Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2013

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 Hahc21 10:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Billboard number-one alternative singles of the 1980s

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after having worked on the article's prose, tables, and referencing, I think it may finally satisfy the featured list criteria. A rather short article—Billboard's alternative chart was only existent for a mere two years in the 1980s—but I believe that it's as comprehensive as it can be on the subject. Holiday56 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: The list looks great! Just a few small things: Add Knight Ridder as the publisher for Ref 2 Done. Holiday56 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Add MediaNews Group as the publisher for Ref 3 Done. Holiday56 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) AllMusic + Billboard should only be wikilinked once in the refs. Based on previous FL experience, it seems fine to link either once or in all instances for the references section. It's a personal preference of mine to link all. Holiday56 (talk) 02:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• 3b of the featured list criteria should be satisfied first. While much better covered and laid out here, the lists are basically a duplication of existing content at Number one modern rock hits of 1988 and Number one modern rock hits of 1989, thus a WP:CFORK. If you can resolve that, you should be in good shape for FL. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Will see what I can do. Perhaps the two lists could be merged into this one? Holiday56 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I've proposed a merger. Anyone is free to leave any comments. Holiday56 (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
      • No additional comments have been left on the merge discussion in over a week. It seems that there's a rough consensus to merge (per step IV of the merge process on WP:MERGE), and discussion has gone silent, so can the merge be carried out? Holiday56 (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Good question. One of Ericorbit's objections when I tried to boldly merge the lists previously, was that he wanted to see a discussion first. There wasn't a lot of participation, but it may be enough of a rough consensus, as you say, to carry out. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has since been closed with a consensus to merge, so I suppose the fork issue has been resolved. Holiday56 (talk) 10:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 11 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

National Film Award for Best Actor

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC), Bill william compton (talk · contribs)

I've been working on this list for quite some period of time after Bill william compton had developed this from scratch. We've modeled this list based on National Film Award for Best Actress, a similar list which is featured at present. Nice to have Bill, the primary contributor of this list as a co-nominator. We look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Mithun's caption needs ref. Should be easy to find. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done — Bill william compton^Talk 15:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – In the second paragraph, the space between "six" and an em dash should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done — Bill william compton^Talk 03:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from SchroCat I've made a few very minor changes to a few bits and pieces: feel free to revert what you don't like. A few brief points to be considering, although I'll have another look through a little later when I have more time: Recipients and roles: Shouldn't the names sort on the surname, rather than first name? I'm not sure that this is the right approach since South Indian people have their first names as common name. Also in a case like Kamal Haasan, he is referred as Kamal rather than Haasan. It's best to use first name to avoid ambiguity. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Yes - thanks for the reminder about name order: quite right to leave as is. - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure we need to bullet the names or titles in the table: separate lines should suffice (the bullets mess up the sorting too) Removed —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Films: you'll need to use the {{tl:sort}} template to ensure films such as The Making of the Mahatma search under the M of "Making", not under the T of "The". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Done and thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Nice work: all good from me and happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 12:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments – good work a cash prize (INR50,000 in 2012). You mean this wasn't 50,000 before 2012. It was 10,000 till the 53rd National Film Awards, from the on it was 50,000. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) ...who was honoured at the 15th National Film Award (1968) ...., in the the table you've put 1967 for the 15th and so on. Don't know how does it work? Corrected. The key is sufficient to explain the on what context it's used in the table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) As of 2012 you mean As of 2013? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Mithun Chakraborty → Mithun, for the 2nd instance. Same for Ajay Devgn and Amitabh Bachchan Zia Khan 20:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Zia Khan 12:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Square Enix compilation albums

Nominator(s): PresN 22:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello all, back again with another Square Enix-related list! Here we have the list of Square Enix compilation albums- which is to say, albums of music released by Square Enix which contain songs from multiple video game series, rather than clustered under one like the FL List of Final Fantasy compilation albums. Unlike that list, these albums are presented in a table, as there's not enough reception information for them all to justify blocks of text (much less their own articles). They're not complete throwaways, though; several of them charted on the Japanese Oricon Albums Chart, meaning they sold well enough. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: Ref 1 → |format=PDF All Oricon refs → |language=Japanese When using liner notes as sources (refs 18, 19....) → include release date (or at least year) and catalogue number Perhaps include a section of the table for Japanese chart positions rather than list them in the lead? – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Format and language added; refs 18-22 already have dates, and the albums didn't have catalogue numbers- they were included for free in issues of Monthly Shōnen Gangan, and weren't given any numbers. I'd rather not stick the Oricon information in the table- there are almost 50 albums listed, and only 10 charted. It's really there just to show the notability of this group of albums, since none of them have an article or are really referenced in other articles. --PresN 16:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

:Wow we're getting into obscurity here now. development and publishing company - should be standardised. What about developing and publishing company or developer and publisher? Dozens of albums have been produced since, primarily through Square Enix's own record label. - Does a record label produce? Monster x Dragon - Worth a redlink? This is literally the only video game on the list not linked. Any more specific dates for the Square Enix Music Compilation series? Square Enix Composers Best/Selection Black Disk - Why no length? Any information about the composers / music included? If I'm not mistaken, Nobuo Uematsu did a lot of what's been compiled here, and there are bound to be several other composers or directors who are well represented as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I'm FL'ing it since I'm trying to get all of the WP:SE lists featured, but I'm not sure I would have bothered creating this article if it didn't already exist. Switched to developer and publisher Changed to published I guess so, thought it's a free-to-play browser game. Unfortunately no- I scoured everything I could find, but I couldn't even find a non-RS that would give me so much as a month. No length because the album won't be released for another week and a half Well, that's most of the composers in the company, but I added a bit about which composers are the most represented. --PresN 18:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. No images to check. Good job, Pres. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Zia Khan 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Can we get an image for the lead? Inline citations for para #1 and the last statement of the 2nd para? In the Lebel column, you've linked some while others are unlinked. Any reason for that? Zia Khan 16:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) I wasn't able to find any free images of the albums, but I'll keep looking. para 1 is a summary of the table below, but added a source for the composers' works. Unlinked labels are those without articles. --PresN 23:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 23:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Another excellent featured list from PresN! One question, is there a cover of an album we could use? One of the compilation albums? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – The all caps in refs 40 and 50 (and possibly 43) should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done. --PresN 22:03, 13 September 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series

Nominator(s): — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All
;Comments: The refs and tables look good! "for a prior of two years." sounds awkward.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 13:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria, and I see no problems.Caringtype1 (talk) 20:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Why is the lead so short? It's half (or less) the size of the other lists in this series. Given that this award appears to be the soap opera equivalent of the Best Picture Academy Award, I'd be very surprised if there isn't something more that can be said about it. Items like the first winner and number of shows to win the award seem like easy additions, for example.  Done. The reason is that I do not have that many facts is that the Academy Awards are way more popular than the Daytime Emmys. This is all the informations I can recall.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) For the record, when I said number of shows I meant the number of different shows, not the total number of awards ceremonies. Far fewer than 43 shows have won, by the looks of it. I still think the lead is short and that more could be done to get at least two paragraphs out of it, like in your other lists. Whatever tricks you used to stretch those lists out would be helpful here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)  Done. I have expanded the lead as much I can. It was not esay to do.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 02:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC) The writing in the new areas is questionable. I wouldn't consider "Also, at the time there were few categories, this one, the top actor, and the top actress etc." to be FL-caliber prose, and "It is was given to thirtheen diffrent programs" has more glitches than usable writing, even though the idea is good. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)  Done. I have removed both sentences.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 23:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC) "held in 1972 when the award was orginnally called...". Spot the typo? Two supporters obviously didn't.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "where this award was renamed Outstanding Drama Series and it is given in honor of a daytime drama." Remove "it is"?  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) The Ref column shouldn't have any colors. IMO, I do not see the problem. Is this a criteria from a FL? I do not recall this being one. This issue was not brought up in the previous FLs. Thanks for the comments!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC) There are certain expectations regarding appearance, and I'm not certain we can say that a ref column constitutes "suitable use" of colors per Criterion 5a. It's somewhat subjective, but I don't recall seeing this in an FL before, and I don't think the look is that attractive. If I had noticed this in a previous FLC of yours, I'd have pointed it out there, but now is as good a time as any to make improvements. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I still do not see the problem. However, if we are going to resolved this, pleas tell me how to remove the colour since I have no idea how to do it? Plus, the are plenty of FLs that uses colours, for his example , this, this, this and this and my my FLs. IMO, this is ridiculous and should be resolved.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 01:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC) I absolutely despise this look, but since it's in other lists by authors I greatly respect, I don't see much choice but to strike this one. This is still not something I want to see become a trend at FLC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Three hyphens in a row is not a dash.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• "et cetera" or "etc.", not "etcetera". Best avoided in formal writing though, if you can rephrase the sentence (or remove it, per next point).

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tell me more in the lead about this specific award. Can you come up with any other superlatives or trends? For the top daytime award I'm sure there's some other interesting info. The program history, origin of the Emmy name, and details about the statuette seem irrelevant here (everything after "Also").

• I can not come up with any other informations/facts since like I said previously the Daytime Emmy Awards are very low profile but the Primetime and Oscars are very popular. If you do not believe me, search it yourself. Trust me, you won't. Furthermore, the program history, origin of the Emmy name are absoutlety needed. Maybe, the statuette isn't but that all the information I could of come up with.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, I've been on vacation. You have a stats table for total awards won, how about one for nominations? What is the streak for most wins/nominations in a row for a show? What networks have been the most successful? Do the winners of this often coincide with the Writing Team/Actor/Actress winners? I fail to see why Emmy origins are necessary; we don't explain that 'Oscar' comes from an Uncle Oscar and that it weighs 8 pounds in every Academy Award article. Did the lack of integrity have to do with Outstanding Series balloting? Have there been any winner controversies? Is there a reason why the number of nominees has ranged from 3 to 6? If nothing can be said about the award other than that X, Y and Z won it, I'm not sure why it should be featured. Also, 1994 is missing the yellow. Reywas92^Talk 04:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• The final sentence of the lead runs on and ought to be split.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Table looks good, though I think the article could use more prose information. How about some statistics about the nominees?

Reywas92^Talk 11:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support I see no clear problems in the list. The only thing I noticed was the issue with the colors in the ref column, but it has been already discussed and accepted, so I will accept it as well. Cambalachero (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am going to fix the ref column problem very soon.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:19, 10 September 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series)

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series) was a series of fourteen films produced by two studios: Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes, while Nigel Bruce portrayed Dr. John Watson. A superb and enjoyable series of films led by an actor who many consider to be the definitive Holmes. This has undergone a makeover recently and is ready for an FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The article's title doesn't seem correct to me. Why "1939 series"? It makes it seem like that was the only year that the films were made. I would have titled this "Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone series)".

• Let me have a think on this: "Rathbone series" is also sort of misleading, as it was about more than Rathbone. I'll drop in some further thoughts on possibilities shortly. Having had a hunt round and asked about, the title is correct as per WP:NCF#Film series. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Both Rathbone and Bruce continued their roles when the series changed studios, as did two other regular characters, as did two other regular characters, Mary Gordon, who played Mrs. Hudson and Dennis Hoey portrayed Inspector Lestrade." -- Hoey does not appear in the 20th Cenury-Fox films so it is incorrect to suggested that he continued into the Universal films. Also, both he and Mary Gordon were not regulars, but semi-regulars; neither appears in all of the films.

• Tweaked, although "regular" doesn't necessarily mean they were in all the films, so that's changed to recurring. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• " ... in a process that was jointly paid for by UCLA, Hugh Hefner and Warner Bros.." -- Only one period is needed at the end of this sentence.

• One is for the Warner Bros. abbreviation: I've tweaked to remove the double. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Other recurring characters, were played by numerous actors, with Professor Moriarty being played by three people." -- Take out the first comma and name the three actors who played Moriarty in the main text, not a footnote. Also note that Atwill and Daniell appear in other films in the series.

• All three of them did (Zucco also appeared in Sherlock Holmes in Washington too). I've added the additional in as a footnote, and adopted your other suggestions here, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• " ... included Harry Cording, who played seven roles in different films, and Gerald Hamer and Harold De Becker, who both played four roles." -- You could also include Evelyn Ankers and Hillary Brooke.

• Hamer and De Becker did four each (more than any others), which is why I put them in there, but I could have included about five others, which would have been overkill, I think. I've tweaked it slightly to make it more clear that there were others who also appeared, but to include them all could be a bit of overkill. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Consider using the Template:Episode list to list the films. I think it would look better and take up less space. (You would lose the ablility to sort the films but since there are only fourteen I don't think it would be that great a loss.) Also if you do this you need only link Roy William Neill's name the first time.

• I'd rather not. Apart from the fact these are stand alone films, rather than television episodes, I hope to be able to include the budgets of the films at some point in the future, which would be much better with the sortable table.

• How about naming the actors playing the main characters in the plot synopsis of each film; i.e Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene).

• I did consider that, but I think it would bloat the table quite a bit if we start adding in names of actors into a section that doesn't actually need it. The films have their own pages and the full cast is available there. - SchroCat (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• How about noting that Rathbone and Bruce also made cameo appearances as Holmes and Watson in Crazy House (1943)?

• Let me have a think about this: there's a few bits and pieces I could add about Rathbone and Bruce, but they fall outside the remit of film series. This one is more borderline and I just need to consider it for a bit. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll check out this article more in a few days. Jimknut (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aaron

Resolved comments by Aaron Comments from Aaron Dr. John Watson respectively. → Comma after Watson Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) and produced twelve further films. → and produced a further twelve. Yep - done - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) and production values and → and production values that Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) and lowered the budgets, producing the films as B pictures. → and produced them as B pictures with lower budgets. Done - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC) In the 1970s → Comma after In 1938 → Comm after Commas after dates are a matter of personal taste, except when there is a sub-clause after the opening words. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  — ₳aron 14:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Many thanks Aaron! Much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Support  — ₳aron 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Crisco comments another recurring character, Mary Gordon, - She's not a character Yep: now tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) In February 1942, following negotiations with the Doyle estate, Universal Studios acquired the rights to the films and signed contracts with Rathbone and Bruce to continue their portrayals. Universal's deal—worth $300,000—was for seven years, and they purchased the rights to 21 stories in the canon; the contract stipulated that the company had to make three films a year, of which two had to be adaptations of Doyle's stories. - Was this while the cast was doing the radio show too? Certainly while Rathbone and Bruce were doing it: I'm not sure how many of the others were involved as I've not got much info on the radio series - most of my sources are about Holmes on Screen - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Lots of semi colons I'll see if I can remove a few! OK: slimmed down on the usage! - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Universal considered replacing him on screen with Tom Conway—as he subsequently did with the radio series - Universal cannot be replaced with the pronoun "he". Needs rewriting Changed "he" to "they". I think it reads OK, but let me know if it looks a little clunky. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) As American films shouldn't this list use American English? Possibly! It's a slightly moot point, I think. The character and stories are British, as are most of the cast. I'm happy to change to AmEng if people think it appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Why Hugh Hefner? Aside from the fact he's a film fan, there's no other reason given. I've added the film fan info. - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, as always Crisco - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Another job well done indeed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dana Boomer

Comments - Prose and linking need some work, plus a few reference/note comments: In the last two sentences of the last paragraph of the lead (starting "Some of the films had become degraded over time,..."), I am unsure if all of the films or just the ones that are PD are being discussed. In other words, does "some" refer to some of the PD films or some of the entire series? When the UCLA restored the series, did they restore all of them or just the four? A bit more clarification needed. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Note "a" needs colons after "Atwill also played" and "Zucco also played". Also, it would probably be better if "Daniell also appeared in two other roles in the series:" was changed to "Daniell also played" to make it consistent with the others. Also need colons after the "xyz played" in the other notes. Not strictly needed, but done. - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Hound of the Baskervilles, "Holmes and Watson are consulted about the arrival of Sir Henry Baskerville," How do they consult about his arrival? His arrival to where? Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Hound of the Baskervilles, "viscous hound" Is this meant to be vicious? Or is viscous really meant? vicious it is. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Hound of the Baskervilles, "to the moor the night" Perhaps "that night" or "in the night"? Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Voice of Terror, link British Inner Council? (Is this a real thing? We don't seem to have an article for it...) No, it's fictional - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Secret Weapon, link Gestapo? Bordering on over linking, but done. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Secret Weapon, "revolutionary bombsite." What is a bombsite? Autocorrect software error - now bombsight. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Secret Weapon, "leaves a part with four Swiss scientists" Does he leave one part with all four of the scientists as a group (so that four people have one part) or does he leave one part with each of the four scientists (so that four people have four parts)? Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Secret Weapon, "Moriarty tries to kill Holmes by exsanguination, but is rescued by Watson" This sounds like Moriarty is rescued by Watson. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Washington, "that he had put onto microfilm and inserted them into a matchbook;" - "them" can be removed. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Spider Woman - the first sentence is completely ungrammatical, as the first clause is in present tense and the second is in past tense. How about "As a series of similar suicides take place in London while Holmes is on holiday in Scotland, Holmes complains to Watson about his health and shortly afterward collapses into a ravine and goes missing, presumed dead." or similar. Minor tweak - reads fine. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Pearl of Death, "but manages to his it" What? Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Pearl of Death, "and their china and crockery is smashed." "Is" can be removed. Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) House of Fear, " In all cases the identification is difficult, with the victims only identified with difficulty." Both clauses of this sentence say the same thing. Reworked the second clause. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The Woman in Green, link hypnotism? Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Pursuit to Algiers, link Algiers? Pursuit to Algiers, "trying him up" Should this be "tying him up"? Also, should "When Holmes if discovered" be "is"? Done. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Terror by Night, "his mother Lady Margaret, to protect" The comma can be removed. Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Terror by Night, "and Duncan-Bleek at dining," "are dining"? Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Terror by Night, link poison dart? I think that would be a link too far - especially as we don't have a poison dart article. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Dressed to Kill, "before the murders also visit" "murderers"? Done - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) The last two references in the bibliography have red error messages. Also, how are these used as reference? I don't see mention of them in the Notes and References section. Errors removed (inclusion of access date). Both are used as sources - see FNs 11 and 53. - SchroCat (talk) 21:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Quite a few typos and ungrammatical spots, especially in the movie summaries. Please do a full read-through to make sure there aren't more that I haven't caught above. Overall a nice article, but needs some polishing. Dana boomer (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Support - The prose is still a bit stiff in places, but I think we've found all of the typos and obvious errors. There are still a few too many semi-colons for my taste, and they are used in a few places where they are a bit jarring, but I think that is more personal preference than anything else. At this point, I am ready to support. Nice work - hopefully we will see more Sherlock Holmes-related articles/lists from you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Dana Boomer. I'll take another spin over it tomorrow to iron out any other little bugs - including the semi colons. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

62nd Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured critera as exemplified by previous Oscar ceremony lists. Please keep in mind that because this ceremony happened earlier than in recents ones I did, the format of how I configured this list resembles closely to the 1st Academy Awards ratheer than the 82nd Academy Awards and such.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: took place March 26, 1990 → took place on March 26, 1990 earned such negative reaction → earned such a negative reaction commented of last year's → commented on the last year's Ref 5: Websites shouldn't be in italics Ref 20: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences → Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed: I fixed everything you suggested. -Birdienest81 (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support as long as "concocted" is replaced by a synonym (it has connotations of a dish or an evil plan) and the full stop is removed from the caption (WP:CAPWORDING). I'll also like to point out that the 'Academy Honorary Award' and 'Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award' probably don't need level 3 headers; perhaps incorporate into the table or change to level 4 (and restrict Table of Contents). It could also be stipulated that these awards were not preceded by nominations. Adabow (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Done: I fixed most of what you asked for. However, I believe it is understood that the Honorary Awards are understood as non-competitive as it was not an issue brought up in previous Oscar ceremony featured lists.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Great job on meeting everything in the criteria!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 21:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "Three weeks earlier in a ceremony held at the The Beverly Hilton...". Double "the" needs fixing. Background: Hyphen in "Newly-elected" should be removed. Gallaries have always been discouraged in featured content from what I remember. Why not just put the photos next to the awards lists like in other Oscars lists? Presenters: Kim Basinger's name is misspelled twice, once in each column. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Done: I fixed everything you asked for. —Birdienest81 (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Daniel Day-Lewis picture caption repeats "winner".
• Multiple awards/nominations intro sentences should have consistent colons at the end.
• Several individual people are listed as plural "presenters" in the table.
• Hannah's roles needs an "of" after performances.
• Support once done. Good work. Reywas92^Talk 10:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done: I fixed everything you listed above. Thanks for the comments

-Birdienest81 (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

Citra Award for Best Supporting Actress

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. After a good run of poets, I'm bringing yet another film article here for your consideration. The actresses here, perhaps unsurprisingly, overlap in places with Citra Award for Best Leading Actress. However, this is certainly no less the list because of it.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• The "Explanatory notes" section is currently empty. Remove if there isn't any info that'll be added.
• "draw the public's interest in the cinema industry" – replace "in" with "to". This should also be changed across the board (currently, only the Best Leading Actor FL has it worded "to")

—Bloom6132 (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Done and done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support – Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Good job! —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support This is an Indonesian themes about film, so I support because I comefrom Indonesia... Hanamanteo (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment – can you please reduce these redlinks? Otherwise the list is good. Zia Khan 03:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hope to do Rina Hassim, Nani Widjaja, and Niniek L. Karim this week (have not been up to writing much recently). That should fill in more than ten redlinks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. Widjaja done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• All three of those done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Oooh Matron! The inimitable Hattie Jacques was a much-loved figure in British comedy from her work with the Players' Theatre in 1946 through to her appearances in 14 Carry On films and many appearances with Eric Sykes on television and stage. A woman who was conscious of her weight problems , she spent much of her career typecast into roles that played on laughs at her expense, from Sophie Tuckshop in Tommy Handley's It's That Man Again, to Griselda Pugh, Tony Hancock's secretary in Hancock's Half Hour. This record of her professional work has recently been split away from the main page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of her work (and is, incidentally, more complete than any other single source of information available). Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 10:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. High quality. Meticulous referencing, and I like the formatting stylistic presentation throughout. — Cirt (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Cirt: much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Again, such a shame we can't use an image. I love the one her main article! I know! I've done some news searches and various image searches, but I can't find anything free to use. - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Jacques's" ugh. I suppose Jacques' is out of the question?! Sadly I think "Jacques's" is the correct version (even though it's ugly!) - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Modern times..... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC) On that note, it would be cool if you could get an International Phonetic Alphabet spelling of the pronunciation of her name, because I imagine few would think it was Jakes. I'll see what I can do - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Now found the translator - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Last three paras of lead start "Jacques..." which is a tiny bit repetitive. Tweaked two of the three - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Could link Noel Coward. Yep, now done - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) She was a welder. Brilliant! Funny thing was that in one of her early (and straight) film roles, Chance of a Lifetime, she portrayed a welder and impressed the professional who was there to train her! - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC) You link Carry On films twice, but point them at different articles, potentially confusing. Now changed to one link to one article - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "with Eric Sykes" we wouldn't normally repeat the first name in the same para... but it would seem odd not to. I'm not sure how to solve that right now... Not sure we have it in the same para. Twice in the lead, but different paras. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ref. -> Ref(s) Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The King Stag has a blank theatre, but there is an example of "National tour" in the table as well... Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Also Directed" no need for capital D. Now in lower cap - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "St Martins Theatre" why not "St Martin's Theatre"? Because I cocked up! - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Not keen on all the blank cells under Role. Dashed em all - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) I imagine the tables sort by date to start with, but the "Radio broadcasts" table re-orders on a first sort, indicating something's out of whack in the initial order. Now re-done - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC) How is BBC Radio 4 a "role"? Doh! Now done - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 11 needs an en-dash. Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 22, p. not pp. Done - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 29 pp., not p. Suggest you check others! Done (it and a couple of others!) - SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ooh, just noticed a bunch of "25July 2013." etc in the refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)# Damned cut n paste errors! Done for 24July too - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks RM: much obliged, as always for your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• No worries, I support the list for FL, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your helpful review and much valued support! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 Suggest linking light entertainment Yep, good call. - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Mrs Doris Gow - what's with the Mrs? No idea! Now removed - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Fumed Oak - italics or quote marks? Italics: now in place - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Dickens - link Charles Dickens Yep, done - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Channel column is too narrow; role seems to be wider than it should be — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC) I've not set any column widths on these, it's an auto fit thing depending on the screen width. I'm never sure which is the best approach to take with the widths, whether to fix them or leave them open! - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC) I set column width for channel, see what you think Couple more comments: What's with the full date of birth and death (isn't the year enough?) and check out the table; there are some more Mrs out there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Trimmed the dates out down to years only; the only Mrs left are those where the first name isn't known, so the Mrs is a convention that appears: it's also as described on the cast lists/sources. As always, many, many thanks for your thoughts - they are always appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC) ps. I like the column widths - must better! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Good job, Schro and Cass! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks good. I have made a few edits here; please revert if you don't agree with them. It seems odd to me to have Jacques's birth name in bold, but not the name by which she is best known. What's the reasoning for this? My idiocy: now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Just so I'm sure, were Fumed Oak and Borgia both performed on the same day? The same evening - with an interval in between - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Did Jacques just direct Babes in the Wood, or did she act in it too? Only as Director on this occasion Some of the cells in the Notes column have "–" in them, others are just blank. I think it would be best to pick either one or the other. My preference would be just blank. No idea why they are there: all removed - SchroCat (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) A couple of the shows in the Television table are missing channels – are they not available? Not that we could find with the available sources. Hopefully things will come to light at a later date. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Is the title of the 1 June 1956 episode of The Tony Hancock Show available? No, episodes in the first series were unnamed. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Souvenir has "13 shows" rather than "13 episodes" – any reason for this? None: now consistent throughout Could be worth mentioning that Jacques's appearance in Rhubarb Rhubarb was posthumous, but that's up to you. Good thought - I'll dig out the reference later and add it in. - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Many thanks, as always, for your time and thoughts: all much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC) My only other concern would be the article meeting MOS:NUMERAL, which states that adjacent quantities should be written in different formats. Personally, I think it might be worth writing the series numbers out as words (e.g. "Series nine", "Series six", etc.) and maybe spelling out numbers of episodes as digits (e.g. "6 episodes", "10 episodes", etc.). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Now all sorted (I think) - give me a nudge if you see any I've missed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Had a final look over and there are no other issues that I can see. Made a couple more edits here; please revert if you don't agree with them. Great work, as usual! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:18, 5 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Timeline of the Jurchen campaigns against the Song Dynasty

Nominator(s): Typing General (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the Featured List criteria. Typing General (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All
;Comments: Place all refs in numeric order: [18][1] → [1][18] The "Reference(s)" area in each table → Refs. Citations → Notes Bibliography → References – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC) All fixed, with the exception of Citations → Notes. There's already a heading for Notes.--Typing General (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Khitan is a dab link. "The Song Dynasty prior to and after the Jurchen conquests." no full stop required. And I can't quite work out what the map means, it needs further explanation. "a Tungusic speaking" -> "a Tungusic-speaking" Link Manchuria. "fought between the Jurchen Jin Dynasty and the Song Dynasty." - year range? "marched southwards with" not sure you need the s on the end of southwards. Don't like the style of tables at all. And they doesn't comply with MOS:DTT with regard to row and col scopes. Page ranges need to be separated by an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I have fixed all.--Typing General (talk) 07:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - looks good! I'm not sure that the tables need to be sortable if the only thing you can do is flip the date column back and forth- and if they are, I think the links need to be replicated. I.e, Yue Fei is linked in his 1133 instance, but if you flip the table that's no longer the first one in the table, so you'd need to link the rest. I really don't think the flipping is necessary though. Also, Shaoxing Treaty is a redirect- thought I'd mention it since it's the only one you have. --PresN 23:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - very nice list! As PresN hints above, if a table is sortable, then each item needs to be linked on each occurrence. However, I would agree with PresN that having a table that can only be sorted by year (when it's already arranged by year) is a little pointless. Dana boomer (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – The Holcombe citation in the reference list has some ugly red text in it. I think it will go away if you remove the hidden access date, but haven't tested out my theory. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Now fixed.--Typing General (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Detroit Red Wings seasons

Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The Detroit Red Wings are one of the oldest and most accomplished teams in the National Hockey League; this list chronicles their achievements season by season. From the thrill of victory to the agony of defeat it is all right here for your reading pleasure. It recently went through a substantive peer review featuring comments from several users, all of which I believe have been addressed (however I made no response and took no action on the comment regarding alt texts as I did not feel any action was necessary). I look forward to reading your comments and acting on your recommendations. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "of the Original Six teams of the NHL" not sure you need "teams of the NHL" here since it's linked and it repeats NHL. I changed it to "teams of the league". Stopping at "Original Six" felt too short. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "a four game sweep" shouldn't that be "a four-game sweep"? Done. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Lost Semifinals to Toronto Maple Leafs, 1–4 [19]" avoid spaces before references. There are several of these. Done. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) 18509, we'd normally represent that as 18,509. Done. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Consider repeating the table heading at the footer, as it's a long way to scroll up to find out what occurred 18509 times. True. I added it to the bottom without any links. Makes it easier to understand the regular table cells at the bottom as well. Rejectwater (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Support Good list overall, well cited, and seems to meet the technical qualifications. One minor quibble that I would like addressed, even though I'm supporting it - no citations in the lead at all. I know most of the information is found and cited below, but there's nothing to cite the Original Six claim, for example. I guess I'm just used to seeing citations in the lead, even if they're repeated below. Everything else is up to par though. Anthony (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a source for the Original Six. Everything else, I believe, is as you said, found and cited below. Please let me know if you think anything else in the lead should be cited. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. Anthony (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your input, kind words, and support. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Disturbingly, I can find nothing to really comment on for this. There are a few language tweaks that I could suggest, but I suspect that they are mostly BR/AM English variations, and what is there certainly reads well enough for me. Well done! Harrias ^talk 09:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Thank you for your kind words and support. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 12:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed and nothing more to report other than a good list! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your input, kind words, and support. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

List of longest streams of Idaho

Nominator(s): LittleMountain5 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Seventy rivers and creeks of at least 50 miles (80 km) in total length are the longest streams of the U.S. state of Idaho. Sound familiar? It's very similar to the list of longest streams of Oregon which passed its FLC nearly three years ago. There's two major differences: all of the streams' lengths were calculated from the same source, the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), and I moved the gallery to beside the table rather than above it. I think it meets all of the criteria. Cheers, LittleMountain5 22:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Support with a few comments and quibbles. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I'm a member of WikiProject Rivers and that I collaborated with the nominator on the list of longest streams of Oregon mentioned above but not this list. This list has no dabs; alt text looks fine to me; citation format looks fine; the prose is excellent; the list appears to be comprehensive. Here are my quibbles:

The [n] might be confusing as a key symbol. What if someone later adds a note in a different column?

The clickable map has three problems, I believe. Hangman Creek links to Latah River but should link to Latah Creek. North Fork Coeur d'Alene River should probably link to Coeur d'Alene River as it does in the table. Goose Creek (Snake River) is mislinking because River is misspelled as Rlver.

The image licenses look OK to me. I always yearn for higher quality images, but so far I have not found any better than the ones you've found. Finetooth (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! I was attempting to reduce clutter by using the [n] as a key symbol, but I see your point about possible confusion, so I added daggers like the Oregon list has. I also fixed the three typos on the image map, so that should be good now. I know that many of the images are fairly low quality, but as you said, there aren't too many options, unfortunately. Cheers, LittleMountain5 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments: I've helped with the intro a bit. There are 29/70 entries with yellow labels. Why not add a separate column for the length within the state only? Also, the total length reference is a bit awkward. For example somebody could come in and change one of the numbers randomly and a new editor would have a very hard time to double-check the new number. Isn't there a website with the lengths given for at least some of the longest streams? Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the copyedit! I actually thought about adding a "Length within Idaho" column (and doing away with the key and notes), but I didn't because I'm not sure if there's enough room. What do you think? As for the reference, I don't know how to make the NHD more accessible, unfortunately. I'm not aware of any other websites that list NHD lengths of streams. I'm open to suggestions. Cheers, LittleMountain5 06:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  I added a "Length in Idaho" column in my sandbox to see what it would look like. There's definitely not much space, but when I removed the source and mouth elevations, it looks much better (see here). Thoughts? LittleMountain5 21:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, I prefer that version. I remember in the past that there was a trick to put the ordering arrow below the text with something like <br> but it doesn't seem to work anymore. That way, the table would appear more narrow. Nergaal (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  The second version? LittleMountain5 15:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  I'm fine with either one, your choice- will hold off on supporting until the article is updated. --PresN 22:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  I changed the article to the second, more concise version. LittleMountain5 23:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Salmon River is a dablink.
• Confused, the title is "streams" but the intro says "rivers and creeks", should the list title be "List of longest rivers and creeks of Idaho?
• I don't find the image captions too helpful, the Snake River image looks much more like a waterfall than just a simple river to me.
• If you have sufficient coverage, you could actually incorporate the images in the table, a little like Grade I listed churches in Lancashire for instance?

Otherwise, looks good from where I'm sitting. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the Salmon River link, swapped "rivers and creeks" with the all-encompassing "streams", and changed the Snake River image. I'm not really sure how to improve the image captions other than adding the streams' lengths, but that seems redundant. What did you have in mind? Also, I would really like to incorporate the images into the table, but only about half of the streams have images, and even less have good ones, unfortunately. Thanks, LittleMountain5 04:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: captions, I was wondering if you could say something interesting about them, but if you think there's nothing beyond the length, then fine. Even if you had images for say half the streams, it may be worth incorporating them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Note, I'd be happy to support if the captions were interesting. Otherwise it's just a "meh" from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the captions a bit, take a look. Cheers, LittleMountain5 21:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support now that the yellow boxes are gone. --PresN 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you! LittleMountain5 01:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Great list, well written, well referenced. I believe it meets all the criteria. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! LittleMountain5 14:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – In the alt text for the Snake River photo, is there a word missing in "A large river flowing a rocky canyon"? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, my mistake. It's fixed now. Cheers, LittleMountain5 22:16, 7 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In early May 1999, the Central United States was affected by a widespread and violent tornado outbreak that produced the famed F5 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado. Over the course of a week, 152 tornadoes touched down across the country and Canada, resulting in 50 fatalities and over $1.2 billion in damage. This list documents those 152 tornadoes that touched down.

To cut to the chase, this is essentially a guinea pig nomination. As far as I'm aware, this is the first tornado list article to work its way to FLC so there is no precedent to base this article on. I'm all ears for any suggestions you all have for the article on top of comments regarding its quality. Thanks in advance for your comments! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments "occurred across" -> "took place across" Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) You link Canada but not Oklahoma, seems wrong way round to me. Linked, not sure what happened there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) If I'm reading WP:COLLAPSE correctly, you should avoid having these tables collapsed. We have many lists with 152+ items on it so it'd be just as well for you to create a single list. That way you'd also gain the advantage that you could make the table sortable and compare tornadoes with each other that happened on different days. Also very much dislike different formatting from day to day, different col widths, colspan headings etc. Removed the forced collapse per WP:COLLAPSE (hides content). As for making this a single list, I think that would end up making this a whole lot messier. There are already eight columns within this table, and if this were to become one list, the time column would have to be expanded (or become annoyingly tall) or a ninth column for date would need to be put in. Also, I personally don't see much benefit in combining this into a single table. Aside from having the option to sort it (what would really be sortable, F#, size and track?) it would be a pain to navigate the page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Single list is best. I would have to oppose it in this current state. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Maybe for other types of lists, but in the case of tornadoes, there's nothing really worth sorting to warrant a need for a single table. It's more effective to have it divided by day. How would you suggest the table be structured, taking into account that there needs to be a per-date division? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) The date of the cyclone is an additional column. We may need to restructure or remove some items which aren't that important. A single table is imperative in my mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Why is it imperative? It works perfectly fine as is. I'm opting to wait until further input on this one is received from others. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I count as one of the "others" I guess. As I said below, the new format is nonsense and any guidelines that get in the way can be covered by WP:IAR. United States Man (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Not sure about the large font and overuse of bold text. Is there an issue with the emphasis aspect of the bold text? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) It's unnecessary, and makes the table look a little like a school project I'm afraid. And WP:BADEMPHASIS discourages the use of bold to emphasise things. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'm going to overlook the school project remark there. Removed the use of bold on the locations in the tables since fighting God usually don't end well. However, I've left the F#s bolded and large since there's no issue there (discouraged, but not disallowed). It works better aesthetically than having relatively smaller text in a field of color. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Ok, the school project comment was intended to let you know that we tend to avoid pure HTML markup, to maintain a consistent look and feel across Wikipedia. Use of BIG and BOLD is entirely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Make sure all tables you use meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes. Only issue I see with WP:ACCESS is with avoiding column headers in the middle of the table. Basically, it says the way the state separation is done in this tables doesn't work and the tables should be split into sub-tables or have yet another column added. The latter of these clearly will not work since it'll be far too stretched out. The former of these just creates excessive tables, in my opinion, and makes it unnecessarily broken up since there are so many states covered. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Nope, there's MOS:DTT to take into account. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) In the process of moving everything over to a template constructed by Titoxd that covers the syntax issues. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC) References you use a considerable number of times should just be general refs, e.g. ref 22 seems to be used 59 times.... I'm not sure how to go about doing this. Would you be able to explain it to me? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Just a "general reference" above the specific refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I mean how would I work out the citation itself to direct the cite to that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) It wouldn't need to, it'd just be a general link. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Do I keep it in the format of a normal citation and just remove the <ref name=""/> stuff? An example would be really helpful. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'll butt in here and ask you to not do this, as it makes it much more difficult to keep track of what is cited in the table, and what is completely uncited. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "see section on this tornado " no, just use an appropriate wikilink. Changed to just wikilinks Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'll review the text if/when the rework is performed on the table structure. Summary or Comments/Damage? If the latter, then Comments/damage at least. Summary is a more concise way of putting it in my opinion. Works just the same as Comments/damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) They're all "Summary" now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) "1 death – see section on this tornado – an additional six " -> "One death..." (don't bold it). The bold is there to emphasize that the tornado was a killer tornado. They're relatively rare in comparison the the number that touch down (average of less 20 per year out of 1,200 tornadoes). It's common practice to emphasize this in the SPC (they use red text to denote tornadoes with casualties) so I don't see the harm in doing that here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC) See WP:BADEMPHASIS. (I don't even know what SPC is, but it's not the Wikipedia MOS). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Removed the bold Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Storm Prediction Center (fwiw...), where the vast majority of tornado information comes from. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Overall I see no major issue with the concept of a list of this inclusivity, but the structure needs a lot of work for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Forgive me for butting in, but couldn't WP:IAR apply to some of this awful formatting? I am talking specifically about the bolding and the table formatting. It looks ridiculous. And I don't mean to offend you The Rambling Man, but it seems to me like you may be using a bit of blackmail to force Cyclonebiskit to make these stupid changes. Even MoS guidelines fall under IAR, as I have yet to see anything that says otherwise. United States Man (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC) Well I won't forgive you. I'm not using "blackmail" for anything. I'm merely one reviewer suggesting that a bunch of separated collapsed tables that were all formatted differently with BIG BOLD text that can't be sorted wasn't a good start. If you both disagree with what I've said, I'm fine with that, but I will oppose the nomination for FLC. I'll leave this nomination for others to comment since my initial comments have been taken so badly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure where this blackmail thing came from either. Trying to figure out a happy medium here since we're of differing opinions on the format. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC) United States Man, it is not civil to ascribe ulterior motives to reviewers; it's a personal attack, and it's uncalled for. And I'll say it again: If your only argument is WP:IAR, you have no argument. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC) (ec)Well, maybe I am a bad observer. You two are not the only ones who notice that. I am sorry for my "fit of rage", but no one answered my question about IAR. The bolding is the main thing that I don't like. The sorting is fine since I don't think it interferes with the bolding. I have another issue with the links in the damage section. It seems that it would look better with see section/article on this tornado than the long links that are there now. But I am fine either way on that issue. United States Man (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I'm not keen on the other proposed design of this list, but as I've said before, I'm just one reviewer, so feel free to ignore all my comments. Community consensus should prevail. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Note – Okay, after all that nonsense I've constructed a newer version of the table that should comply far better with WP:MOS than the others. I've just finished implementing it into the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it necessary that the date be included as a column? Makes it easier for editing purposes if there are separate tables. United States Man (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Condensing them into a single table was one of the major concerns brought up by TRM. I personally don't have any issues editing a table of this length, just need to use the search tool to quickly get to specific tornadoes, though it can be cumbersome since it's a lot of data. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That was what my problem was. But, I don't have any reason to edit this (you have the information in a great updated condition), so it really doesn't bother me that much. United States Man (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Support.

• "much of the Central and parts of the Eastern United States" - should these direction things be capitalized?
  • They're regions of the United States, not just directional, so I would think so. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• " with 70 being confirmed" - I think the "being" here is redundant
  • Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "The event began as a strong area of low pressure moved out of the Rocky Mountains and into the High Plains on May 2" - the "as" here is inappropriate, as at first it's ambiguous whether it means "when", "because", or "in the form of". I first read it as "The event began as a strong area of low pressure." See Garden path sentence
  • Reworked the sentence in question Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• The second lede paragraph has too many "with... [gerund clause]". It happens three times, and that phrase construction could use some variety.
  • Removed two uses of it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Why does max width use yard instead of feet?
  • Yard is the standard measurement unit for tornado with used by the NCDC. All reports have width listed in yards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "36 deaths – 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado – An additional 583 people were injured" - this could use some more info. And, is the capital "An" appropriate?
  • Expanded the section to include some basic statistics. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "Most significant damage occurred south of Fort Cobb where a barn and house garage were destroyed and a stock trailer was thrown 100 yd (91 m)." - add a comma somewhere.
  • Split into two sentences Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "2 deaths – 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak#Cimarron City–Mulhall–Perry, Oklahoma" - should you pipe this? Ditto with "1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak#Stroud, Oklahoma"
  • Piped both. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• You should reflect Canada's tornado by saying something like "unless otherwise stated", when you put in the note that says - "All monetary values are in 1999 United States dollars"
  • Noted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• "All dates are based on the local time zone where the tornado touched down; however, all times are in Coordinated Universal Time for consistency." - I don't get this
  • I wasn't exactly sure how to word this in the first place so I'm not surprised. What I'm trying to get across here is that all the events are listed by their UTC time; however, the dates are based on the local time. Just look at the first 10 tornadoes. They all say May 2, but the last two are after midnight UTC (which would normally indicate May 3); however, since all tornado reports are listed by their local time, I felt it more appropriate to keep the local day over changing it to the UTC day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Ehh, I think that's a little confusing. I think it'd work better having everything in UTC time, including dates. Unless there is precedence against that, I think it'd be less confusing that way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Precedent would be every tornado table on Wikipedia, haha. That's how we have them styled. Only agency that lists tornadoes by UTC time is the Storm Prediction Center, and they just relay the reports from the local NWS offices which use local time. Additionally, the final reports on the tornadoes from the NCDC are all in local time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, then no biggie! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Hink!! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Glad to read it, happy to support it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments - much better table layout, thank you for taking the time and effort to do that. "of the Central and parts of the Eastern " why not "of Central and parts of Eastern..."? Doesn't sound right when worded that way: "...a large tornado outbreak took place across much of Central and parts of Eastern United States." Adding "the" improves the flow. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Not keen on the centrally-aligned total row. Didn't notice that before. Guess align="right" doesn't override scope="col". Changed it to a normal row that doesn't sort. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) "Outbreak event" is an odd title, something like "List of tornadoes" would work better for me... Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) What's a "a multiple-vortex F2"? Tweaked it and provided a link to multiple-vortex tornado Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) "6 deaths...", "3 deaths.." we normally don't start sentences with a number, and moreover MOSNUM would say "Six deaths", "Three deaths"... for numbers below ten. Spelled out ones below ten. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Any links for "satellite tornado"? Linked Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) "...tornado – Seven people " no need for capital S. De-capitalized Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Why are many of the titles of references in italics? I provided both the title of the journal and the chapter in which the specific information was from. The cite journal template links the chapter title over the journal title and italicizes it in the process. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review TRM! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Looking at the map, I see one in Michigan, one in Hull, and one in Wisconsin. Are these all generally considered part of the Oklahoma outbreak? Also, I wonder if the title is appropriate as one would expect an Oklahoma outbreak to be in Oklahoma. The older outbreaks like this are usually named after the area they affected the most. OK had more tornadoes than any other state. Another outbreak like this is the 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak. United States Man (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC) much of the Central and parts of the Eastern United States. During this week-long event, 152 tornadoes touched down, including one in Canada. - Two sentences contradict each other.  Done – Cleared it up. United States Man (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise looks quite good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been a question of mine too actually. I would be fine with moving this to meet the current method of naming tornado outbreak articles (naming it by the dates it occurred); however, this outbreak has become most known for the events in Oklahoma rather than anywhere else and that's what people look for.

Also, thanks USM for fixing the contradiction in the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• If this is what the sources go with, it's good enough for me. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support - well this has been hanging out here at the bottom for a while, hasn't it. My only comment is "Following the extensive outbreak, activity became increasingly scattered from May 5 to 8; 26 tornadoes touching down across the Eastern United States and Quebec." - the bit after the semicolon is off; it should either be "touched" down, or the semicolon should be a comma and the phrase should start "with 26 tornadoes touching down". --PresN 21:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Minor, but the semi-colon in the last sentence of the lead should be a regular old comma instead. The lead image needs alt text. First two words in the List of tornadoes heading can safely be dropped. For the F4 tornado N of Wellington to Wichita area, the note needs a period at the end. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I've never been good with alt text descriptions but I gave it a shot. Made the other adjustments as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments- This is a huge undertaking and you are to be commended for your effort and a job very well done.

I haven’t looked through the table references, but looking at the overall structure and the lead/intro information I wanted to make a few comments:

There is a lot of information packed into the lead/intro. Some of the most significant facts could use citations. This includes (but is not limited to):

• no reference for “152 tornadoes” (but the storm events database for the May 2–7 reports “196 events” when the "all tornadoes" option is selected).
  • The 152 total is the count of all tornadoes once the duplicated reports from the 196 total (the database lists events by counties, so tornadoes that track through more than one county have multiple reports). There's no direct way to cite this total I believe. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You can use the reference putting it in a note which explains the reduced number after duplication is removed. Otherwise you are not explaining where the number comes from.
• “… outbreak on record, with 70 confirmed.” Probably needs a citation (you do cite the 10 tornadoes in Nebraska), also “confirmed” suggests there are unconfirmed tornadoes too.
  • The 70 confirmed comes from source #1 (which is used for other details in the first paragraph). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Without a citation there is no way for anyone to know that.
• Does “confirmed” (versus unconfirmed) explain the 152 versus 196 discrepancy above?
  • Explained above. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• “Over the following 48 hours,…” might want to specify May 3–5, and at least one citation is probably necessary between that sentence and the next.
  • Added the date and moved the overall citation to the end of the paragraph since all the information stems from the database. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Since the heading “Confirmed tornadoes” is used, some kind of definition of confirmed would be helpful.

• You may want to add a note or comment with the definition of confirmed that the default sort order for the table is by date, followed by time… Actually, as I look at the table I’m not sure how it’s organized. Is there a default organization?-Godot13 (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The table is organized chronologically by default. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • See the comment below.

• I’m noticing that the times used are local times of the location where the tornado touched ground. While the majority of the main affected states are all in the same time zone, parts of those states, and entire other states, are in different time zones. If the weather conditions causing the tornadoes were to cross a time zone (e.g., eastern to/from western South Dakota or Nebraska, or Alabama to/from Georgia, Indiana to/from Illinois) the sorting chronology of the time column (possibly the date column) does not accurately reflect the movement or relative timing of the storm cells… For example, if a storm cell crosses a time zone from East to West causing tornadoes as it moves, chronologically (for at least one hour) it would appear as if those touching down after the time zone crossing occurred prior to those before. It’s also late and my brain may not be working…-Godot13 (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That issue is sidestepped by using UTC (Universal Time). While the dates used are for the local time, to avoid any confusion from time zones, all times were adjusted to the meteorological standard of UTC. This is explained with Note #3. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
    • The use of a local date with UTC time is problematic, at least visually. Following the order in the table, days and time seem at odds: the last two May 2 dates have times that suggest it's actually May 3, or else the records are out of order; long before May 3 becomes May 4 the UTC time seems to have already rolled over; when May 4 changes to May 5 the times suggest that there were no tornadoes for about 20 hours, a few records later there are some, then it's May 6. You're using two descriptors of the time of an event, but they are using different anchor points (local vs. UTC).-Godot13 (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments The National Weather Service of Norman OK. used the name "Great Plains Tornado Outbreak of May 3-4, 1999" for events that include most of the tornadoes mentioned in this list. I see that the page title follows rule number 4 of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado naming convention. I understand that we want to cover the whole life of that storm so a title limiting the dates to May 3-4 wouldn't work. However, I don't see how that same logic doesn't apply to calling it the ""Oklahoma tornado outbreak", when we want to cover more than just Oklahoma. Shouldn't naming rule number 2 apply here: "that used by NOAA or an official weather agency should take precedence except in extraordinary circumstances". Are there extraordinary circumstances for why we shouldn't use the NWS name? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:32, 3 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Robbie Williams discography

Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria following extensive development of the tables and prose. Not really a Robbie Williams fan, but lots of chart positions and certifications to work with. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments That image is hideous. Please choose another. It's blurry, out of focus, and badly coloured. Done Since opinion on the quality of images is subjective (and the current one is extremely poor, I admit), is this one better? I appreciate that you're trying to use images of Williams which aren't in the main article, but is there any other reason why something like this can't be used? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC) There isn't really. That image seems reasonable, so I'll put that one in instead. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC) male pop group Take That, whom - whom or which? Done "Which" seems to make more sense here. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Otherwise fairly well done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I've addressed the comments: thank you for being the first person to add some comments, a month after I originally nominated the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 08:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Solid looking discography (as we've come to expect from you). Really hope some more interest stirs up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "thirty-nine music videos" infobox says 41. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Infobox image caption doesn't need Williams' first name. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Williams is English but Michael is British? Why the distinction? Done Changed both to "English". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "before the group disbanded the following" reads funny to me, maybe "; the group disbanded the following" Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Consider linking cover version. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "led to increased sales, leading to " repetitive prose. Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "only charting at number two" would lose the "only" (I'd be happy with a number two album, and I think this places undue weight) Done I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Check for SHOUTING in the refs. Done Removed all instances I could find (presumably all of them). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Check refs for en-dash, e.g. ref 30, ref 88, ref 89 etc... Done Removed all instances I could find (presumably all of them). I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Think I've dealt with everything. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• A new thought, and a sad one at that, we have very precise sales figures, but I assume many Williams albums are still on sale, both physically and digitally. Perhaps we need to consider a date (like an {{as of}} template) for when those sales were precisely those sales.

Very rarely do you get such accurate sales figures, but even that brings its own problems. I've put this information into the notes to avoid it cluttering up the main table. There is a problem, though: the French sales figures on the all-time list (found in refs 40 and 44) don't actually have a date on them (the source simply says "depuis 1968 (since 1968)) so presumably the source is updated periodically. Therefore, do they need an "as of" as well? I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

A good question, but I'm not sure we can assume the site has been updated... However (although this is a little synthetic) you could check the most recent entry in the reference and use that as the "as of" date for Williams' stats? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing as the reference (spread over several pages) contains 1000 entries, that may take a while. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any album after 2005 in the entire list, so I suppose that'll have to do for now until I find a better date. I'll make the changes. (There's this page on the InfoDisc website, visible above the list in the reference in the table, which mentions a list broadcast by the BBC (I wouldn't have guessed it) on 30 December 2006: however, as the page points out, their top five is in a completely different order and excludes foreign artists: I don't think their the same lists (although Google Translate is correcting the pages in such broken English it's quite hard to tell). It only includes a top five anyway, so that's no use either.) I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the sales figures for these albums in the decade end charts (which were presumably taken on December 31 2009) are lower than those in the all-time list. So the list must have been compiled by 1 January 2010 at the earliest: thus, I'll use 2010 as the date for now. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 29 August 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dale Steyn

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the best bowler in the recent cricket and world no. 1 Test bowler, South African Dale Steyn has many memorable and match-winning performances to his name. He has taken the most number of fifers in Test cricket for South Africa. I've worked on the list and now I feel this fulfils the FLC criteria. Looking forward for your comments/suggestions, as always...!!! Cheers, Zia Khan 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – "Steyn remained the ICC's Test Player of the Year in 2008". Unless he had won the honor in 2007, this should be "was named" or similar. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Zia Khan 21:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Would be good to say in the lead what type of bowler he is (spinner/fast/etc)
  • "The fastest South African bowler to reach 100 Test wickets" - very confusing wording, makes it sound like of all the SA bowlers to get 100 wickets, he bowled the fastest. Maybe try something like "he reached 100 Test wickets in fewer matches than any other South African bowler"
  • "Steyn made his One Day International (ODI) debut for African XI ..... against the Asian XI" - either have "the" in front of both names or neither
  • For the 26 December 2008 match, you don't show the symbol for "10 wickets taken in the match" - if he took two fifers then surely he took 10 wickets in total?
• That's what I've got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • All done, I guess. Zia Khan 14:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - good work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

;Comments SuperSport Park and Centurion linked twice in the lead. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It's better to say "Fastest SAF bowler to reach 300/200 wickets" than 100 wickets. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Why are the entries inside the table aligned to the left. In most of the fifers they are centrally aligned. When we use rowscopes in plainrowheader's table the entries automatically align to left, so for consistency I preferred aligned to the left. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Not really, see Rihanna videography for instance. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) And what about Batsmen column? Is this necessary to align the columns to the center? If yes, where is this written? BTW, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7 and 8 (last 6 promoted in July 2013). Zia Khan 18:38, 11 August 2013 (UTC) No am not forcing you on this. BTW, the Botham list has many of the columns centrally aligned. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I see in most of the lists created by you * is used for symbols. Add something like {{Template:Section-sign}} which is more legible. See the comment by Harrias here. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) That's why it's listed under Category:Image insertion templates. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) I think this depends on our choice!? Zia Khan 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Dude! you're not getting what I'm saying. We only use symbols in the key, but what you're adding is a special character. Symbols are used here because they will be helpful for blind readers as it contains the alt text. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Switched to {{Template:Asterisk}}. BTW, blind people cannot see, not even alt text. That rule is for color blind people and here I didn't use any color! Zia Khan 18:57, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Alt text is used mainly for blind readers. They can be read aloud using Screen readers. —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC) So whats next? Zia Khan 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC) That's why we go for it and not because of WP:OSE. Now GOTO cmt #3 —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Link Test in "100 Test wickets" and runs Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Unlink the same in the following para. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 06:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC) The lead says he made his debut in 2004 and his first five wicket haul came the following year. But the table reveals that he took his first fifer in 2006. Corrected. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) five-wicket haul came the in 2006 —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Removed. Zia Khan 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) "a match which South Africa won at Nagpur": "Ground, City" / "Ground" alone to maintain consistency with the rest of the lead. Fixed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "He took 5 wickets for 50 runs in the match which is his best performance in ODIs". You've already said that this was his solitary fifer in ODIs, so the last part of the sentence is redundant. Fixed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "against the West Indies at the St George's Oval, in December 2007" too many "the". I guess the preceding West Indies is really not mandatory in this sentence. Removed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [n 1][3], the ref. is not needed in the lead text as it's used in the FN. Removed. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) An explanation for "draw" is needed either as a link or in the key. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Arrange the symbols in the key according to the order in which they appear in the table. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Econ should come before batsmen. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 14:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC) Why is "ESPNcricinfo" linked in ref #2 alone? Switched to ref #1. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Alt text could be more descriptive like wearing a green cap/glasses. Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Inn. for 13th fifer reads 21; check the column as some entries are wrong Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Link "London" in the table Done. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 20:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 03:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments For "figures" you could link Bowling analysis? Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "he is the highest five-wicket hauls taker" -> he has taken most five-wicket hauls for South Africa. Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "against West Indies at" normally I'd expect it to be referred to as "the West Indies". Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Cricinfo list of most five-wicket hauls implies Steyn played for Africa too, presumably no five-wicket hauls from that part of his career either exist or are notable? He didn't play Test(s) for Africa XI, so its no important to mention here. He made ODI debut for Africa XI which is mentioned in the lede. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Any reason Sreesanth isn't S. Sreesanth? Done. Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for considering the list for review. Regards, Zia Khan 18:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorting by date in reverse order doesn't sort the No. correspondingly, i.e. I get 20, 21, 19...

• I've no idea how to do this?! Zia Khan 19:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's not essential but I'll have a think about how to fix this (perhaps others could weigh in if they have a solution?) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed this, with the addition of <span style="display: none">1</span> and <span style="display: none">2</span> into the cell. There might be a more elegant solution, but this does the job as far as I can tell. Harrias ^talk 09:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support you've clearly worked out how to do these lists, and I can't find anything to really fault from this list. Good work. Harrias ^talk 09:32, 3 September 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [15].

---

List of states and territories of the United States

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked quite vigorously over the past few days to get this up to standard, and I believe it now meets the criteria. This list goes over the key aspects (name, capital, population, area, congressional districts etc.) of each state, as well as Washington, D.C. and each US territory. All area measurements are in square miles, but are also converted to square kilometers to conform with policy and aid readers who are not familiar with US/Imperial measurements. The lede itself gives an overview of the states and their role in the federal union, an overview of territories and their classifications, and a quick overview at state extremes such as the most and least populous state, and the largest and smallest territories. Overall, this list gives the topic the sort of coverage it deserves. Toa Nidhiki05 21:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You really don't need the key repeated every time, and I question where it's necessary at all. People know what area is. You can include rounding and the year it was obtained in a footnote. Please remove all of the keys.
  • The 'city' column isn't needed for DC, it seems random. Not largest city, just "city". The footnote saying Washington is equivalent to DC is sufficient. Or, change it to 'largest city'.
  • The area column for the uninhabited territories is too wide.
  • Said column needs a footnote explaining that these territories apparently have no water area.
  • You could combine many footnotes into "Represented by a non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives", rather than having five footnotes saying the same thing for five regions. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed all of these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 23:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• The name of the country is pretty basic...you don't need to list the different names used, nor the obvious abbreviations, and definitely not "USA or U.S.A." I don't think I've seen that one before. (Periods are discouraged for acronyms anyway: WP:ABBR)
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The start of the lead should focus on what a state is, not that they each have senators and electoral votes: Talk about how they have their own laws and governors and such, not how the decennial census apportions House seats. Not that this is bad information, but these are not key characteristics of states and should be mentioned later.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Number of unorganized territories should be corrected to ten.
  • Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• There is no 2012 Census.
  • Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• What are the days Colorado, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Tennessee became states?
  • Fixed; there was an error with the template, so it has been removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The area note needs to be removed from that column, nor do I think it's even necessary to point out that values are rounded; technically all measurements are.
  • Well, the only reason it needs to be there is, because the figures are rounded to the nearest whole number, some 'total area' measurements are off by either 1 or 2 square miles. Noting how it was rounded would be a bit helpful in explaining that. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Use "Acquired" rather than "Claimed" for the territories, and that DC was established rather than approved.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Put the capital column of the territories to the left to be consistent with the state table ordering.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The Washington note needs to be removed from the territory area column.
  • Removed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 09:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• See also section goes before references
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, I'd also suggest a higher-quality map that may have full names, but otherwise Support. Reywas92^Talk 15:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not to mention a map that includes the territories; the article is about them too. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A Few drive-by comments

• Remove note A (about area being rounded) from the "Became a state" column and replace with a reference or citation listing all states if possible
  • Removed; as for the second part, a direct citation is not needed because it is cited in the 'general references' section. Any section that is not directly cited is cited there. 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Is there somewhere where you can link the terms "Unincorporated", "Incorporated", "organized" and "unorganized" used in the territory lists. The meaning and significance of these terms, to me at least, is not immediately obvious. The mention in the lead definitely helps (though I read after I asked the question), but if there does exist somewhere where more information is located, it would be handy to link to it.
  • Those have been linked in the lede now; if you think it is needed to link in the tables, I can do that as well. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• A note on the "Largest City" explicitly stating what you mean by "city" might help. For example, looking at Florida, Jacksonville may be the largest legal city, but Miami has a larger metropolitan area. I'm not suggesting you change the criteria, just clarify it in case someone wants to argue.
  • Good idea, noted with a note. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Are the areas of the inhabited areas rounded to the nearest whole number as well? If so, add the note to remain consistent.
  • Yes, they are; I have added this now. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't mind having the abbreviation column sortable as well. Just for example Iowa (IA), by abbreviation, is ahead of Idaho (ID), but behind based on the full state name.
  • Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ravendrop 22:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• I have addressed all these issues. Toa Nidhiki05 01:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• re the "Largest City" issue - List of U.S. states used to have a footnote by 'largest city' if it was not the anchor of the state's largest area. So, Kansas City for Missouri would have a footnote explaining that St. Louis was the state's largest metro area. Note that sometimes this was not always anchored in that state; for example, New Jersey's largest metro area is New York City. This could be done here as well, but it would require adequate sourcing. --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • None of those appear to have been sourced, and I can't find any source to confirm them. At this point, however, I don't feel any more notes are needed - we already have 12 notes, and that would probably double if metropolitan areas were added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly recommend adding another column entitled "Location" to the territories section. Most people have no idea where some of those entries are located. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I think this list lacks an image like File:EU OCT and OMR map en.png to emphasize the location of these territories. Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have added both; there is no more room for one in the inhabited territories table, so I have mentioned those in the lede as well. I've also added an image of all eight uninhabited Pacific territories; unfortunately, one territory, Navassa Island, is located in the Caribbean , so I did not include that. I have instead mentioned its location in the image caption itself. Toa Nidhiki05 20:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the new map. However, I would still prefer a full map also, that can be centered, either before or after the territories tables. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'full map'? Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Map showing the entire world and the location of states and territories around the globe. Nergaal (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be pretty hard to do considering the US spans both sides of the globe and no globe map includes state lines. Even globe maps that include that would lack the territories, because they are not considered 'integral areas' of the United States. Toa Nidhiki05 18:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think a map of the US showing state lines, instead of a global map, would suffice. If people want to know the location of the United States within the world, they can go to the article on the United States. --Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 04:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added such a map; I agree with Blackhole78's sentiment here. At his point, most people probably know the US borders only Canada and Mexico. If people don't know that, they can just go to the page on the United States. It is much more important to show which state (or territory) is which on this page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I really dislike how my comments end up being ignored. The current map shows only the states, BUT this list is ALSO about the territories, therefore they NEED to be featured too. Since the EU map ALREADY exists, I see absolutely no problem in having a similar one for the US. Nergaal (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The territories are featured. I just got a map up showing the location of all territories on a global basis. Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• The map is great! A couple of minor points

" the United States has control over a number of territories. The United States has control over fourteen territories"

it might be better to switch the order of the last two paragraphs in the intro (moving the Puerto Rico sentence to the other para).

"(4,002 2)"

you have "square kilometers" "sq mi" and "km2"; try to stick to fewer notation types

Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Observations by MONGO:

• Is it necessary to have the map at the beginning of the article be so huge? I reduced it to 500px and did a preview and it looked fine to me...but whatever works best I guess.
  • I had made it so large in hopes that most people could read it, but since it is readable at 500 I'll switch it to that. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

    Looks better now that the text is less crowded at the left margin.--MONGO 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The territories had a map right aligned and the table left aigned...so I switched the map to left align...maybe this section would be best center aligned? I don't know if there is a MOS on such things, or I'm just being nitpicky.
  • I don't believe there is a MOS rule on it, but it does look good centered so I have switched it to be centered. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Watch for Piped links...[[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|that are not delegated to the federal government]] looks odd.--MONGO 17:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Issues should be fixed or responded to. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I might change Became a state to simply Statehood in the first table...basing this on List of U.S. states by date of statehood.--MONGO 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support promotion to featured list. I'm not an experienced FLC participant, but comparing it to similar FL's, this one appears to be equal to or better than most.--MONGO 05:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest the replacement of the maps in use with the following standard: File:United States, administrative divisions - XY - colored.svg and File:United States (+overseas), administrative divisions - XY - colored (zoom).svg. Felipe Menegaz 21:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Those maps are not bad, but there are a few issues that make them unsuitable for this page. The first image does not include the District of Columbia, while the second image is very oddly designed; individual territory names are not given, and the initials for the mainland make no sense. Toa Nidhiki05 01:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The District of Columbia can be added to the first map at request. And I don't see what is wrong with the second one. The territories are represented by ISO 3166 codes as seen here, as well as the reference AL–WY on the mainland (Alabama to Wyoming). Regards; Felipe Menegaz 02:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

ISO codes aren't included anywhere in this article, though, so that might confuse readers. AL-WY makes sense somewhat, but I've never heard anyone refer to the mainland United States that way - typically the states are grouped by location (ie. contiguous US, Alaska, and Hawaii), not abbreviation. Toa Nidhiki05 02:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, the abbreviations used in all tables (except for the uninhabited territories) are equal to the ISO codes. Nevertheless, the list should make use of the ISO codes as the abbreviation standard, since it is the only one which provides abbreviation for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. As for the map, it is part of a huge effort on the standardization of maps at Wikimedia Commons. I don't think it is unsuitable just for using an atypical representation of U.S. mainland.

The primal point here is a standardization that will facilitate the creation of similar lists from other countries and, therefore, provide a better experience for readers. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 14:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither map you linked appear to be helpful to this list. The second one you link is downright confusing.--MONGO 15:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a suggestion after all. There are several versions of these maps here with different labels and arrangements, maybe one of them is suitable. I personally don't like the current map of territories in use, it looks amateurish, specially when there are professional-level maps available. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure...I understand but the second one in particular with the AL-WY abbreviations is very odd. I haven't been able to get the clickable boxes to open right on my two different browsers. While it's important the article has an international compatibility, a simple map with the actual names of places is better in my opinion than ISO designations most people have no idea about.--MONGO 16:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would support this if the 4 tables are merged into a table per section. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you mean by that? Merge all the tables into one big table?
    • No. A table with states + DC (with DC in gray background) and a separate table fro territories. Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Why should DC be in a table for states? It misstates a common misconception (that DC has similar autonomy to states) that confuses many people who are not Americans. Aside from that, merging the territory tables is impractical because it would require adding ISO codes to the main table, increasing an already large table. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Please remind me what is the point of having a table with a single entry? Why not have a sentence instead? Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Even though it only has one entry, the table is required because DC is a distinct legal entity - it is not a state, nor is it a territory. The fact there is only one federal district does not change the fact that 'federal district' is distinct from any other group. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Using this rationale then the article name should be moved to to "... states, federal district(s) and territories of US". Nergaal (talk) 06:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Possibly, but that is a very long title and might not be the first thing people would search for. If the name is in fact an issue, I'd like to see some other people step up and say so - I don't want to unilaterally rename a featured list candidate in the middle of the nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 16:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Tables need to be fixed up to meet MOS:DTT with regard to row and col scopes (for screen readers). What areas of the tables need to be fixed? Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Rows and columns need to be identified using a scope= parameter, per the link I've given you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Alrighty, done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) "the 10th amendment to the Constitution" tenth. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) " federal Congress - a bicameral legislature" en-dash. Done. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) In the table, the Congressional Districts column is far too ward considering that it hosts, at most, a double-digit number. I've tried shrinking it a bit - the main issue seems to be that the name for the column itself is forcing it be wider. I've shortened it to 'House seat(s)' to make it a bit smaller. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Where is the date of statehood referenced? The general references section; any claim that is not directly verified in the table can be found in that section. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Often, it's best to right-align columns with large numbers, so the units align accordingly. I've tried to do this, but cannot figure out how you would do that. What is the code to right-align a column? Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) "align=right"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Why is the Federal District table sortable? Good point, fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) If all inhabited territories are "Unincorporated, organized", there's no need for a column. It's unlikely to change soon! It would be great if that were the case, but all inhabited territories aren't organized - American Samoa is unorganized, mainly to help the islands retain their traditional laws. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Why suddenly include ISO 3166 codes for the uninhabited territories? I thought they applied globally. They were for an image that was removed; I have removed them now. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) No need for bold in the notes. Bolding removed. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Seems to be too many External links. Trimmed down. Toa Nidhiki05 16:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC) [16].

---

List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Switzerland

Nominator(s): Anthony (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it passed peer review (albeit a while ago), and it was modeled after two successful hockey FLs, List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada and List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present). Perhaps we can get the Big Seven lists done before Sochi 2014. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Alt texts. Every image has to have one. See WP:ALT. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) All tables, including key tables, have to comply with MOS:DTT. Caption text, scope=row, scope=col, all jump out at me, although that is not meant to be an exhaustive list. Fixed (I'm pretty sure...) Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I don't think those key tables crack the nut. They don't have any column headers and there are multiple columns stacked next to each other.Rejectwater (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Are you sure? They're set up the same as the other tables. Maybe I'm not seeing something. Please advise, thanks. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC) I went ahead and updated the tables. I figured with all the page creation you have going on it would be easier this way. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Rejectwater (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Note 2 has an unknown parameter error. Fixed Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Redlinks- all these players are notable, just without Wiki articles yet? Rejectwater (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Working on creating at least stubs for most of them. Some of them are difficult to get lots of information on, though. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Wouldn't be better to just unlink them than create countless stubs with no future of being expanded beyond "player X (1-2-19xx) was a Swiss ice hockey player who represented the national team in X year." doesn't seem to be serving the encyclopedia if all the player page is goin to say is the same as the list. Seems to me the easiest solution is probably the best even if these players do meet general notability guidelines IMO.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC) I would have to agree de-linking is a better option. Rejectwater (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC) Hold the phone, see discussion below. Rejectwater (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Additional comment from Rejectwater: What about using the {{portalbar}} template for the portals, say at the bottom of the page (for the portal links)? I think that would clean up the page, help with visual appeal. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Done. Anthony (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I believe the redlink issue has been sufficiently addressed to pass the "minimal proportion" standard and I believe all other criteria are met as well. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose – Traditionally, FLC has looked for "a minimal proportion" of red links under FL criterion 5a. Right now, about half of the players have red links, which is far too many to say that their proportion is minimal. I don't like doing this, but I feel that the criterion doesn't leave me much choice but to oppose for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Yep, if those red-linked players fulfil WP:N then they need an article. Also there are a number of unlinked players, why don't they meet WP:N and have an article or a red-link? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Woah, we may be working at cross purposes here. Mo Rock and I have recommended having those players unlinked- you're saying that they should be redlinked? Let me try to get us on the same page here - first off we need to establish whether or not the unlinked and redlinked names belong to notable individuals. If they're notable, they should either have an article or be redlinked (however too many redlinks sinks the nom). And if they're not notable, what then? They shouldn't be listed at all? Rejectwater (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC) While all of the players technically meet WP:NHOCKEY I fail to see the benefit of creating articles that tell the reader approximately the same thing as the list and have basically no chance for expansion. For example what does this page (Arnold Martignoni) really do for the encyclopedia as a whole? it has been around since 2007 the same state except for one image. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC) I would like to know how to proceed with this. I unlinked the redlinked goalies, but I stopped before I got to the players until this issue is resolved. I will either unlink the redlinked players, or give the redlinked players stub articles. But I won't unlink some and leave others redlinked, that won't suffice. Please advise. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I see that good progress is being made with the red links. With some more articles towards the bottom of the list, I'd feel comfortable dropping my opposition. I was asked for further comments on my talk page and here they are: Less than 20% of the players names are redlinked, and I'm still working. Is this sufficient for your approval? Anthony (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The em dashes in the third paragraph should all be unspaced per the MoS, or you could make them smaller en dashes. The spaced em dashes, however, are a style no-no. Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC) The IIHF should be spelled out in its lone usage. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I seemed to recall that representing one's country in the Olympics conferred sufficient notability in Wikipedia for an article. To that end, if any player on this list did play for Switzerland, then they are notable, and should be linked. If some were selected and didn't play (and this was their only notable achievement in their lifetimes) then I suppose they should be unlinked. I agree that one-line stub articles are sub-optimal, but our criteria here need there to be a "minimal proportion of red links". How you move on from here is entirely up you guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Here you go: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the Summer or Winter Olympic games..." from WP:NOLYMPICS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've un-delinked (relinked?) the goaltender articles. I'll work on trying to stub most of them so they don't stick out so much. Since that's an ongoing process and will get done eventually, are there any other glaring issues? If there's nothing else then I can just focus on article creation. Anthony (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the list yet, I was just trying to help you understand more fully the concerns raised above regarding the links. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to review? So far there's just the one oppose vote, but I've fixed just about all the issues except for the article creation (and I'm working on it). Anthony (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion, most of the second paragraph is not appropriate for this page; only the last sentence. The rest discusses Olympic history and how it affected Canada's Olympic hockey teams. 74.12.176.198 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Only 2 lines reference Canada. The paragraph is discussing the IIHF allowing NHL players to participate in the Olympics, which was (and is) a monumental shift in Olympic ice hockey history (and was instigated by Canada's boycott). Admittedly the paragraph was taken from the List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada, but it's equally applicable to Switzerland, and all Olympic lists, in my opinion. Anthony (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
    • How did the inability to send NHL players to the Olympics impact Switzerland? Were there any Swiss players in the NHL? Also the statement that professional players of other leagues were not able to compete is incorrect. Swiss players from the NLA were permitted at the Olympics prior to 1988. Alfio Molina and Aldo Zenhäusern are two counter examples. 74.12.176.198 (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments I know it's difficult for North American articles, but WP:HASH suggests we don't use the hash symbol to replace "number". Fixed. "The NHL decided not to allow all players" -> "The NHL disallowed all its players..." Fixed. " in 1928 and 1948" just to avoid a vague Easter egg scenario, maybe "in the 1928 and 1948 Games", linking "1928" and "1948 Games"? I'm afraid I don't understand "vague Easter egg scenario", please explain. I think I clarified the sentence a little anyway. Goaltenders has a completely empty Notes column. In the future, if one of the goaltenders is named to a Hall of Fame or wins another award, it will go in the Notes column. It's there to match the Skaters table. Make sure statistics in a given column are all given to the same precision, e.g. GAA has "0" and "4" and "8.5" and "2.83"... Fixed. Min or MIN? Fixed. "Number of Olympics" Do you mean "Number of appearances at the Olympics"? Fixed. Ordinarily we don't force image sizes, besides those in the lead, other than to say either thumb or upright. I didn't see any images with forced image sizes. They all have "thumb", but no sizes. Again, see no point in completely empty columns in tables, e.g. in the Reserve goaltender table. I removed the Notes column from the Reserve goaltender table, although it is the only one without it now. "Bjorn Christen" is missing an umlaut. As is "Aldo Zenhausern" Fixed. "[10][9][78]" would be preferable in numerical order. Check others. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I fixed the concerns that needed fixing. But as I said, the Notes column is there for consistency, even if it's empty at the moment. Anthony (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* No problem from me on the current proportion of red links to blue links, I think it is at an acceptable level. "The NHL disallowed all its players to participate in 1988.." would be better re-written as "The NHL did not allow its players to participate in 1988.." Fixed. "National teams are co-ordinated by the Swiss Ice Hockey Association and players are chosen by the team's management staff." I think it is worth reiterating that this is about the Swiss team, because the paragraph is very long with no information about Switzerland until this point. Therefore, I would start it as "The Swiss national team is co-ordinated by.." Fixed. "Torriani is the only player to win multiple medals, .." I think would be better written as, "Torriani is the only player who won medals as part of both the 1928 and 1948 teams." Although this is less critical than those points above. Fixed Given that in this list the only Hall of Fame mentioned is the International Ice Hockey Hall of Fame, would it be possible to only use "HOF" as the abbreviation, rather than the rather cumbersome "IIHFHOF"? I've never seen it abbreviated as such, especially to differentiate from the HOF in Toronto. It's not that cumbersome, IMHO. No worries, it was just a thought. Harrias talk 09:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) "Number of appearances at Olympics" seems a little ambiguous to me. The first thing I though when I read it was "Well, all the appearances on the list are surely at the Olympics, as the article is all about that." It might be better explained as "Number of Olympic Games tournaments" Or something similar? Fixed. Be consistent in the date format used for the references, Ref #1 uses YYYY-MM-DD, Ref #2 Month DD, YYYY, while Ref #3 doesn't have an access date or publisher listed at all. Fixed. Refs #4 and #5 need page numbers. Harrias talk 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC) I don't have page numbers - the ref was taken from the Canada FLC page. As it's an older newspaper I don't have access to the archives. If anyone does, I welcome the addition. Anthony (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Here's an online version of the the NYT article, although after reading it I don't see why it was used as a reference. 76.70.45.246 (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I agree, that article does not support seem to support anything in the sentence before it. As such, I feel that I can not assume good faith for the other offline source, particularly as I infer that you have not read these sources yourself? I would remove ref #4 altogether, as the information in the preceding sentences is provided in the online ref #3. However, for the next sentence, the articles states, "In 1986, the IOC voted to allow all athletes to compete in Olympic Games, starting in 1988." While the source says, "After the 1988 Games, the IOC voted to declare all professionals eligible for the Olympics, subject to the approval of the international federations in charge of each sport." Harrias talk 09:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC) I found a few new sources and put them in the appropriate places. Hopefully this can resolve the issue, because I admit I wasn't crazy about copying sources I hadn't seen. But I had assumed good faith for the offline source, as I had copied it from another FLC. It's moot now :) Anthony (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC) In general the third paragraph has the feel of a string of bullet points simply put together in a paragraph, and could use some work to make it flow a little better in my opinion. Unsure how best to do that, as all other similar lists have a similar paragraph naming most points/games/medals etc. It's a statistical list, which makes it difficult to work into prose. I'm open to suggestions though. Move the "Torriani is the only" sentence to be the second sentence and remove the 1928 and 1948 as redundant. Maybe add something like "27 players won medals in those tournaments; Bibi Torriani is the only..." at the beginning to the sentence. For the IIHHOF sentence, maybe start it off with Torriani, then mention the other three, also note the Cattini's are brothers (player pages at Sports Reference can be an online source for that). These segues, I think, will provide better flow. Some ideas to kick around if nothing else. Rejectwater (talk) Made the suggested edits. See how it works now. Anthony (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• As none of the goaltenders have any notes, it would be as well to remove that column: it can always be added back if needed.
• Similarly for the medals column for the reserve goaltenders.
  • As I said in The Rambling Man's comments above, I removed the notes column from the reserve goaltenders, thus making it the only one that doesn't have one. But for consistency's sake, I kept the medals column in all three, and the Notes column in the goaltenders. I feel it's better to have it for all of them and leave most of it blank, then to have it for skaters only. One day a goalie might make it into the IIHFHOF and then we'll have to create a whole new column just for that, which is a pain.
• Support, I've left the above comment about the columns outside the resolved comments box, because it isn't resolved! That said, it is a minor enough issue that while I still think it would be better without those columns, I can accept that you think it is better with them, and it certainly isn't enough of a problem for me not to offer my support. Nice work, and thanks for responding to my comments so quickly and politely. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - after all the comments above, it's now looking quite good. Only comment- "1928 Games and 1948 Games[6];" -> "1928 Games and 1948 Games;[6]". --PresN 23:16, 3 September 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series

Nominator(s): Caringtype1 and  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

This article meets every one of the Featured List criteria. The article is thoroughly sourced, and well written. Issues and problems have been addressed according to the FL criteria, this is why we feel this article more than qualifies for Featured List status. We believe this list is worthy, considering we worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series and Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 20:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

;Comments: The table in "Multiple Wins" needs to be closed  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 2: June 8, 1985 → June 9, 1985  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 14: date May 20, 1981 → May 22, 1981  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Many of the works and/or publishers are over wikilinked (see WP:OVERLINK) Please be more precise on which ones (which ref) that needs to be fix. I would really appreciate it! :)  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Soap Opera Digest. New York City: American Media, Inc. → It is wikilinked a lot in the refs. Same with New York: emmyonline.org and National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)  Done. Thanks!  — SoapFan12 Talk 20:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Other than these small issues the list looks good :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 23:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• The only comment I have is I don't think it is necessary to have the Michael Muhney image caption say "After 4 years on the series". I don't think it needs to say that. Otherwise it looks good. Support. Creativity97 00:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done. Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 00:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tbhotch

*"The award is presented in honor of an actor ... the daytime drama industry." is unsourced  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Doug Davidson is the 2013 recipient of this award, for his portrayal of Paul Williams on The Young and the Restless" - why not something like "The last recipient of this award is Doug Davidson, for his portrayal of..."  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Multiple Nominations" -> "Multiple nominations"  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) In my view, "Series with most awards" should be the last section, as the article is for the Lead actor category. Also, if possible, merge the most wins/nominations in the same section but divided in with a column  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 53 "Sonora" -> Sonora, California. One is a Mexican state, the other is a county seat  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) In Ref 62 National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences is overlinked. Ref 62, does not have National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, in it. I think you meant Ref 61, in that case I fixed it.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) In Ref 69 the NATAS does not go in italic text.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 04:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC) These are some issues I found. References not checked. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! I am very grateful!  — SoapFan12 ^Talk 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Outstanding Performance by a Lead Actor in a Drama Series" normally this is written as regular prose in the info box without all the caps.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Daytime Emmy Award" avoid bold links.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) " having been criticized for voting integrity" presumably lack of integrity?  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "the criteria for this category was altered" criteria were altered.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "The last recipient of this award..." -> The most recent recipient of the award ....  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Link soap opera.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "he won a sixth " -> "he won for a sixth "  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Indicates the winning actor." no need for the full stop.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Macdonald Carey " has no capital D.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Image captions which are complete sentences do need a full stop.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "on General Hospital.." one too many. I do not see the issue. Please specify. Thanks  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It has a spare full stop.  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "Douglass Watson has received two consecutive ..." just "received", not "has received".  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Avoid the use of the hash to represent "Number".  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Where is "May 21" in the infobox referenced? I remove it since I have no reference to proove it.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC) "delivered an outstanding performance" is this a quote from the organizers? If so, quote it and attribute it, if not it's a little promotional sounding. This is not a quote from the organizers and IMO it sound proffesional plus there is lots of FLs using a kind of sentence like this. Maybe so, and they should be checked. So where do you get "delivered an outstanding performance" from? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC) You know what, if you do not like how it is worded, please tell me another sentence to replace it. Thanks.  — SoapFan12 Talk 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) It just sounds promotional to me. I'll leave it to you and other reviewers to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Also, if I change ″who has delivered an outstanding performance″ --> ″who has brought an outstanding performance″ will that be fine? Furthermore, on the website of the daytime emmys, it says that ″The Daytime Emmy Award are honoring excellence in all fields of daytime″ but it says nothing about the description of a specific award (Lead Actor), what should I do?  — SoapFan12 Talk 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Never mind, I have put it in quotes and add a source, therefore  Done.  — SoapFan12 Talk 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Comments Any reason why Benedict is the only nominee not linked? Is he truly non-notable? Yes he is truly non-notable. He had no special record and was only nominated once.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The table isn't sortable, I'm wondering why we link every linkable item every time. In my previous FLC, this issue was brought up and I made it sortable however, it created more problems. Therefore, it was decided to resolve. Furthermore, there is tones of FLs that every linkable item every time. Also, I'd like to add that it would make the visual look of the table appear inconsistent and potentially confusing to readers. A reader looking for just this year's nominees would wonder why some names were linked and others weren't. Also, I was wondering, why now? I have 4 featured lists that are Daytime Emmys Awards ctaegories and you have given comments in each and one of them and you bring this up now. Just curious...  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "MacDonald Carey won" -> "Macdonald Carey won"  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) " to it's current title" its.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) " one criterion for this category were altered" _was_ altered.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "The 2013 recipient of this award" -> the award.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "with a total of eight wins" you mean "with eight wins each" I assume?  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "in the category when he won for a sixth time, surpassing David Canary's previous record of five." I don't think you need "of five", it's pretty obvious.  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "ultimately receiving seven wins" -> "thus far winning on seven occasions."  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) "was nominated eight times and won 1998" confusing, do you mean "was nominated eight times, winning once in 1998"?  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 15:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "surpassing David Canary previous record of five." The name should be plural.

•  Done.

• Typo in the first photo's alt text: "suite" instead of "suit".

•  Done.

• Same in the third and fourth photos' alt text.

•  Done.

Giants2008 (Talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*The recipient of the most awards is Doug Davidson, for his portrayal of Paul Williams on The Young and the Restless. ... In 2008, Anthony Geary became the actor with the most wins in the category when he won for a sixth time, surpassing David Canary's previous record of five. - When did Davidson surpass Geary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Davidson never pass Geary. It cleary says: In 2008 Geary becacame the actor with the most wins when he won a sixth time surpassing David Canary. The fist sentence of the second paragraph was supposse to say: ′The 2013 recipient of this award is Doug Davidson, for his portrayal of Paul Williams on The Young and the Restless.″  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC) That would mean "The recipient of the most recent award is...", not most awards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC) No, IMO it would mean ″The 2013 recipient of this award is....″. Also last I did that another reviewer said to change into The 2013 reciepient... because it clears up any confusion and I happen to agree with that user.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 11:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC) So do it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Not bad writing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you so much!  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 13:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I think it looks well written just like all the other lists.

-Birdienest81 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [18].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Rock Album by a Duo or Group with Vocal

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹, Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Rock Album by a Duo or Group with Vocal is an honor presented annually by the Latin Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences at the Latin Grammy Awards. The award is given to vocal rock, hard rock or metal albums albums containing at least 51 percent of newly recorded material. It is awarded to duos or groups. — ΛΧΣ²¹, Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

...and we're back with another Latin Grammy category!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Support

• Looks really good I just noticed 2 things in the lead:

"or metal albums albums containing" → word used twice

"Colombia group" → Colombian?

• Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps add images of winning artists beside the awards table?

– Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I'm sure Hahc21 (talk · contribs) will add some images in due time (he's in charge of that stuff). — Status (talk · contribs) 02:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments *Shouldn't it be was an award? If they have ceased giving this award, it should be in past tense. Erick (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC) True. Fixed and thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 00:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Support No major issues from me. Erick (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments by DivaKnockouts Why is Bengala (singer) linked and other artists without articles such as Volumen Cero and Elefante not? Delink, perhaps? — DivaKnockouts 06:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Maybe her article was deleted, no idea. Delinked and thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 16:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Support I don't see any other issues. Great job! — DivaKnockouts 23:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Can we split that first mega-sentence up a little? Done. "that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions" is this a quote from the organisation, if so, it should be a quote and attributed as such. If not, it's a little promo. Not sure, let me check. " in the United States and internationally" well, the United States is covered by "internationally" isn't it? Changed to overseas, which is the correct word to use there. "nominated... nominations." repetitive. Cganged to "attempts" xD Is it Bersuit Vergarabat or just Bersuit? You use them both. Fixed. I added a "disestablished award" cat for you. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC) All done but one. — ΛΧΣ21 02:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Crisco 1492
  • This is sticking out like a sore thumb: in the lede, you don't mention when the award was discontinued.
    • Added with a note. It really pisses me off how the Latin Academy does never release any statement when they discontinue awards. They just remove them from the grid. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No images to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Crisco. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:53, 26 August 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

The Office (U.S. season 8)

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Drovethrughosts 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC) NoD'ohnuts 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements that have been laid out by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria (I submitted it awhile back, but it got shot down because one editor said it wasn't a list. I'd like to point out that seasons 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the series were promoted to Featured Lists, and many television series' season pages have been promoted to FLs before). The prose is of Good Article quality (which is passed last summer), it features alt text, images, pristine references, and MOS-complying tables. While any critiques would inevitably make this better, I feel it is ready for the next step.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• this was never submitted? Nergaal (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Oh dang it... I'll change the dates and "resubmit" it.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments Maybe inevitable but you have "the" five times in the opening sentence. Shouldn't "Comedy Night Done Right" be in quotes as it is in the article to which it links? "new Sabre CEO" who or what is Sabre? Why isn't the region 4 home media release mentioned in the home media release section? "this season marked" ... "the season marked" repetitive. Image captions which aren't complete sentences don't need a period. "of Salon.com " -> "of Salon" Don't think you need to link "pregnant". "he has an emergency appendicitis" do you mean an emergency appendectomy? "Producer's Cuts of:"-> cuts. AOLTV->AOL TV. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks great to me. Although you might want to consider in the second paragraph of the lead, right before the sentence that begins "Dwight Schrute...", adding something like "Halfway through the season, " or something. Right now the sentence seems like an unneeded plot summary, but it won't affect my support.Caringtype1 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for the support and comment!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support list looks great and is comprehensive. I am sure other people will have better comment than me when it comes to copyediting. Nergaal (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - though it looks like you introduced a copyedit error when fixing an earlier one- "antics of Robert California (James Spader), the new CEO Sabre". --PresN 21:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for catching that.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:54, 29 August 2013 (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 Giants2008 10:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

List of aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is comprehensive within the specified scope, and streamlines the information in sortable columns. And, I believe it meets FLC criteria. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal

Comments I kinda like the list, but rename the article from "aircraft accidents" to "commercial aircraft accidents" (not done) The list includes non-commercial accidents as well so the title change wouldn’t be appropriate. Then how about non-military accidents? But there are military (non-combat) aircraft included in the list... *Do you have any objection to List of high fatality aircraft accidents, incidents, and attacks?--Godot13 (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC) See below--Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) what is the difference between an incident and an accident? Based on the definitions in the notes section, an accident would cover issues like pilot error, mechanical error, severe weather, whereas an incident could involve a collision caused by an accident in one aircraft effecting a second aircraft. Incident could also be used to describe any hostile or deliberate action (non-accidental in nature) effecting the aircraft. I would remove the first American and English fatality, and instead include the first double fatality, and perhaps the first 5+, 10+, 50+, 100+, 500+ accident. (done & question) Removed as requested. First mid-air collision added. The incremental increases for higher numbers beginning with 14 is in the table. Are you suggesting that I make the table shorter? no, the table is fine, and I would be fine with an even more detailed table remove: At present, the highest capacity passenger aircraft is the Airbus A380 (standard three-class seating configuration 525, economy only 853). The Airbus A380-900 has been designed but is not yet in production. It could accommodate 650 passengers in a three-class configuration (or 900 in an economy-only configuration). (done) This was included only to demonstrate the potential loss in a 100% fatal accident. Removed. I would put back that info as a footnote Done--Godot13 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) the last paragraph is kind of hard to digest; too much jargon :*(question) I’m not sure I see too much jargon, could you please elaborate? Done (I think...) The paragraph has been greatly reduced and partially placed in a note.--Godot13 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) the intro should also discuss the change in the ratio of accidents (per decade) to the number of total fights, and perhaps also the fatalities per total number of passengers (I think this info would be much easier to comprehend than most of what is currently in the last para) (in progress) (question) While I would like to analyze the data in an number of ways, I am concerned that anything beyond basic computation would violate Wikipedia:No original research. What do you think? --Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) change the intro table to a single set of columns Done - I had originally done that, but to me it was long and visually unappealing. why does this list not include terrorist attacks (these are incidents no?); when you include them you can add a note/color to differentiate them (in progress) I can work on this, but it will not be immediately ready until closer to the end of the nomination process Done - 38 additional attack occurrences have been added, along with a description and categories of types. --Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I am not in love with the current format of the pre-table section; I would move the note subsection to the end and wikilink the titles in the table to the key below; after that, the criteria section could be massaged a bit. (done & question) Does it look okay now? yep, I like it! it is fatality rate not percent Done I would change the sole survivor to something like "1*" superscripted Done perhaps add a distance of 0 to the accidents happening on an airport; maybe add m-dash to the empty fields in airport and distance fields? Two parts: (first not changed, second has a question) 1) I’ve tried to add “0” distance where I reasonably could (when information was permitting). Source information is better in some cases versus others. Sometimes it is impossible to determine whether the accident occurred on the runway itself (a true “0”) versus a few hundred meters short or to the side. Technically these all occur at the airport, but I try to use the runway as the reference point. (in progress) 2) My concern adding dashes to the empty cells is that it could be misinterpreted. In the Deaths columns, dashes are used for information that was/is not available and/or unknown. The cells in the airport column which are empty are not unknown, there is no value to be assigned. I can understand putting dashes in the distance column when there is an airport listed (thus indicating the exact distance is indeed unknown). Would that work? It is not that essential. I just thought it looked weird to have that much space the intro should also discuss how many of the 470 accidents happened during taxi/takeoff/ENR/etc, how many involved Boeings/Airbus/etc, what is the most common location for such accidents (continent, country, city, airport), what is the most common plane type, how many of these accidents involved a mortality rate of over 95%, how many below 50%, etc. (in progress) Most of this is in the collapsible tables in the summary section. Would you suggest putting a descriptive statistics section/paragraph in the intro? I'm trying to accommodate as many of the suggestions as possible for additional information in the intro. I'm concerned that it may get too bogged down. Could you please look at the changes and let me know what you think. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 23:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC) is there such a thing as "deadliest year" or day? As of right now, the deadliest period for number of occurrences was 1964-73 with 109 (23.1%) and for number of fatalities 1974-83 with 9.577 (20.4%). I can calculate worst year/day, but I would rather wait until I can get the non-accident related data entered Done See intro--Godot13 (talk) 03:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I know this seem like a lot of comments but I do really congratulate you for the work put in to get to this nice state. Nergaal (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review the list and please let me know about the questions I had so I can work to resolve the rest of the issues you raised. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) I don't think you need to hide the statistics table at the bottom. I would keep the unhidden, and use the {{multicol}} thing to put the tables in two columns (the big one on one side and all the smaller ones on the other) Nergaal (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Done. I think both file:ACRO fatalities 1918-2009.svg and File:ACRO incidents 1918-2009.svg can serve as nice pictures for the article. also, I am a bit surprised that there are no pictures around wikipedia of the crash site areas. Nergaal (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I like the idea of using a graph, but I don't have the raw data for either of these images and can't verify them. Also, these graphs cover all aircraft accidents and fatalities, while this list only covers the 50+ occurrences.--Godot13 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I have a question (for you and Reywas92 as current reviewers): I had much of the non-accident data prepared (there are only 40 incidents of 50+ fatalities on the aggressive incidents side) and plan to add a column after deaths to differentiate between (for lack of a better term right now) aggressive (i.e., bombing, hijacking, shooting down, and suicide attack) and non-aggressive types (i.e., commercial, military), and have the column sort in a hierarchy of overarching category (aggressive vs. non-aggressive), then specific (commercial vs. military and within the aggressive). Do you have any ideas/concerns I should think about before I manually enter it for every occurrence?--Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Done/incorporated.--Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I've added a few minor things to the intro. The article looks really good. The only issue I have is wether it would be better to split this list into two: 1) highest fatalities accidents (100+) and 2) accidents with 50-100 fatalities. The first would have 200 entries, and it seems a bit of a natural, round limit. What do you think? Nergaal (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC) First of all, THANK YOU (yes, I know I'm shouting) for the great edits you made to the list. They are much appreciated and help the flow. As for splitting the list, I'd prefer to keep it the way it is for a few reasons. A next possible step is to do a list of 20-50 fatalities and based on my experience with this list, there will probably be well over 200 (perhaps 300+) occurrences for that list. Also, that list will probably (unfortunately) have fairly frequent additions and will grow very fast. I did a lot of research to try and find if anyone had defined/quantified "high fatality" with respect to aviation and while it may exist, I couldn't find it. I like that this list has a somewhat broader scope (50+ versus 100+) as a reference and resource list. Again, thanks for your help/input and I'll tie up the remaining loose ends tomorrow (er... later today) --Godot13 (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Aircraft manufacturer and type information added. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything outstanding. Thanks again.--Godot13 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC) I wasn't very keen on splitting this list, but then i noticed that this list is getting close to 500k. Is that common for a FL? Also, somebody removed the table with the aircraft manufacturers, and I am not sure why. Nergaal (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC) The aircraft manufacturer table was removed by one of the editors involved in Talk Page discussions. Consultation might have been nice, but I do however agree with their rationale. I think this is long for a FL, but not prohibitive (there have been longer). But that's probably best answered by TRM. Thanks for your efforts regarding this list in general.--Godot13 (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) There has been some significant revision since your initial review. Could you please let me know if you have any additional concerns? Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support there might be a few things I might still find, but I am very happy with the list. Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and your helpful comments and edits.--Godot13 (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reywas92

*Comments Correct me if I'm wrong, but based on the definitions given, wouldn't all of these be accidents, not incidents? I agree it seems like a fine distinction. Based on the definitions (Notes 2 and 3) the vast majority are accidents. However, in my interpretation, occurrences involving more than one aircraft may begin with an accident (mechanical malfunction, weather conditions, pilot error) in one aircraft but when that aircraft destroys another one in the process, the second aircraft becomes an incident, not an accident. Also, if non-accidental data is imported into this list (my intention), they are all incidents. The title is a bit bulky; would it be better to say something like 'List of the most fatal airline accidents', and then define the minimum of 50 in the article? Compare to List of tallest buildings in the United States, which sets the arbitrary cutoff of 700 feet in the table section, rather than being 'List of buildings taller than 700 feet'. I can see it either way, but no one's going to be searching for this title. Agreed & question. My sandbox working title was “List of high fatality aviation accidents and incidents” does that sound better? Yes, I like that. Reywas92Talk 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC) See title-related comment below.--Godot13 (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Aren't accidents a type of incidents? If yes, perhaps “List of highest fatality aviation incidents” ? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I believe they basically are, but since the FAA and other Aviation authorities seem to distinguish between them, it seems like a good idea to follow their definitions. Also, the word "highest" could be problematic.--Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) on reflection I think it's fineGodot13 (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC) As Nergaal said, the first American and British fatalities are straying off topic Removed as per both of your comments. The A380 info could be limited to the current highest seating (do any actually use the economy only?). The -900 part isn't relevant until it comes into use. A380 removed. A380 info moved to a note per Nergaal's request--Godot13 (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I haven't been able (yet) to find an example of the A380 actually using an all-economy configuration.--Godot13 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Since you've got all the references, I'm not sure that the process used to make the list is necessary (nor fitting under the criteria header). I removed the first sentence from the criteria section. Based on the editnotice template installed on the edit page, I think the vetting process may be important to inform potential contributors, particularly if/when the list is opened up to non-accidental incidents. If you feel strongly about this, I will remove I don't mind it, but the phrasing seems sort of self-referential, though I'm not sure of the best way to put it. The key "Ground (P)" needs to be corrected to (G). Oops, done Uncapitalize oceans in the summary. Done This is a huge improvement over List of accidents and disasters by death toll#Aviation; it has only 391 entries but goes all the way to 1 fatality. I'd recommend checking over that list, and then delete all but the top few and link to this list. Thank you. (question) Are you suggesting that I drastically edit the other list? I should probably propose that on the list talk page first… I don't think there should be such a redundancy, especially when this is of much higher quality than the other. Also problematic is that list's inaccurate rankings, though yes, it's off-topic of the FLC. Reywas92Talk 07:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC) And speaking of that, not many articles link here yet; if you want, try to put in links in more articles to expand access. Good suggestion, I will start with involved airlines and airports, and appropriate disaster-related articles. Very nice work on the list, great job. Reywas92Talk 07:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review.--Godot13 (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC) With the exception of renaming the list (see reasons below), I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks again for reviewing-Godot13 (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The key should definitely go above the table as it was before; I didn't know what the N stood for (I liked your previous fatality ratio) and had to scroll all the way down to find out. The section links, which I didn't notice until later, are not at all obvious (e.g. 'Deaths' linked, but not C, P, G, N). Otherwise Support Reywas92^Talk 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Strangely, I responded to your comment, but it didn't seem to save... Individual death columns have been linked. The fatality ratio was questioned as a figure (by a few people) and therefore removed. The key was moved as part of the FLC comments/reviews. I hope to address both of them (by consensus) after the FLC is closed. I hope that will not effect your support. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to rename the list List of high fatality aircraft accidents, incidents, and attacks (as soon as the attack data is incorporated). I think this is more concise, has better search words in the title, and represents the three different (yet at times overlapping) types of occurrences. Would this work? --Godot13 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen, we have sports lists which say "with at least 100 appearances" for instance, so this list should be similarly (and precisely) titled. "high fatality" is purely subjective in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• That was my initial concern/question about the possible new title. Thanks for weighing in TRM - Godot13 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved comments from Nick-D

*Oppose no citation is provided for the eye-catching claim that "There have been 508 aircraft accidents and incidents resulting in at least 50 fatalities" - how do we know that this article is actually comprehensive? The inclusion criteria seem somewhat unclear as well: why are the various disasters which overcame aircraft fleets in World War II not included? (leaving aside the operations which suffered heavy casualties from enemy action, there were several incidents in which multiple heavy bombers collided in-flight while trying to land in bad weather over the UK). Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC) There is a note following the figures stating that it is based on a statistical summery (i.e., addition) of the data in the article's main table. If you can provide details of other occurrences which meet the criteria in the article, I would be happy to add them. I did not come across WWII records indicating aircraft accidents or incidents with 50 or more fatalities in a single occurrence. I have never said that this list represents the absolute universe of all 50+ fatality accidents and incidents, but it does reflect a detailed search of multiple comprehensive resources. It seems like you have already made up your mind, but I would ask you to reconsider your opposition. Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC) If a WWII heavy bomber, usually a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress, holds a crew of about 10, unless there were mass ground fatalities, at least 4 or 5 aircraft would need to collide to produce 50+ deaths.--Godot13 (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC) From memory, there were incidents where multiple mid-air collisions took place. The crash of a B-24 at Port Morseby which killed about 60 American airmen and Australian soldiers on 7 September 1943 is also missing (see Landing at Nadzab#Follow up). 07:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC) I read the account of the B-24 crash. It is a contender for the list but one technical point needs to be satisfied to meet the definitional criteria: when did the 44 survivors who later died of their wounds actually die? Unless it happened within 30 days of the accident, it is not considered an aviation-related fatality per the operational definition. Do you happen to know if this information is contained within the cited references? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Trying to follow up on the crash you pointed out led me to this source (PDF page 60) which I think clearly indicates that 16 were immediately killed and another 45 died from related injuries (mostly burns) within 24 hours, therefore the total number of accident fatalities would be 61. I feel confident that the source is reliable. Do you agree regarding the source and the tally? I will add it shortly. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, that should be fine. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Late comment on this one - going by the Federal definitions the 30-day rule is only for the purposes of statistical reporting. And there's no guarantee that the sources used on the various articles are sticking to that usage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) At least 95% of the occurrences can be found in the in the Aviation Safety Network (ASN) database. The ASN definition of fatal occurrences is also consistent with US Federal Code and the ICAO. I think I do understand your point (i.e., that information in the ASN database, or compiled by different investigative agencies, is in turn coming from multiple sources which could abide by slight variations in defining a fatality). I have seen examples (I can’t cite them off hand) where the ASN record did explicitly mention deaths occurring days after an accident; these were always included in the overall fatality count. Also, I think having this data available is the benefit of definition-based statistical reporting. I guess there will always be some margin of error, but I have done everything possible to minimize it.Godot13 (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Given that this statement is still unreferenced, I'm afraid that I'm going to maintain the oppose. I'm not confident that this list is in fact comprehensive. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC) There is no existing reference to cover this routine calculation which, though lengthy, is basic addition of the list's main table. I did note that the figures represent a summary of the main table. While I do think the list is comprehensive, I do not believe it is (or could be) exhaustive (but this can easily become a discussion splitting hairs as some sources define these words as synonyms, while others do not). If it would gain your support, I would be happy to add a note in the first paragraph as a caveat regarding the coverage (comprehensive vs. exhaustive) of the list. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC) User:Nick-D, can you find any entries that are missing? Many lists in Wikipedia have no single source which demonstrate overall completeness. We also have a number of featured lists with the {{incomplete list}} template. Would tightening the phrasing of the inclusion criteria help you remove your opposition? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC) I pointed out a missing entry I was aware of above. I image that there are similar incidents missing from the list which people with knowledge of (for example) British, United States, Soviet and German military air transport operations would be aware of. I don't think that criterion 3a is met here. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, in that case it will clearly be absolutely impossible to ever satisfy you that the list is complete if you "image there are similar incidents missing". Understood. We'll have to take that into account when we close this. As I noted, this will be the case for many lists, that there will be no single source containing all the items, just good faith that the editor has done a good job of doing his/her best with the sources available to them. We can't wait forever for mythical experts to pop up and say, hmm, I seem to recall an accident .... And if they do, we can add them! In other words, what measures could be taken to address your currently in-actionable opposition (an opposition based on "I think other things may be missing but I can't say for sure...")? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "Okay, in that case it will clearly be absolutely impossible to ever satisfy you that the list is complete": not true. If the article were to be actually based on sources which provide a comprehensive listing, or on a survey of a wide range of sources, I would be satisfied that the article is complete. That isn't the case. That kind of comment, as well as you teasing me for a typo, is pretty poor form for a featured content director - do you actually want to encourage participation in this forum? I presume that you won't be closing this nomination? Given that I, as a non-expert, was able to immediately spot an omission from this list when I reviewed it it seems safe to say that there are other obvious omissions, especially in light of the very narrow sourcing used here. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Regarding tone, I've commented at WT:FLC. For this list, wouldn't {{Dynamic list}} be worth using? At the very least it would indicate that content can change as new incidents occur. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Crisco, I've already suggested that template, see my comment above. Also, suddenly we have a request for a wide range of sources. Prior to this, the oppose was because the opposer believed people with knowledge of military operations would be aware of omissions. This is clearly non-actionable. But let's look at sources... The first twelve are all from different sources. I see sources from the transport departments of Japan, Canada, US, UK etc... I see the BBC, CNN, Boeing, CBS, The New York Times, Flight International, Flight Global.... if the opposer could suggest other sources, I'm sure the nominator will do their best to use them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Nick-I think we should define a few terms. For example, non-expert. Forgive me if my count is slightly off, but according to your user page, you have authored or significantly contributed to 20 Featured articles, 8 A-Class articles, and 15 Good articles, all on some aspect of military history, with 19 specifically regarding military aviation. I would say that you are selling yourself short with the reference non-expert. With your vast knowledge, you were able to point out a single missing aviation accident. When asked to clarify the details (i.e., how many fatalities occurred immediately after the accident), you never responded so I found the relevant entry from the squadron's field diary. You are welcome to contribute constructively but (as mentioned above) your critique of the list, as it currently stands, is in-actionable.--Godot13 (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Something like 90% of the references are to the Aviation Safety Network website: to present the first twelve sources as being typical of the list's sourcing is rather silly. For an article on this kind of topic I would have expected to see references to works on large aircraft (which typically provide exhausting coverage of accidents), histories of aviation in major flying countries (including possibly histories of major airports and airlines) and histories of military operations. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Are you suggesting the sources used aren't reliable? I simply stated that many different sources have been used, from a variety of countries and publications. Can you be specific in which resources would alleviate your concerns? The "histories" you suggest are somewhat nebulous, I don't really know what you mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC) The range of literature on aviation topics is very large, and often quite specialised. For example, there are detailed reference works on most aircraft types (eg, see searches on DC-3, Antanov and Boeing on Amazon.com), and similar works exist for most other segments of the aviation industry (for instance, see Soviet aviation and aviation disaster for a flavour of what's available. There are also similar kinds of works on most major airlines. While these kind of books are very daggy, they're goldmines of information, and should provide information on other accidents which are not in the ASN database, or where there are differing accounts/details. I'm not suggesting that there needs to be an exhaustive search through this vast literature (which would be an insanely huge task), but that at least the 'high level' works, and works on particularly accident-prone regions and aircraft can be expected to add to the list. I hope that's helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC) As a somewhat belated response to Godot13's comment above, I'm knowledgeable about Australian military aviation and some other much more specific topics in other countries, but wouldn't know the first thing about, for example, Soviet tactical air transport operations, most US and UK World War II-era military air transport, Chinese and African airlines, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) I appreciate what you are getting at with respect to sources. The Aviation Safety Network (connected with the Flight Safety Foundation has proven to be fairly comprehensive and widely used as a reference in academic peer-reviewed journal publications. I think the list in its present sourced form far exceeds what has been deemed acceptable by many of the other aviation lists. This being said, I am working on a 25-49 fatality list (which will be at least 500-600 incidents) and will incorporate some of the suggestions you’ve made into that list while also doing additional fact checking and, if necessary, updating this present list. I am on vacation and cannot order reference books right now. I imagine it will take me at least two months to complete the second list. As such a review will likely yield, at best, very few additional cases, I would hope to proceed with the current FLC process and simply add any additional material as it comes to light. I don’t know if that is good enough to garner your support. Godot13 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC) I have looked at the Amazon search pages above and see the types of books you are referring to. The descriptions of the books do not indicate whether they contain specific tables/lists of crash or accident data, in many cases an entire book covers a single model of a given aircraft (necessitating mass purchasing to be truly comprehensive), and the cost of assembling such a library is not insignificant. If this list had a more narrow scope, it would be simple to purchase 7-10 well reviewed reference books for background research. But given the scope, I do not think I will be able to satisfy your conditions for support at the present time.-Godot13 (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC) In the 6+ weeks since this list was published the Port Moresby crash is the only accident/incident to surface that was not included. Please see the reference section of the list (books and further reading) to see the five books which have been reviewed in the past two weeks. Very educational reading, but no additional incidents. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Funny, it would seem that the sixth book reviewed today was something of a charm: two additional incidents (both somehow overlooked on the ASN website) have been entered...-Godot13 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• This user is opposed to promotion. (Discussion capped as unresolved by Godot13 (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC))

Resolved comments from MilborneOne

Comments – Comments Large parts of the lead do not relate to the contents of the list in the table, the image does not relate to the contents of the list, and the table "Fatality records for incidents involving a single aircraft" does not relate to the list in the table. Actually, I will continue working on this despite the AfD as it was here in FLC to begin with… Finding an appropriate image has been difficult. There is one rather dramatic image used in the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 article, the sequence showing the ditching of the aircraft which is a fair use image. Can this image be used? Could it replace both the Wright crash image and the table of fatalities underneath it? The Ethiopian image is not free enough to use, I will have a look around to see if we have anything on commons. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Some suggestions above MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I would definitely opt for #3 for two reasons: first, it's on the list; second it is the most visually interesting of the three suggestions. I will add it and put a comment on the talk page.--Godot13 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC) We can close this observation as OK. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Some of the descriptive statics are not very encyclopedic and are not really relevant and are unreferenced. Could you please: a) point me to examples of encyclopedic use of descriptive statistics. I will be happy to format them in such a manner and b) tell me which figures are not relevant (and preferably why). Lastly, as I have said before, every single occurrence is referenced and the descriptive statistics are derived from routine calculations of the table data. Understood, I am sorry I will respond to this soon. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC) The brief review of descriptive statistics doesnt match the Descriptive statistics further down the page some of the stats although calculated are clearly not notable and a bit tabloid MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Type seems reasonable but it would be better shown as a table at the end Fatality Rate - as a made up term in my opinion we just compound the made-up-ness, a simple statement that "In 68.9% of accidents all passengers and crew on board died" would be a lot clearer. Phase of flight - believe it or not this is OK Amazing ;-) Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Decade - is clearer on a table rather than trying to explain it I'll either improve this or delete and rely only on the table-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Month/Date - I would suggest is not encyclopedic and doesnt add much to the article Agreed on date (it is too random), possibly month as well...-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Location - OK Aircraft manufacturer - stats dont really help here without some idea of the fleet size, as they are far more Boeing 737 then anything else for example but that is not clear, I would suggest that this sort of think should be left to the aircraft article I understand your point as manufacturer data could be misinterpreted out of context. Would it be better to simply move all remaining descriptive stats to just after the table?-Godot13 (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Seems a reasonable suggestion. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Some of the table columns are not really needed(like FR) and are unlikely search or sortable candidates (like Distance). FR is the only statistic/number that allows for any kind of comparison between occurrences with respect to degree of fatality. The FR is intended to provide information that a comparison of raw fatality numbers cannot. Reading that crash #1 had 100 fatalities versus crash #2 with 50, one understands that twice as many people died in #1 versus #2. But if #1 had 400 passengers (FR 25%) and #2 had 50 (FR 100%), one realizes that #2 resulted in complete devastation, where #1 did not. While this may be a new way of looking at the data, it is a simple ratio. If you wish, I will remove distance. I had thought it would be an interesting indication of when (during the beginning or end of flight) the occurrence took place. OK I had another look at this. MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Airport, not sure we need airport when this should be clear from the location column, just duplication. Airport is not clear from the location as, in many cases, there is more than one airport for a larger (or even mid-sized) metropolitan area. If an aircraft crashes during APR and they are 20km+ out from the intended airport it may be impossible to determine the destination based on the crash location itself. In addition, one of the secondary benefits of having the airports listed is that it provides an alternative function for the list: it also becomes a de-facto comprehensive list of airports with 50 or more fatal aviation accidents, incidents, or other occurrences. -Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) If this is a list of accident with more than 50 fatalities we should not be trying to make it function as something else. The destination and departure airports are pretty clearly mentioned in the related article so I am not sure that being 20km away from an airport is anymore significant then 30km or 40km it is the phase of flight that is important. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not trying to make it function as something else, this only dawned on me after-the-fact. Sort of an unintentional bonus.--Godot13 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Distance, again as above not needed we already have the phase of flight. Distance (I am realizing) is important primarily because of the wild variation during the approach phase from less than 1km to to distances of 50-80km (with two outliers at over 100km). Thus, APR alone is not a good indication of aircraft position from the intended airfield. Initial climb distances also range from about 1km to 11km, providing considerable overlap with APR.-Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Again we are just trying to squeeze to much into what is a simple list, if accidents on approach are that notable then perhaps we should consider a different list or article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) FR - as you appreciate I really dont like FR as it is not a common thing you see in accident reports or summaries, perhaps you would consider removing it and colour coding the background rows of the 100% accidents. Our favorite topic, FR. I do understand that this statistic does not make you happy. I had initially considered making the total number of deaths a fraction- crash fatalities/total # onboard. Aside from adding more syntax to make fractions sort properly, it would not allow readers to quickly compare (as I mentioned previously) two or more accidents side by side much less allow for sorting by that value. While putting the list together I was interested in being able to compare the level of devastation/destruction (in a statistical/clinical manner) between different occurrences. I have seen other table present #killed to #total as fractions, or ratios. Converting the fraction to a percent eliminates the need to mess with the numerator and denominator and creates a single number which can easily be compared across occurrences. I agree with you that the name (Fatality ratio) is made up, but the value or number itself is a sound and proven way of reducing more complex information to be used for comparison. If renaming the FR would help mitigate some of your concerns, I am open to any descriptively appropriate suggestion. I am not trying to introduce this as a standard for aviation, simply a means, with respect to this list, of making easier and simplified comparisons.--Godot13 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC) OK perhaps we should just agree to not agree on this although I did like my idea of coloring the background of the 100%ers. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Can I make a counter-proposal? We keep airport and distance... and remove FR. The FR column is renamed and becomes ultra-thin with room enough for a single dagger indicating 100% fatal crashes (I suggest this because, while I very much like the idea of adding color, it will add a lot of extra syntax since there are so many FR100 and make the file size even larger), and the superscript "1*" indicating the presence of a sole survivor is moved to the total deaths column. Would you first and foremost be content (and secondarily support the FLC) with these changes?--Godot13 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Seems like a reasonable compromise, I would support the FLC with the changes as discussed here and in other sections but I do have a fear of leaving any discussion to later due to the possible "this is a feature list you cant change it" argument. So if it is made clear that changes or improvements can be made later by consensus we are not that far away, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC) I have made the main changes (e.g., removed FR, added a dagger for 100% fatal occurrences. In light of the addition of the two airship accidents and the 1943 Port Morseby accident I will recalculate the summary tables later today. Regarding your concern above- I have never understood that a featured list or article is above editing. Granted, if it is featured changes should not be haphazard and there may be a more rigorous consensus process, but nothing is written in stone. I suppose a complete revamp of a featured anything could possibly cost it featured status, but that would be a question for The Rambling Man. I'll get back to you when the finishing touches have been added.--Godot13 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC) The designations of aircraft in the table are to precise and should use the more common terminology and names. Happy to change this to the generic series and model. Perhaps User:YSSYguy and User:GraemeLeggett would like to weigh in here as they have expressed some opinions? As this is being discussed on the talk page and others have made changes I dont think it is a bar to FL status. MilborneOne (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Notes 1, 2 and 3 should relate to international standards and not just one country. Do you mean notes 2, 3, and 4? The CFR did such a fine job of operationalizing these terms that it seemed best to cite their definition. The list needs to governed by specific criteria so these were adopted. (As an aside, the largest number of occurrences in the list were in the US or under US jurisdiction). I am sure they are similar ICAO references somewhere, let me have a look and come back. MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC) I added a note to the intro to this basic effect: The definitions of accident, incident, and fatality in the Code of Federal Regulations, and used by the FAA and NTSB are generally consistent with those found in the ICAO Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13. Let me know if that is satisfactory. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Yes no problem with that Godot13, we can close this one. MilborneOne (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC) It is clear from the talk page the the article is not stable and is subject to a lot of discussion (including an AfD) and until a clear consensus is reached on the talk page on the issues raised then the feature list process should not pass and I oppose it being made a Featured List. MilborneOne (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC) As you noted on the talk page about surviving AfD- If or when this list survives AfD, I will be more than happy to address your points one at a time. Thank you.--Godot13 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC) I’ll pass on a discussion of the stability of the article/list… Please let me know I should proceed. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC) Comment - Now that the AfD has been resolved (Keep), I hope to move forward with the FLC process. Thank you-Godot13 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I have just got a couple of points above to expand on and discuss, I will try to come back as soon as I can so the process can move on. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC) I believe I have addressed all of your immediate concerns. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the effort Godot13 I think we can consider by comments here clear and I support the list being a featured list. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Your input and support are both appreciated. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Rejectwater - I am flummoxed by this table. There are cells with no data, and cells with en-dash, sometimes both in the same column. Cells in the Airport column are often left blank; apparently this means "n/a". Distance is apparently associated with Airport, however many incidents which list an airport have no data in the Distance cell. There is also one cell in the distance column with an en-dash rather than being left blank. So is there a difference between a blank cell and an en-dash? It seems like sometimes blank cell means n/a, sometimes n/a means n/a, sometimes UNK means unknown, sometimes en-dash means unknown. Also, why are some airports denoted with "***" rather than an abbreviation? Rejectwater (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I have corrected the inconsistencies you pointed out. There is a brief explanation of each column linked to the column header, which also explains when distance is and is not included in the table. I have changed three cases of crashes during approach from blank or en-dash to "unknown". "UNK" in the phase of flight refers to a recognized (default) phase labeled Unknown where it was not possible to determine the specific phase during which the accident occurred. The "***" notation (clarified in a note) is reserved for airports which have closed and had their civil aviation codes reassigned to another facility (and reporting them would indicate an incorrect location), or military airfields without any civil aviation codes. If I have missed anything or you would like further clarification, please let me know.-Godot13 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC) What's the deal with the notes column? The only information is number of survivors with a seemingly bizarre numbering system whereby the dagger symbol = 0, 1* = 1, and a blank cell = >1. Am I missing something here? Why not just call it the Survivors column and list the number of survivors? Rejectwater (talk) 22:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Ah, yes... the column notes. Not my original idea. Initially the column had been a Fatality Ratio (FR) expressed as a percentage. A single, sortable number, expressing the number of fatalities/total passenger and crew manifest (therefore standardized and comparable across all incidents). There were a few editors who expressed concern/dislike for the statistic (see resolved comments above). I would like to attempt to bring it back (via talk page discussion/consensus) after the FLC is closed. What you see now was the resulting compromise (versus only indicating those incidents with 100% fatality).-Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Fascinating. I see that the key used to be above the table and was moved below also due to discussion here, resulting in a situation where non-experts are forced to constantly scroll up and down, up and down, up and down, all the way over this HUGE table, in order to understand the terms (placing the key as close as possible to the column headers alleviates this). My concern is no longer anything with the article itself but the possibility the FLC process, in this case, is resulting in a lower quality list. Can you help me out and find a link to an old version of the page with the key on top and the FR column as you described it ("A single, sortable number... standardized and comparable across all incidents")? I would like to compare that to the current page, side by side. Rejectwater (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I think I have found one: [21] Rejectwater (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC) As I understand one reviewer expressed a lack of love for having the key section above the table and it was moved below. Since then at least two different reviewers (myself and another) have expressed concern and recommended the key be placed above the table. As for Fatality Rate (FR), a reviewer expressed scepticism and it was heavily modified. Now I have come along and basically said I liked it better the way it was before. Is this an accurate summary? Rejectwater (talk) 10:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Almost… Between the list talk page, AfD, and the FLC review there are at least three editors who are critical of the FR statistic. I agree that the key should be placed above the table. Given the level of discussion on this list (i.e., talk page and AfD), and accusations of WP:OWN, I do not want to make significant changes to the list format/layout without a talk page consensus.--Godot13 (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC) The article was put up for deletion four days after being nominated for Featured List status? An interesting situation. Ownership is a funny thing too. When people take "ownership" of a thing they don't actually own, they generally take much better care of it versus feeling like "who cares it isn't mine". But I digress. The key, as far as I can tell, is adequate, and there is no requirement as to whether or not it should be above or below the table. So I can consider the key issue to be resolved for the purposes of this discussion. The notes column, however, in my opinion, is a travesty. A single, sortable number, standardized and comparable across all incidents would be far superior. I find it hard to believe we can't come to an agreement on something way better than what is there right now. Rejectwater (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC) I have reached out to one of the 2-3 editors critical of the FR statistic (who also reviewed the list for FLC) asking if they would reconsider the compromise, made with them, leading to its removal. If that is not successful, I will propose it on the talk page for discussion.--Godot13 (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Looking at WP:CALC, this is either an "Added" or a "Synthetic" calculation. Added calcs are typically valid and synthetic calcs typically are not. What you had was synthetic calculation, the reason being it required knowledge of how many survivors which is not listed in the table (ie, "lost information"). For FR to be a probably valid "Added" calculation you would have to add a whole new column for total occupants. Then you could do a simple added calculation of (crew deaths + passenger deaths / total occupants). I am not seeing in the discussions that took place previously where it was established that FR violated a policy, but I do think it did, and I think CALC is the policy in question. The objection to the formula I have proposed may be that there is actually two calculations going on, however (crew deaths + passenger deaths = total deaths) where total deaths is also in the sources. So another, possibly better option, would be to add two new columns, one for total deaths and one for total occupants, where the percentage column would be calculated as (total deaths/total occupants). I imagine also that the name of what is now the Notes column would probably have to be something simple like "Percentage of total deaths". The flipside of this, obviously, is that it is a huge undertaking. There are over 500 entries, so adding two new columns and overhauling a third is no small matter. And consensus needs to be reached prior to making the change. A totally different option would be to get rid of the notes column all together. As it is now we're only showing a dagger for zero survivors and a 1* for sole survivor, that could be done with symbols and possibly even color in the incident cell. To go this route I urge use of templates such a {{dagger}}, {{double dagger}}, {{hash-tag}}, {{up-arrow}}, etc, such that alt-text can be added for accessibility. The use of color may be too macabre, however. Rejectwater (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Most of that is not from WP:CALC, it's from Wikipedia:About Valid Routine Calculations, which is a guidance essay and not a policy. All CALC has to say about the topic is that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." But my proposals remain unchanged. Rejectwater (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Proposal to move key section has been made on the talk page.-Godot13 (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for explaining CALC, I was not fully aware of that. I thought about simply adding symbols (dagger, etc) to the total deaths figures but I lose the ability to sort by 100% fatality and sole survivor. Adding additional columns make an already large table even larger and yes, the additional calculations are not something I look forward to doing. Or we could just leave the notes column in its present state, as an indication of survivors versus no survivors (or sole survivor). I'm not sure there is any immediate solution for this.-Godot13 (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC) I will consider the Notes column to be not a deal breaker as how it is now is the compromise position, however I believe my objections to it are valid. For now I am waiting to see if there is an agreed upon resolution to the status of the key. Rejectwater (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you-Godot13 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Suppport I believe this one is ready to go. Rejectwater (talk) 11:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments "the Wright Brothers on" no need for the capital B. "1909, and the first fatal " my taste would suggest this should be "while the first..." "Barnegat Light, New Jersey, US," not sure you need "US" here. "England, UK, " similarly UK. "The highest number of fatalities in" -> "The most fatalities"? "Brief table key" any need for "Brief"? Ref. -> Ref(s). I'm not keen on blank cells, an en-dash would be a good resolution to those cells which aren't relevant. Maybe a note saying the initial sort order is from most to fewest deaths? This may have been discussed above, but I'm not sure you need the http://aviation-safety.net for every single ref which uses it. Might save several KB.... Especially as we have an article for it which would provide the same link just once, rather than hundreds of times here...? Let's start with those minor issues, and I'll see if I can nit-pick anything more out of it on a re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, all have been fixed.-Godot13 (talk) 05:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC) Comments II With the addition of the two new incidents, do you need to update the lead etc? I was planning to update the numbers every few months (quarterly) given that one or two accidents may trickle in over time. I thought that change in the lead wording to "at least 512" and "over 53,500" gave me the room to do this. If not let me know. It looks like *** is missing from the key. Added to the key, and moved from a note to the body of the key details after the table. Not convinced we need a link to "ocean". Almost all have been un-linked. Those remaining (4-5) are when the Ocean is the sole geographical location for the incident. Shouldn't works, like The New York Times be in italics in the refs? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the additional comments.--Godot13 (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support despite a false start, with the AFD, some of the Aviation project have come good and helped with a couple of the FLC regulars to create a really nice and well referenced list. Any enduring concerns over lack of comprehensiveness can be addressed if and when any holes are discovered, rather than the vague "it must be incomplete" arguments. Good work Godot13. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your support of (and during) this FLC! There may be future collaborative submissions with the Aviation Project...-Godot13 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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