrong. Blue Heelers equalled Homicide's record which was also 510 episodes. I think I'll remove this source, definitely not reliable. Thanks, and sorry it took me so long to work it out, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
•  Done"partially due to the series's move its lower-rating timeslot" is missing a "to", I think
•  Done}I can see lots of changes in tense, such as in Cast section: "There were no changes made to the main cast", then "The main cast is the same as in the twelfth season", and then "Main cast for this season consisted of"
•  DoneThose redlinks need turning blue by creating articles
•  DoneI would say that pilot refers to the series' first episode, not the season's, which would be a season premiere
•  Done"This season also marked the time when Blue Heelers matched the record for most episodes produced..." didn't Prisoner Cell Block H have 600+ episodes?
  • corrected to "the record for most episodes produced in an Australian weekly primetime drama"
•  Done"These type of figures which Blue Heelers had not achieved for years." is a fragmented sentence
•  Done"achieved 1,512,000 viewers in the 5 cities (metro only)." There are only five cities in the entire country?
  • "5 cities" refers to the five largest state capitals in Australia, probably should have explained that.
•  Done"as previously mentioned," isn't necessary
•  DoneInstead of explaining what each #'ed column represents, why not just title them "season #" and "series #"?

That's all for now, but I think it should also have a thorough copyedit. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I will try to give it a good proof and copyedit today. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Resolved stuff from Redl@nds597198 (talk)

• Comments Firstly, an inconstructive comment I feel compelled to make, I hadn't even realised the show had ended - which is a little sad considering I'm living in Sydney and I watch an awful lot of TV, almost entirely on Channel 7 :)
  •  DoneThis season focused - just like we say "Blue Heelers is" in the main article, because the shows still exists, this should probably be "focuses".
  •  Done Some links in the lead would be nice, like John Wood.
  •  Done 1.2 million viewers, which was more than half what the show had been attracting - a) Do you mean "less than half" (of 2.5 mill)? b) Do you mean "less than half of what..."?
  •  Done Maybe sweep through the article to make sure you're either consistently using "13th" or "thirteenth" - I've spotted some of each.
  •  Done Newspaper names in Reception should be italicised.
  •  Done indicating the sure decline - IMO, either a decline was indicated or there was a sure decline; a sure decline can't have been indicated.
  •  Done Ratings for this season was generally low - not sure if that should be "were generally low".
  •  Done "Stoked" isn't a very encyclopedic word.
  •  Done Names of rival TV shows in Awards should be in italics.
  •  Done Episode plot summaries - reword whatever is posing a question to the reader. The plot summaries shouldn't sound promotional, and see WP:SPOILER - you should give away what happens!
  •  Done Ref #3 is cited to IMDb Trivia - not a reliable source. Not sure if you could find another source on that point but it's better just to remove it.

Hope that's useful, and I'll be happy to support if it's done. :) —97198 talk 12:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice stuff. —97198 talk 07:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, and support. Daniel99091 (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

Comment There are some references without retrieval dates that should be added. Plus, all full dates should be linked.--Crzycheetah 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on the work put into this - it's really nice to see some good quality content emerging on Australian TV series. However, I have a few issues that I'd like to see addressed before this is featured.

• The text in general could do with a copyedit. There's a bit of awkwardness in the "casting" section, and the "production" section could do with a fair bit of a tune up. "Awards" is also a little bit clunky.
• The "season synopsis" section is a bit on the rambly side, and is strangely low down in the article. It could do with being integrated with the lead plot around Croydon and being rewritten to be a bit clearer. I wonder if this wouldn't be better placed between "casting" and "production" too - what actually happened is kind of fundamental to the article topic.
• I also think that many of the episode summaries could do with being rewritten to be a bit clearer.

I know I've picked out quite a few issues with the article, but I do want to congratulate those who've worked on this - it's a great effort so far. I'd even chip in to help fix the article, but I kinda stopped watching when Geoff Morrell left the series... Rebecca (talk) 06:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm also very glad to see some articles about Aussie TV. I have begun copyediting the article, although I am yet to even touch the episode summaries. Let me say that the copyedit was an "attempt"; I have to say, I am not very good at copyediting. I would very much appreciate it if you could perhaps have a read and maybe note some of the most clumsy sentences; or maybe even change them, if you could. I would also appreciate any feedback and further suggestions. Thanks! Daniel99091 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
    • The changes made were terrific. While the episode summaries could do with a bit of a copyedit, I'm happy to change my position to support. Rebecca (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Bec. You Legend. Daniel99091 (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

• Don't say "January of 2006" (WP:SEASON). I puzzled how 10 episodes became an 11-episode season; please clarify if the compilation was one of the 10. One sentence calls John Wood the pillar of the show, and the next says "Blue Heelers veteran, John Wood. It's repetitive and suggests some sentences were rearranged. "Hovered" is informal and doesn't indicate the degree of variation; it would be more precise to provide a range for viewer stats. "in regards of"? And the semicolon before "a record of sorts in itself" doesn't look right. Gimmetrow 06:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed article in accordance with your suggestions. How are you puzzled as to the episode number? If you are puzzled because of the episode table, the final two episodes were aired together as a 2 hour finale. They were, however, 2 episodes. In regards to ratings, there is not much available for particular episodes etc. and I have included all reliable ratings data I have been able to find. Thankyou for your comments, Daniel99091 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• US spelling unacceptable. Please change. (UK spellchecker is the one to use, since the Austr. one has a bad glitch.) TONY (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have changed canceled -> cancelled and equaling -> equalling. I am unable to see any others, but if I have missed any, please let me know. Thanks, Daniel99091 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• Support: I made several small changes. I removed "this indicating the decline of the show in the eyes of the public" as it could be worded better and needs a citation. I also removed the "see also" section as it seems unnecessary. "This may well be because of all the support thrown behind Wood" needs to be rewritten as it appears to be original research. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, and I've fixed the sentence you brought up. Daniel99091 (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose—Doesn't meet the requirement for a "professional" standard of writing. Daniel, such a nice note on my talk page, so I feel bad opposing, but I must. Here are random samples from the lead that show the entire text needs scrutiny.

Resolved stuff from Tony (talk)

• •  DoneRemove first hyphen as unnecessary.
  •  DonePM? See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Times.
  •  Done"the Seven Network" twice in two sentences, and why both linked as well? Just "the network" second time.
  •  DonePlain years are hardly ever linked (see MOS); piped maybe, but 2005 et al aren't.
  •  DoneWhat did they mean by "abbreviated". Sounds as though 11 episodes was not abbreviated, but all they shot. I'm confused.
  •  Done"In January 2006, Seven officially announced that they had cancelled Blue Heelers, although they would air a final abbreviated 11-episode season in mid-2006,[2] these being the 11 episodes which had been filmed in late 2005, before Blue Heelers had been cancelled." "although they would" is ambiguous—conditional or part of "announced that ...". Make it ", but would air ...". "these being" is kinda clumsy. Replace with a big dash (see MOS).
  •  DoneThe season, or might mean one that's showing right now.
  •  Done"character that"? Not a robot. Why not "to appear"?
  •  DoneInfobox: two flags, one above the other? One if you have to.
  •  DoneTop image is non-free content. A fair-use justification that says: "Entire image used, although it is not unfair use and does not harm the copyright owners in any way whatsoever" isn't goint to cut much ice. Are you familiar with the requirements at WP:NFC? Maybe it's OK—I'd ask one of the experts there for a quick opinion, including the use of two of these in the article (User:Black Kite is very good). At the least, I think the justification text could be rationalised.
    • User:Black Kite has recommended moving the cast image to the infobox. Daniel99091 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
  •  DoneBig problem: overlinking of common dictionary words. Please read MOS on this.

And down further: "Apart from the main focus on Snr. Sgt. Tom Croydon and his prostate cancer, the season also had many other storylines." Um ... that will put many readers off; we need to engage them, and starting explicitly with "also" many other storylines ... well, just launch into them without that fluff.

And lots more. Please find fresh eyes to go through it. Consider withdrawing, fixing and resubmitting; when fixed, it will be a worthy FL. TONY (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Tony. I have made all changes you suggested and hope to copy-edit the article soon. Daniel99091 (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC).

• Oppose Support Apparently my comment above was ignored, since I still see references that are not cited properly. They are missing retrieval dates; refs ## 1-5,7,8, 17-21, 23.--Crzycheetah 03:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

List of Minnesota Wild players

previous FLC (22:28, 29 April 2008)

Green Wing (series 2)

previous FLC (23:27, 19 May 2008)

Nominations for removal

Bleach season 1

Notified: Erachima, Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

Following the recent FLRC for 30 Rock season 1 and a discussion regarding expectations for TV season articles, this list appears to fall clearly short of current-day FL standards. High-quality season articles (whether FLs or GAs) are generally expected to cover production, reception, etc. in addition to providing plot summaries. Sourcing is also poor, relying heavily on primary sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

As a note: seasons 2–10 of the show are also FLs and I plan to nominate those for FLRC later for similar reasons, but it's only fair that each FLRC get due consideration, so barring any notes to the contrary (and to avoid flooding FLRC), I plan to nominate them one at a time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't even close to being complete. At best this is a C level article. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

The original editor left Wikipedia years ago Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that both the nominator of this season's list and the nominator for most later seasons left, so please let other people know about this FLRC if they are in a better position to help or provide feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)