Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

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

Nomination procedure Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Reviewing procedure Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations urgently needing reviews edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: List of Johnson solids (FLC) Rock-climbing equipment (FLC) United States congressional delegations from Arizona (FLC) List of music released by Romanian artists that has charted in major music markets (FLC) List of Line of Duty episodes (FLC) List of Green Bay Packers team records (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:07, 9 December 2010 [1].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Cuba

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all of the critera. It is modeled after List of World Heritage Sites in Peru and List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, both recently promoted. The main list only has nine items, and I know some reviewers tend to look for ten, but with the "Tentative list", I feel this is sufficient. Thanks. Grsz¹¹ 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments I see no problems with nine elements at all. This is a standalone list in my mind. I think the map would be a better lead image. But that's my opinion. "meet natural criteria" may not be obvious to readers. Reworded. Not convinced we need a 90% font size (which on Safari looks more like a 60%) Made 100%. Don't think you need to link Spanish to Spain. Done. "The complex of magazines, bastions, and batteries is amongst the most complete and well-preserved Spanish-American example." doesn't read quite right to me. Reworded. Criteria numbering is given in italics in the intro to the table, but plain text in the table. Why the difference? Though italics would be helpful making it stand out, but I've removed it for consistency. Avoid bold links (in the tentative list section). Done. Note 1 is unreferenced. Added a source. You've used only UNESCO as sourcing throughout. This appears to be a primary source. It's a shame you couldn't find alternatives. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Introduced some new references with the comments below. Grsz¹¹ 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments - The center alignment of N/A seems unnecessary. wouldn't the UNESCO data in the key need some type of citation? Afro (Talk) 08:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks. Grsz11 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Why isn't the 3rd paragraph in the lead referenced? It just summarizes the contents of the list. Alejandro de Humboldt National Park, "as well as animal species such as the endangered Cuban Solenodon." Cannot verify this in the source. Added a source. Desembarco del Granma National Park, "The national park is named for the yacht which carried Fidel Castro, Raúl Castro, Che Guevara and the other 79 members of the 26th of July Movement to Cuba to overthrow Fulgencio Batista." Cannot verify this in the source. Added an explicit source. Historic Centre of Camagüey, "is distinct from the more common, organized style of the Spanish settlements." I reworded it a little, if that was the problem. The goal was to convey that the Spanish typically had a very orderly design to their cities (plazas, streets) but Camaguey was not. Old Havana and its Fortifications, you wrote that it was one of the main cities however in the source it says specifically it was the main city for ship building I would think this needs some clarification. Reworded this. Trinidad and the Valley de los Ingenios, The sugar industry is obviously a period of significance which Ref 7 states began in the 18th centuary, any reason why this isn't included in the description or period column? In the column I started with 16th, when the city of Trinidad was founded. Added a bit in the description. Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos, "It became prominent.." no mention of prominence in the source only that it was a trading place (which I assume only means that its notable). Afro (Talk) 00:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Reworded this. Grsz11 04:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC) On the third paragraph, I would repeat some of the references you've used in the table, it may be a summary of the table but it does contain details which I would think need citing. Afro (Talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Grsz11 15:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Minor points - what is the initial sort order? I can't seem to recover it by resorting the table, in which case sorting by order of Name alphabetically would seem sensible. This might just be me being slow. Date sorting gives a slightly odd order: I'd expect "N/A" at the beginning (prehistoric geology; not sure if a more helpful description than "N/A" is possible?) and it seems more natural for me that "19th and 20th centuries" would come after "19th century", not before. (If there were "20th century" too, I'd hope it came in between, if that makes sense.) TheGrappler (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The initial sort is the year added, making the list chronologically. When you click to sort the data column the first time it doesn't change (atleast not to me). I've adjusted the sorting so 16-19 and 19-20 come after 16 and 19 respectively. N/A means the historical period is irrelevant, and as these parks aren't just noted for their physical appearance, I'm not sure if prehistoric is an accurate description. (Compare it to List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, where Prehistoric and Palaeolithic are accurate descriptions). Grsz 11 22:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What you said about N/A works fine for me, thanks. I'm about to be super-pedantic so please bear with me (sorry). An initially chronological list makes sense, but when you have a sortable table, it seems to me that on principle, the initial sort order should be "restorable" using the sorting buttons provided. Otherwise there is information in the initial sort order, which is not displayed in the table. Hope that makes sense. Why not include "Year added" as a column? That way it would be obvious why the table is displayed as it is (I know I was confused a lot by that, which is why I brought the point up), and the initial sort order is recoverable. I know that this information is also presented in the text above, but it would be presented much more clearly in the table. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but this seem more natural to me. TheGrappler (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the original order recoverable when the sort in the "UNESCO data" section is pointing up? Grsz 11 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh thanks! That'll do me, I'm perfectly happy to support this. TheGrappler (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Leaning support

• I'd maybe tweak the opening sentence so it states how many WHS there are in Cuba, but this is a minor point.
  • Done (in second sentence).
• "Sites include La Cabaña, the Cathedral of Havana and the Great Theatre of Havana": it might be worth swapping "Sites" for "Landmarks" or something similar as having sites within a World Heritage Site sounds a little odd, although it's clear what is meant.
  • Done.
• "It contains many endemic species, including 16 of Cuba's 28 endemic plant species": it might be worth considering swapping the second "endemic" for "unique" to avoid repetition, but only if you don't think it changes the meaning.
  • Reworded a bit.
• "Cienfuegos was founded in 1819 by the Spanish colonists, though it was originally settled by French immigrants": I'm not quite comfortable with this sentence. Does the second bit mean the French settled the general area before the Spanish founded the settlement?
  • Ok I figured out the meaning, thanks to a section of the source further down the page. It was founded by the Spanish, "but settled by French from Bordeaux, Louisiana, Philadelphia and Guarico." [2] I clarified a bit.
• "The city exhibits additional modern ideas including in hygiene and urban planning": it's difficult for a city to exhibit a concept such as hygiene, so you mean the infrastructure associated with hygiene such as sewers?
  • I'm not sure it's overly important. It could all be considered under urban planning.
    • Ok, fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• In the tentative list section I think it needs to be explained that the years in brackets after each name refer to when the site was first added. Alternatively they could be dropped altogether as they're not really important; what counts is whether they're on the list now, rather than for how long.
  • I've removed the years. You're right, they aren't really important. Grsz 11 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a handful of changes that you'll want to double check to ensure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. This is a very promising list. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits you made Nev, I've address your other comments above. Grsz 11 05:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support the minor points I raised have now been addressed. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Considering that the list has a solid-looking structure, it's disappointing to find that a majority of the descriptions have a grammar error lurking in them. Fortunately, they're easy to fix. I'm more alarmed that these are in here after the list has received four supports, but that's a topic for another time. Old Havana and its Fortifications: "Historical landmarks in Old Havan include...". Is Havan a typo, by chance? Desembarco del Granma National Park: "The park features a unique karst topography with features terraces, cliffs, and waterfalls." "with" → "which"? Alejandro de Humboldt National Park: "It contains many species biological species". One "species" too many. Urban Historic Centre of Cienfuegos: "though its first inhabitant were French immigrants." The word "inhabitant" should be in plural form. Historic Centre of Camaguey: "from the typical orderly construction of most other the Spanish settlements." At a minimum, the second "the" should be removed; you may want to do more, depending upon what the intended prose was. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC) No worries, all easy fixes that have been made. As a note, most were a result of other changes made. Grsz 11 05:15, 6 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [3].

---

List of National Basketball Association player-coaches

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another NBA list about the player-coaches that were common in the NBA until the league prohibited them in 1984. — Martin tamb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "as the teams'" as their teams'? Fixed. "the league" is repetitive in the lead, used at least three times in quick succession. Changed some of them into BAA or NBA. "Coach of the Year award(s) won[a]" is completely "None" and hence the [a] is irrelevant too. Any need for this col? Column removed. Yrs - is that complete years? Complete seasons? Would you really consider Dischinger to have a 1-year coaching career for two games? Suggest this col is axed. Column removed. You have a mix of spaced and unspaced slashes used within the article. Be consistent. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support after a tiny tweak, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason why not to split the tenure(s) into its own column?

I could split them, but it would not work well with Wilkens who have two separate coaching stints.

I don't see a problem with two tenures separated by a line break. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've split them, but on a quick glance at the table, it looks like Guerin had two stints with two different teams. I still think the previous arrangement is better. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks better. But I'll leave this discussion open so people can make their own minds up. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am indifferent about both arrangements.—Chris!_c/t 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment This is a really cool little list, I like it a lot. One question, though none of them has won Coach of the Year, what do you think about including a general awards column to include any player honors (MVP, DPOY, etc, etc) if anyone won those? I'd be just as interested to know about exceptional player-seasons while coaching as I would be interested in outstanding coaching while playing. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Great idea, I'll work on that soon. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Added the honors and awards column. I'm still looking on the All-Star Game coaching honors and will add them as soon as possible. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good, lemme know when you've checked that and I'll support. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

All done. — Martin tamb (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Waiting on the below, I missed that source issue. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I buy MT's argument below on this source, and beyond that it looks great! Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Please check the sorting in the playoff columns. I'm getting some random oddities in the form of numbers sorting by one digit only.

Added hidden sortkey, sorting should be fine now. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• What makes http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm a reliable source? It looks like somebody's personal website. If a better source wasn't out there for this fact, it would surprise me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it qualifies as a RS. The site is maintained by Larry Coon, who is often called an expert on NBA salary cap by media including The New York Times. He also writes for the ESPN.—Chris!_c/t 03:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Larry Coon's self-published website should qualify as reliable source per WP:SELFPUBLISH which says: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Enough editors have come forward to convince me that the source is decent, though I still think something of a higher quality could be out there. I don't have any further issues. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to find a better source. I've been looking through the complete CBA documents here but I couldn't find anything about coaches' salary. Then it occurs to me that coaches are not part of the National Basketball Players Association, which explains why their salary are not counted in the salary cap. So far, Larry Coon's CBA FAQ is the only source I could find which clearly stated this information. — MT (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [4].

---

List of National Basketball Association season steals leaders

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Haven't done this in a while. So here goes... —Chris!_c/t 01:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - The key looks awkward can't it be formatted like the second table? if not why is "Pos., SPG, Ref." bolded and not "G, F, C"? Afro (Talk) 08:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• You should repeat some of the references for the second paragraph in the lead. I'm a bit confused about Scottie Pippen in the 1994–95 since you list his position as "F/G" how does this differ from "G/F"? Afro (Talk)

Is repeating the refs necessary? From my experience, this is not the case. As for positions, the one listed first is primary.—Chris!_c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess not after looking over the para again. Afro (Talk) 12:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

[Note9] doesn't direct me anywhere when I click it. Afro (Talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Caused by a typo, now fixed—Chris!_c/t 00:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "ball by a defensive player" what if an offensive player takes the ball, is that not a steal? FIBA's definition was that it was simply a "defensive action" which resulted in a turnover... Offensive players already have the ball as they are the side that try to score. A steal occurs when players of the other team (defensive players) gain possession either take the ball away or through a turnover. Does that make sense?—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, I think this is because where I'm from, someone without the ball with be a "defending" player, not a defensive player (as defensive would indicate his usual role in the team). Is it different for NBA? FIBA's definition seems clearer to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Ok, I use FIBA's definition.—Chris!c/t 22:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "This is the requirement since the 1974–75 season, with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." Maybe "Although this has been the entry criteria since the..., requirements have changed with the..."? Fixed—Chris!c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Funny split key, not keen on that at all. Fixed—Chris!c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Captions are a little, well, dry and repetitive. Suggest you fluff them up a little if possible? Done—Chris!c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) The lead refers to season as a single year while the list refers to it as spanning two years. I'd be consistent. The single year links are linked to Finals article instead of the seasons.—Chris!c/t 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Where is the proof that active players are, well, active still? And does that mean active in the NBA or active anywhere? It means active in the NBA. I forget to update the page. Now fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support no problems on a quick re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "with requirements changing with the schedule length several times before that." TRM's proposed text makes for a better read, but it doesn't solve the main issue I have with it: how could the requirements have changed several times (before 1974–75) when the stat had only been monitored for one season before that point? Fixed—Chris!c/t 00:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Is Iverson still considered an active player when he's about to go play in Turkey? This might be what TRM means; if that's the case, consider this the same question in a different fashion. Now fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I see that he is no longer treated as an active player in the table, but he's still listed in the lead as the active player with the most steals in a season. This should be changed too. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 23:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC) "are the only players to win more than one steals titles." Believe "titles" should be singular, not plural. Oh, and wouldn't this statistics include the players with three titles? Maybe it should be "only other players"? Fixed.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Can the position column be made sortable? There are only a few forwards included, but I do think there are enough for sorting to be useful, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Done.—Chris!c/t 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [5].

---

List of leaders of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status for a second time. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (not supporting or opposing yet):

• Done You should have a sentence at the start that mentions that which office served as the "leader" changed sometimes before launching into what those offices were.
• Done The dates in "terms of office" in the table should be centered, not left-aligned.
• Done Khrushchev- reword "removed from power after a trip to Scandinavia" to something that emphasizes that going to Scandinavia wasn't the cause/reason for the removal, they just did it while he was out of the country.
• Done Gorbachev- "and resign on 24 August", "the following the day the Soviet Union" - please get someone to copyedit the text, I doubt that these are the only two examples, just the ones I happened to spot as I skimmed the table.

• --PresN 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've been asked to come back and look at this, and I must say it looks and reads a lot better now. --PresN 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the table should be sortable. To do that, you will have to get rid of all the rowspans.—Chris!_c/t 01:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Were does it say that that is a must? I don't see it anywhere an there are many articles which don't use sortable tables.. In other words, I'm not changing it! --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sortability allows readers to sort the info on the table. Since all the rowspans is gone, it is quite easy to make the table sortable now. This is a simple request, so I don't understand why you refuse to do it.—Chris!_c/t 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I looked at making the table sortable, from a usability point of view. Unfortunately, it would only sort properly on the 'Name' as it stands. It could be made to sort on 'Term of office' or 'Congress' by using sort keys, but I'm not sure of what usability value any of that would add. Obviously, neither 'Portrait' nor 'Notes' will sort in a meaningful way. I've amended User:RexxS/List of leaders of the Soviet Union so that you can see what I mean. Given all that, in my humble opinion, I don't think this table would benefit from being sortable. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment talking accessibility, User:RexxS kindly knocked up this as an example of what that part of the project would hope to see. I rather like it, and would appreciate TIAYN and the community's comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done I can't say that I'm fond of the idea, but i've added his version... Question, should i add an image of a Troika member in each bar or should i leave it empty? --TIAYN (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done The only thing I see there that I really despise is the bolding of last names. Seems to me to be nothing but extra work that makes the page ugly, and adds nothing. Courcelles 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All six of the leaders in the two troikas have PD or CC-BY-SA images, so I think it would be possible to create a collage for each troika, as the table looks like it's missing something where those portraits would be. You could perhaps just add images in each case of the two members whose image is not already in the list, if space is a problem. Please let me know if you want any help, should you decide to add such images. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, I think the surnames were bold before the changes for accessibility were made, judging by the article history... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I deliberately preserved the original text formatting for my example (that's why the style="font-weight:normal" is there) in order to respect the author's intention. That's not to say I thought it was the best way of doing it. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've solved the image problems regarding the Troikas now... I created an entirely new section for them... Are these new changes acceptable? If not, please say so ;) --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Few questions - You use the dashes to signify information missing in the congress column, shouldn't it be used in the same manner for the image column? can a better section header be provided other than "list"? you seem to begin to explain the process of how the leaders were elected to this position in the lead and "list" section, I was wondering if maybe this could be elaborated on more for the benefit of the user. Afro (Talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Changed the header too "List of leaders", is that better? Secondly, there was no formal line of succession; the leader did however need the support of the Politburo, Central Committee and the Secretariat to hold power. --TIAYN (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we include Gennady Yanayev into the list? I mean, he was Acting President of the Soviet Union; the most important and strongest office in the USSR at the time of the August Coup of 1991. Should we include him into the list??? --TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Man, I'm confused. Aren't you the nominator? The champion of the article, its shepherd? Shouldn't you have answered this question for yourself before you brought the list to FLC?

Also, regardless of you marking my comments up above as done, you haven't gotten a copyedit. Please get someone else to look over the entire list, not just the few points I mentioned. The third sentence in the lead has a huge comma splice- I will leave it to the editor to figure what it is but it's not hard to see. Also! "tried out" is unencyclopedic, and the last sentence of the lead is uncited and, more importantly, just kind of dangling there, unconnected to anything.

I also don't like how the troikas are divided out into a different section. I know its a pain to slot them into the table, but given that its unsortable and arranged by chronological order, I feel that the troikas should be in the same table. --PresN 07:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But we will get the image problem again, which some other editors pointed out... When it comes to the inclusion of Gennady Yanayev into the list I am really, really unsure. On the other hand, I will try to find another editor to copyedit the article! --TIAYN (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User Tuscumbia has copyedited the article; is the list well-enough written now? --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comment - I would like to see term "Gerontocracy" mentioned somewhere in the article because it was a real problem in the seventies and early eighties. Article already mentions the ridiculous age of some of the latter leaders so why not make this article bit more academical. In addition I fixed a typo. Utinsh (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for the support. --TIAYN (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose lots of things, mostly very simple to fix though! Done Consider # linking President to the appropriate section of that page, i.e. President#Presidents_as_head_of_state Done Link Stalin in the lead. Done And Khrushchev. Done Perhaps a personal preference, but " which in turn played" would seem more appropriate as " which, in turn, played" Done "Lenin's health..." replace Lenin's with His. Done "Lenin's health at the age of 53, declined " comma before at. Done "from continuous effects" why "continuous"? Not necessary in my opinion. Done Which ENGVAR are you using (industrialization vs hospitalisation)? Done "pushed for rapid industrialization, nationalization" perhaps an "and" missing here. Done No need to abbreviate things if you don't use the abbreviation (e.g. NEP). Done "Stalin died in March 1953.[19] In the power struggle triggered by Stalin's death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev, after several years, emerged victorious against Georgy Malenkov.[20]" would merge these two sentences. Done "Many saw his de-Stalinization policy" no need to repeat this, perhaps "Many saw this approach as..." Done "A group known as Anti-Party Group tried to oust Khrushchev from office in 1957." and what happened? Done "First Secretary the very same day " remove "very", no need. Done "of the politburo" shouldn't that be Politburo? Done "Henry A. Kissinger falsely believed t.." there's no context to understand who Kissinger was and why his opinion counted for anything. Done "Mikhail Gorbachev" is overlinked. Done "1988 and 1989 saw the..." avoid starting a sentence with a number. Done (Birth–Death) -> (birth–death) Done Question: what happened in the 20th and 21st congress? Done "The following day of Gorbachev's resignation ..." ->"The day following Gorbachev's resignation as ..., " Done "Lasting" is not a good column heading. Done Ref 20 needs to be pp. not p. Done Ref 27 needs to be p. not pp. Done Ref 33 seems to repeat the year range. Done Ref 35 needs to be pp. not p. Done Ref 57 should be pp. 423–24 for consistency with others, not pp. 423–424. Done Bibliography doesn't need page numbers because you're stating those in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have The Rambling Man and Chrishmt0423 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Top line of the infobox says "leaders of the Soviet Union" and the 2nd line says "Former Communist State" - this is very confusing since the Soviet Union was always a Communist state, and now Russia is a former Communist state. Smallbones (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet Union is a former communist state, it doesn't exist anymore! This makes the USSR a former entity --TIAYN (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Done "In the Soviet Union's seventy years history...". At a minimum, make "years" singular. I'd rather see "seventy-year history", with the hyphen. Done Typo in "General Secretary". Done "Following Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power in 1920s...". This is beggin for "the" to be placed before the year range. Fixed --TIAYN (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Done Summary: "The dissmantling of the principal defining features of communism...". Maybe this is just British English, but I thought "dissmantling" only had one s. Done In the table, move reference 53 after the punctuation, which would be better off as a period. Done Add a period before reference 55. Done Some of the short citations have periods at the end and some don't. It's best in situations like these to pick one style and be consistent with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The First Troika tenure ended on 26 June 1953 in one column yet in the next it lasted until Beria's death (23 December 1953), clarification is needed. --88.111.49.180 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Done --TIAYN (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The name of the article should probably be without "List of". Nergaal (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? --TIAYN (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support After looking deeply into the article, I didn't find anything I could beef.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:08, 23 November 2010 [6].

---

List of Bonanza episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Bonanza was a long-running television series and generally regarded as a classic. I have addressed all suggestions in the peer review which is now archived. I believe that the article has met the criteria to become a featured list.

Two items of note:

• Bonanza aired on American television on NBC before the days of cable TV, internet, and home video. Thus, unless the tuned in to a local independent broadcast, people in America who were watching televison back then had only the three networks to choose from (NBC, CBS, or ABC). Because of this I have chosen to lsit in the overview section all the shows that aired opposite Bonanza during its 14-year run. It has been suggested to me that only people in the United States would be interested in this. I disagree and think that people in other countries might be interested as well, thus getting a fuller spectrum of American television in the years 1959–73.
• In the past the web site All-movie has been used as a reliable reference source for featured list. All-movie documents every episode of Bonanza individually. Rather than have an individual reference for each of Bonanza's 430 episodes (which would make for a ref list so long that it would almost justify its on page) I have used an alternate site called Bonanza World which has the episodes listed in a season-by-season format. I've check the information on both sites (Airdates, episode titles, names of directors and writers) and they both correspond with one another. Thus I think Bonanza World can be offered up as a reliable source.

I'm now opened to suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

* "The entire run of the series' 430 hour-long episodes were photographed and aired in color." -- photographed seems an odd word choice here. TV shows are shot on to film or tape usually, so recorded might be better. -- Is there a reference that all episodes, even the ones from 1959 were broadcast in color? Esp since most TV sets at that time didn't get color reception. I disagree on this. For televison programs that are filmed the person operating the camera is usually refered to as the "Director of Photography" so I think "photographed" is a perfectly adequate term. The series was indeed aired in color from the very beginning. If added a ref for this statement. "In its initial season Bonanza aired on Saturday evenings and placed only at number 45 in the Nielsen ratings." -- avoid using only -- in this context it's a WP:WEASEL word. Removed "only" "Beginning in the third season" -- does this mean sometime in the third season, or at the start of the third season? I've reworded this so I hope it's a little clearer now. "Bonanza was moved to Sunday nights were the ratings soared as the series become second only to Wagon Train as the most popular program on American prime time television." -- Check for typos, and recast so it's not a run-on sentence. Typos checked and broken into two sentences. "Canada, Brazil, Yugoslavia, Great Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Australia, and Japan." Don't link common words, names or phrases. These don't need linking. Everybody who speaks the English language has heard of these countries, and you shouldn't want your readers to navigate away from this article to one that has no relevance to the subject -- United Kingdom, not GB Unlinked countries. "thrice" is a bit of an odd word choice. Wikt:thrice says it's archaic, too. removed "Despite a move to Tuesday nights and an ambitious two-hour season premiere, the series slipped badly in the ratings" -- Why use despite here? Were shows airing on Tuesday nights supposed to get better viewing figures than those on Sundays? Don't use WP:PEACOCK (ambitious) or WP:EUPHEMISMs (slipped badly) reworded "The film was slated as a pilot for a new series which never materialized." so the series never materialized, or the film never did? removed Why are you linking to subsections of Bonanza, like Bonanza#Lorne Greene – Ben Cartwright and Bonanza#Pernell Roberts - Adam Cartwright when they have their own articles at Ben Cartwright (character) and Adam Cartwright? Changed to links of the main articles about the characters. In the schedule box, clarify that it's the schedule for US TV, and not every country it aired because almost certainly, it wasn't. Whoever said that only Americans would be interested in seeing what aired opposite Bonanza, I tend to agree. In the peer review you said you thought it was relevant, but you're not showing any relevance. This list is for an international audience, is should be of interest to all, not just "Americans that would be quite a large group of readers". And as time goes on, and the series gets older, the age of the readers will get younger until listing what other shows aired at the same time becomes less relevant. If people really do want to know, point them to 1959–60 United States network television schedule et al. Right now there's no relevance or context. It might be better information if you said how well all the other shows performed against Bonanza, or something, but right now it means nothing. I've removed this section The cast box is suitable for a character page or main page for the TV show, but not a list of episodes. Removed The lede is too interested in who played who when. Out of the four paragraphs, three are devoted to this. If this was List of Bonanza characters, it might be okay, but it's not. You need to focus on introducing the episodes, which is the actual scope of the article. Also, per WP:LEDE, it's supposed to touch upon all aspects of the article, at least each section. There's no mention of DVD releases for one thing. I tighted this up. There is a mention of the DVD releases. "In 1988 NBC revived Bonanza by way of a television film entitled Bonanza: The Next Generation." -- replace with "with", don't use sprinkle salt-and-pepper weasle words reworded Er, no. It's still there as of this revision Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) " Michael Landon Jr. ... Michael Landon Jr. ... Michael Landon Jr. ... Michael Landon Jr. ..." Stick to "Landon Jr." after you give his name in full the first time. Same with other actors names throughout the Lede corrected No, as of Revision 395492634 it's still there. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The section titled "TV movies and prequels", change "TV" to "television". In the prose, "television film" vs "TV movie" vs "TV-movie" be consistent with choice of phrases corrected Nope Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "(Landon, Sr., was not involved in the production)." Unnecessary comma. Why is it important to note this? removed No it isn't Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "Michael Landon, Jr., again played Benjamin Cartwright in a second TV-movie entitled Bonanza: The Return." corrected No it isn't Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Media files (WP:FL?#5(b))

• File:Bonanza title screen.jpg is being used without a Fair Use Rationale. I doubt a valid one could be written because a title card does not meet WP:NFCC#8 ("Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.") A title card does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of a list of episodes about the show.
  • Now replaced with an image of the four original cast members
    • The new image is still a copyrighted image. There is still no Fair use rationale for its inclusion on List of Bonanza episodes, and I doubt a valid one could be written because a photo of four characters does not significantly increase the readers' understanding of a list of episodes about the show. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Prose (WP:FL?#1)

• In that section, fix the "played" and "starred" to present tense
  • I think it should remain in the past tense as production on this films has been completed.
    • Per MOS:TV, part of the WP:MOS, "References to the show should be in the present tense since shows no longer airing still exist, including in the lead" Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede (WP:FL?#2)

• For the DVD section, looking at Amazon, it appears that there's more DVD and VHS releases other than Season 1 and 2. Also, there's no mention of new media (Drelbcom channel has full Bonanza episodes, Retrovision and Project Free TV does too (I haven't checked out the legalities of any of these). There may be more, Amazon, iTunes, TV Guide, etc.
  • The copyright of several Bonanza episodes have apparently lapsed into the public domain, which acounts for DVD releases other than what I have listed. I don't know about the legality of the sites you mentioned so, for the moment, I think it's best not to mention them.
    • So why not say that the copyright of some episodes has lapsed? This is encyclopedic information. I've read the legals of the sites, and it looks like only Project Free TV is dodgy. You should mention these per the comprehensive FL criterion. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • FYI, I was glancing through my copy of 5000 Episodes and No Commercials by David Hofstede (ISBN:0823084566) today, and on page 42 he reviews some of the older Bonanza DVD releases. Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
• Per a precedence of previous FLCs, you need either episode summaries or season pages with summaries. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 7th Heaven episodes/archive1 for a previous discussion. (There are a couple of others, but I remember this one because it was my nomination)
  • There may be a precedence but I don't think there's a set rule yet. Since Bonanza ran for 430 episodes a summary for each would make this page extremely long, so it's better just to have the episode titles here. Links to season pages can be added once those pages are created. However, let's do one thing at a time, such as getting this page in shape.
    • Well, there's MOS:TV#Episode listing that mentions that episodes such have a 100-200 word summary per episode. And there's MOS:TV#Multiple pages, which says that for shows with 80+ episodes, they should be split off into season pages. Summaries then appear on those pages, and the main list, while still keeping airdates, titles, directors, etc, should not have plot details. And there's WP:SS that applies as well Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Style (WP:FL?5(a))

• The use of colours is a bit haphazzard, some are a bit glaring. Do you need them at all?
  • The colours I used (for the most part) are based on colours in the List of Smallville episodes. They can be removed if anyone else objects to them, but I'll keep them in for now.
    • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Currently it violates WP:COLOR.
• WP:ELNO. There's too many unofficial websites linked in the EL section

WP:V

• Article appears to be verified by unreliable sources.
• Regarding http://bonanzaworld.net/ as a reference. Even though you might have checked that all information on this site corresponds with the information at AMG, we don't know that, and you can't expect someone go verify 430 pages at AMG with 430 pages at this site. That's 860 pages you're expecting us to go through. It's obviously a fansite, it's not very professional because I've spend 5 minutes going through it and already found typos. See WP:FANSITE#11. "Links to ... most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." Who writes and maintains this site? What authority do they have in the world of Bonanza? What other than your say-so makes it a WP:RS? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. I noticed in the references, you say Bonanza Ventures, Inc., and NBC, Inc. are the publishers of this site, but reading the website, they clearly aren't.
• The link you're using for Ref 4: A Bonanzaworld website reader appears to have typed it up and stuck in on their site. How do we know it's typed up correctly for one thing? Second, if it is, it's a copyright violation. If you do think of a way to use the reference legitimately, the ref needs formatting correctly. Magazine title should be in italics, and with a magazine this old, you should give the publisher and location, issue # etc, so that if someone does want to verify it, they have a chance of finding the magazine
• What makes http://www.tvhistory.tv/ a reliable source? It looks like http://www.tvhistory.tv/1959-PrimeTime.jpg et al are copyright violations
• What makes http://ponderosascenery.homestead.com/scenes3.html a RS?
• There are plenty of published books about Bonanza listed at Amazon, why don't you use those instead of unreliable websites? Same for books about ratings and schedules. Look at the books used as references at articles like 1959–60 United States network television schedule#References

I don't think this article is anywhere near FL-ready, so I must oppose at this time. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - On sources alone I'll oppose, none of them seem to be verifiable. There seems to be no indication of where TVHistory retrieves their content. On Bonanza World the only FAQ or about I can find is on their forum. Regarding TVShowsonDVD it doesn't state where they get their information from. Afro (Talk) 06:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable site. It's owned by TV Guide.[7] Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• If thats the case then I have no problem with it, what threw me off about it was on the FAQ "The site is owned and maintained by BlueFrog Studios.", if its owned by TV Guide, I guess I have no problem with it. Afro (Talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've ordered one of the books about Bonanza and will use that as a reference once I get it. This may take a few weeks so I'll have to put the ref chances on hold until then. Can we hold the page in FLC "limbo" until then? Jimknut (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • That's up to the directors, User:The Rambling Man and User:Dabomb87 Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As long as sufficient progress is being made in other departments and there isn't prolonged objections to the references, I would assume this nomination can stay open. Afro (Talk) 07:55, 8 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [8].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best New Artist

Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC), Another Believer

I am nominating this for featured list because it would be my first venture on award-related lists. Under the guidance of another user expert on this kind of lists, Another Believer, I am presenting this one for the Latin Grammy Awards. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - How reliable is Latin Gossip as a source? Ref 18 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 00:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • FIXED! both refs. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• MOS:TEXT#Font size says "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities such as headings or through carefully designed templates.", so its to my understanding something needs to be changed about the nominees row regarding the html tags. I'm sure you're aware Nacionality isn't English. I'm sure the note should be under a heading of its own. Afro (Talk) 08:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Jaespinoza likely had smaller text for consistency with many of the other Grammy-related lists with FL status. However, smaller text works better for these lists as they display more information in each cell (Nominees column). With this list, only artist names are displayed in the Nominees column, so small text is not required. It looks like the text size concern has been addressed. Also, I corrected the spelling of "Nationality". The note is located under the table in a similar manner for all of the other Grammy-related featured lists; I think this should be left alone for consistency. Feel free to strike or collapse comments that have been address for organizational purposes. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I see no big issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 08:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. For the following reasons: According to MOS either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash should be used, but not spaced mdash. I believe this has been corrected. Please let me know if your concern has not been addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC) How often is the award given? From the table it follows that it is an yearly award. This should be mentioned at the beginning of the article. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) In 2008, when he was awarded the Album the Year for La Vida... Es un Ratico, broke the record for most Latin Grammys won by any performer, with a total of 16. Should not be 'of' present between 'Album' and 'Year'. And who broke the record—there is no subject in this sentence? FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and removed this sentence, as is is more relevant to the artist than to the award itself. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I do not like 'also' at the end of the last sentence of the lead. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Can the last paragraph be expanded? There are more artists in the list who deserve a sentence or two about them. I took a stab at the lead. I am not opposed to a bit more expansion, but is more needed than the lead's current form? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ruslik_Zero 18:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Another Believer's Comments

Comment — This list is not quite ready for FL status, BUT I am happy to jump in and help with its promotion (I am certain the list can reach FL standards with just a little work). Jaespinoza has been working hard on this list and others, so I'd love to help guide this awards list through the FLC process. I see a couple of ways the list can be improved, so I'll start working on the list as soon as I get a chance. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC) To Do: alt text Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC) caption improvement Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC) name sorting Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) --Another Believer (Talk) 00:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments The word "award" (or Award or Awards) appears four times in the opening sentence. I think this needs to be improved! Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)\ Yes indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC) For me, in Safari, I fail to load Juanes and Rita's images. Actually, I am having the same problem, though I am not sure of a solution. Clearly the images exist, which can be verified by clicking on the alt text or the "Enlarge" icon, but I don't know why they are not displaying properly. As far as I can tell, display commands are similar for all images in the list. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have a similar issue over at Jesse Owens Award. Perhaps it's a mediawki thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Hmm, odd. The images there are displaying just fine for me. Must be a temporary glitch. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC) This is picky, but it was last awarded in 2009, not 2010... (presumably that changes within the next month-and-a-half...!) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 winner will be announced tomorrow. I will update the list as soon as I know who won. Jaespinoza (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The 2010 winner is already announced. I did some changes about in the lead section. Jaespinoza (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And I updated the infobox! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:37, 12 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [9].

---

List of X-Men video games

Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 ^talk, Nomader, and -5-

Not sure what else to say other than that I believe that the list meets the Featured list criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

Also, for tracking purposes, I am co-nominating this article with User:Nomader and User:-5- who helped improve the list to its current form. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments A one-para lead is inadequate for a list of this length. Is there a good reason for the video game title to be (1) big (2) bold (3) italicised? I'm sure the answer will be "that's what the template does", if so, transfer my question to "why does the template do this to game titles"? "an eponymous comic book series, The X-Men" if it's eponymous, you don't need to repeat the name, just pipelink "eponymous comic book series" (or similar). Your lead avoids the cancelled 1985 effort. You link superhero, is there an equivalent for super villain? Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. "Release years by system:" for "Arcade" is there a good link to "arcade machine" or something similar? Sometimes X-Men is in italics. Mostly it's not. Why? Xbox isn't linked. Nor Xbox 360. Nor Wii. If you had proposed system release in the first one which was cancelled, why not the same for those which are yet to be released? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I addressed your comments except the ones related to the template: title formatting and "proposed system release". I did not create the template ({{VGtitle}}) so I don't know the original reason. However, I've worked on the template extensively and can guess. The title is not bold, that is just how the font looks at that size, which is 125% of the default font size. As to why it is that size, I can only guess it was to make it stand out more. The template creates an html-anchor, so the increased size can mimic a heading. The title is italicized because WP:ITALICS says to do so for creative works like video games. Currently the template does not support something for future games, but I think I could work it in there. I'm a bit rusty on template code, so if you could I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if these are deal breakers, and if so, what exactly you'd like changed. Like decreased font size and "proposed system release" for future games? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

; Comment from RexxS: The template {{VGtitle}} creates a separate table for each entry. I count 38 tables in the list. None of the tables have either column or row headers, so the "list" would not be easy for a visually-impaired reader to navigate using a screen reader, other than entry-by-entry. Although I would wish that our best lists were more fully accessible, I don't think it would make sense at present to object to this candidate, simply on the grounds of accessibility. There really needs to be a wholescale review of templates such as {{VGtitle}}, and (in my humble opinion) this is properly a task for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RexxS, if you leave me a note on my talk page outlining your concerns, I'll bring them up at the VG project. Standardizing the format of our lists has been a point of contention for a while now and some guidelines to adhere to could get the ball rolling in the proper direction.

This particular template could be possibly retooled to a different format, or retired if need be. But I've sure a solution can be worked out down the road. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

I created new templates that emulate the table format: {{Video game titles}} and {{Video game titles/item}}. The first is a basic table frame and the second is the syntax for the table rows, resulting in a single table rather a stack of multiple ones. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Apologies for not revisiting sooner, but I'm pleased that my concerns about multiple tables has now been resolved with the creation of the new templates. I can see it's taken some work, but it will allow future articles from the project to more accessible, and the effort is commendable. In other cases I'd recommend the incorporation of column and row headers to further improve accessibility, but where there are only two columns as in this case, I don't think there's much to be gained. I've struck my original comments to indicate they are resolved, and I can see nothing from an accessibility point of view that should prevent promotion. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Have TRM and RexxS been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I dropped a note just now at TRM's page-- sorry, I haven't been around Wikipedia lately, college has been getting the best of me. I haven't left one at RexxS's page though, I felt like his comment was more aimed at redoing the entire table format for the video game lists than any objections to this particular one. I might drop a line at WT:VG myself if I get the chance about changing up the table format though. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I have concerns over the template used, it seems to violate MOS:BOLD. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I first thought it was because the font size was larger, but after looking at the template code I realize that I misinformed The Rambling Man above. I removed the bold from the title. Sorry about the confusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

• You reference some system releases (examples "X-Men: Wolverine's Rage" and "X2: Wolverine's Revenge") but you don't reference other systems releases (such as "X-Men vs. Street Fighter" and "X-Men: The Ravages of Apocalypse"), any specific reasons why these aren't referenced? Also another question about the notes, you reference some notes regarding the genre of video games (example all of the Wolverine games) but you don't reference most of the genres for the X-Men games and Related games why is this? Afro (Talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do that to cut down on the number of citations. Everything in the list should be in the references provided, but if one citation can cover multiple bullet points then I try to cut down on redundancy. For example, the genre info for X-Men vs. Street Fighter is in the same reference as the heroes and villains content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

• Quick comments –
  • There's a typo in the developer of X-Men II: The Fall of the Mutants. It should be Paragon Software, not Paragron.
  • In the see also note, "a recreational animation software" doesn't feel complete to me. I know it's an afterthought, but standards should be maintained throughout. Should it be "a piece of recreational animation software", or perhaps "a recreation animation software package" (what's it's called in the linked article)? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I changed the list per your concerns. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Would like to see a more developed and informative lead. The current one is lacking--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm loathe to padding the lead just to make it longer when it doesn't need it-- do you have any details in particular that you think need to be added? Nomader ^(Talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Nomader, mainly because I can't think of what else to add. If you have a specific suggestion, we can look into it. But as it stands, the lead summarizes the list and goes into some notable details. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC))
• Comment: The template {{VGtitle}} now supports a parameter for future games, per The Rambling Man's comments. Plans are also in motion to address the accessibility issue brought up by RexxS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Resolved comments from GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)

• Comments:
  • 2000 – Game Boy Color, PlayStation[26][5] ref "5" ahead of "26"
  • Why is gamestop so much linked (in the reference section)?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I switched the ref order per your comment. GameSpot's considered a reliable source by WP:VG, so we use it often to source release dates. They have a pretty comprehensible database-- it's one of the better ones out there and it has a lot of games listed there which may not be listed on other websites. I prefer consistency in my lists, and I feel that using the same site to verify the release dates of all of the items is usually preferable. Nomader ^(Talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, no. I meant why there are so much internal links to gamespot? I think one is ok. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I normally add internal links to every ref because I can't predict which citation a reader might look into. If you think it's a bad idea, I can remove them. But I think it's useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))
          • Only the gamespot as publisher in the first in-line citation should be interwiki-linked. All others not. That will be ''<ref name="GS-Uncanny">{{cite web| url = http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/xmen/similar.html?mode=versions| title = The Uncanny X-Men Release Summary| publisher = GameSpot| accessdate = 2010-06-29}}</ref> |release= 1989 – [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]'' this one. This must be wikilinked, all others not.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Fixed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

• SupportNearly Support: I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry to change my opinion, but a few publishers are wrong. The publisher of all refs with the publisher "GameSpot" are not correct. It is a work, not a publisher; the publisher is "CBS Interactive Inc.", seen at the bottom of the site. The publisher of GameFAQs is "CBS Interactive Inc.", GameFAQs is the work. The publisher of Gamasutra is "UBM TechWeb", this is the work. Allmusic's publisher is "Rovi Corporation", this is the work. The publisher of gamedaily is "AOL Inc.", this is the work. The publisher of marvelultimatealliance is "Marvel", the work is the page. The publisher for wii.gamespy is "IGN" not "THQ". uk.ps3.ign.com is "IGN" not "THQ". publisher=[[1UP.com]] -> work=[[1UP.com]]. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The VG Wikiproject has debated this before but did not reach any consensus. Our magazine citations are treated as you described, but the documentation for Template:Cite web previously left room for debate as to which parameter should be used. And it looks like the discussion at Template talk:Cite web didn't find a definite resolution.
    Dabomb87- I posted a note at VG project talk page. May I have some time for input from project members? Or is there another discussion that demonstrates a more definitive consensus? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC))
    • To chime in on the above, GreatOrange, I've generally used "publisher" for the website itself. As Guy mentions {{cite web}} has never been good at clarifying, and in the case of almost every website the owner isn't that germane to the degree of, say, a book publisher. As long as they're all consistently formatted thus, I don't see an issue with WP:WIAFA (especially as the templates don't actually explicitly output "publisher" when you render it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support now-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• Why does the canceled "Questprobe featuring The X-Men" get its own section, but the canceled "X-Women" get a brief mention?
• I think the list would look better if you broke up the Notes sections into better labels such as "Genre", "Publisher", etc. The naming of characters and plotlines also seems arbitrary, and needs to be consistent throughout the list. Ωphois 18:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I addressed the X-Women game by making a section for the two canceled games.
  • The content in the notes is somewhat arbitrary because it is based on the most notable information that turned up during research. Also, the template uses a generic notes section because it was designed for series of games that share information like genre, developer, publisher, etc. (For example, List of Space Invaders video games and List of Wario video games) However, this group of games seems to break that rationale, so I will try to include consistent information like the genre and developer/publisher. Character and plot info might be another story as reliable sources don't always go into such game details. I will add what I can though.
    FYI- Because of the holidays, I have inconsistent access to the internet, and I will try to get to this in a timely manner. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC))
    • I tweaked the notes. I hope it is to your satisfaction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: I have to admit that I have concerns about how the table is currently. Are most VG Featured lists like that and I've just never noticed, or is this the preferred version? It's hard to get used to, but I can look past it. Will do a full review once this is answered. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Yep, this is how most of them are (i.e. List of Donkey Kong video games, List of Final Fantasy video games, and List of Space Invaders video games), although system lists use a more traditional format (i.e. List of Nintendo 64 games). With the way video game releases and re-releases occur over a number of different platforms, this format really is the most efficient way to list out games. A traditional table would have problems for games like Donkey Kong (video game) which have been released over fifteen times-- the cells would stretch and it wouldn't be properly sortable. The VGtitle template allows us to list all releases and add any notes as necessary, and although it seems as though the accessibility problem has been addressed, we're always open to more comments on how we can improve the format. Nomader (Talk) 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sounds fine. Here are my issues: "the first such game was the 1991 Wolverine." I'd say 'the first was the 1991 game..' sounds better, a bit odd as worded now. "Action video game developed and published by LJN" LJN (shudder) should be linked. In the Uncanny X-Men above (and elsewhere), you can link the characters, but that could be considered overlinking so I'll leave that up to you. Anything on why a lot of Japan releases were after North American ones? Probably not, but that was very interesting, since usually it's the other way around. This list is good otherwise; once these are addressed I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I made the edits per your comments above. In response to your question, I guess because the characters might be more popular in North America and the developer thought it would be best to fast track on an English version. It's rare for a Japanese developer, but not unheard of: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:25, 10 January 2011 (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 The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [10].

---

Order of battle of the Battle of Long Island

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This is the second order of battle I've nominated for Feature List consideration. The first was the Order of battle of the Battle of Trenton (review), passed in July; it is the only featured order of battle for a land battle. The format I used is pretty much the same, although there are minor differences due to what sort of figures are available to report. I hope it meets with your approval; it has been through a MILHIST A-Class review. Magic♪piano 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment

• I presume that the battalions of light infantry and grenadiers were assembled from those companies of the individual regiments? Otherwise looks nice.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would presume so, yes. I've added some words explaining how those units are formed (sources don't identify which units contribute to which brigades, alas). Magic♪piano 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. The British forces, under the overall command of Lieutenant General William Howe, successfully flanked Continental Army positions on western Long Island ... This sentence repeats the following sentence from the second paragraph: The British forces, ... made a successful flanking maneuver around the American left while occupying the American right with diversionary battle. Ruslik_Zero 19:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead is generally not written in chronological order and its first and second paragraphs partially duplicate/contradict each other. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you thought was contradictory, but I've rewritten the lead. Magic♪piano 13:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It is much better now. I have another problem, however. In the last table I read Glover's regiment, stationed on Manhattan during the battle, was sent over to Brooklyn on September 28, and was instrumental in evacuating the army on the night of September 29–30.. What is this sentence about? As I understand Brooklyn was abandoned on 29 August when the army was evacuated from Long Island? Was there the second evacuation at the end of September? Ruslik_Zero 16:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks for catching that; it was supposed to be August, of course. Magic♪piano 16:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments - "Maj." and "Brig." do not fall under WP:ABBR#Widely used abbreviations in Wikipedia so should be written in full. Some of the rows are empty this is acceptable for the notes row but not the others. I am a bit confused over your use of the column spans example "British units" wouldn't this be best used as a section header? you've explained in the prose (though official titles should be added) who the Commander-in-cheif and Second in command were do you need a column span for this? I think it would also be more beneficial for the reader to convert the casualties row into a more suitable format such as seen here. I would suggest the removal of any small html tags in the tables to comply with MOS:TEXT. Afro (Talk) 05:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your feedback. I'm leery about dis-abbreviating only "Maj." and "Brig.", because you end up with ugliness like "Brigadier Gen.". I see a few options: Dis-abbreviate all titles. This adds text, and will probably wrap most of the text in the commander fields (I abbreviate the titles to minimize occurrence of this). Identify the abbreviations when they appear in the text ("Brigadier" does not currently appear in the text), or in an explanatory paragraph in the key. Leave it as is. Preferences? Magic♪piano 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I think if you still want to keep the abbreviations 2 would be the best option. I see you've taken into account my comments on some of the column spans, however you haven't addressed the other comments about the column span for example on "commander-in-chief". Afro (Talk) 22:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I'm getting to the other items, just wanted to clarify the above. Currently the text does not explicitly identify the second in command; I need to figure how to work that in. Magic♪piano 21:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I've redone the British table to detail the casualty numbers in separate columns. Because of the way this affected column spacing, I expanded the ranks to full spelling there, putting the commanders and some units onto two lines. I've also reformatted the notes for brigades that didn't have more specific notes for the subunits so that they occupy the space beside the subunits as well, which helps reduce the size of the tables some. I've also added text explaining the rank abbrevations to the key, and removed the column-spanning banners at the top of each table. Magic♪piano 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC) In the list "1 missing" looks out of place wouldn't it be better to formulate this type of information in a note? Why is ther e an excessive use of bold in the Unit column? also I don;'t understand the use of valign=top in the table head. I'm also a bit confused over the rowspan for the notes, is there not a better way to formulate this information in the table it just seems excessive. Also the occasional center alignment seems out of place surely theres a better way to convey this information. Afro (Talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The unit column needs to differentiate three levels of hierarchy (division/brigade/regiment) in a fairly restricted space. If you don't like the bolding and centering as a means of differentiation (as explained in the key), feel free to propose an alternative. The notes spanning rows is intended that the note applies to the hierarchy of units covered by that span; why is this confusing? As to the "valign=top" in the table head, the next reviewer will probably complain that "Unit", "Commander", and "Notes" don't line up with "Casualties" if I remove it. I've shortened "missing" and "captured" to "M" and "C", with explanation in the key. Magic♪piano 17:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC) First off on the "valign=top" issue, the alignment of the table head hasn't been issue on the discographies, why it is here I do not know. On the center alignment of the off rows, it may be better to formulate this into a colspan. Also you may have unabbreviated the British units section but Hessein's units and the American units. Not sure if I've mentioned or not but the Command staff in the American units looks terribly un-organised not to mention there's a column missing on the right. Afro (Talk) 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, there's a column missing? Please explain. Ditto on the "terribly un-organised" American command staff; this is the order in which they are presented in sources. Magic♪piano 15:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Do you not see the missing column directly under the American Units column span? Afro (Talk) 16:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I'd call that a missing cell; it's not like an entire column was missing, something I've seen before. (And no, I didn't see it because it had no visible effect when rendered in my browser.) Magic♪piano 17:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC) I've made further changes to address your issues. I've changed the division headings on the British units; please tell me what you think. If this is acceptable, I'll propagate the style to the other tables. Magic♪piano 19:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it looks fine without the centering. Also on "Royal Artillery" in the british table you use valign=top again but don't seem to use it anywhere else. Also 3rd and 5th Pennsylvania Battalion have the same note for consistency I don't see why you haven't used the rowspan. Also I don't understand the use of the break you use for many of the commanders ie "Lieutenant Colonel Friedrich von Minnigerode", "Doctor John Morgan", I don't see what advantage the user gets by these breaks. Afro (Talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) The Royal Artillery was aligned to top because it is the only place where the casualty figures are only available as an aggregate; however, I've removed the alignment. As far the line breaks in the commanders, I would prefer, if the table is sized in a narrower-width window, that the line break between the title and the name, rather than between the first and last names. I should probably try experimenting with non-breaking spaces in the names to control this behavior rather than forcing breaks. Magic♪piano 22:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I removed to forced breaks and replaced them with non-breaking spaces, so table resizing works smoothly. Magic♪piano 17:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I am very iffy regarding format for the American Units command staff I would think this could be formatted a different way right now it looks out of place on the table. Also I don't understand the column span for as example "Major General Israel Putnam", is Israel Putnam the Unit as well? Afro (Talk) 10:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I've removed the command staff, and denoted the division commanders with "Commander" in the Unit column. Does that work for you? Magic♪piano 17:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Should the Hessein and American units have the same Casualties format in their tables, just for consistency. Also the American units column span isn't needed. Afro (Talk) 11:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I've removed the American units header; you're right it's no longer needed. As for the casualties, do you really think adding four columns that are blank to the Hessian and American tables will improve them (on the altar of consistency)? The sort of numbers that are available is already documented, and really makes such columns unnecessary. Magic♪piano 14:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no outstanding concerns. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 15:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Have Afro, Sturmvogel and Ruslik0 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support- I dont think there is much more detail out there unless one starts researching through primary sources.XavierGreen (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "buy time" seems a little colloquial for me in the image caption. Rephrased. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) In the lead, what is "Continental Army"? Linked; good catch. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "the early morning hours " reads a little odd to me, just "early hours" is normally acceptable, but it could just be personal preference I suppose. Changed. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "are identified only by bold text" I'm not sure this meets WP:MOSBOLD to be honest. I've learned recently that "table headers" are all col headings and all row headings, so this seems to fall between the gaps and be anomalous. If you can think of a better way to distinguish brigade-level entries from smaller unit entries (that satisfies WP:ACCESS and any other MOS that applies), I'm all ears. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to keep repeating "General" when you refer to "General Howe" but it could be a MILHIST thing so I won't get to worked up about it, it's just a little repetitive. Agreed; I have reduced. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) " the officer's rank is sometimes abbreviated" I'm wondering why, after this point, you don't just abbreviate all ranks for consistency. Well, after the back-and-forth with Afro above, I ended up changing all of the ranks to be fully spelled out; I've removed the comment about abbreviation. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Hessian units table, you have a rowspan for the first four and the second four units, but the same comment. Why? Because I wanted to limit row-spanning to the brigade level. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) "The basis for this order of battle is a return prepared" tense? why not "was a return prepared"? Because I'm talking about the order of battle in this article? Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 14 needs a space between pp. and the page range. Fixed. Magic♪piano 23:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Just a few tiny formatting issues. Even a pedant like me is scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The last note in the key has no period, while the others do. Is this intentional? American forces: No need for two John Sullivan links in this section. Just the first one will do. At the bottom of the American table, the citation note has a period at the end. This is not true of the British tables. I don't really care which way it is done, but it should be consistent throughout. Reference 62 has a space between the page number, unlike the other multiple-page refs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for looking in; I've fixed these. Magic♪piano 18:18, 3 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 01:53, 11 December 2010 [11].

---

Abingdon Boys School discography

Nominator(s): NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)

Hello all. It's been a while. I'm back again, but this time with a unique discography from the underrepresented section of Japanese bands. I believe this page meets FL criteria and will do my best to make any improvements as necessary. Thanks. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 18:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment いらっしゃいませ！
  • LEAD The band's two studio albums both reached #2 on the Oricon charts; singles such as Blade Chord and From Dusk Till Dawn have peaked at #2 and #3 respectively on the Oricon charts. what about Both of the band's first studio albums reached #2 on the Oricon charts...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Done the fix. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments (quick look) Why is "video album" a red link here, something I've not seen in any other discog? No images at all? "one compilation," ... album. "was started in 2005 " formed in 2005. "named the band ABS after Ebisu, Tokyo, Japan" not clear to a non-expert. Is this a linguistic thing? " signed under Epic Records Japan" I think conventionally bands are signed "to" not "under" a label. "Their music.." (etc) you seem to use singular and plural "Abingdon Boys School" interchangeably. As a Brit I have no problem with this, but others may. "#2" - MOS says avoid this use of #. Ensure reference title comply with MOS, i.e. no OVER-CAPITALISATION for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Done most of those. No images of the band are available on Wikipedia or Commons, though I suppose there must be a way to port one over via Flickr. I'm unfortunately not an expert at that process, though I would welcome instruction and guidance. I'll have a look on Flick for suitably licensed images. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) I checked Flickr myself; no such luck to suitably licensed images of the band. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC) A-B-S is pronounced similar to Ebisu in Japanese. 'A' would be "eh", 'B' would be the standard English "bee", and 'S' could be "esu". The trick here is that "bi" would be pronounced "bee" as well. Not entirely sure how to clarify this however. A note would be very useful because to non-Japanese speakers, this is far from clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Take a look at the note at the bottom; I think this should be sufficient. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 02:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Let me know what you think. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR♯♭ 21:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose All of the notes are full sentences, so need full stops JP: Gold - while we, contributors, may know that this is a certification, some readers who have not read many WP discographies in the past may not Why does 'Compilation albums' table have a column for Orion chart position, but no entries? Per MOS:TITLE - singles should not be italicised, but enclosed in quotation marks Every single has a note, 'The title track...'. Obviously, being a single, they are title tracks. These need rewording, ie for "Innocent Sorrow" write 'The single is used as the first opening song to the anime series D.Gray-man' What on Earth are 'Contributions'? Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Responses: Notes like "Only released in Europe" are not full sentences and thus cannot have periods after them; I would much rather have conformity with regard to punctuation, so I prefer no full stops. I still don't find this acceptable, but I'll wait for others' opinions Have clarified JP: Gold. I put the Oricon chart positions for all sections for the sake of conformity. Fixed the singles bit. Japanese singles almost always include additional songs, or B-sides. While "The single" would refer to the title track, the clarification, "The title track..." solidifies the claim that the title tracks are the opening song The lead notes that the discography includes "seven contributions to releases not under its name"; how may I clarify this further? How about 'Other appearances' or similar? You need to clarify what each album is. Are they all compilation albums? I suppose? Contributions was used both here and here while this, this, and this use Other appearances. I've switched it, regardless and yes, they are all compilation albums with the exception of "Buck-Tick Fest 2007 on Parade", a live video album. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your review. I hope I've answered all of your concerns. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 07:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC) There is also an excessive use of boldface in the 'singles' table. I've debolded, but I honestly think it looks quite terrible now. This discography does not share the format with the large majority of other discographies; the single chart follows the album chart layout and I thus think the formatting should remain the same: bolded titles to highlight them. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, I don't seem to mind, either way now. However, the 'Album' column in the singles table definitely needs unbolding. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Ah, now that makes sense. Apologies for the misunderstanding; I've done that now. ɳOCTURNEɳOIRtalk 23:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I still don't like the layout of the notes, but I suppose I'm just being fussy. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Hardly. It's a legitimate concern; one I'd like very much to clarify at some point. Thanks for the review and the support nonetheless. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 23:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Ref 3's date is wrong its September 28 not November 28. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 09:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Not entirely sure how I messed that one up. It's been fixed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR^talk 14:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues with the article. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [12].

---

List of Fab 40 number-one singles

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Think that #1s in the 1960s stayed at the charts for ages? This chart prided itself on being more current. Compared to the canonical source this chart had more than double the amount of number ones in an equivalent period of time. Well if you're interested (and even if you are not) I appreciate you taking a look and giving any comments you might have. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment The 'note' in the key in the green box appears to be slightly outside of the box for me, looking a bit unprofessional (I'm currently on Mac / Firefox). Jujutacular talk 00:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure over which edge it was going outside the box. Looking at other browsers, in IE it was pushing a little bit over the top. So I swapped sup tags for small ones. Seems fairly ineffectual to formatting in FF/Chrome but fixes IE problem (although means boxes aren't exactly the same width). Has that solved it for you? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Yea, that fixed it. Thanks. Jujutacular talk 02:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Comments How did Got Live If You Want It! get on this list as it is an EP and not a single? The above mentioned EP does not sort correctly (probably because of the lack of quote marks). Jujutacular talk 03:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed the latter. Hopefully this will somewhat alleviate any concerns you have for the former. Thanks for the comments, Rambo's Revenge II (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, my concerns have been addressed. Jujutacular ^talk 14:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Do you have a ref for the station being also known as Big L? Yes, it was on the following sentence. Clarified. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC) "(also known as Big L). Big L" not great, could you not start the second sentence with "Also known as Big L, ..."? Better? Possibly worth noting this is a UK thing. How do you mean. It is called London radio, and transmitted of the Essex coast. More than that? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Fab 40 is overlinked in the lead. Done "and the last Fab 40 chart show was " on the day it closed? Clarified No images at all? Not for the lead necessarily, but perhaps down the edge of the table. Should week ending date be "week-ending date" Done Tremeloe's is overlinked in the notes. Not applicable. Per rationale for references they are dipped in an out through ref tags of so overlink doesn't apply. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Most Radio London Ltd refs seem to have two full stops (because of the template no doubt)... Of course, done The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC) As always, thanks for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Additionally I found this during an extensive trawl. Although it's nowhere near as good as an image of it during broadcast it is at least free and something. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I like. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just scanned through the list, and I don't see the need for two Beatles links in one paragraph of the lead. That's all I saw, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [13].

---

ICC Cricket Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's been a while since I tried a cricket list, and this is crying out for becoming featured. Cheers, as ever, for your comments and interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support Harrias ^talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* As I've already commented on the talk page after a request to look at this article, I think the lead is a tad on the short side, but on the other hand I can't really suggest anything to expand it with. The paragraph regarding Heyhoe-Flint is a single sentence, which is frowned at, could it maybe be merged in with another paragraph, or maybe some more information added to that one (though as I say, don't ask me what!) Working on this now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Had a bit of a go, what do you think now? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Much better now I think! Harrias talk 13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC) The table sorts fine, and after fixing a couple of the references they all seem okay. It's a pity that the playing role couldn't be referenced, it would have been interesting to have it included. Thanks for those fixes. Yes, the role would have been interesting, but not directly relevant I suppose. These players were inducted for as "legends" and not against a particular criterion. And the difference between batsman/all-rounder and all-rounder/bowler is always going to lead to some subjectivity... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Could the '+' be super script, to stop it appearing that they were inducted some time after 2009, ie 2009 plus. Superscripted, much easier than I thought! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, all looks good, nice work. Harrias talk 16:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your initial comments and those here. I'll work on expanding the lead a touch more. Any suggestions wouldn't go amiss! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the link to Rodney Marsh leads to a dab page. No dead external links. Ucucha 11:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oopsie, haven't done that in a while. Fixed now, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Gave a talk page review before the nomination, and I thought everything was fine even then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments relating to licensing problems at Commons with images that were formerly used in the list

Comment quickly looking at File:Keith Miller.JPG it seems to be PD, but it is not clear why. Could you update the description with sources to match the criteria in the PD template. Also the OR operator in type A is rather weird; how can something be published prior to 1955 but not taken prior to 1955. Sandman888 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC) It's a Commons image perhaps you could ask the uploader. If it's a problem for this list, I can replace it. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Source is also a deadlink. If it's not possible to verify as PD it should be tagged for deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC) As I said, it's a Commons image so take it up there please. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Image also replaced in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC) The other pictures has similar problems. Sandman888 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) As I said, these are Commons licence issues, so please take your concerns there. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC) (OD) Normally the nominator is responsible for pictures used in the list/article are correctly licensed and sourced. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC) If you are confused.. by licenses at Commons, please take it up there. If you object to the use of specific images here, say so. They can easily be replaced. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC) In any case I think I've removed any images whose licensing issues may have confused you. They are used in many other articles but I admit I have no energy whatsoever to argue with you about license semantics at commons. Cheers for your input. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC) it's not semantics, but a question of proper licensing: all PD claims must be sourced. I am not confused by any of the licenses, but your retort seem to confuse constructive input with ad hominem attacks. Cheerio, Sandman888 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I trust this is no longer an issue with this list. Feel free to contact the uploader at Commons to continue discussion over any further license concerns you may have. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC) File:WGGrace.jpg is still missing source, publication date and author. Sandman888 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Replaced. Thank you for your diligence. I trust you will chase up the various uploaders at Commons now? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Since you asked, no I will not. I trust that you were already on it since you are now aware of how PD claims of images ought to be sourced? Cheers, Sandman888 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC) No, Commons and Wikipedia are different, and I work in Wikipedia. You seem to be very diligent in finding PD problems at Commons, so I suggest you get an account there and state your case. If an image exists at Commons with a problem, you have to go to Commons to solve it (especially as I removed these images from this list). In any case, I assume you have no further issues with the images in this list? If that's all then please collapse these comments as they've become rather lengthy for no gain other than replacement of a couple of Commons images. Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As the list stands, it's pretty good: well-referenced, comprehensive, and the lead is generally well-written, but it feels a bit light. What was behind the decision not to include player some basic stats such as runs, wickets, and averages? I know people weren't inducted based on their stats, but it might give the reader some indication why these people have been singled out. It might also be worth including a table showing the break down of HoF members by country, with a column for when the country started playing Tests (and perhaps how many they've played to take into account breaks such as the boycott of South Africa). Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All good points. However, as an overall rule, I would see it as synthesis to include an personal estimation as to why these individuals may have been singled out. The ICC say this accolade "recognises the achievements of the legends of the game from cricket's long and illustrious history" and doesn't go into more than that. You're right, we can definitely speculate that Barry Richards was included despite only playing four Tests because of the circumstances, but we can definitively state it as fact, unless we can find an ICC source backing it up. In short, I think I'm saying the objective basic Test career stats are included, and nothing else because other stats may mislead a reader. In actuality, I guess the only really neutral approach is to just list the names, teams and year of induction. But I felt the balance was finely struck between all stats/speculation and bare list of names. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support – And one question, is Wasim Akrim alphabetized correctly? I know nothing about Pakistani surnames and their proper use, but judging by the rest of the Pakistani names in this article, he deserves to go top of the list. And maybe in Bishan Singh Bedi's place in list should be determined by the first surname just like in Rachael Heyhoe-Flint case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinsh (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and support. I've made Akram sort consistently with the other Pakistani players. I don't think Singh is part of the surname, so it sorts by Bedi. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [14].

---

List of I Zingari first-class cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements. It is modelled off lists such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers and List of South Africa women Test cricketers that have already attained FL status. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Our own I Zingari article seems to imply there were Australian "gypsies" too? There were, but they didn't play any first-class matches, and to be honest I'd call them seperate sides; I suppose I could add a note in though. I think something needs to be added because you link to that article in the lead, and it'd be odd not to at least mention it in passing. With a ref, obviously! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Added something in now, what do you think? Harrias talk 11:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I think you mean "Old Harrovian" rather than "old Harrovian". I do indeed, fixed! "opposition; the Gentlemen of England and county sides became frequent opposition" opposition too quickly repeated for me. Changed second usage to 'opponents', if that is still too similar, I'll change it further. " who included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers in their side." maybe "whose team included W.G. Grace and two of his brothers."? Changed as suggested. "Their next first-class" - lost who "they" is (last team mentioned is The Gentlemen)... Changed to "I Zingari's next first-class.." "although the highest " perhaps "while the highest..."? Changed as suggested. The ? need a note to explain what they mean. Will add one in. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always, for your comments, some of my responses probably needs replies back from you! Harrias talk 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support (never 'eard of 'em) enjoyed it, decent list, up to scratch as far as I'm concerned. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Just a few nit-picks in an otherwise fine list...

• Little redundancy here: "while the highest score for I Zingari was 147, scored by Teddy Wynyard." The "score" and "scored" is what I'm referring to.

• Removed "scored". Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• "Members of the peerage also played for I Zingari; including...". The semi-colon should probably just be a regular comma.

• Changed to comma. Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• The publisher for reference 1 should be in italics, since the Wisden Almanack is a printed work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is now italicised! Harrias ^talk 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work, meets standards, and I'm not finding anything to nit-pick about. Courcelles 20:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support You might want to include a bit about the derivation of the name if you can find a source, although that's not enough to make me oppose. I made a couple of copy edits you'll want to double check, but otherwise the lead seems fine; it provides a good summary of the main points of the table and is a good introduction to the subject. I like the layout of the table, it's fairly standard and the sorting works fine. As there are 85 players I haven't gone through all the sources to double check if they're correct, but did spot-check five (from working on similar lists I know transcribing errors can creep in as you're doing the same thing over and over) and everything checked out fine. Well done Harrias on the good work. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 18:43, 5 December 2010 [15].

---

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is the only comprehensive list of the relevant churches, under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England, and provides locations, graphics (where available), coordinates and additional information about each of the 62 entries in the list, supported by extensive references. It is based on a list format by User:Peter I. Vardy and copy edited by User:Malleus Fatuorum. — Rod ^talk 21:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment 4 dead links: here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Wow that was quick - The four Wiltshire "get churches" URLs were working this morning & still give the same URL after searching though the list at http://history.wiltshire.gov.uk/community/church_search.php. I believe this is a temporary server glitch. Working on the others.— Rod ^talk 21:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• They had changed their server path today - I believe they are now fixed.— Rod ^talk 21:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

*Not too fond of the parentheses in the first sentence. Can it be rephrased/removed somehow? Reworded What is the meaning of "safe" in: "The trust's primary aim is to ensure that the buildings in its care are weatherproof and safe."? Reworded Is the definition of "South West England" due to the Churches Conservation Trust or only used in this list? The CCT use a definition of SW England which doesn't include Gloucestershire whereas South West England and West Country include it (based largely on government department definitions). The ongoing debates on their talk pages demonstrate there is no single definition. I don't want to join the discussions on this issues. Just wanted to make sure that the CCT uses the same partition in SW England, N England,... as this list. They do, right? Yep these lists are all being based on CCT regions. Their list of SW England is here OK. Please remove doubled information: "Rural churches dominate the list" and "The majority are rural village churches..." Reworded Some overuse of "largely" could be copy-edited. Some reworded Empty cells should be filled with {{center|—}} AFAIK. Added The link for footnote "C" does not work. Fixed Should "St Nicholas (old)" be replaced with "Old Church of St Nicholas"? Done (& also in a few other cases) What is Thurlbear in "St Thomas, Thurlbear, Orchard Portman"? A church, village or town? Same for a couple of other entries ("St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton",...). The column heading suggests that there are only two things appearing while sometimes there are three. Maybe reword the heading to something like: "Church name and location". I've changed the column header as suggested. these are often where a tiny village within a parish doesn't have an article & therefore the parish is wikilinked. I am a bit confused by the note in the reference section ("The Heritage Gateway website is published by...). What is it supposed to tell me? We are supposed to give the publishers of the sources used. Heritage Gateway is published by a consortium of three bodies. The note is intended to prevent the repetition of this information in every reference, which would make the section large and ugly. It was deemed acceptable in the FL Friends of Friendless Churches.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I can add the full publisher info to eeach of these references if that would be preferable? I see and it is perfectly fine with me not to repeat the publisher information. However at the moment I have a problem locating the Heritage Gateway references. The term "Heritage Gateway" only seems to appear in the note and not in the references. I have removed this as heritage Gateway is not used in this list. Categories referring to the Churches Conservation Trust such as "Charities based in London" should be removed as this is a list about churches and not about the trust. These cats removed Thanks. If you wish, you could also get rid of category "Conservation in England" since the category "Churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust" is in that category already. Removed.— Rod talk 10:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC) A navigation template for other similar lists (Northern England) might be a good idea for the future. Yes that would be a good idea - but several of the lists haven't been written (yet) But hopefully will be written. In any case it is not essential at the moment. bamse (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for you comments. I hope they have now been addressed.— Rod talk 08:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Some more comments mainly on the notes column... (to be added to as I read along) bamse (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The main table is currently in the section "Key". Maybe create a special section "Churches". Done Should "over looking" be one word? Taking advice on this one Done - all one word "...there is evidence of a wooden church in about 700 AD...". Surely the evidence is not from 700 AD. Possibly "in"->"from"? Done "Outside the tower is a stone dedicated to John Coumbe, said to have lived from 1484 to 1604 – outliving the entire Tudor dynasty." Is this essential for the church? Removed "The 15th-century tower houses three bells, two of them medieval and one 17th century", maybe add something in the second part of the sentence. I don't understand what is wrong with this one Reworded Same for: "The nave of Whitcombe Church dates from the 12th century, with the chancel being added in the 15th" Again this seem allright to me - what needs changing? Reworded "...and altar rails, and the remains of wall paintings", maybe get rid of the first "and" Done Capitalization in "St Antoninus King and Martyr." correct? Changed What's a "Gurney Stove"? Maybe add a footnote. named after inventor added "The presence in the floor of the church of trapdoors..." reads cumbersome. Reworded "a ... tree in the churchyard suggest it was", maybe "suggests that it was..." Reworded "The manor was held by Shaftesbury Abbey's manor of Tisbury". The manor was held by a manor, correct? 2nd "manor" changed to endowment Taking a break (at "St Mary, Maddington, Shrewton") now. Will continue later today or tomorrow. bamse (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all comments so far - I will try to catch up with you.— Rod talk 11:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC) You use "28 feet (8.5 m) by 17 feet (5.2 m)" and on the other hand "62 by 12 feet (19 × 3.7 m)". Use the same way throughout (also check other occurrences. I'd prefer the second version. This will take a little while. I think I've done all these now. I think so too. Capitalization of "Perpendicular" correct? There seem to be both small and capital versions in the list. Also at least one of the "perpendicular" is linked to perpendicular and not to Perpendicular Period. Please check. Changed What is a "rectar"? Typo - changed Something should be changed in: "A church was established on the site, overlooking the River Parrett, in the 12th century, was valued at £5 in 1291,[122] although the majority of the fabric of the current building dates from the 14th." several full stops added "It is now in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust." Isn't this redundant given that the church is mentioned in this list? Removed Something is missing in: "It is currently on the English Heritage Buildings at Risk Register,[128][129] flood damage from the River Chew in 1968." added "following" flood damage Something should be changed in: "It has a perpendicular three-stage tower has an octagonal stair turret on the south wall." "with" and octagonal... Unify spelling of medieval/mediaevel. This will take a little while.— Rod talk 18:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Standardised Done with the notes column. I also fixed some obvious things, but please check that I did not change any meaning. bamse (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC) There is likely a typo in ref 104. bamse (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Done.— Rod talk 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I think there is at least one "Heritage Gateway" reference, so you might want to put the note back or add publisher information directly to the reference. I can't find this one Edit the whole article and search for "www.heritagegateway.org.uk". I find two occurrences, one at "[St Giles' Church, Imber" and the other at "St Mary's Church, South Tidworth". Thanks - now done.— Rod talk 20:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC) There is something missing or amiss in the sentence: "It includes a collection of medieval carvings, in the form of elegant corbel-heads, roof bosses, and externally in the form of fearsome gargoyles" Reworded "Fearsome" might violate WP:NPOV, though personally I don't see a problem here so I leave it up to you to decide what's best here. fearsome removed (even though it was supported by the ref). Welcome, and on it goes... "The first record of the church is an agreement dated 1226 between William, son of Arthur de Clopton and Richard of Keynsham Abbey." If possible, can you add what kind of agreement or in which way the church is mentioned in this agreement. Detail added Thanks. Possibly it should be "in an agreement"!? "in" added. I will try to get to the references this evening.— Rod talk 12:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC) What makes [16] a RS? The Newton Ferrers & Noss Mayo is a non-profit organisation and has a mechanism for correcting any errors (from home page) I have removed this one the info is covered by the Images of England ref already included What makes [17] a RS? Nadder Valley Focus is "a non-commercial site maintained by volunteers" and has a mechanism for correcting any errors from Contact us page) I have removed this one and sourced the information by reuse of the British History Online reference What makes [18] a RS? Replaced with a ref from North Wiltshire Council What makes [19] a RS? Replaced with ref from Pastscape (English Heritage) What makes [20] a RS? Ref removed as info already covered by RS What makes [21] a RS? I've removed the info re minton reredos at Fisherton as I couldn't find an alt source What makes [22] a RS? I've removed the claim re the plaque at Holcombe as I can't find an alt source What makes hiddendorset a RS? "Hidden Dorset was initially funded by Leader+ Chalk & Cheese; Arts Council England; a partnership of Dorset County Council, and the six borough/district councils in the county. It is now independent of these bodies." from About page Unfortunately this does not tell anything about the current situation or who is writing material for the site. If they were still funded by those bodies, I'd believe that they are reliable. The fact that they "are now independent" could mean that the funding bodies were not happy with the content for instance. bamse (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I have removed the claim about the bells which was supported by this reference.— Rod talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes [23] a RS? Ref removed as info already covered by RS There are still two refs using this site. Thanks I hadn't spotted them - now replaced/removed.— Rod talk 10:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes [24] a RS? See their Policy page What part of the policy page should I look at? Apparently about-bristol is written by several members of the Stiles family according to About us. How do I know that they are reliable? I have replaced the ref supporting the quote about a "Wedding Cake Church" with one from the Churches Conservation Trust.— Rod talk 10:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes everythingexmoor a RS? Everything Exmoor describes itself as 'by the Community for the Community' but does undergo editorial control before publication About Page. It is a stable site already used as a source on multiple wp pages including List of museums in Somerset (FL), Exmoor (FA), Somerset (FA), Minehead (GA) and Geology of Somerset (GA) without any problems, Material can be submitted by everybody. Not sure where it says that there is editorial control. I guess it would also matter who the editor is. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) What makes megalithic.co.uk a RS? According to wikipedia article The Megalithic Portal "Its listings are often referenced by noted web sites[2] and in recent books on megaliths[3] and Holy Wells[4]...Founded by chartered engineer Andy Burnham, ... The Megalithic Portal has existed in its current form since February 2001. .. In 2002, Archaeology Magazine reviewed the Megalithic Portal, describing it as 'useful, fun, and accurate'.[6] As of January 2010 the Megalithic Portal has been constituted as a non profit making membership society[7]. From the site About page under terms and conditions and see The Charter of Responsible Megalithic Webmasters. According to terms and conditions, they cannot guarantee the accuracy of material submitted by third party contributors. Is the material cited in this list by third party contributors? I've removed lots of the non RS sources and either removed the accompanying information or used other (RS) sources which cover the same information. I am convinced "Everything Exmoor" and "Megalithic Portal" should be allowed as Reliable. "Hidden Dorset" and "About Bristol" have suitable policies in place about quality controll etc and I think are probably RS but would be happy to compromise on these two.— Rod talk 18:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thank you. I will have another look as soon as I get time. bamse (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC) I am far from an expert on RS issues. However Hidden Dorset and About Bristol look less reliable to me than the other sites (see comments above). To make sure I asked the experts at WP:RSN. bamse (talk) 10:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC) On Everything Exmoor the About page states in "the only limiting factor will be the time available for the volunteer editor to process the incoming information." this leads me to question how they factually check the information. Also in the About is "All the information is provided 'by the Community for the Community'" considering what you're sourcing with the information it leads me to believe it may not be factually accurate. I'm not sure on Megalithic however the information which you are citing appears to be user submitted with no expert knowledge in the field. Afro (Talk) 07:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Although it pains me to do so (because it means I should go & check all the other FAs, FLs & GA which use it) I have replaced the reference to everything exmooor with the reuse of the Images of England one which has the same information. I have also replaced the megalithic reference with one from British History Online.— Rod talk 19:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I will support after the display problems of refs 119 and 131 are fixed and "church" is capitalized in ref 130. bamse (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks. I must be getting too close to this I didn't even spot those - now fixed.— Rod talk 18:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Support bamse (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "It was legally established ..." - you've talked about several things between the Trust and this sentence, so suggest you make this "The Trust was established..." Done Any ideas if the Trust has been affected by the recent austerity measures to be implemented by our gracious orange/blue government? If it's partly financed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, is it likely to see this funding disappear? (Just a question really). This was discussed at Talk:Churches Conservation Trust with various people checking different published lists - but it appears to have survived (so far) For anyone interested,the latest info is here. Basically the grant from the DCMS has been cut by 20%.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "2,000 volunteers" spare space here. Done.— Rod talk 21:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Table captions (and well done for giving the ACCESS thing a go here) should not be bold (but that may not be your fault) and, if incomplete sentences, shouldn't have full stops, like the one for the Key currently does. This comes from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)#tables which was recently pointed out to me & I can't see how to change bold. Full stop is gone Caption says "year of construction" but you sometimes have just the closest century. I've changed this to year or era Not keen on bold at the start of each row, but hey... "The church is now one of three in the care of the priest-in-charge of Gerrans and Philleigh." no ref. Removed as I can't find a reliable source I seem to remember asking about this once before but Ham stone redirects to Hamstone. Is there a reason you use the former? I think about stone from Ham Hill but now changed "with 4 bells" four. Done " 1833[92] during " I see no major problem with dropping this ref to the end of the sentence. Done Ref 1 title - The Trust, not "The trust". Done Similarly for ref 3, trust is capitalised in the page title. Done Check all ref dates are in the same format - ref 5 has an ISO date while rest (or, at least, the majority) are human format. This was a date of publication as opposed to accessdate but changed, I hope I've got them all now BBC refs, in general, have publication dates, like ref 82 was published 12 April 2009. Please add these. Hope I've got them all PDF refs should have format=PDF I've never understood the rationale for this but Done Ref 121 needs an en-dash for page ranges. Check others. 121 was a reuse of 119 so have reused that. I've looked for others but having never understood the rationale for this one either they don't jump out at me. Ref 132 has a bare URL, a bit odd. This was the same with 119 - neither used the cite web template - now fixed Do you need Category:Churches in England when the Churches preserved by... is a much more specific category which is a second-level sub-cat of the former? Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Hopefully done but a couple I didn't understand eg As in lead & ? ALT or what for images Any chance of an update to the As of in the lead? Sorry I don't understand this Sorry, the date after "As of..." in the lead, i.e. November 2010 now.. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks I see now - I have removed the "as of.. date" it is not an exact number "over 340" and unlikely to change frequently Nicholas's vs Nicholas' - source says one, table says t'other. This has been debated in several places for what to do with the apostrophe when the saints name ends in "s" - eg Talk:Churches Conservation Trust#Apostrophes I don't think a final solution has been achieved. I just want internal consistency within the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Thnk I've got this now.— Rod talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC) If we persist with these captions, (and again, this is a question, not a directive), what do we do about purely visual columns, like the "Photograph" column here. Photos aren't mentioned in the caption, but there's no alt text, so I'm not sure what a screen reader would make of this. I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I thought ALT tags hadn't become required but will add them if you think they are needed? The caption still appears to have a full stop, but what I mean about using it for access purposes, you should mention that there are also photographs of each church in the caption for it to be explicit and complete. The boldness will soon be okay with MOSBOLD, so not to worry there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC) I had removed the full stop from one table caption but not the other - now done, & added "with photographs".— Rod talk 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Rod, per those bold row headers for each church, if you're not already aware, it may be worth having a glimpse at this discussion. You can now "unbold" those and keep it accessible, should you wish to do so. Next up is a discussion about captions... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks but I think I'll wait for consensus to emerge (everywhere) before making more changes & tackling all the other lists (FL & otherwise) I've been involved in.— Rod ^talk 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, and rightly so. I think this list is probably the one of the first to take these changes into account, so I just wanted to ensure you were aware of changes/discussions going on here and there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 10:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comment - I'm glad to see you've added symbols to grade "II" however where are the symbols for grade "I" and "III"? Afro (Talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I don't understand that comment. The grades are I, II* & II - there is no grade III. Do you mean the asterisk "*" - if so this is a part of the grading - see Listed building#England and Wales or the English Heritage web site. What are you asking me to do?— Rod talk 14:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Sorry grade 3 was me jumping ahead of myself, anyway per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 15:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC) But the text in each of the boxes is different ie I or II* or II, so the colour is not the only way of differentiating them, therefore I can't see why a symbol is needed as well. If the colour were removed the cells would still provide the relevant information.— Rod talk 15:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry I seem to be jumping ahead of my a lot lately, ignore my previous comment. Afro (Talk) 16:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Can Note B, be phrased better the thing which confuses me is "or the exact years over which it was built if known". Grammatical error on Ref 179. Ref 183 I can't find where it cites this information in the source. Coding error in Ref 190. Afro (Talk) 18:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I have attempted to reword note B. English capitalised on ref 179. Ref 183 moved as it supports the POWs buidling the chu8rch but not being the only one. cite web coding sorted on ref 190.— Rod talk 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Since the article is over 100,000 bytes wouldn't it be better to remove one of the images in the lead? maybe the bigger of the images. Afro (Talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Removing an image will not reduce the file size much, however I can do this if required, although I was advised that for a long list it would be useful to have a couple of lead images.— Rod talk 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Who were you advised by may I ask? Afro (Talk) 18:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I disagree. When I tried removing a lead image it reduced the size of the list from 102 kb to 102 kb. It's not one image that makes it a big list, it's the amount of info it gives — and that's not the nominator's fault!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC) It was just a query on whether it'd be better in reducing the loading time, no worries. Afro (Talk) 19:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – These are from a skim of the church notes. St Thomas the Martyr: The hyphen in 1791-3 should be a dash. Also, the formatting is inconsistent with 1896–97 later, in regards to the amount of numbers (one after the dash in one, two in the other). St Andrew, Northover, Ilchester: "It was also the site of as minister church...". "as" → "a". All Saints, Leigh: "between 1896 and 1897 in 1896". Which is it? Or is this referring to two seperate things? St Martin, Cathedral Close, Exeter: The dash in the year range should be an en dash, not the larger em dash. A few of the column dates toward the end also have this problem. St Mary, Wilton: Had trouble understanding the following sentence: "The ruins of the three arches of the south arcade, and fragments of the north arcade and the altered eastern arch of the west tower or west window within the churchyard." St Mary, South Tidworth: "the construction work was supervised by G. H. Gordon. for Sir John Kelk of the Kelk Baronets, The chancel...". The comma and period should be reversed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Response Thanks for spotting these. I have never understood the rationale for the emphasis on en dash v em dash/hyphen, but I've been through & hopefully got all these & other identified problems.— Rod talk 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support An interesting list, I didn't expect visitor numbers to the churches to be so high. The lead is well developed, explaining clearly what the trust does and providing some stats about the churches in its care. The descriptions are detailed and well written, and the table sensibly laid out. An excellent list. Nev1 (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [25].

---

Fantasia Barrino discography

Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after making massive overhaul of the article removing fancruft and adding reliable sources, and then converting to the new discography style, I believe it now meets FL criteria. Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • STUDIO ALBUMS:
    • there is US and U.S., it should be 3 US
    • album charts haven't got references, see here for example.
  • SINGLES US should be unlinked
  • REFERENCES: one link with timeout: here

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, but about the ref, something is wrong with the RIAA site today. I was working on another discog and that happened. Candyo32 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The link is working for me now. Ucucha 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

for me too. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • FEATURED SINGLES: what is that? is it notable to split it off from the singles box?

See featured lists Taylor Swift discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography and more.

• • STUDIO ALBUMS:
    • album charts haven't got references, see here for example.

Oops, done.

• • Infobox: i see there is no caption, what about Winner of season 3 of American Idol, Fantasia Barrino. or the location in the pic.

Done. Candyo32 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: until you add a reference in Featured single US R&B-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Candyo32 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

add an External links section, i.e. allmusic, official website, discogs, musicbrainz...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Candyo32 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:*Is she more well-known as 'Fantasia' or 'Fantasia Barrino'? If the former, please indicate this in the first sentence. If the latter, you should refer to her by her surname throughout the lead. "Although only shifting 133,000 discs in its first week of availability" - reference needed "The song was certified Gold in the US and according to Billboard, ranks at number eight on the 2000s decade-end R&B chart." - comma after 'and'. Don't link 'decade-end' to 2000s (decade), instead link '2000s'. The last paragraph is quite short; can you mention Back to Me's sales and "I'm Doin' Me" in it? Why is there a sub-header for studio albums when they are the only type of album she has released? Link: USA Today (published by Gannett Company), Rovi Corporation, Nielsen Business Media, Inc About.com should not be italicised Be consistent with linking - you link Billboard every time, but Allmusic and MTV are only linked on their first occurence. The USA Today ref has a date format inconsistent with the others (there may be other rogue ones, but I can not see any) Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Every concern should be addressed now! Candyo32 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Looking much better. Can you unlink Billboard in ref 13, and unitalicise MTV, allmusic and about.com? After that I should be done! Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Done! Candyo32 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC) MTV is still italicised (refs 20-24). Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, and Billboard is owned by e5 Global Media now (I think). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Is there a reason why there's an excessive use of Boldface? Afro (Talk) 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All changes to this discog and current featured lists are due to the new formats/style per WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Candyo32 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a proposed guideline, until theres a consensus on it, you should follow the format of a recent FL, if the guideline is adopted the changes can always be added in future to update the list. Afro (Talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was established on the talk page to being converting, as several FL's have been converted including Kelly Rowland discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography, Hilary Duff discography, and Ashley Tisdale discography, among others. Candyo32 04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the talk page and consensus doesn't seem to of been reached as of yet, currently though the proposed guideline does fail MOS:BOLD at the very least which was my original question. Afro (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Bolding of title. We need to address internal inconsistencies between style guides before they cause too much trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Afro, I do not like this new styling of discographies either (especially the bolding of single titles), but according to WP:ACCESS (specifically here) apparently these changes have been made to optimise readability for less-able readers. MOS:BOLD allows bolding for table headers, which these are. I think we will just have to suck it up and accept these changes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no significant aesthetic change. It's quite the opposite, this new layout improves readability. Your reaction is normal, because you are used to a certain layout. And changing habits is surely disturbing, and sometimes unpleasant. But once you will have seen this layout several times, you'll get used to it. And later on, you'll get attached to it just as much as you were attached to the previous one. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For the third time of asking, why isn't the Music videos section bold in the same way as the singles and albums? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it at the same time as your reply. Dodoïste (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 13, 17 and 19 seem to have coding issues. Ref 17 also has a date inconsistency. Afro (Talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Refs 13 and 19 fixed, but I don't seem to find a problem with 17.Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I believe you meant 7, and its fixed now. Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, silly me I also seem to have no more problems with the list, Support. Afro (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose until we are agreed that the new bold row headings is correct and that we need the repetitive (and bold) captions for every table. Detailed discussions on this moved to FLC talk page Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Bold table headers have been allowed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text_formatting) for years, I did not went back further than 2007. So the row headings are OK. Remains the potential issue with table captions. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, there are not really any major issues here. Rather than debate too much about the WP:ACCESS part of MOS, everything else is quite good about this article. WP:ACCESS is part of the MOS and DISCOGSTYLE shows one way in which ACCESS can be achieved. Personal preferences on style should not hold back the progress of articles. Though I will be one of the first to agree that how we apply ACCESS to DISCOGS is still being debated etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realise it still contravenes WP:MOS because of the bold table captions, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The question was raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Table captions. Few people commented, so the question is still open. Dodoïste (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm now challenging the assertion that bold table captions are not a recognised exception at WP:MOSBOLD. It may be worth suspending judgement here until consensus forms. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Has this consensus already taken place? Because someone has already gone ahead and removed every bolded item in the discog. Candyo32 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the recent change to mediawiki's common.css, the bolding is now optional, but will still be obvious to screen-readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

oppose per WP:MOSBOLD#Other uses which states that table headers should be in boldface; the use of plainrowheaders directly violates this for the row-headers. Jack Merridew 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) striking this as the whole thing is still in flux. Jack Merridew 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh gosh, just what the hell is going on when I'm busy at work? FLC candidates are not the place to debate rules. There is WT:FLC for this, and other MOS pages. We're not to annoy editors who are trying to do their best and make the article accessible. It would be awesome if every featured lists would conform to accessibility requirements. But accessibility should not be perceived as a hindrance, and especially not prevent excellent lists to gain the featured status. So please don't do that. There has been enough mess here already. Dodoïste (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on content rather than appearance: For such a slim discog, would expect her videos to be mentioned in the lead as well. Done. Would also link discography. Done "consists of three studio albums, and thirteen singles" I see no need for that comma. Done "peaked at number on in" (and people supported this!) Done "Later that year," what year? I don't know when American Idol season 3 was held. Done "certified Platinum" could use a link to something that allows a non-expert reader to understand what "certified" means in this context. Done "and has sold over 1.8 million copies in the US" - as of when? Done "shifting" is very tabloid, not what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Done And "only ... 133,000" needs context, because, where I'm from that's a heck of a lot... Done "The album has also.." and "which has peaked in" - no need for "has" here in my opinion. Done Infobox caption should not have a period. Done Where is "It's All Good" referenced (since it didn't chart anywhere)? Done "Other Artist(s)" -> "artist(s)". Done "Director(s)" - there's only ever one so ditch the (s). Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) "having moderate success" what does this mean and is it your opinion or do you have an RS to back it up? "moderate" was dertermined since the osng did not reach the top ten on the R&B chart, and was used rather than to list all of the acutal chartings of the song, similar to the way "moderate" and "little success" were used on Ciara discography. Not sure it's even needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Candyo32 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Caption: "performs as a lead" -> performed.

Why should this be in past tense as they same songs "live" or can be played over and over so she "performs" and has not "performed" as its not a one-time live performance or anything.

Not sure I like this, but I'll leave it out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:08, 23 November 2010 [26].

---

List of Metallica concert tours

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list because I believe this is a fine list worthy of the featured status (the previous nom was closed without any votes). Nergaal (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links; dead external links to http://www.nytimes.com/1996/07/12/arts/music/1996lolla.html?pagewanted=1 and http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12054238 . Ucucha 22:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the first one minutes you posted here, and the second works fine (it redirects). Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:Kirk Hammett replaced Mustaine in 1983, while the bassist role was taken by Cliff Burton (1982–1986), Jason Newsted (1986–2001), and Robert Trujillo (from 2003). i would write since 2003-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Than you very much! Nergaal (talk) 10:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - The link in ref 8 is totally wrong as it links to their 1982 schedule, I don't see how this references 1983 onwards. I once again raise the question of how Ref 64 can reference the whole column since its a link to the 2008 European Vacation. Ref 44 has a small typing error with the code. Afro (Talk) 19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 4 is split by years: selecting the year and then tour will show all the shows in that year. I am not looking forward at splitting it into almost 30 links. Should I just add a note to it? Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• I did not add #64 so I don't know what to do with it other than remove it. Nergaal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• On Ref 8 I did check and it does only show 1982 on the dropbox. I think adding a note like Note 1 in List of number-one singles from the 2000s (New Zealand), would be the best option. Afro (Talk) 20:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.metallica.com/timeline.asp Just looking over the link again this would probably be the better link to add since it doesn't lead to the 1982 section. Afro (Talk) 01:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed the format to a summary note for each decade with yearly links, and a general reference in the Refs section. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Can the image galleries for Ref 8, 15, 40, 50, 60, constitute as Realiable? also I think per MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities" so I think adding the small html tag is against the MOS. Afro (Talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All the images are hosted by Metallica.com, the official website. The first image for example has the caption Advertisement for the show on April 23rd, 1982 at The Concert Factory in Costa Mesa, CA: since all the other links of the Metallica.com are considered reliable, I don't see a reason to consider images hosted by them with such descriptive captions to be unreliable (if the captions would say something like "original advertisement of a show that had different supporting bands" then yes, but the captions imply that the ticket description is accurate). Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Font sizes: are you referring to the locations? If yes, then all the FLs like this employ similar format, and I see no reason to have this different. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I ask on the images because you seem to be referencing the supporting acts and not the entire gigs, since 8 only has Metallica listed, 15 is unreadable, 40 is a picture of Metallica, 50 doesn't have any supporting acts listed, 60 I can't find any specific references of bands, maybe WP:RS was incorrect maybe WP:VERIFY would be more correct along the lines I'm thinking of. On the font sizes I don't think just because all other FLs employ it should be means for inclusion, whether it meets FL criteria should be the means. Afro (Talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not added the images myself so I don't know for sure what happened. But seeing that the accessdate was Feb 2009, I am tempted to think that the image IDs were changed since then, so the link shows a diff image. I went through each of them and fixed them: Changed 8, 15, 40, and 50 (doubled it to 50 and 51), and removed 60 since is superfluous. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The font size still hasn't been taken care of which I've listed the appropriate reason above.

Copy-pasting from above: Font sizes: are you referring to the locations? Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 14 I'm slightly confused as to what its referencing, my best guess is that the content of the link has changed since January 2009, same goes with Ref 19, 28.

Ref 14 contains drop-down menus that are not linkable directly. For example, if you click on 1985, you will get the lineup that corresponds to the first instance of the use of ref 14. I have merged 19 into 14. I am confused to what is the problem with ref 28 (now 27). Nergaal (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 44 I'm pretty sure constitutes as WP:OR and definitely violates WP:CIRCULAR.

current #43: are you saying Metallica.com uses wikipedia to reference its own playset? As for OR, I am not convinced it is: [27] & [28]. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the WP:VERIFIABILITY of Songkick.com, whiplash.net, and musicmight.com.

On Songkick after signing up I can edit the artists listed, which means the information can change on a daily basis.

Switched. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Going by the About of MusicMight its all user submitted.

By Whiplash.net About page section (more specifically here) "Actually the whole site content is written by volunteer contributors." (requires translation obviously) so its all user submitted.

Question - Would it be more useful to separate the one off shows and the concerts into a new section, what prompts me to ask is "Several shows outside tours" from "2000-2003", it seems logical to separate material like this. Afro (Talk) 10:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The list is meant to be chronological, with only three occasions where they played outside official tours. Splitting the list further would not help achieve anything extra. Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting from above "per MOS:TEXT "Increased and decreased font size should primarily be produced through automated facilities"

I have no idea what are you specifically referring to! What TEXT you think uses the wrong size, and what automated facilities are you referring to? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I must've mistaken 28 for something else.

On Ref 44 (now 43) at the time it consisted of internal links obviously has been changed since, however I still do not see any information regarding the debut of 2 new songs all I see is a setlist maybe the songs are within this setlist the average reader cannot verify this, changing the information you're citing might be appropriate.

I changed the verb from debuted to played. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the structure of the lead, it does violate WP:LEAD#Length as short as the 2nd is.

You are saying the lead is too long? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

On the splitting I only ask because this article is about concert tours, would it not be useful to the reader to split dates which are essentially just concerts and not tours themselves. Afro (Talk) 13:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So you would want to drop the "tour" part from the title? Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a note: could you strike out the issues that have been fixed? Another reviewer passing through here might think that there are plenty of issues to be solved to bother dropping by to make another review. Nergaal (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious the text I was referring to was the location, what other text are you using the small html tags for? I wasn't suggesting dropping the tour part from the title all I am suggesting is it might be better to separate the "tours" which are just concerts, it doesn't make too much sense to me that the one-off concerts are grouped with the tours. Afro (Talk) 13:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5, List of Madonna tours, List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, and List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5 and go ahead and nominate them for FLR with your concern that you have here. I don't understand why it is acceptable to have this in current FLs but it is not in FLCs. Nergaal (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the non-tours entries to a separate section. Is the oppose still standing? Nergaal (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Had I been apart of those FLCs I assure you I would've brought up the very same concerns regarding MOS:TEXT, for reference the Kylie Tour probably needs bringing to the FLRC for the Lead alone. Fact is the Criteria specifically states 5. "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." unless I'm mistaken the table does not comply with MOS:TEXT, and yes as of right now I am Opposed. Afro (Talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but it doesn't seem to be very broad in its coverage. There is little to no info on many tours. It would be helpful to add more info and insight.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you even remotely aware of what do the current FLs on tours look like? There are four of them: NIN one does not cover any details other than band setup; Kyle Minogue has 16 entries with one or two short sentences for each; the Jackson one has 15 entries with one or two lines for all except the last 4 ones; Madonna has 12 entries, all with details. This has over 30 entries! Also, and only a small part of these have separate articles, have you thought that there are no separate articles because reliable, independent sources with more information on those tours are simply not available? Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 18:06, 12 December 2010 [29].

---

Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor

Nominator(s): PresN 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Despite saying that I was done for a while, I'm back with the Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been incorporated into this list. This one is a bit different from the others, though, in that not only is it given for a person, not their work, but also in that the work that they did isn't even mentioned. That is to say that Ben Bova won the inaugural year (1973, to coincide with the removal of the "Best Professional Magazine" category) but what it was that he was editing wasn't listed. Since I found that a bit boring and uninformative, I've added in a (non-comprehensive) list of what the editors worked on in that year, and then cited it, which balloons the ref count to 108. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • Hugo Award nominees and winners are chosen by supporting or attending members of the annual World Science Fiction Convention, or Worldcon, and the presentation evening constitutes its central event. delete Worldcon, because it links there
  • Starting with the 2007 awards, the Professional Editor award was split into two categories: Best Editor (Long Form) and Best Editor (Short Form). The Long Form award is for "The editor of at least four (4) novel-length works primarily devoted to science fiction and / or fantasy published in the previous calendar year" in the official Hugo Award rules (in paragraph Long Form) the "(4)" should be deleted
  • The Best Editor Short Form award, also started in 2007, is defined as being for "the editor of at least four (4) anthologies, collections or magazine issues primarily devoted to science fiction and/or fantasy, at least one of which was published in the previous calendar year. the same here

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• Can't delete "Worldcon"; the term is used afterward in the text as shorthand. Removed the two "(4)"s, though those were direct quotes. --PresN 19:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments En-dash in infobox for year range. Done, I always forget those. Any reason why infobox has Short Form and Long Form capitalised while the rest of the lead doesn't? Not one that stood up to scrutiny when I thought about it, now all capitalized. " The two editors which have won three..." agh. Perhaps "The two editors tow have won three..."? Fixed. "received the greatest number of total nominations" why not just "received the most nominations"? Fixed. Ref -> Ref(s) and please, if possible, put them in numerical order. Ow, reordering them was a non-trivial matter. Fixed. Note 1 should be Note A and needs reference. The reference is in the text/table directly after the note; not sure how to nest references or change the numbering scheme. I'll look into it. Alright, the nested ref is done (I have a ref in a ref in a reflist!) but I still don't know how to make a ref group use letters instead of numbers. --PresN 21:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Replied in-line. --PresN 21:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work as usual. I made a couple minor fixes, but the list is up to snuff. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
• There should be a section summarizing multiple winners (or those that won more than twice). Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • ? There is, the fourth paragraph in the lead. --PresN 06:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant a small table like the last one in List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Nergaal (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Well, I disagree- in this list, unlike in that Olympic one, you can just click the sort by button next to editor and it will bunch up each editor's awards/nominations, making it easy to see who has won multiple. Combined with that paragraph that summarizes the multiple winners/nominees, you get all of the information that you couldn't get in the Olympic list without that table. --PresN 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Much as I want this FLC to finally be closed, you already voted. --PresN 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Oops ^^.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I examined it with a fine-toothed comb, but was unable to find any issues. Good work once again. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 02:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Rambo's Revenge 21:06, 9 November 2010 [30].

---

List of countries by future HDI projections of UN

Nominator(s): Cohneli (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article, because it instructively exemplifies how the main relevant point of an interesting UN survey, which was ignored (and almost "lost") in the web so far, can be exhausted - verbally and visually - into a neat, well-ordered and well organized encyclopedic article, which is appropriate mainly for online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, due to its futuristic characteristics. Cohneli (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, this should be a featured list, not a featured article. Furthermore, text such as that under "Special cases" should have a reference to a reliable source, to avoid the impression of original research. In fact, no secondary sources are used. Last, there seems to be an article missing from the list title. Ucucha 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

::Re your first objection: yes, this article could also be proposed as a featured list candidate, but the list itself constitutes one chapter only, out of 8, so I think this article can also be proposed as a featured article candidate.

Re your first objection (about the "special cases"): thank you for your constructive note. I've just fixed the problem, by moving the unsourced comment to an editorial footnote.

Re your second objection (about absence of secondary source): Notice that the article uses two sources (one of which was given an external link).

Re your third obejection: Sorry, but I couldn't figure out what you mean. Could you add more details?

Cohneli (talk) 23:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

::#I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I think it would defeat the purpose of a separate process for featured lists to propose an article entitled "List of ..." as a featured article.

1. Original research is as bad (or good) in a footnote as in the main text.
2. Although there are several sources, all appear to be primary in that they are directly related to the UN paper. Has there been no third-party analysis of this list? If not, the list may not even be considered notable.
3. I think you need to say "by the UN". Perhaps "List of countries by projected HDI" would be even better. Ucucha 23:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

:::#I agree that this article could also be proposed as a Featured List candidate, but just by default, because it's more suitable for the category of Featured article candidates, and let me explain why: The separate category of Featured List candidates, is not for proposing an article whose title is "List of..." only, but rather mainly for proposing an article most of which is devoted to presenting the list. In our case, the very list constitutes one chapter only (out of 8), whereas most of the article is devoted to discussing the list, rather than to presenting it.

1. Ok, I've fixed again the problem, by re-formulating the editorial footnote. Now the footnote does not assume anything, but rather asserts what everbody should accept.
2. The article mentions two surveys: The first UN survey, that was published in April 2010, was performed by a pair of authers, one of which is Hu Difei (the other one being Beth Daponte). The other UN survey, published in September 2010, was performed by a pair of authors, one of which is Asher Jana (the other one being Beth Daponte). Note that Jana just quotes the figures taken from the first survey, but he does that for other purposes (i.e. for his "Cohort Model"). So, the first UN survey is the primary source, whereas the second UN survey is the secondary source. Anyways, thanks to your constructive note, I've just made it clearer in the article, by replacing the word "re-published", by the word "quoted".
3. Ok, I've fixed the problem, according to your suggestion.

Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should definitely be a Featured List candidate if an article at all. It's just republishing information available in a primary source. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

:Re your first comment (about the Featured List candidate): see above my response (no. 1) to Ucucha. :Re your second comment (about the primary source),

see above my response (no. 2) to Ucucha.

Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*Move to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates Fifelfoo (talk) 00:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure I'm allowed to move it? Cohneli (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're amenable to it being moved, contact a FAC and a FLC delegate to organise it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Not sure what to make of this page, but I'm pretty sure it shouldn't be featured.

1. As Ucucha, there are no secondary sources in this page. Also, references need formatting correctly. Accessdates, publishers, publication dates, authors, etc etc
2. Moving an unsourced statement to an editorial footnote doesn't fix the problem. The statement is still unsourced. Why should everybody accept it just because you say they should? You're telling us that they made a typo. Why? Why isn't it more likely that they have it right and you've decided they made a mistake?
3. Don't use contractions such as "doesn't" in that footnote.
4. WP:LEDE section is too short. The Lede should introduce all the main points of the main body of the page
5. Background section is a bit waffly
6. "The UNDP indicates (ibid.)" -- I don't think WP does ibid referencing..
7. Small text in tables is too small
8. Where one or more entry is the same, such as Australia and Norway in the first table, instead of "1-2", use "1="
9. No need for flags per MOS:FLAG. Removing them will give you the extra space needed for increasing the text size
10. I also have the same concerns about this not being any third-party analysis. Your rebuttal seems to be that the UN is the secondary source because they've used their own papers for their information? That doesn't fly.
11. What are the UN's copyright policies. Seems we're just republishing their list here.

Matthewedwards :  Chat  19:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive comments:

1. Re the secondary source: Note that all of Wikipedia articles about economical lists, e.g. the article List of countries by Human Development Index, and the article List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas_method) per capita, and the article List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita, and many other articles, are about lists given by the UN (and by its institutions, like the World Bank), so, do you really think that all of those articles about economical lists should be deleted? Anyways, thanks to Ucucha's last comment you've mentioned, I had already improved the article (see my last response to them), thus making it clearer that the article does include a secondary source! Notice that the article mentions two surveys: The first UN survey, that was published in April 2010, was performed by a pair of authers, one of which is Hu Difei (the other one being Beth Daponte). The other UN survey, published in September 2010, was performed by a pair of authors, one of which is Asher Jana (the other one being Beth Daponte). Note that Jana just quotes the figures taken from the first survey, but he does that for other purposes (i.e. for his "Cohort Model"). So, the first UN survey is the primary source, whereas the second UN survey is the secondary source.
2. Re the editorial note: It seems like you haven't read it! Where does it "tell us that they made a typo"? This footnote does not need a source, just because everybody accepts it, since it assumes nothing ! It doesn't even assume that they made a typo! let me cite it, and try to tell me where it assumes anything, or which part of it is not accepted by everybody: "If the calculation does not involve a simple error that wrongfully replaces the first (correct) digit 9 by 8, then - according to this UN projection - Czech Republic's HDI is expected to miss 96 points (out of 903) by 2010". Do you really disagree with any part of this footnote?
3. Re "doesn't": thank you for your constructive comment, I've fixed that.
4. Re the LEDE section: thanks to your constructive comment, I've just improved the LEDE. Really, even the current LEDE is still short, however that's just becuase most of the article is about details, e.g. the details included in the very country list, or the technical details about countries not included in the list, or the technical details about probabilistic reservations, and likewise. I can't imagine which of those details should be mentioned in the LEDE, which (in my opinion) introduces all the main points of the main body of the page, i.e. excluding the details mentioned in the article.
5. Re the Background: could you be more specific? "a bit waffly" is not a constructive comment, is it?
6. Re "The UNDP indicates (ibid.)": thank you for your constructive comment, I've fixed that.
7. Re the small text in the tables: thank you for your constructive comment, I've improved that, by replacing the small headers (of the tables) by bigger ones. As for the country names, the flags help as well (they are needed, as I will explain below).
8. Re "1=" instead of "1-2": Note that "1=" is used whenever it's already known that both entries are ranked first. However, this is not our case, because (maybe) only one country is ranked first, the other one being ranked second, whereas we don't know which one is the first, because the source gives rounded values of HDI only, and does not rank the countries, except for the 2030 projection, for which the source gives an exact ranking (with rounded values).
9. Re the flags: Wikipedia does not recommend to use flags attached to personal names, and the like; However, attaching flags to country names, mainly in tables, is standard and widely accepted. In our case, using flags is even recommended, because this article belongs to a category of many other articles containing economical lists, such as the article: List of countries by Human Development Index, and the like, whereas all of those articles do use flags along with the country names.
10. Re the secondary source: see above, note no. 1.
11. Re UN's copyright policies: The UN is a public institution, belonging to all citizens of the world, and financed by these citizens' countries. As such, it permits to use any information it publishes, unless indicated otherwise. That's why Wikipedia contains many other articles about lists published by UN (and by its institutions, like the World Bank), e.g. the article: List of countries by Human Development Index, and the article List of countries by GNI (nominal, Atlas_method) per capita, and the article List of countries by GNI (PPP) per capita, and many other articles.
12. Re your claim that it "Seems we're just republishing their list here". Well, you could claim that also about the article List of countries by Human Development Index, and about many other articles mantioned above. Anyway, notice that Wikipedia doesn't quote only: It also re-organizes the data in an encyclopedic manner, e.g. by ranking the countries according to their HDI, in every table of the five, what the UN has not done.

Anyway, I thank you again for your constructive comments. You are welcome to add more comments, that may help improve the article.

Cohneli (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

On the "special case" of the Czech Republic, it is frankly impossible that the prediction published in the PDF is correct (this should obviously not go in the article). The country is politically stable and was less badly hit by the financial crisis than for example Hungary, which is growing nicely. To avoid original research in the article, it would be appropriate to mail those behind this list and, in case they did in fact make a mistake publish a correction, which we can then cite, or in the case that they did not in fact make a mistake remove the footnote altogether. --Aqwis (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already sent them an email a few days ago, but I haven't received a response yet. Meanwhile, as long as they haven't responded, it's most recommended to add the footnote, which avoids original research, because it doesn't assume anything, but rather refers to both options: that the calculation is wrong, and that the calculation is correct. Cohneli (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:49, 12 November 2010 [31].

---

List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC) & Courcelles

I am nominating this as I think it's of similar quality (or at least I hope it is) to other early-year Olympics medal winners featured lists like list of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners and list of 1932 Winter Olympics medal winners. I've also reviewed the FLC for the 1932 list and tried to change anything in this article that would have attracted similar comments. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:Sweden had the second most number of medals with seven, but had one less gold medal than hosts Germany, hosts should be IMHO host nation-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:Great Britain's surprise win in ice hockey remains their only gold medal in the event to date. surprised won..., remains... or: surprised by winning or: surprisingly won or: won surprisingly-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Surprise" is used as an adjective here, to describe the nature of the win/gold medal. Maybe I should just remove "surprise" altogether if that's really an issue? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Or maybe a better phrasing would be "Great Britain's unexpected win"? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • yes this is better :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done, rephrased. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support:looks good-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Quick Comments - Are you using the Main article template or the See also for above the tables? "Sweden had the second most number of medals with seven, but had one less gold medal than host nation Germany, who placed second in the medal standings with three golds." I think this line can be worded much better to me, I don't understand why you'd bring up the third place before the second place. Afro (Talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm using {{seealso}}, based on the 1928 article. The one stray {{main}} has been fixed. As for the other point... the paragraph led off with a mention of Norway winning the most medals, so it seemed right that the next mention should be for the second most number of medals. Of course, Sweden don't actually place second overall based on the IOC's sorting method (G-S-B)... so then again it didn't seem right not to mention that Germany won more golds. Listing them the other way (Germany placed second in the medal standings with three golds, but had one less medal than Sweden with seven) doesn't seem to be any better or worse, really, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - I see no real problems with the article. Afro (Talk) 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

• Two demonstration sports were held—eisschiessen and military patrol, which made its third appearance try to rephrase it

That merited a complete rewrite, to connect military patrol with the known sport of Biathlon- done. Courcelles

• Both men and women participated at these Games, with the women's alpine skiing event being the first medal event women were allowed to participate in at the Winter Olympics outside of figure skating. Women had been allowed to participate in ladies' singles and pairs figure skating since the first Winter Olympics sounds repetitive and awkward. I would rewrite this to something like. "Women had been allowed to participate in ladies' singles and pairs figure skating since the first Winter Olympics. The women's alpine skiing event became only the second medal event where women were allowed to participate in at the Winter Olympics."

Rewritten.Courcelles

• seven of them gold you mean ...of gold?

Reworded, somewhat differently, "them of gold" would be poor English. Courcelles

• but had one less gold medal than host nation Germany, who placed second in the medal standings with three golds. medal standings are not unanimously accepted as having the most golds (as opposed to highest total). I would rephrase with ".., who won three golds but only 6 in total".

Rewritten Courcelles

• Athletes from 11 of the 28 participating NOCs won at least a bronze medal; athletes from eight countries won at least one gold. I would prefer: "Athletes from eight of the 28 participating NOCs won at least one gold medal, and from three other won medals but none of gold"

Not changed, as that phrasing is poor grammar, and the current version is proper grammar. Courcelles

• Why not rename "Medal leaders" to "Multiple medallists"?

Equivalent, changed. Courcelles 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no further issues. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding File:Kalle-Jalkanen-1936.jpg also. Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Really can't happen- that image actually needs to be nominated for deletion Commons-side, as the source, "Scan of old picture from grandfather's albums" is not conclusive proof the uploader has any actual title to the rights to the image, rather than just acquiring a print of the photo. (To use an analogy, I have boxes full of photos my grandfather took, yet because of the way inheritance laws work, even though I have the only copy of the prints, I own at most one-fourth of the rights to the photos.) I'd normally go talk to the uploader, but since they haven't edited for 15 months, I suspect I'd be wasting my breath. Courcelles 04:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Both men and women..." this sentence goes on and on and on! Consider splitting. Done. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Lahde has an umlaut missing in the caption. Fixed. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) "Ladies' singles" ladies' singles what? Fixed in fixing the first one. Sport needs linking every time since the table is sortable. Done. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Any reason not to use the {{commons}} template? Because there are no other external links, using that template creates quite a bit of white space. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Try to avoid repetition like this: "and military patrol. Military patrol...". That's the only thing I saw worth noting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded. Courcelles 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty redundant to say "1936 Winter Olympics" and "were a winter multi-sport event" in the opening sentence. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well... I could explain, but bottom line is that you're right, it does look weird having "winter" three times in one sentence. Removed. Courcelles 06:53, 4 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:04, 8 November 2010 [32].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Bill

Nominator(s): 5 albert square (talk), HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? , JuneGloom07 Talk? , and Courcelles 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this was archived last month with no outstanding comments, and a single support. It just, well, stagnated. So I'm bringing it back in hopes of more commentary this time. Courcelles 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - looking at the list alone, it is very well referenced. No problems with references that I can see. --5 albert square (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The Bill was the United Kingdom's longest-running police drama" - I was unable to verify this in the cited source (sources uses "one of the longest...", and doesn't restrict to police dramas) Oh, well spotted, sir! Added a second source that confirms the questioned part. Courcelles "was nominated for a total of thirty-seven awards" - this is a bit presumptuous (and general) - does this come straight from a source? More a counting of the awards listed below. However, I was able to copyedit it out to avoid giving such numbers. Courcelles Yea, I was considering not saying anything, but in the infobox it's obvious that its just a count, whereas in the prose it sounds more general. Thanks for the fix. Jujutacular talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) "losing to EastEnders[3]." - ref location Done. Courcelles The Bill should italicized in the title Done. Courcelles Jujutacular talk 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the commentary. Courcelles 04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'll take a second look later, ping me if I forget. Jujutacular ^talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: why you added a total awards in the infobox, but didn't mention all awards which the page including?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't understand you. The infobox does contain all awards, the details of which are the body of the list. If you are discussing the lede, it is never possible for a lede to cover every item on a list, otherwise there would be no purpose in having the actual list. The lede is a summary, not a repetition, of the content of the list. Courcelles 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry i didn't saw that it was collapsed-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support everything looks very good! My support is easily won :)--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: i support too-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment How sure are we that File:Thebillnewsequence3-1.jpg is too simple for copyright eligibility? The text itself seems plain enough, but the background is perhaps skirting on that border. Jujutacular ^talk 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're seeing something I'm not. All I see is "BILL" with a blue background that fades to black around the edge. There's nothing really approaching the threshold of originality here as I understand the rules. Is there something in this image I'm just not seeing? Courcelles 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's all I'm seeing, but the standard is pretty low. Examples: File:Lost title card.jpg, File:Grey's Anatomy Logo.svg, File:Body-of-proof.jpg. Jujutacular ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The LOST one, at least needs to be re-licensed, (all of them really do), see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lost (TV series)/archive1 and Elcobbola's quoting of the law, ""names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright"" Courcelles 08:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede on the Lost and Body of Proof images. At any rate, if no one else seems to think this borders on minimum originality, I'll shut up ;) Jujutacular ^talk 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great work: organized, well written, well sourced. Jujutacular ^talk 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Not keen that the NTA table has been squashed because of the image (I modified the caption so the period was inside, not outside, by the way), so perhaps consider removing it. Otherwise, excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Removed. It really did look bad on a smaller screen. Courcelles 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support a good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - everything looks fine. Afro (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [33].

---

Grammy Award for Best Polka Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Reviewers,
I have no doubt in my mind that you are sick and tired of these Grammy Award lists. Please bear with me, as I have only a few left that I have already completed and believe to be worthy of FL status. (That being said, I recently signed up to participate in the upcoming WikiCup competition, so perhaps a few more Grammy lists will make their way here!) Thanks, as always, to reviewers for taking time to review these lists and for offering suggestions!

Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album is currently undergoing FLC review, but it has received support from reviewers already so I assume it is acceptable to nominate a second list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: red links should be replaced with italic-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• No more red links. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: I am not a fan of "Indicates a tie for that year" (the legend), myself. I am hoping someone has a better suggestion for a replacement phrase. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Don't use just a blue background to indicate something per WP:ACCESS. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps it's a "joint award" rather than a tie? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "wins lead to the" -> "led to the"? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Let me know if a different column should contain the asterisks (I went with the Year column), or if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments The 1986 tie might be interesting to expand on in the lede Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 7, I'll admit I've never seen the Huffington Post considered an RS. Why is it so here? Really? I'd love to see a discussion about the reliability of The Huffington Post. Would it help if the sentence read as "According to The Huffington Post...", or is its use discouraged entirely? If the latter is the case, should the claim be removed if I cannot find an alternative source indicating that Sturr has received the most consecutive awards? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) There are a ton of such discussions on the RSN, though admittedly, many relate to BLP's. This is strange, because it's true, but the source that says it isn't really that high-quality. Courcelles 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Well, Allmusic claims that Sturr holds the record for the "most consecutive nominations in any category"--perhaps this will work? I consider The Huffington Post to be more reliable than Allmusic (which is great for reviews), but I am willing to make the change if needed. Of course, the claim could be removed all together; I just thought it made a nice side note about the artist that dominated the category. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Would the Allmusic source and claim be preferred? Would adding "According to The Huffington Post,... be appropriate? I'm indifferent so I was not sure if you had a specific suggestion.(?) --Another Believer (Talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Given the author and that we're nowhere near politics, we can live with Huffington Post here.
• Support: I think this list is worth to be called a FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 10 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [34].

---

List of Cincinnati Reds Opening Day starting pitchers

Nominator(s): Rlendog, Wizardman 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I can, and I know you missed all these baseball lists. That and it meets all FL criteria. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Opening Day is mentioned twice before its first link. "began to play" - could eliminate "to" without changing the meaning "61 wins, 67 losses and 1 tie" - link Win (baseball), Loss (baseball), Tie (draw) "games at League Park" - comma after Four consecutive sentences in the second para start with "They". I suggest changing some to avoid repetition. "at Riverfront Stadium" - comma after "They have a record of three wins and one loss in Opening Day games on the road." - the Reds have only opened the season on the road four times in 100+ seasons? (If this is actually true, that's so not fair.) Repetitive third para: "...for the Reds", etc. You could say for Cincinnati, perhaps, to break this up. "the Reds Opening Day starting pitcher" - should be Reds' No need to repeat White's first name again in the final paragraph Any reason a lot of the references link to the season game logs instead of to the box score for the opening day game, when available? Superscript daggers. Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. I was surprised when I saw how many home games they've played as well. Must be a seniority thing. As for the game log refs, this was originally made before B-R brought in all their box scores back to 1920. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 14:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:The Cincinnati Reds are a Major League Baseball franchise based in Cincinnati, Ohio. They play in the National League Central division. i would write: The Cincinnati Reds are a Major League Baseball franchise based in Cincinnati, Ohio, who have been playing in the National League Central division, since its formation. or something like that-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  Combined the first part, though if I combine the rest the sentence seems too long to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Overlinking in the lead: No need for two National League links in the opening paragraph.
• Table: De-capitalize the second word of the Final Score heading. The same should be done for Location (Stadium).
• The References heading could be shorted to Ref(s). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments This probably comes up once per nomination, but "In their history, the franchise has " is a swift change from plural (discretionary?) to singular. "is an honor, which is given to" I would either ditch the comma or make it "honor, given to..." How come they've had 125 home ODs and only 4 away ODs? (that's a question, not a criticism or anything!) I don't see where [3] and [4] are telling me those games were "Opening Day" games. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed. The third point I've been looking around for myself, because it's both interesting, and interesting that no one seems to talk about that. My guess is that since it's a very old team, they have seniority and get to play at home first. On the last point, when clicking the links, it shows the team's records at (0-1) or (1-0), implying that it's the first game of the season. If that's not good enough I'll change the refs. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC) I'd prefer an explicit link to one which I'd need to be a baseball "expert" to derive the information, if you don't mind. As for point 3, keep looking! I think it's quite remarkable (and being a football supporter for a club that's been around since the 1930s, it's unusual - we tend to be alternate on our home/away starting day games....) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Still found nothing concrete on why they always play at home, though this MLB article is interesting and seems to give some idea of the tradition involved, and as such why they get Opening Day at home. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:24, 10 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [35].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to meet all of the criteria. This is list 1 of 21 in a series; the main list will be nominated last and is accessible by following the hatnote at the top of this list. Cheers to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:Terry Adams is a dab, it should be Terry Adams (baseball) see here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. None of the dab tools are working for me right now. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support:i think its k for FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean Support, not Suppose? I don't mean to canvas by any means, but I'm confused by the above statement otherwise. — KV5 • Talk • 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The only thing I see that is even a minor issue for me is one of those sentences that start with a number ("1,500 plate appearances are needed..." from note R). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a toughie, Giants. I don't know what's worse: the fact that that sentence is in every one of these lists, or that I have no idea how to fix it. I could subsume the two sentences into one by changing the period after "Baseball-Reference" to a semicolon. What do you think? — KV5 • Talk • 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want to make it "A total of 1,500 plate appearances is needed", which is probably wordier than the ideal, the semi-colon seems like the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done: your solution implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Confused by the light-blue year in the key, I don't see any of these? And do you mean "current" roster? Needs a ref. Any reason Ashby's image is narrower than all the others? The key is a template used in all 21 tables in case they all need to be changed. The 25-man roster is part of the current roster, so no, I don't necessarily mean "current" roster. Major League Baseball teams have a 25-man and 40-man roster, which are both the current roster. That's why the clarification is needed. I can add a citation easily. Ashby's image isn't fixed narrower; the file is just that narrow at full resolution. I don't want to force a fixed width. I suppose I can do number of games if I must; that just means 1,881 more entries... I don't see it as particularly useful to this list because you can find it at the reference, but that's just my opinion. — KV5 • Talk • 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Wow " The 25-man roster is part of the current roster, so no, I don't necessarily mean "current" roster." is really confusing for a non-expert! As for number of games, yes I think it'd be very interesting to have it added. You've cherry-picked facts, but without a number of games, they may be meaningless (like batting average for a player who has made 1 appearance is going to be far less significant than a batting average for a player who's made 100...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC) To clarify: All Major League Baseball teams have 40-man rosters, of which their 25-man roster (the players on the team's available roster for each game) is a part. Those are the "active" players, per se, but the players on the 40-man are still part of the team's current roster. If you prefer, I could say "active (25-man) roster". As to the games played... well, I'll get to it tomorrow, I suppose. — KV5 • Talk • 19:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC) On both counts, it's just my opinion. I would rarely oppose on anything like this. The roster thing is a non-expert issue, so I think it ought to be clarified. The games played is a personal preference to help me put your Notes into some kind of context. But that's personal. It may be that I'm the only one in the world that considers that important. And I understand it's a big job, so probably best to hold off for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think number of games would be a really useful addition to the table, particularly when you have %'s.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Have clarified the roster for non-experts, as I agree with you that it should be accessible to those folks. I'll wait to see others' input on games played. — KV5 • Talk • 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from RexxS

  I've marked up the table with row headers to improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But now the "plainrowheaders" attribute has gone awry — that is to say, it's there, but it's no longer doing anything. The unnecessary bold text and dark background have returned, and I must say that I hate the way it looks, in addition to the fact that it forces a violation of part of the MOS to be in compliance with another part. If this is going to be the case, I'll be removing these extra attributes and proceeding with the FLC as if this testcase scenario never happened. — KV5 • Talk • 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your cache again? Seems okay to me now I've recleared....The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try it, but it looked good for me yesterday on this same computer. — KV5 • Talk • 14:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that did it. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The darker grey background has returned. I don't have a problem with this, as long as there are no complaints about the red overriding the grey when it's used as part of an indicator. Honestly, I think it helps the red stand out more, so if we are dispensing with the extraneous bold and centering and just going with a grey background for row headers, I can easily live with that. — KV5 • Talk • 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment and it may just be me, but the caption says "season(s)" while the heading is "tenure(s)" and the caption says "selected statistics" when the heading indicates "notes". Is this not confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the "notes"/"selected statistics" is confusing; to me, that just explains what the notes column contains. Also, there are a few players in some of these sublists who don't have statistics, as they didn't accumulate any in their brief tenures. I see the "seasons"/"tenures" the same way; the column notes the tenure of the player, and the header explains that those are seasons and not just plain years. As always, though, O director my director, I'll make the change if you think it would be for the better. :-D — KV5 • Talk • 12:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I don't really want you to change it, I was just questioning it from an ACCESS point of view, if the caption describes the columns differently from the headings, and that's what some people are relying on to tell them what's in the table, would it be confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting question. What do the ACCESS people say? — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the access folks will say, but the caption only needs to give me an idea of what's there at a glance. A JAWS user would get the detail when they have the actual headers read to them, and might only use the caption to identify the table if they wanted to go directly to it. A complex table would have an invisible summary containing instructions on how to use the table, but I really don't want to complicate the issue unnecessarily. Simpler is often better for a caption. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

KV5, if you wish to continue to use scope etc, you should be aware that there's now a move to undo the change to Common.css, which would result in bold row headers, as it did originally. As for complicating things with the caption, feel free to use whatever caption you see fit. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I did happen upon that discussion this morning, with a mixture of horror, shock, confusion, and TLDR. As it stands, I see no reason not to make this list as accessible as possible, but I won't compromise Wikipedia's other standards to do it. So, as I mentioned above, if the bolding and background-changing of row headers return, I'll just remove the changes and continue on my way. Thanks for the heads-up. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My only concern is that the Ashby pic doesn't line up with the others due to its size. Personally, I'd prefer a replacement, but if there's no alternative anyway then no harm leaving it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm indifferent on a games played column. It would certainly be interesting info, but it gets at effectively the same idea as the tenure by year column (how long were they a Phillie). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [36].

---

List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK)

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've brought the 50s, 70s, 80s to FL and revamped the formatting to match on the 90s and 2000s lists which User:ChrisTheDude brought to FL in early 2009. So I present to you the 1960s list, the missing piece in a featured chronology of number-one singles (as canonized by The Official Charts Company). Thanks in advance for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—dab links to It's Now or Never and On the Rebound; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not true. They did exist but were fixed hours before your comment. I think the toolserver has been havingtrouble. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry; I struck my comment. Ucucha 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support pumpkin support this-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "achieved 7 number ones; 2 solo and 5 with the Shadows. The Shadows had a total of 10 number ones; 5 solo and 5 with Cliff Richard." would expect all these numbers to be spelled out. Done. Wasn't sure if comparable quantities should apply between table and prose. I agree it probably doesn't in retrospective. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps worth clarifying that Disc is a magazine? I'm not sure it is. This front cover describes itself as a "pop paper" and looks like a newspaper to me. Dave McAleer's site also calls it a "paper"[37]. I haven't changed Disc (magazine) as I can't find a reliable I think the line between mag/paper was fine back then. For a time it was published by Go Magazine according to the British Library. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "selling a million copies." "over" a million copies? Done "Million-selling and gold records" section, Year of millionth sale col doesn't sort correctly for me, it'll be the N/A forcing it all to sort as text, so use {{sort}} to fix it. Huh. I checked in the main three browsers and it works fine. By deliberately not using N/A it sorts in 4 ways (not 2) leaving N/A at the bottom ascend and descend and then at the top ascend and descend. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Interesting. So you're happy to have that col sort four ways? Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think it is better to sort ascend/descend with N/A at the bottom for bother, after all it is non-applicable. On the general concept of 4-way sorting I think this other list is greatly advantaged by 4 way sorting. So if your opposition remains can you let me know if it is on 4 way sorting in general or just in this case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Interesting again. I think I would have noted that odd sorting if I'd been alert enough! I'm not comfortable with four-way sorting in a column, and it may set a precedent that we'd need to all be happy with. I can't recall using any other mainstream software where sorting up and down results in more than exactly two results. But is it a problem if it does? I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't expect it to happen that way... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Is there a real need for the Gold record (Disc) col if they're all Yes? Or is this in keeping with other similar lists where, perhaps, the answer is mixed? It is, it also explains those erroneously awarded a disc. Additionally a 1960s record could have become a million-seller recently and wouldn't of been awarded an award then. Sources on this are very slim. The BBC suggests The Archies may have gone to actually sell over a million anyway (but that might be a mix up due to the awarding of a gold Disc). I discovered List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK recently, it is supposedly based on the BBC show but is sketchly sourced. I can remove the column if you wish. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I think if you can replace the column with relevant prose preceding the table then I'd do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've replied to or addressed each of the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question - May I ask why you don't include the symbol's in the table yet do so in the key? Afro (Talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  Good spot. I thought I'd already added them. I also corrected some vandalism whilst fixing this. Thanks for that, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - That was the only issue I had with the list, it all seems good to me. Afro (Talk) 06:49, 7 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:03, 30 December 2010 [38].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently also under FLC review), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why 58 and 164 seem to be sorting by name by "von" while all other "von"s sort by the bit after the von? Oops, fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC) "from a senior commander for skilled leadership of his troops in battle to a "low ranking" soldier for a single act of extreme gallantry" this looks a little like a quotation from the award? not really! See the Enactment regarding the renewing of the Iron Cross for the original wording please MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Not sure you need to link paradigm. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Nor Army, Navy or Air force. What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) done MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Prefer "Image" over "Picture" as a column heading. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Think the title should have 1942 in parentheses rather than after a spaced colon, so "...with Oak Leaves recipients (1942)" good idea! done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Isn't "commander in chief" normally hyphenated? I linked it to commander-in-chief, does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) For "Unit", you have, for instance, "pilot in the .." this isn't unit, it's role/unit really isn't it? doneMisterBee1966 (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC) What does the 4./ mean in " the 4./Jagdgeschwader 77" ? I tried addressing this with the article Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, which is a note to the "Role and unit" column.MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Note 1 - "(Only leadership and organisational achievements, no personal bravery)" was this part of the note? If so, why not in quotes? Note 3- you suddenly use JG as an abbreviation. fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Note 6 - you explain JG. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Note 9 - you say II. but just III without the full stop. To full stop or not to full stop, that's the question. done full stop is correct! It denotes the German naming convention for 2nd or 3rd group of a fighter or bomber wing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Surprised the template at the bottom doesn't include the year lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC) "What do you want me to do here? The 1940-1941 article uses the same links." - this is precisely the reason not to have multiple nominations about the same subject matter simultaneously at FLC. Do what I ask here, and read across to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Point taken! Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - You only use RSD to in pointing out the abbreviation, is there any point in having it in the article? Same with JG 3. WASt doesn't need re-abbreviating in Note 11. AKCR is also abbreviated in the lead, I hardly think it needs re-abbreviating in the notes. Afro (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport

The list starts at number 58 a note could be added to the indicate that 1–57 were issued between 1940–1941 or whenever.

I was thinking of adding the followin text: "Listed here are the 111 recipients of 1942, ranging from sequential number 58 to 168. The 8 recipients of 1940 ranging from 1 to 7 are listed here, the 50 recipients, range 8 to 57, are listed here. The range 169 to 360, denoting the 192 recipients of 1943 can be found here. In 1944 328 men, listed as recipients 361 to 688, can be found here and the final 194 recipients of 1945 ranging from 689 to 882 are listed here." Would this address the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In note 2 handled the case in 1981 and decided: Swords yes, can this be reworded handled the case in 1981 and decided to award him the Swords ?

In note 4 According to Scherzer as Staffelkapitän of the 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 - should that not be III./Jagdgeschwader 77 ?

Nope, 3./Jagdgeschwader 77 is correct, it denotes the 3rd squadron, I double checked MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In note 6 and others there is no need to link the ranks they are already linked in the table

I was once advised to err on over-linking since the list can be sorted and one does not know what sort option the reader may have chosen. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In note 7 while Prien states who is Prien.

Prien is the author of Jagdgeschwader 53 A History of the "Pik As" Geschwader May 1942 – January 1944. Listed in the Bibliography section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Translate some of the more obscure German Aufklärungs-Abteilung for example.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a note reagding the nomenclature of German military terms. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am not sure having two separate lists for 40-41 and for 42 is ideal. I would prefer a single 40-42 one since it would be shorter than the '43 one. Nergaal (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this general consensus? If not I would like to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm against it. I would rather split up 40-41 article on a half in order to simplify things and have tidy article for every year. Current format could make people wonder if there is some another quality reasoning behind such a breakdown besides saving some KB's or one list simply being shorter. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The merge of 1940 and 1941 was requested at the WikiProject Military A-class review. I also had preferred to keep them separate. MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I can't find anything to add or complain about. Great article. Utinsh (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:08, 16 November 2010 [39].

---

Atomic Kitten discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because alot of work has been done recently do improve formatting, sourcing, layout, info etc and we feel it's up to a high standard. Mister sparky (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version.

• Note I have restarted this nomination because the consensus and status of various concerns was unclear. Can all reviewers please revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Still no dab or dead external links Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I was ready to support before, but forgot. Ruslik_Zero 07:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no real problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 10:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: nice discography, i think it should be a FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you :)

Oppose

Worried by the number supporting a list which is lacking in verifiability IMO.

• Can I ask where the numbers "(EREDV #270)", "(#0094633073623)" all that kind of stuff comes from as it isn't covered by the general references.

the cat numbers for the albums are on the occ ref and the allmusic ones. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Found the CDSIN... ones on The Official Charts Company not the others. For example, take the box set you have (#0094633073623) but Allmusic just has 30736. And Atomic Kitten has the Cat. No. blank[40]. Additionally, Allmusic list it as a main album not a compilation? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

allmusic lists as a main because it's an american site and it is the only album they released in america. but it's a compilation of the right now and feels so good albums. and it also lists cradle as a main album, and that was a single, so allmusic does make mistakes sometimes. and the hung medien sites also list the cat numbers. Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay but I can't find any reference on the discog that give the Access All Areas: Remixed and B-Sides (#0094633073623) number I listed as example. Similary for others. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• "Music videos" section. The directors all need references.

they are. ref 42. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do I sound like I was born yesterday? A DVD released in 2004 is referencing music videos that weren't even made or directed yet? Predicting the future like that, I'm suprised EMI aren't more successful... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

very rude. and very unnecessary. Mister sparky (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't rude, or unnecessary!.WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

But still very unreferenced. Sorry if my you didn't like my tone but I didn't like being told something was referenced when it clearly wasn't and in a tone suggesting I was completely ignorant of where a reference might be found. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

still unnecessary. your comment makes it sound like none of them are referened, when in fact it's only 1 that isn't. but removed for now until one can be found. Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What about "Cradle 2005". Access All Areas: Remixed and B-Sides "DVD Greatest Hits (Music Videos)" section has "Cradle" but not "Cradle 2005" so one of those is not referenced. Also an animated video would still have a director. By the way this has also alerted me to the fact that the release date of the box-set is a year earlier than the references say. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

the cradle listed on the dvd is cradle 2005. cradle was originally an album track on the right now album in 1999, but was re-recorded and released as a charity single in 2005, hence the different name. and yes you are correct, was 2005 not 2004. Mister sparky (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong... The "Cradle" on this DVD is the original that was only released in Asia. "access all areas" is basically "Greatest Hits Live", but was only released in Asia, but has an added album which includes some remixes and B-sides, hence the title "Remixed and B-Sides"...I've added another reference, however. WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay then the original "Cradle" (dir. Alex Hemmings) is unreferenced then. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

changed to unknown. Mister sparky (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just change to "unknown". That fails 3. Comprehensiveness IMO. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

then what do you suggest?! cuz this is going nowhere... Mister sparky (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reference for "You Are" (UK#90) and "Anyone Who Had a Heart" (UK#77)? [41] only covers top 75.

added. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reference for Right Now (AUS#86), Ladies Night (AUS#67), Greatest Hits (AUS#24)? [42] only lists Feels So Good

added refs for right now and ladies night. the article does not say that greatest hits was 24 in australia. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I misread AUT as AUS for that one. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I have checked a very small sample of other charts which were okay (although some of the sites are not easy to navigate www.top40.nl!!) so I retain some faith, just a bit sloppy in checking everything is referenced. Please double check.

with the dutch ref you just click on the song you want to verify and it goes straight to the page that shows the chart for that week. Mister sparky (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't usually do DISCOGS but looking at Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS I don't see www.top40.nl. All the others seem okay at a glance. That wiki page isn't actually as helpful as I thought as I assume anything from HungMedian is okay although the page doesn't seem to list a lot of the websites you've used.

[wp:goodcharts] is just a guide anyways, this article uses the same websites that the majority of fl discogs do. top40.nl is the official website of the dutch top 40, you can't get more reliable than that. Mister sparky (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think allmusic may have reindexed the site. Take http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:fjfrxqujldae~T21 which redirects back to the All Saints main page but I guess is meant to go to http://allmusic.com/artist/atomic-kitten-p398542/discography/compilations. Goes for both general refs too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

yes it appears they have. thanks for pointing that out. Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop. removed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) "Girl group" doesn't need capitalisation. fixed link. Mister sparky (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) "which have sold almost ten million records worldwide" not clear what you're talking about here, the singles? Perhaps start a new sentence - "The band has sold..."? changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) "were going on a hiatus and released, a greatest hits album, which peaked" commas a bit weird here, remove the one after released. changed. was there from a previous incarnation of the sentence. Mister sparky (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Also worried that reviewers would support the promotion of a list when it contains typos -> digitaly? simple typo. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) "platinum" in lead vs "Gold" in table notes prose. Be consistent with certification capitalisation. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

*"The albums sales did not meet the expectations of the label" needs an apostrophe after 'albums' done. WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) added. Mister sparky (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Whoops, I meant in between the 'm' and 's' (singular possessive). Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Refs 30 and 31 need a space after the full stop between 'Allmusic' and 'Macrovision' Don't get this one, he can do it... Oh, btw, i'm AtomicMarcusKitten ;DDD I'll get blocked on this one too probs :L WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) added. Mister sparky (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• [43] mentions nothing about the group's sales numbers

Yes it does, in the "about Liz" section. WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

you have to click on the "about liz" sub-section. cannot link to the actual page. Mister sparky (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but how is it a reliable source? Also it doesn't mention anything about selling 'almost' 10m. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

it's the official website of one of the band members. the source says "sold 10 million records globally", the 'almost' was added due to being told to in the previous nom. Mister sparky (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to find a different source, as this primary source can interfere with WP:NPOV. Why not "about" 10 million?

• Why is the 'year' column so wide in the 'Video albums' section?

It is the same size as the rest! WashesOverMe (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

it is the same as the rest, no width is specified. Mister sparky (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On Google Chrome the year column is massive. Can you please force the width? It seems fine on IE and Firefox. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems Chrome has trouble here. Advice from the VP is not to use pixel widths and em or en widths instead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

googlechrome having trouble is not my problem... Mister sparky (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Note these edits by WashesOverMe are a sock of blocked user AtomicMarcusKitten. I've reinstated those remove comments in small font as the parallel edits to the list have not been reverted and this gives some explanation as to why they edits occured, also some of Mister sparky's replies were based on these comments. AtomicMarcusKittenwas formerly part of this as a joint nom. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Also, 'Albums' is the first section (level 2 header), but why are video albums not in here? Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

because the video albums are vhs and dvd's of live perfomances and music video compilations, not music albums. Mister sparky (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks ok, nothing I would oppose for.--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

thank you :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have The Rambling Man, Adabow, and Rambo's Revenge been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

they have. Mister sparky (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Why are the albums' tables formatted one way, but the rest of the discography (for eg, video albums) in another? Same goes for the "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" note; why isn't it consistently used for all tables? (I'd actually prefer it if it were removed throughout)—indopug (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

new WP:DISCOGSTYLE guidelines are being rolled out sporadically. has been discussed previously in this nomination that anything related to that is irrelevant to the FLC review. however, things may have changed, as they do very often.... Mister sparky (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose this doesn't seem to be formatted in line with other interpretations of WP:DISCOGSTYLE, moreover the overuse of bold text appears to be in direct conflict with WP:MOS (and, after all, featured lists must comply with WP:MOS, not a Wikiproject style guide). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Why is "Video albums" table so oddly formatted (e.g. year col is far too wide?) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • See the comment Adabow made above. I pointed out it is due to Chrome, but despite providing the nominator with a solution to the problem they have refused to implement it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, well I'm using Safari (which many Mac users will be doing) so it's not just a Chrome problem, so I suggest the nominator pulls out the finger to fix this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

well maybe the nominator just can't be arsed with all this crap anymore and actually has better things to do with his time. Mister sparky (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you withdrawing the nomination? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nominator's userpage says he is retired, but he is still active. There have been no attempts to fix issues in the last fortnight. I suggest an FLC director pulls the plug here, as FLC is quite backlogged. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:35, 16 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:07, 9 December 2010 [44].

---

Venues of the 2010 Commonwealth Games

Nominator(s): ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This list is similar to articles such as Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Thank you for taking the time to review. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 12:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment—At least on my screen, the table in the "Competition venues" section starts below the column of images that appears along the right-hand side of the screen. The results is a large amount of white space above the table. I am not sure of the exact cause--maybe try designating the images as right, upright thumbnails like seen here ("right|upright|thumb|" in the image coding)? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC) I've used {{Fix bunching}}. You can check again; it should be fine now. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 16:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Problem still exists, at least for me. I have no idea what the best solution is, just pointing out the issue. I will let other reviewers decide if the issue needs to be resolved or if the list meets FL criteria. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC) The problem comes from the navbox placed in the lead section just below the image. It's too big and pushes the images in the section below aside and thus the table gets pushed down. I really think these navboxes should be converted to horizontal collapsible templates at the bottom of the page. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Would it help if the stadium image located in the lead is decreased in size? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC) I don't think it would. At least, the image would have to be pretty small (smaller than default size) so that the navbox doesn't cross into the section below. Parutakupiu (talk) Should be fine now. I just reinforced stacking by adding new parameters. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 13:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Still problematic for my computer (and my work computer), but perhaps it is a personal settings issue. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Oh it didn't work for my computer after a while. I've decreased column width, please do tell me its alright now. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 06:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, better. Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
• Hockey venues seats 20,000 i thought. Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes you are correct. 2,500 refers to one of the two pitches in the stadium. Updated, thanks. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 13:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Has Aaroncrick been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• "A total of five venues were newly constructed for the games; the Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range, the Siri Fort Sports Complex, the Thyagaraj Sports Complex, the Yamuna Sports Complex as well as a rugby sevens facility in Delhi University." Why semi-colon instead of a colon?
• The is used a ridiculous number of times in the prose.

Aaroncrick ^TALK 23:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I'm a bit confused over the "type" column for the competition venues section, also per WP:COLOR colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) to comply with WP:ACCESS. Ref 24, 25 have no publishers. Afro (Talk) 16:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Changed; I've used footnotes to explain. I've also removed the colors, even though I kind of miss it. Regarding refs 24 and 25, the error's been corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC) After looking at the previously featured 2010 Winter Olympics medal table I think the sections need to be more descriptive, and it shows the table could be better formatted. I'm just throwing this out there. Afro (Talk) 14:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC) You mean add more prose to the "Competition venues" and "Training venues" sections? Sorry what do you mean by the table can be better formatted? Thanks. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 06:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Well it doesn't have the dubious type column which could be explained better if it were to be in text, plus it has the location of the venue. Afro (Talk) 10:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC) I don't know, I was just thinking since its a recently featured list that maybe this FLC could be modelled more after it. Afro (Talk) 02:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Haha so to add prose or not to add? Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics on the other hand does not have prose in the respective sections (and its a newer FL). So? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 10:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) I do think it would help the article, my suggestion would be to add them. Afro (Talk) 13:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC) The sorting function on the Competition venues table seems to be sorting everything by max capacity, would it be better to sort these by minimum allowed rather than maximum allowed? Shouldn't the notes come before the See also section? Afro (Talk) 08:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC) It is sorted with regards to the venue's seating 'potential'. It makes more sense to sort by the maximum rather than the minimum. As for the placement of the Notes section, I believe the protocol is to have the See also section above "Notes". ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I see no problems which would discourage me from supporting. Afro (Talk) 14:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "The venue which had the largest venue was the Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex". Prose redundancy with the multiple "venue"s; is one of them supposed to be a different word? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The opening and closing ceremony links seem to be reversed from their intended order. Corrected, didn't realise argh. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Commonwealth Games Village: The em dashes should be made unspaced per the Manual of Style. Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "adopted by the OC CWG Delhi 2010." Are all the abbreviations short for something, or is this the name of an organization? For those who may be unfamiliar with the Commonwealth Games, like myself, this is more than a little confusing. (P.S.: Okay, I've read a little further now and see where the abbreviation is explained. Still, I think it should be given with the first full use to avoid such issues) Sorry, now corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) What is the CGF? This is another unexplained abbreviation. Explained. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Concerns over readiness and state of venues: "Delays in the construction of the Games' venues was linked to...". "was" → "were". Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Note 2: "it is taken that training for the sports of athletics and aquatics were provided in that venue". "were" → "was". Exactly the opposite of the suggestion above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC) Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 08:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments No bold links please. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "in Delhi and India" well, Delhi is in India, so just "in India" would be fine. Done. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "namely, the" not convinced that you need "namely, " here. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Type column should be left-aligned. Is that necessary? Centre-alignment seems fine to me. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "total of twenty training venues were used in the Games. Of these 20," - twenty v 20? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I dislike "(see above);" in an interactive, clickable encyclopedia. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Connaught Place is overlinked. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "as Canada found" - had found? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Is it Times of India or The Times of India? And why link the last one in the refs, but not the others? Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Note 3 is unreferenced. I have removed Note 3, and I have no recollection how those information came about. Since the two venues involved already existed prior to the games, they are henceforth noted as "Existing". The "new" things in Note 3 actually refers to facilities within the venues. It does not affect the standing of the two venues as "existing" venues. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support no issues on a revisit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I have no issues with this list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:05, 8 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [45].

---

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has just recently passed a ACR under Wikiproject Military History and follows the established pattern for battleship related lists. (see List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, another FL of mine for a comparison.) Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks :) White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• List looks good but I have some comments:

• The lead says that the German gift significantly contributed to the Ottoman decision to join Germany, but later in the article this is not expanded upno. Meanwhile, the text says that the two ships seized by the Brits had a major role in the decision. Which one is it? And if the former, then please expand in the text.

• They were both major factors to the Ottomans joining the Central Powers. I'll add that later today :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I believe this issue has been fixed now. Please check back to make sure that you like it :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• These ship articles always lead me wonder why were their name chosen that way, but rarely say it. Here it is obvious that is the origin for Sultan Osman I but I would still like a note here on when did this person rule, or what sort of role he had. As for the likes of Reshadieh I have absolutely no idea for the origin of the name. Since it is the name of a class, some indication should be given.

• I'll try to add some notes about the names if I can find them.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• For example Barbaros Hayreddin came surely from Hayreddin Barbarossa. If you can't find a reference for it, try to add a footnote at least with the Pasha. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• These things are generally addressed in the individual articles. I could still add them in but one or two names may not be known...--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Try to improve the caption for the lead image. It is really dry right now. Also, the date in the image page is listed as 1911. Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Added the date. Is there anything else that you want added?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried to expand the lead caption a bit. I don't know if it is really better, so feel free to change/revert it. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all of my major concerns have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Per MOS, lead images shouldn't be more than 300px in general. "in total failure" is "total" strictly necessary? siezure - typo. "By the dawn of the 20th century" - very emotive, not very encyclopedic. What's a keel block? Where's Thrace? "4, Parsons" why comma? "She was scrapped on the slipway in 1914 along with Reshad-I-Hammiss" - you already said the Reshad-I-Hammiss was scrapped in 1912... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) All you're comments have been addressed/fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support no problems after a brief re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment.

Same table issues that were at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1. To save a repeat conversation, a discussion can be found in my resolved comments there with detailed info on what the problem is (see also the list's talk page) and how to fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Switching the abbr to mos does not work for the displacement and armament....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Displacement should now work following my request here. Main guns seems flawed as is "6 × 28 centimetres" is a bit ambiguous and could be a main gun 28cm long and 6 cm wide. Note the other list resorted to a manual "6 × 28-centimetre" style as it was deemed better (not by me). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the main guns? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Still does not work....It comes up as a red link thing...--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I think the inclusion criteria for the list should be mentioned on the page since it excluded the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. While I understand your reasoning for excluding her, several notable naval publications such as Brassey's Naval Annual list her as a battleship. It would be extremely helpful to the reader to mention why she is not included on the page (because she was a coversion), despite the fact that several sources list her as a battleship. For example Lawrence Sondhaus's Naval warfare, 1815-1914 specifically states that she was converted into a pre-dreadnaught from a casemate type ship.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have Rambo's Revenge and XavierGreen been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Exactly what i was looking for has been added, article is now complete in its scope.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Reshadieh class: "However, Reshadieh was seized by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the World War I...". Don't see the need for "the" right before World War I. Sultan Osman I: "the British government seized the vessel for fear of it being used against her in the conflict." Should we really be used "her" in reference to a government? I understand using it for the ships, but this might be a bit much. Yavuz Sultan Selim: "The German transfer of Goeben to the Ottoman Empire fulled public support...". Should "fulled" be something else? There doesn't appear to be anything citing the two footnotes. Since reference 3 has a page range, it should be formatted with pp., not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) All issues have been addressed save for one footnote.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) What has become of this uncited footnote? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) The article on the ship is unsourced. I have no way of providing a citation. Should I remove the footnote?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I would suggest commenting it out; if you do find a source, you can restore it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC) It states the info in Sondhaus on page 218, a work you already have used as a source in the article. I added it to the note and made it visable again. If you need another source you can also consult the 1911 issue of Brasseys.XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Clarify exactly ships are meant here. The three Reshadieh-class ships were ordered, not purchased. In order to update the fleet, the Ottoman Navy Foundation purchased larger battleships such as Sultan Osman I, three of the planned Reshadieh-class battleships, and one that had already been built. What ship is meant by this last bit?
• Clarify these two sentences so that the reader knows these were the only two ships nearly complete when war broke out: The United Kingdom confiscated the ships at the outbreak of World War I. Sultan Osman I was renamed HMS Agincourt while Reshadieh was renamed HMS Erin
• Fix this: Out of all the battleships legally owned by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the war, half were either scrapped or ondhausewere seized by the British in the early days of the conflict.
• You're mixing Brit and American English with centimetres.
• One too many ands in this sentence: This act outraged the Ottoman people and was a major factor in turning public opinion against Britain and helped to drive the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Central Powers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these issues except for the centimetres one... What do you want me to do about it? make the article solely British or American English?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pick one or the other; just be consistent throughout the article. If you want American measurements add |sp=us to the conversion templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still in the middle of working on it. This is the last issue.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added them into the article but I'm not sure if I did it right....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, the list is in good shape. I think you could have easily gotten away with a short table, but this list provides good list-like information as well as historical. I think the key is very helpful. Below are the issues that stood out to me.

• I think a year in the lead would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the time frame of the First Balkan War.

Done.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, wikilinking Royal Navy would help those unfamiliar with military history.

Done.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason why the table widths are 98% instead of 100%?

I think I changed it to that so the table will not look messed up....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What makes Warship International from the Naval Records Club a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
  • It's a published magazine; it's as reliable as any other published, non-controversial source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just checking. I inferred something less professional from the word "Club". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
      • Understandable, they later changed their name to the International Naval Research Organization, probably for that very reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Support: 98% table width seems odd to me, but I don't think that warrants opposition or withholding support. Everything else looks good. I hope you consider 100% width because I believe most other lists use that formatting. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

• Support C'mon, close it. It's time to go and get the star.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:06, 6 January 2011 (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 The Rambling Man 12:44, 14 December 2010 [46].

---

30 Rock (season 4)

Nominator(s):  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE), Staxringold _talk^contribs, and Courcelles 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Behind schedule and over budget, this is the nomination for the fourth season of 30 Rock, hopefully just squeaking in time to save the FT. Courcelles 22:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "8.4 out of 10 rating, noting it was "Impressive" and..." - any reason 'impressive' is in caps? I see the reflist specifies two columns, but I it only appears as one for me (I'm on Mac / Firefox). When I click 'edit' and 'preview' I see two, but not in normal view. Is there a fix? Jujutacular talk 22:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC) First one fixed. I tried something on the refs, but on Windows/Firefox it made no difference. I've no access to a Mac, so I've no idea what you're seeing, but maybe it fixed the problem. However, per usual, the columns doesn't work when I try in IE. (And there is no fixing that.) Courcelles 23:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC) That seems to have fixed it, thanks! Jujutacular talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC) "With Avery deciding not to be his date at Cerie's wedding, and getting an unexpected visit from Nancy, results in Jack becoming more entangled in his love triangle between Avery and Nancy." Grammar seems a bit rocky here. Jujutacular talk 23:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Tried to smooth it out, see if I made it any better or worse. Courcelles 23:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Much better, thanks. Jujutacular talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks in order, good work. Jujutacular ^talk 23:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 10:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments good luck with the FT save! Infobox image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period. Done. Courcelles Crew section - do you need to repeat first names of producers (for instance) that you've already mentioned, e.g. John Riggi's second mention could simply be Riggi, right? There seems to be quite a lot of this sort of repetition. It's not a mandate, but usually once we've mentioned someone unambiguously, we go with surnames thereon after.... Fixed. Courcelles "deemed "Season 4" as " mildly confusing, perhaps "deemed the first episode of the season, "Season 4" as..."? Done. Courcelles "6.684 million" and " 4.216 million " seems unnaturally accurate for me. That's down to the thousands. I'm sure viewing figures aren't that accurate. In the UK we don't go much beyond the nearest 10,000 and that's with a population that's a sixth as much as the US. Well, the source does go that deep, but it doesn't match the rest of the numbers, so rounded it off to one decimal to match the rest. Courcelles "the United Kingdom (UK)" do you really need to abbreviate this? Nope, should have seen that. Courcelles "personal relationships due to a relationship-advice" not the greatest with such a quick repeat of "relationship". Reworded. Courcelles "Jack becomes infected with bedbugs " do people really become infected with bed bugs? Changed to "inflicted" as they're not technically an infection, you're right. Courcelles You link elitist, but not "carbon footprint" for example. What's the general approach here? Linked carbon footprint. Courcelles Do you really believe that you need to link Christmas? Unlinked Courcelles Perhaps add (EGOT) after the explanation. Reworked. Courcelles I don't think you need 30 Rock as a category since 30 Rock episodes is obviously a better cat and a subcat of 30 Rock. Removed. Courcelles The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've responded to all of them. Courcelles 19:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: "The next couple of weeks the episodes would decrease its ratings, until the season's eighth episode—"Secret Santa"—was the highest-rated episode of the season with 7.5 million viewers." which was the. Only issue I found, once fixed I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Cast: "the NBC network executive Jack Donaghy. Donaghy's...". Try to avoid having repetition like this from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
• "and Damn Yankees, the latter that starred Jane Krakowski." Don't like the construction of this bit. How about "and Damn Yankees; the latter starred Jane Krakowski." The "that" is really the problem in the original.
• Ratings: I still see "The next couple of weeks the episodes would decrease its ratings". I don't think this is fixed at all, and it's not of the standard that FLs should be at.
  • Now it's "The next five weeks saw lower ratings ratings". A repeat word needs trimming. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, gosh. I'm an idiot. Courcelles 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Awards and nominations: "Alec Baldwin won up his second Golden Globe Award...". What is "up" doing here?
• Missing word in "including fourth consecutive nomination for Outstanding Comedy Series".
• Distribution: The Comedy Central link goes to the U.S. station, not the U.K. one, as seems to be the intention.
• Episode 7: "and appoints Frank the head writer, who enjoys...". The "who enjoys" part is meant to be about Frank, and "the head writer" is getting in the way somewhat. I'd recommend moving it before Frank somehow, leaving the name directly before the comma.
• Episode 8: "and a woman Jack had feeling for while in high school." Normally it would be "feelings", right?
• Episode 9: "Jack decides to break into her into her house...". Get rid of the repeating.
• Episode 17: "Liz forces herself to attend as many singles events...". I don't understand this. As many as who? Or as many as possible?
• Episode 20: "by having the moms of its cast and staff arrive and to participate in the Mother's Day themed episode." To me, it reads better without the "to".
• Reference 41 needs a PDF designation, like the one ref 38 has. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've worked on all of these, thanks for the feedback. Courcelles 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The summaries are way too short. They should each be at least a couple hundred words. Ωphois 00:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple hundred words? That would fail the NFCC by a country mile. Given that each episode has its own article, with a plot section that is around 300-400 words, the list keeps the plot information short. See WP:TVPLOT, and compare with teh prior two seasons. The plot summary is a derivative work of the show itself, even though written by us, and it is limited by the NFCC to absolutely no more than necessary. (And, let's face it, these aren't hard episodes to understand... more detail is readily available in each episode's article, where a better NFCC case can be made for including it.) Courcelles 03:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The guideline you recommended still says a plot for lists such as this should at least be 100 words. Take "Audition Day", for example. The summary is: "Liz and Pete attempt to rig the TGS auditions to guarantee that their preferred candidate (Nick Fondulis) will be selected by Jack. Meanwhile, Jack becomes inflicted with bedbugs and learns a valuable lesson about humanity as most of the cast ostracises him." This reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic summary. Simple details such as what lesson did he learn and the outcome of each sublplot need to be included. Ωphois 17:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've asked ThinkBlue to look at this, as she wrote the episode articles. Courcelles 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, been busy. I'll expand the episode summaries tomorrow. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've looked over the changes so far. While I appreciate the effort, I'm sorry to say that some parts are poorly written. For example, from summaries randomly chosen:

"Problem Solvers": "Jack offers Liz a chance to create a television pilot based on her "Dealbreakers" sketch but after Jenna and Tracy convince her to explore all of her options first Liz hires an agent." and "From his arrival, Danny treats Kenneth politely and does not ask him to run any errands for him which leads Tracy and Jenna to question their demanding ways resulting in the two asking less of Kenneth which upsets him."

"Stone Mountain": "Liz objects, nonetheless decides to see Wayne and heckle him." and "Meanwhile, after two other celebrities die Tracy fears for his life when he hears that celebrities tend to die in groups of three. Tracy fears for his life but he is relieved when he learns that Pumpkin "died"."

"Season 4" has multiple grammar issues throughout it.

Sorry, but I must Oppose until the summaries have been properly copyedited. Ωphois 21:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

These have now received two separate copy-edits. Courcelles 05:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Still some minor issues, but I think you've cleaned it up enough. Ωphois 05:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Article seems to meet the criteria. CrowzRSA 20:45, 5 December 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:45, 17 December 2010 [47].

---

Family Guy (season 8)

Nominator(s): Gage (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. As a part of a project to improve Family Guy articles related to each season, I am nominating the season eight list. I will try my best to make any improvements as they are brought up. It is largely modeled after the season five article, which was promoted to featured list status not too long ago. Gage (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Since it is a recent season there should be some sort of Ratings column in the table. Nergaal (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been opposed to adding ratings info to the table, especially since it is already summarized in the reception section, and is available on each respective article. I'm not sure on its neccessity. Gage (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see no reason to deprive a reader of information so easily include-able in the article, after all the inclusion of the ratings column hasn't seemed to of hindered other recent FLs such as Glee (season 1). Afro (Talk) 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Because I'd prefer to move away from this issue, I've added a ratings column. Gage (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose File:Family Guy Volume 8 - DVD box cover.png fails NFCC #8. I've amended the fair use rationale for the image. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) No, you've used a cookie cutter template. Why is this image so important to the article that we need non-free content to get it across? Using a cookie-cutter also runs afoul of NFCC 10. (Quite possibly 1, as well. "They made DVDs. They had an image of an animated guy on them." carries the same message as this image. (Also note that despite that guy taking up 60+% of the image, you've neglected to tell us which character it even is.) Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I've removed the image, since that seems to be your ultimate goal. Gage (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC) The plot summaries are way too long for a season article- the few I spot checked were over 150 words long. This is excessive when each episode has its own article. I've already cut down the summaries significantly, before submitting this list for featured list status. If you would like to provide an independent look over to remove some of the unnecessary details, I'd be all for it, as I am at a loss as to what else should be removed. Gage (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I've never seen these episodes... or even this show, so I would not be a good judge of what is important. Considering we're talking about 22 minutes of footage for each episode, though, it feels like each summary is discussing every plot point of the episode, instead of being a broad overview. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I've specifically requested several times that people who have never watched any of these episodes, or this show to remove the unnecessary details, and they seemed to have had no problems. Gage (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede. Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes of the season will be released on the Volume Nine DVD box set." 21-8 does not = 11... In general, though, this paragraph should be cut to a sentence and merged with the one prior. Three regional release dates don't all belong in the lede. Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Because I was instructed to remove the paragraphs dealing with two of the season's episodes being independently released on their own DVD. 8 in the first volume + 2 independently released + 11 in the second volume = 21 episodes. And I strongly disagree with your assessment that the regions should be eliminated, and merged with the previous paragraph. Gage (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

:Really don't think the DVD's are worth a paragraph in the lede. Done, but the volume 8 and 9 info should be left, in my opinion. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Reading the lede... I have no idea we're talking about television here. Done. Gage (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "Joseph Lee received his first directing credit for the season." Is this a complete sentence? And presumably, everyone that directed in the season had a first episode. Do you perhaps mean this was his first directorial credit for the series? Done. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I'm really finding the Production section hard to get through. It's long, rather boring, and confusing in places. Try to get an independent copy-edit. Consider if there's some stuff here that really doesn't matter and/or would be better left to the episodes individual articles. I'm unsure what should be removed. It largely mimics the production section of the fifth season featured list. Gage (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "The episode was inependently released on DVD on September 28, 2010, shortly after the ninth season premiere of Family Guy.[18]" Inependently? Spellcheck, please, that's not the only typo. Done. Please alert me of any other errors. Gage (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC) How many times do we need to be told Road to the Multiverse is the season premiere? Done. Gage (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Think about your linking. For an example, instead of "Both of these figures were significantly higher than those of the seventh season finale." containing a link to the seventh season article, which we've seen before, link to the actual episode's article. Done. I'm not aware of any other links that should be changed. Gage (talk) 17:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "On July 24, 2010, MacFarlane gave a live performance of the song at the 2010 San Diego Comic-Con International," Do we really need the year twice in that sentence? Done. Gage (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I know the ratings for each episode are available, there would be a nice addition to the chart. They were unknowingly removed by another user. If they are removed again, it will not be because of me. I added the ratings after a previous user requested that they be included as well. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Are we a DVD sales guide, now? There's entirely too much information on the DVD releases here. Done. Gage (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 5 has an author available. Check all. Not that I'm entirely sold on using The Huffington Post as a reliable source, actually... Done. Gage (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC) FLC isn't PR, so don't consider this an exhaustive list of issues, but that should be enough for you to work on. Courcelles 04:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support Would really like someone who has actually seen the show to look at the episode summaries. Asking non-viewers to try to identify what is important in a season is not going to work well, as we do not know what became important and what was a throwaway padding scene never mentioned again. Courcelles 11:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Looks ready.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

*Is is "boxset", "Boxset" or "box set"? I'd suggest the latter but be consistent throughout (including the infobox). Done. Gage (talk) "As production began, Steve Callaghan, Alex Carter,..." no real need to repeat the first names as long as there's no other Callaghans or Carters in the section. I removed Callaghan's first name, but I'm not sure why Carter's first name should be removed, as he is only mentioned once, to my knowledge. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "as Quagmire' daughter" missing an s? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "received the lowest amount of viewers"-> "received the fewest viewers" would be much nicer. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "won and were nominated for " seems the wrong way round to me, after all they had to be nominated to win, so why not "were nominated for and won...."? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "as the "worst show of the week."" - you refer to six episodes, is this a recurring award, it's not clear to me. References seem to imply this but capitalise the title as well. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I see Goodman's image narrower than the other upright images, is there a reason for this? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Should Family Guy be in italics in Rizzo's quote? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "a remote that " could you patronise the Brits and say "remote control"? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "The test comes back negative" benign? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Vladmir -> Vladimir. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "that Miley Cyrus is having a concert in Quahog" just reads odd to me "is having a concert"? There must be a better way... I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Chris the captures" missing an n. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "but when the monkey helps Chris write" -> helps him write. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Cleveland left the group," sorry, I missed this, what group? I've altered the sentence. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "a Hispanic maid" -> "an Hipsanic maid". Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) " bachelor party. Peter then takes Carter to " -> party, so takes him to... Done. I think you left out "he" after "so," though, and I added it to the article. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need to link janitor. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "research for the article, " what article? Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "but soon back out" backs out. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "and Angela tries to seduce him" -> "where she tries..." Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "He tries a few different things" remove "a few". Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "he simply buys the kids an " -> "he buys them an" Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "Vader goads Luke to join the dark side" -> Vader goads him... Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) "marking the first time an episode has premiered in the United Kingdom before the United States" is this claim referenced? I was not aware of the statement. I've removed it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Rating sorts four ways in Safari. A user readded the ratings table, instead of listing it in the episode list, so I'm not sure your concern still applies, as I've reverted it. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) So does Share. Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Any reason for the bold text in the table (apart from the headings, of course)? Same as above. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 15 looks like it has a spare " Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 21 vs Ref 22 for inconsistent formatting of TV by the Numbers. And refs 66 to 68 look different again. Done with 21 and 22. Not sure what you're referring to with "66 to 68." Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) What is UNCCD and what makes its criticism specifically relevant? I've replaced the reference. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) IGN in the references is sometimes italicised, sometimes not, be consistent. Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 63 is missing most parameters besides title. There are no other parameters that are able to be filled. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Is "television seasons" really necessary if you have Family Guy seasons (which must have "television seasons" as a super-category?) Done. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC) Would suggest a merger of the very short lead para into the subsequent para. Which paragraphs are you referring to? Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Second and third... The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC) " Eight of the twenty-one episodes are included in the volume. The remaining eleven episodes..." perhaps I'm tired but that adds up to 19 in my mind, not 21... If you look at the previous user's concerns, I was instructed to remove two episodes that were independently released on their own DVD. Because of this, 8 in the first volume + 11 in the second volume + 2 independent releases equals 21 episodes. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) I find it confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Well, I see no problem in readding the two independent releases to the DVD release info in the lead, especially since you're the second person to question the math. Gage (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC) It just needs to be clear, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I've added to the statement. Gage (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. I looked over the references, and was unable to locate anywhere that I had mixed the dates in the references, please point out what needs to be fixed. Gage (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, can't see any problems now! The Rambling Man (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Production: What is citing the second and third paragraphs of this section? I've referenced the best way I could think of, similar to the main list. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Reception: How could Family Goy have reached "a high for the eighth season" when it's stated earlier that the season premiere had the highest ratings, which the given statistics seem to back up? Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) In the key, the second bulleted point has a space before its period. And why does one note have a period when the other doesn't? Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Episode 5: "He sneaks in backstage, Miley becomes Stewie's best friend." First, it feels like an incomplete sentence. Second, why is Miley's first name being used? Episode 6: "and introduces the clone to Brian. Brian...". Try to avoid repetition like this from one sentence to another. Done. I'm not sure why the use of simply "Miley" is being called into question though. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Episode 11: "Luke then breaks out of jail and tries to hide in the Griffin's home." "Griffin's" → "Griffins'". Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Episode 15: "Stewie finds an old script that Brian wrote, suggests Lois read it." Feels like "and" is missing after the comma. That might help the Miley sentence too. Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) Episode 19: "Peter questions where Quagmire heard the joke and eventually find...". "find" → "finds". Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) DVD release: Is the spelling of "Karoke" correct? Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) General reference needs a period after the publisher. Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC) References 2, 22, and 24 should have designations that the links are in PDF format. The format= parameter of the cite templates is useful for this purpose. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Gage (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Question, what happened to the picture of the DVD box? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It was implied by another editor above that it was not necessary. Gage (talk) 08:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 14:24, 15 December 2010 [48].

---

2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Co-nominator: Strange Passerby (talk · contribs)

The article satisfies the FL criteria. You may refer to other Olympic medal table FLs. Just a question, will credits be given to significant contributors to the article? Thanks in advance for reviewing, ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 08:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 19:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose You should invite significant contributors to be part of the process, or add them in their absence as "nominators" (but it's best to check first). Not sure we need a link to "medal" to be honest. At least, not a generic one. Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Would prefer a more imaginative intro so you don't just repeat the title of the list so you can get some bold in the opening sentence! Lede should be captivating enough now :) ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Avoid "see footnote", just use normal notes/references where appropriate. Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Context - what edition of the 2010 SYO is this? Edited article. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Mixed-NOC needs explanation as this is, perhaps, unique? Explained. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The term is overlinked as well. Resolved. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Do you have a reference for the date of "dissolution" of Netherlands Antilles? Yes. I'm not sure if its absolutely necessary, but its there anyway. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Mildly unstable based on the 15 October 2010 announcement... Haha its stable as the table I feel. Only one actual "disruption" so far. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "for a gold medal[4] and a bronze medal,[5]" prefer "for a gold and a bronze medal,[4][5]" See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "in these events are bound to be swept by " sorry but I don't know what this means. See Strange Passerby's comments below. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Avoid "Refer to the main article for further information." as well. You've already linked this... Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Just for some more context, how old are the competitors in this? Clarified. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Changes... section uses expanded version of IOC, just use abbreviation once you've abbreviated it. Corrected. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Remove the overcapitalised title in refs 4 and 5. Removed. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Resolved. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Refs 7 and 9, are they WP:RS and why is one a work and the other a publisher? Both are credible websites covering the Olympics. Used often by WP:OLYMPICS too :) In Safari, I got an error when looking at ref 6... Is is still there now? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 05:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Re. RS: [49][50] Seems to meet criteria for RS. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Re. (old ref 6) ref 7 error: it's because there was a Google Maps app in the original link which webcite couldn't handle. The ref is from the text though. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Citation added for dissolution of Dutch Antilles. Overcapitalisation in refs fixed. Refs moved to end of sentence. Reworded mixed-NOCs events "swept by" mixed teams Refs have a single date format now. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment there is no real need for the second table. Just update the entry in the main table and add a note to explain the situation. Nergaal (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The second table was added based on precedent at 2008 Summer Olympics medal table#Changes in medal standings. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I personally think it clarifies the change clearly. Whether the table should be removed because only one medal change was made is something I've no comments on. Fine either way. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
• Apologies for my clumsiness. I should have done a more thorough check! I have one issue that warrants its discussion here. Is or are the Olympics singular or plural? The recently promoted Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (see FLC) had me convincing reviewers it was singular, and so it stuck. However Strange Passerby believes the Olympics are in plural form and not singular. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:ENGVAR. All our articles on Games in British English-usage countries use the plural. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay then. Which means I would have to make the according changes to Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics as well. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 06:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Don't think the bolding in the lead is necessary. Once you seperate the bolded items for the purpose of creating a better intro, it doesn't look that attractive to leave the bolding in.
• Medal table: the dashes in the third paragraph should either be made unspaced or turned into smaller en dashes; I recommend the latter for consistency throughout the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Both done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 00:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose

"A total of nine nations – Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Cambodia, Equatorial Guinea, Guatemala, Jordan, Nauru and Turkmenistan – won their first ever medals at an Olympic event. Puerto Rico, Vietnam and the U.S. Virgin Islands won their first gold medals." Besides pouring over ~50 medal tables, what is sourcing this information?

• Would provide indendent sources for each, give me a day or two. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've managed to find sources – and add them – for Bolivia, Eq. Guinea, Jordan, Nauru and Puerto Rico. You'll have to forgive me but I'm unable to find sources for the others. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I have to oppose over unsourced statements, then. Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Would a link to a search for all medallists from an NOC at www.olympic.org showing no medals be considered a source? E.g. http://www.olympic.org/en/content/All-Olympic-results-since-1896/?AthleteName=Enter%20a%20name&Category=&Games=&Sport=&Event=&MenGender=false&WomenGender=false&MixedGender=false&TeamClassification=false&IndividualClassification=false&Continent=1310290&Country=346682&GoldMedal=false&SilverMedal=false&BronzeMedal=false&WorldRecord=false&OlympicRecord=false&TargetResults=true 85.164.140.22 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Has Courcelles been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No way to evaluate this idea until it is executed really. This could work or it could not, try it and let's see. Courcelles 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you review it now and see if that satisfies your concerns? Thanks. StrPby (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we get some other opinions here? I'm just not sure about showing a blank search result as proof of something. Courcelles 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well from my perspective, I'm not keen on "sources by deduction" i.e. working out that something hadn't happened yet because a source provides no results. I suspect you may need to rely on non-English sources (which is okay, if used reliably, sparingly and with appropriate translation) to fix this problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

:"The concept of mixed-NOCs was newly introduced in the games" Not quite- see Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics. The first three Olympiads (and perhaps 1924 Chamonix) had mixed teams. Actually, both are different, which explains their different names. This has been roughed out thoroughly in Archive 1 of the article's talk page; and in fact, Archive 2 and the current talk page. A number of sources also introduce mixed-NOCs as a new concept in the Olympics. From the official Singapore 2010 website: " It is the first time in Olympic history that there will be mixed-NOC events." From the official Olympic website: "introduction of innovative events, such as the mixed NOC team fencing competition", "created especially for the YOG" ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Read that a little more critically. Events specifically for mixed teams? New concept. The idea of folks from different nations making up a team? Not new at all. They're different, though somewhat related, concepts. Courcelles 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC) I was unsure of it myself at first, though the talk page debate with other editors eventually led me to believe mixed-NOCs is a new concept. I will find time tomorrow to comb through the talk page archives to review what happened then; don't think I got it wrong, but we'll see. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have now reworded the offending sentence. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Prose, "(202 gold, 200 silver and 221 bronze)" Table, "199 silver". Also compare 623 versus 622. Sorry about the mistake. I've corrected it. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC) not a mistake. 1 silver medal stripped. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC) You are right. Now I know why I thought I had made a mistake when I hadn't. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have included a short mention of the stripped medal in that paragraph now, although the main information is still in the "changes in medals" section. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 8, why is this a reliable source? Ditto ref 11. Courcelles 04:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) AroundTheRings (ref 8) has its own article on WP, and is well-cited by other news sources. And if you read up on Morethanthegames (ref 11), there is absolutely nothing to suggest its unreliability. If I'm not wrong, it is one of the top sports news providers in the UK. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 07:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Any response to the rest of my comments, then? Courcelles 08:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 07:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments - per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons. Afro (Talk) 08:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The only colored cells are the 'Gold', 'Silver' and 'Bronze' cells at the top of the table, if I not wrong? If that is so... they don't need explanation since it involves basic understanding of sports. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Umm, see the Singapore row. Courcelles 11:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC) That is correct Courcelles. Afro (Talk) 14:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Well that is explained at the top of the table. This practice of highlighting the host nation in blue already applies to the ten or so Olympic medal table FLs. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Its the only way you are conveying the information in the table, its why you need a symbol. Afro (Talk) 18:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Actually, technically the symbol here would be "Singapore", so I'm not sure it's a problem, as the key says, so it's not really a problem (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC) I guess that makes sense. Afro (Talk) 13:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Afro (Talk) 23:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – this FLC is stagnating and I believe that as a co-nominator I've done what I can to try to solve the concern raised in the single oppose. However, as this seems to have been unsatisfactory, and as my co-nominator has only made one edit in the past month and has been unable to help on this issue upon which I've reached a dead end, I'm formally requesting the article be withdrawn from consideration from WP:FLC. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 14:10, 15 December 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:52, 6 December 2010 [51].

---

1994 College Baseball All-America Team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is of similar caliber to the 1991 and 1992 FLs and the 1993 FLC that seems likely to be promoted. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I am competing in the WP:CUP and hope this nomination can be closed by the end of the month.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Image caption should comply with WP:MOS so "four no-hitters" and prose should be used, so "two-time" rather than "2x". Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "team" is mentioned three times in the first sentence. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "A total of 5 players " - five. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "unanmous" typo. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars Garciaparra is a two-time American League batting champion" grammar.. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "All-star" or "All-Star"? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "per 9 innings pitched" nine. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "Cruz, who won a Gold Glove in 2003 in the National League, has led the National League in putouts as a rightfielder (2003) and the American League in putouts as a centerfielder (2000), but has also led the American League in errors committed as a rightfielder (2004)" - repeats of National League and American League make this sentence poor. I have abbreviated the leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Don't use "x" as a multiplier. Look at recently promoted discographies where they use another character similar to x to make the point. Fixed on all four (1991-1994) lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Retrieve dates (in fact, all dates in references) should be in the same format. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments – No need for two Jay Payton links in Accomplishments. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) In parentheses: "when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage .846". Don't think the last part works grammatically. How about "and a winning percentage of .846."? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC) De-capitalize Home Runs in the sentence following the above. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC) "He accumulated over 1100 hits and 200 home runs." Comma needed for the hit total, I believe. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support – For the second comment I made up there, when I saw the fix on the page I didn't think it was the improvement I originally believed, so I tweaked it further (basically the old text plus some parentheses). Sorry about that. Anyway, everything looks fine to me now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active." Sentence fragment, and active where, exactly? (I know you mean MLB, but needs to be clearer). Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Adding what you did fixed everything. Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC) "A total of five players were selected by all three" Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "Although the honorees generally do not compete together as a unit" - Italicized part appears to be redundant. (Won't mind if you keep this.) O.K. and fixed for 91-93 as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd put a comma after 2010. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "As of 2010 Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remained active in Major League Baseball." - Use present tense. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "The team included four future Major League Baseball All-Stars." - You may want to mention their names in this sentence. Perhaps along the lines of "With A, B, C, and D, the team included four future..." Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Varitek is a three-time All-Star (2003, 2005 & 2008)" - Don't use an ampersand here. See WP:&. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Serial comma usage is inconsistent. Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Hampton is a two-time All-Star (1999 and 2001), Gold Glove-winner, and five-time Silver Slugger-winner" - The and is a bit premature. The list goes on. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "(when he led the NL in wins with 22 and winning percentage (.846))" - The inconsistency makes this awkward to read. Put both figures in parentheses or neither. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "who was a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004)" - He's not a two-time All-Star anymore then, I take it? Perhaps you mean "who was an All-Star twice (2000 and 2004)". Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "was the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - The tenses again. He still is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner, or is he not? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "He led the NL in putouts as a leftfielder in 2003 and in assists as a centerfielder in 2004" - Adding an in there aids the reader's understanding. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "but has also led the AL in errors committed as a rightfielder" and "but he has also led the NL in errors as a centerfielder in 2000." - Italicized words can be cut. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The table would probably look better with the hooks and dashes in the ABCA, BA, and CB columns being centered. Thanks. I did it for 1991 and then forgot to do it for 92-94. I have fixed them all.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "POY – Player of the Year" - This key is used only once in the table and only in the notes column (where space isn't limited). Just write it out. O.K. But it is now inconsistent with the 1991-93 lists.-TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) I really think this should be changed back for that reason.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "Major League Baseball number one overall draft pick (1994)" - Source? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC) "2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Source? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Several commas missing in the notes column. Fixed, I think.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Don't end notes with periods unless they are complete sentences. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Opposing for now. May also have a few more comments regarding the accomplishments section. Goodraise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) These two are resolved as far as I'm concerned. I'm keeping them uncapped for the time being only so that I can reply to them. "Various organizations selected All-American lists of the best players for the 1994 NCAA Division I college baseball season." - The italicized part is redundant. Isn't it? Goodraise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Although All-Americans and best players are somewhat synonymous, many casual readers would not understand this to be the case. I think it is actually helpful expecially, since there are some specialized All-American lists such as Academic All-American or USILA Scholar All-American where All-American does not necessarily mean best player, but may mean something slightly different. This is strictly a best player selection and clarifying that is not wasteful, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Fair enough. I'd like to note though, that I'm about as "casual" a reader as you're going to get. I'm not living in the US and I have virtually no knowledge of baseball. And seeing as both the page title and the first sentence make it clear that this article is about a team, confusing readers seems unlikely to me. Well, you probably know best. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) "He has caught a major league record four no-hitters." - I don't get this. Isn't a no-hitter something you throw (as opposed to something you catch)? Please explain or clarify. Goodraise 01:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC) The catcher calls the pitches.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) He "calls" them? OK, I give up. As you apparently know what you're writing about and since the sentence isn't essential to understanding the rest of the article, I'll just let this go. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) In baseball, the catcher (using a system of hand gestures called signs) tells the pitcher what pitches to throw and in what locations. Courcelles 06:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Some more: "MVP" - Unnecessary abbreviation. Please expand it. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC) José Cruz, Jr. vs Jose Cruz - Pick one. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Why is MLB (sometimes) used in the table's notes column, when AL and NL are not? Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "but he also led the AL" - Unnecessary he. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not revisited comments from Goodraise 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

*I think the accomplishments section would benefit from some sort of introduction, one or two sentences. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC) What do you mean by "accomplished college baseball players" and in what way are they the most so? Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have tweaked this with "highly-regarded".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC) The sentence "As of 2010, Jason Varitek, R. A. Dickey, Mike Hampton, and Jay Payton remain active in Major League Baseball" does not really fit into that paragraph. It also strikes me as odd to start the section with this. Intuitively, I would place ongoing developments at the end of the paragraph or section. Moreover, this doesn't appear to be an accomplishment in any sense of the word. How about removing it? I have tried to clarify its purpose.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Now I understand the purpose of that sentence, but the paragraph as a whole no longer satisfies "professional standards of writing". I'll try to help with that once I understand what you mean by "accomplished college baseball players". Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Is there a particular reason why the first column lists the positions? In a list of people, I'd normally expect the first column to contain their names. The very first WP:FL I loooked at in response to your query (2007 NFL Draft) has names in the fourth column. I don't think there is any policy regarding this so I am just using the same format as the other three College Baseball FLs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Hardly a good list to compare this one with (draft picks vs team members). The three columns preceding the "player" column have no equivalent in this list. Not to mention that the NFL list places a player's position after his name. As for the other three college baseball FLs... In the absence of a "policy", you'd repeat somebody else's mistake rather than think for yourself? Well, leave it like this, if you must. Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I opened up three more lists and 2.5 of them did not have names in the first column. (List of Atlanta Falcons first-round draft picks and Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award, plus List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches sort of doesn't either) I don't see any reason to move this around and since the change will affect four lists, I am going to leave it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC) "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004), is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history and is the 2002 Lou Gehrig Memorial Award winner." - Might be better to move his place of birth out from in between his baseball achievements, like so: "Danny Graves, who is a two-time All-Star (2000 and 2004) and won the Lou Gehrig Memorial Award in 2002, is the only Vietnamese-born player in MLB history." Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC) The abbreviation MLB is not being introduced. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Should be introduced on first occurrence. Goodraise 00:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Seeing as neither Jason Varitek nor Nomar Garciaparra appear in the lead, it would seem appropriate to mention their membership in the team in the captions. You might be able to avoid redundancy by using {{multiple image}}'s footer parameter to make both images use the same caption. I think it goes without saying that the subjects of the main images are members of the team and adding the long team name would make long captions longer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Nothing wrong with having longer captions. As far as I'm concerned, they're too short. Neither of them "establishes the picture's relevance to the article" and they also leave unclear why you've chosen these two to be the only ones with pictures. For example, why is there no picture of Mike Hampton? It's not like you'd have to go far to get one. Goodraise 08:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC) How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC) No longer opposing, not yet supporting. Sorry about the wait. I didn't find much time for editing this week. Goodraise 06:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Not finding time to edit. Remaining neutral. My apologies. Goodraise 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Some of my comments may apply to multiple lists. Please make changes to those articles as well, when necessary. "This list only includes players selected to the post-season All-American first-team for each selector." No hyphen in "first-team"; it's not a compound adjective. I am never sure about that, but I take your word for it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC) "highly-regarded" No hyphen in -ly adverbs, see WP:HYPHEN. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC) No mentions of the colleges played for in the prose? Also, Georgia Tech had three All-Americans that year (and not surprisingly made the CWS); is that not worth mentioning (not a rhetorical question, I don't follow baseball so I don't know if it's a regular occurence or not). Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC) "(i.e., 1 – pitcher, 2 – catcher, etc.)" "i.e."-->e.g. (yes, there is a difference!) Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) I have studied latin and know what these phrases mean. In this case, i.e. seems correct to me because we are explaining the prior statement instead of giving an example.

• 'Support: -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment before I promote, could you please have a look at this discussion involving a newly promoted FL and the use of general references. I think we solved the problem, so I'd like you to consider that approach too, primarily to avoid another brouhaha. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I honestly don't understand what you are asking me to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
    • We had a problem with an editor complaining about the use of a general reference instead of inline citation(s) for the whole contents of a table. This list currently exhibits the same issue. I'd like you to familiarise yourself with the previous discussion and act accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you are asking me to add an inline citation, which I just did.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:14, 5 December 2010 (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 21:39, 27 November 2010 [52].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've been able to FL a Guitar Hero list (thank you activision for slowing down releases). Format of this is similar to the previous lists. MASEM (t) 21:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to The Telegraph; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Dab fixed. --MASEM (t) 23:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Ucucha 00:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - can the first instance of the genre's be linked (if there is an article on them). Several of those genres (FE Speed Rock) I am unfamiliar with and I would expect a link somewhere in the article, episodically on a table.陣内_Jinnai 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • We have generally not linked these in past lists (though they are only a recent addition). If linking is suggested, it would likely need to be for each row since the table is sortable. I leave it to comments to do this or not. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Why was it changed? I could understand if they were redlinking, but those wikilinks are clearly relevant to the topic.陣内_Jinnai 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
      • In the early games they never provided a genre so there was no genre column at all. It only came about a few titles ago when they included their claimed genre with each song. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Just to reiterate, I would like additional input if linking the genres should be done. It's quite doable, I just would want a few more voices here. --MASEM (t) 21:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Might want to post a link to this FLC and note this in WT:VG for some comments.陣内_Jinnai 16:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose lots of weak prose issues I'm afraid. "Warriors of Rock, as with previous games in the series, challenge the player" -> "challenges" (as the game is singular). "successfully pass a song" not sure what this means. "limit of 5 stars" -> five (per MOS). "due to selected perks the player can select." select overdose. "presented to the player" to the player is unnecessary. "a downward decline " which other direction would a decline be other than downward? I'd say who released this in the first sentence, not the last part of the lead. "studios were shuttered and brought internally to Activision" Sorry to be dense but I don't really get this. Is Vicarious Visions part of Activision? It's not clear. "was built to focus on the success of Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock with a soundtrack that was more focused " focus overdose. "The game features songs primary from " - primarily? "The game's on-disc setlist is also claimed to be more difficult than songs from previous games, as Activision found most players would quickly progress to the highest difficulty, Expert, shortly after each game's release" - I'd say "more difficult than in previous games" "Warriors of Rock' primary gameplay" something's missing. Is it "Quest" mode, "Quest Mode" or "Quest mode"? DemiGod or Demigod? Or Demi-God? "The on-disc are presented' missing something here? Why is "Setlist" capitalised in the table heading? Maybe "Artist(s)" since some of the tracks have multiple contributors. Are Quickplay and Quickplay+ different? Explicitly link Guitar Hero 5 in the Downloadable content section. Link "platinum" to Music recording sales certification What's DLC? Ref 8, 19 - reduce the capitalisation please. Ref 13, as far as I know, this is never called The Metro, just Metro. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I've fixed those and worked on some general clearing up based on the implied confusion from the topics above. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (Talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comment - Since its an recently released game is it likely to remain stable? I only ask since there seems to be quite a few reversions 3 in the span of 24 hours I may add. Afro (Talk) 07:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) The ondisc soundtrack won't change, and there will be weekly/monthly updates when new downloadable content is introduced. The only issue right now is that there are IP / inexperienced editors that are changing genres of songs to what they think the song is, but not as it is listed in-game. It is not the type of instability that is an issue per criteria (I believe). --MASEM (t) 12:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Another question, can any images not be added to the article to add more to the Visual Appeal of the Criteria? Afro (Talk) 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC) We haven't used images on past lists - while one can possibly identify some possible ones (eg free pics of Simmons, the band Rush, Megadeth/Dave Mustain, any of the bands features, etc.) I can probably predict that such could lead to anon/IPs wanting to picture their favorite band in the game. I'm open to suggestions however. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Could you not use one of the guitar controllers on the commons as an example of the guitars used to play the songs? for the lead, its just an idea. Afro (Talk) 18:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC) While this is possible, there was a new guitar controller that came out with this game that would be a better representation, but I've yet been able to get a free version of it (a non-free would be improper since a free one can be made). It's a reasonable idea, but one I can'd do right now. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Is there any real difference between the new controller and old controllers? they have the same basic buttons and functions. Afro (Talk) 23:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes there is. File:Guitar Hero World Tour Guitar Controller PS3.png this is what the older guitars look like but the new ones are a lot more stylized, see [53] for example. And I do keep my eyes open on flickr for a free version as a non-free image is no longer allowable . --MASEM (t) 03:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC) if all there's different to the new guitars is that it looks fancier, I don't know why you can't include a picture of an old guitar as a basic example of the controller used you can always replace the picture in the future when a new guitar becomes available surely. Afro (Talk) 21:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC) I was able to find a free picture to use, though I hope I can find something a bit better later. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I think theres no big issues. I've also removed information I feel is unnecessary in the description of the image in my view this information is best used for the main article. Afro (Talk) 18:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments: Here are the issues that stood out to me.
  • For the notes to the tables:
    • Why is there a plus sign instead of another letter?
    • Why is one set (for the main setlist) have spacing between the notes, but the other set (for the downloadable content) omits it?
  • Is a gameplay explanation necessary? I'd say no, but will concede to a good reason. If yes, however, I suggest trimming it to the bare bones.
  • In regard to linking the genres, why not have them listed and linked in the article lead or in the introductory paragraphs of the sections?
  • Source check: what makes the following sources reliable?
    • Ref 8 and 19: Blabbermouth.net
    • Ref 10: Roadrunner Records
    • Ref 24: One of Swords
  • Overall, the list is in good shape, but there are few small issues that I think should be addressed before supporting.(Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC))
    • I fixed the footnoting on the tables. I have no idea where the space came from save that when the "+" sign was used, it added a space. They've all been normalized to letters now. The gameplay description is necessary only to explain the song order/selection with the presence of 2112 and Sudden Death in the list, I'm not sure if I can cut it back. On the sources, I've replaced/cut the Blabbermouth and RR Records with other more reliable sources. One of Swords is an Activision employee that blogs on the Hero games, and thus the announcement of the DLC from him would be reliable. I did try to find something to replace this but I've not found a source more reliable than this that has the same info short of a Xbox live marketplace product page. --MASEM (t) 18:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I took a stab at trimming the gameplay paragraph. Hope nothing essential is lost, so please feel free to revert if it was. Other than that, I think the list looks good. Support. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC))

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The genre names should probably be in sentence case; for example, "Modern Rock"-->Modern rock Staying with genres, what references them? Can you explain "Expert+" mode? It's mentioned in a couple of the footnotes. Should we assume that any song that not marked with footnote b is the original version of the song (as opposed to a cover)? What makes http://oneofswords.com/2010/11/gh-dlc-warriors-of-rock-1-track-pack/ a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC) Genres fixed; I've noted above the table that these are how they are listed in-game as there is no offline (reliable) source for these as there would be with Rock BAnd songs. I've explained a bit what Expert+ is in the footnote, and made sure to note that all songs are masters, (those marked with b were specifically re-recorded, and thus their dates are 2010 as opposed to original release). I've commented on the One of Swords ref immediattely above already. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "and Vicarious Visions, the latter who provided support for additional features in the Wii version of the game." Feels grammatically awkward to me. I think that changing the comma to a semi-colon and removing "who" would be enough to fix it.
• "Following a decline in sales of music games in 2009, partially due to the large number of music games released in 2009". The use of the years strikes me as repetitive. You could easily get away with converting the second one to "that year".
• Main setlist: In the last sentence of the first paragraph, a quote from Brian Bright has three quotation marks. One of them shouldn't be there, I'd imagine.
• "Two songs, Alice Cooper's 'No More Mr. Nice Guy' and The Runaways' 'Cherry Bomb', were specifically re-recorded by the original bands for use in Warriors of Rock." Did Cooper play the song with a band? If not, the sentence is only half-true. In that case, "performers" or similar would be more accurate.
• Importable content: "it was announced that thirty-nine of songs from Guitar Hero: Metallica would also be importable into the game". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • All corrected. (I don't know if it was Alice Cooper's whole band or just Cooper + others, so I used "performers" as suggested) --MASEM (t) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:36, 28 November 2010 [54].

---

List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this as the first of five lists for featured list because I feel this list already meets the criteria. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bahamut0013wordsdeeds

*Comments: Alt text is good. The table sorting is good, though it might be a good idea to allow sorting by date of award (I know this is the default sort, but sorting back to it would be nice). I like that you used {{Sortname}}, you should use {{Dts}} for the dates and {{Sort}} for the names (they currently sort alphabetically, instead of by precedence of rank). Sorting by date: done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC) There are a lot of redirecting wikilinks. I know that green links are not inherently wrong, but the sheer number begs for a clean up, especially on the German-language links that aren't likely to be renamed to that title. There is no problem at all with redirecting links, and I don't see why this needs to be brought up. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Prose/Lead: I would move the paragraph about the number of recipients from the lead to the lead of the "Recipients" section. Otherwise, it is well-written and seems complete. Either way is okay for me. The paragraph about the number of recipients pertains to all 882 recipients from 1940 to 1945. Moving it to the Recipients section could give the impression that it pertains to the years 1940 and 1941 only. I will wait a bit until others comment on this issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC) That is a concern easily remedied with a bit of context. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Comprehensiveness is good; clear scope, no obvious omissions, not redundant. Does the number column indicate a number associated with the award, or just a running tally? If it is the latter, it would be better just to mention the totals in the prose and delete that column. The intro of the recipients section states "Within each of these lists a unique sequential number was assigned to each recipient. The same numbering paradigm was applied to the higher grades of the Knight's Cross, one list per grade". This official sequential number is presented in the Number column. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Likewise, the "Notes" column seems to suggest that some of these men are multiple awardees? It might help to clarify this (possibly with a link to the other lists if necessary). Hmm, I tried to explain in the background section that the Knight's Cross came in 5 different grades. Your comment suggests that I failed to make this clear. The Notes column therefore indicates two bits of information, first it would indicate whether a higher grade was awarded, second it states the date of death if the award was awarded posthumously. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see, the number is for the sequence number assigned to that award of the higher grade. That's what was getting me confused, because I was unclear with the previous point as well about individual numbering. I think that a link would more than help with that clarification (for example of Eduard Dietl, link "Awarded 72nd Swords 1 July 1944" to List_of_Knight's_Cross_recipients#Knight.27s_Cross_with_Oak_Leaves_and_Swords). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I added the respective link in the background section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Referencing: Seems you lean very heavily on Scherzer. I'd like to see some more variety in sources if possible, especially since the foreign language source is a bit harder to verify. I also prefer to see use of the citation templates, but plain text is by no means a requirement or even a suggestion. To my knowledge research has produced two comprehensive works on the recipients of the Knight’s Cross (and its higher grades). The first is by Fellgiebel, the second is from Scherzer. Fellgiebel, as a recipient of the Knight’s Cross himself and former president of the Association of Knight’s Cross recipients, was a bit more lenient when it came to accepting evidence of the KC. Scherzer presented a book that is based on the information of the German National Archives. A number of authors have presented subsets of these works. Example: Obermaier has focussed on the recipients in the Luftwaffe, Kretschmar on the Waffen-SS, Runge on the Kriegsmarine. Personally I don’t believe that these subsets add more value since they more less are all based on either Fellgiebel and/or Scherzer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC) I was afraid you might say that. That is one of the problems with foreign topics: they tend to get less significant coverage. The German language article seems to use him a lot as well, but perhaps you can glean a few refs from there, if you haven't looked already. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Style seems good. No obvious image issues jump out at me, but I haven't inspected every single one. Likewise, Stability seems good from the article history. Please respond at your convenience, and I will decide on support based on your counter-arguments or fixes. A thought I just had, not really related to the FLC, is that the two navboxes (Template:Footer Knight's Cross recipients and Template:Knight's Cross recipients) seem like they would make more sense merged. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 17:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Is the title correct? Should it be "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1940–1941"? Good point! This change in name would then apply to all of the lists? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I would say so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I think low ranking should be hyphenated. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) "excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves." -> just "excluding the 8 foreign recipients" or "excluding the 8 foreign recipients of the award" or whatever, but don't repeat the whole title again. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) You abbreviate AKCR but never use it, so no need really. I would like to keep it because it is used in the 1942 to 1945 articles. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Same for RSD I suppose. likewise MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Our own article hyphenates court-martial. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC) It's personal, but I'd much, much prefer to see the image of the chap next to his name. I am so used to the layout by now, I have been working on these articles for three years now. Unless you make this a show stopper I really want to keep it as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) No show-stopper, just a preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Number should be made clear that it's the overall running total, not for the year. I know you say "Within each of these lists a unique sequential number was assigned to each recipient" but is it you assigning this number or the AKCR? The section starts with "The Oberkommando der Wehrmacht kept separate Knight's Cross lists ...". Is it not clear that it was the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht that assigned this number? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I suppose so. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I reworded slightly. Please check if this is clear now MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Refs 4 to 7, just confirm you're using format=pdf in the ref please. I use format=PDF MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I think you need it in lower case (pdf). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Check {{Cite web}} it uses the upper case MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Lower case pdf gives you the neat little Adobe graphic, so perhaps the advice on the template page is incorrect! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Done but I see no graphic MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Okay, perhaps it's by virtue of the hyperlink ending in .pdf, not the parameter itself. A list I've been working on (PDSA Gold Medal) has several of these icons... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC) I reverted it again to be template compliant since it made no difference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Yeah, that's fine. It is because the links don't actually point directly to a .pdf. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Looks pretty good to me, although I have a couple of suggestions:
  • There is some repetition in the prose. For instance the first two sentences in the lead (and the third is only slightly different) both begin with "The Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross". Is there some way to reword this?
    • Would rephrasing the second sentence to "This military decoration was awarded ..." fix the issue? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes that would fix the issue, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • done Thanks for the support and all the suggestions. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the first sentence of the lead the word "were" seems to disagree with the word "award" - "were" is plural, while "award" is singlular. If singluar it should be "was", if plural it should be "awards";
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • in the lead, "won" or received? (received probably sounds better, I think);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that some linking clauses might make the prose flow a little more smoothly. For instance, inclusion of "however" in the second sentence of the second paragraph indicates the juxtaposition of the two sentences more clearly;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "left the nominations unfinished in various stages of the approval process" or "...left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process"? (I think the second would be more clear);
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the Notes section for Eduard Dietl probably needs a full stop after 1 July 1944 as "At the same time..." begins with a capital letter;
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the capitalisation in the notes field for Heinrich Liebe probably needs to be tweaked (I think it should start with a capital for consistency, e.g. "Awarded # Swords" starts with a capital). There are similar inconsistencies in the Unit field, where some begin with caps and others don't. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
    • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support: my comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Good work. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Based upon the feedback of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients: 1942 review, which I think was a good idea, the list was renamed to "List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941)". MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks fine to me. DocYako (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• General comment The intro is adequately written, introduces suitably to the topic and the list is efficiently referenced. I have checked the majority of the links myself and it would seem that no ambiguous links exist. Also, no fair use photos are used. I hence can say that I support the nomination, but first, some minor comments:
  • My main concern - which may be possibly unjustified - is about the use of X./Y (X Battalion of Y Regiment, and similarirly about the other Army Branches, i.e. the Luftwaffe). I don't know whether the average reader is familiarized with this symbol. Replacing this abbreviation is undoubtedly highly impractical and maybe not suitable. Perhaps add a note about what this symbol denotes?
    • I introduced a note to the column "Role and unit" referring to Nomenclature used by the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS which tries to explaning the German naming convention. Please let me know if this addressed the issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed that Hermann Hoth lacked a picture. This one is available, but I hesitated to use it as I'm afraid it doesn't adheres to the de facto style of other photographs used, which tend more to be of "portrait"-style. Unless I'm wrong about that, we sould wait until a more suitable (maybe one from Heinrich Hoffmann) can be found.
  • The same as above for Walther von Seydlitz-Kurzbach.

As I said I think the overall condition of the article is more than satisfactory. This is all I have to point out for now, but if anything further comes to my attention, I shall make a comeback. --Jake V (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Only issue I found is "However author", where I believe a comma should go in-between. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:49, 12 November 2010 [55].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a list in the series of National Treasures of Japan lists. It has been modelled after other featured Lists of National Treasures of Japan. I tried to incorporate comments from previous featured list candidacies. bamse (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.narahaku.go.jp/exhibition/2009toku/ningbo/ningbo_index.html is dead. Ucucha 23:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am aware of the broken link. Unfortunately the page has disappeared and is not present at the internet archive or WebCite either. As far as I understand WP:ROT (quote: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." and "...do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer"), the url should stay in the article, right? bamse (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and no one can verify something that is referenced to a broken link. Can you reference this information to a different source? Ucucha 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I thought so too, but it seems to contradict wikipedia's policy which I quoted above (from WP:ROT): "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link". bamse (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • But surely it is better to have a source that can actually be accessed! Ucucha 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I removed the reference. The information is already present in (general) reference 4. bamse (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well referenced and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Ref 23, 25, 41, 54, 68, 75 language needs stating. Ref 43 returns the Portugese Google Frontpage. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 11:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed all. 25 already had the language stated. Removed ref 54 as it might not be WP:RS. PS: In fact it was the Polish google books frontpage... bamse (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Either way I'm glad that the ref doesn't return the frontpage anymore. Ref 43 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Added and also to ref 59. Hope those were all. bamse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport This list is quite well done. I only have quibbles of sorts:
  • I presume that the categorization of treasures is somehow officially determined, but this is not stated here. A sentence after the opening one saying something like "Ancient documents are one of <n> cagetories of treasures recognized by <agency>" would clarify this.
    • Your presumption is correct. I added: "Ancient documents" is one of thirteen cagetories of national treasures recognized by the agency. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • National Treasures of Japan says there are 59 items on this list; what is the reason for the discrepancy?
    • That's because I forgot to update the National Treasures of Japan article with this year's new nomination ("Map of rice fields in Naruto, Imizu District, Etchū Province"). As of this year, there are 60 ancient documents national treasures. Fixed. bamse (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is just a suggestion: that the maps vary by size the dots based on the number of items held somewhere. (I'd suggest color variation, but that probably violates WP:ACCESS.)
    • I see what you mean, something like National_Treasures_of_Japan#Geographical distribution. Apart from the WP:ACCESS violation, I think that the numbers are already well covered by the table next to the map. Also I would not know what intervals I would use for coloring ("1", "2-5", ">5"?). Furthermore unlike for immobile national treasures (temples, shrines, residences, castles), the non-uniform distribution of treasures has probably more than one reason (cultural center Kyoto and famous museums in Tokyo...) and just presenting the numbers encoded in colors might be confusing. Also due to a lack of reliable sources I don't want to discuss or stress this issue too much in the article. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • As I said, it was just a suggestion. Since the other issues are addressed, I support. Magic♪piano 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Magic♪piano 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another great list. Courcelles 14:11, 11 November 2010 (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 Dabomb87 23:10, 23 November 2010 [56].

---

1st Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that meets the criteria, this is the first article that I nominate for something without a previous peer review. The article is the first award ceremony on either film award, so it is a bit important. Thanks for your comments. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
• Since these were the first awards, there should definitely be something on the background, (for example who came with the idea for starting them?). Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like MGM/AMPAS history should be added, doing... Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 05:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I did it. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. But going through the list I saw that there are two awards retired after this. I think it would be worthwhile to have a Reception/Aftermath section also; it should discuss asides the two retired awards, how were the awards received by the public: did they care? was it prestigious enough that people demanded it the next year? what did the organizers learn from this first edition? etc. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the retired awards belong into 2nd Academy Awards and about reception, I will make a research, but I don't think that I would find something. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I made a research, but I found no much information about the reception, there are books, but I cannot see them on Google books. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Tickets cost five dollars and only 270 people attended to the event.[1] The ceremony lasted only fifteen minutes.[2]" - merge these two. Image caption in the infobox could be more descriptive (if you know what you're describing!) "nowadays" very parochial, make it encyclopedic. "or television.[1] Wings won two awards" reads odd. Perhaps have a para-split after [1] and introduce more fully what Wings was. The link to Honorary Award says it was instituted in 1948, while this award took place in 1929. First sentence of Background section is almost verbatim copy of the lead. "Fairbanks on a fifteen minutes dinner " instead of "on a" perhaps "during a"? "recipers" typo. "Best Picture receiver." recipient? Honorary award citations need references. Image captions which aren't complete sentences should not have periods. Ref 11 has a spare period. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC) All done. TbhotchTalk C. 21:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Good list, but some problems that aren't commonly thought of, mainly with the images. "Tickets cost five dollars and only 270 people attended to the event; and the ceremony lasted only fifteen minutes." Two things, do we really need a link to USD, and "only" twice in a sentence before a statistic is problematic. Try not to express judgement of any kind of the numbers. Instead, if you must, compare to more modern numbers. Done TbhotchTalk C. 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 1. You're going to make me chase through a database to reference three separate facts? Not good. I should come to a page with teh fact on it. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) The database has not a permalink so I cannot do it with one, another link? why this is the most reliable. Ref 2, what on earth is this? A book? A newspaper article? That citation needs to be filled out quite a bit, and enough info to determine reliability added. It is a link that became dead within the time, I added 6 months ago. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 needs some reference to AMC as the publisher. As it is, I was all prepared to question it before I clicked through. AMC is published by Rainbow Media, better link. Ref 13. About.com does not enjoy a presumption of reliability- this source stands or falls based on the reputation of the individual author, and a bachelor's in history is nice, but not encouraging about reliability. Nor is her major writing credit being in anything that starts "The Idiot's Guide". Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) File:Wings poster.jpg How do we know this is in the public domain- i.e., that it was published without a copyright notice? Needs an RS for that. I never uploaded them, is not my fault that people upload possible copyvios at Commons, this is not my business if you believe those are "non-free photos" nominate them for deletion, there's no evidence that authors still living, or they put a copyright notice on them neither. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) According to an image of the film 1, 2 that's why it was uploaded at Commons, no evidence of revenue on 1976. TbhotchTalk C. 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) File:Janet Gaynor Argentinean Magazine AD.jpg The proof of licence for this one is about as wrong as it can get. Published in 31, per Argentinian laws it is in the public domain. File:Milestone1.jpg Ditto the above. As my comment on the poster. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Can be replaced by this? TbhotchTalk C. 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Yes, that one is veritably free. Courcelles 21:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC) File:CharlesRosher.jpg How do we know this was published before 1923? As above. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC) File:Warner Bros 1920.jpg King of the crop here, the tags contradict themselves. The template says PD due to being older than 1923... the description says it is from 1928! I've temporarily undeleted File talk:WarnerBrosStudios-1920.jpg locally to be examined during this FLC. Courcelles 09:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC) As I said, many exist. Replaced. TbhotchTalk C. 20:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC) File:1stOscars 1929.jpg By now you know the story, needs a reliable source- the blog who is linked surely doesn't own the image, so how do we know the tag is correct? Ask it to the user who deleted the copyrighted image and uploaded this at commons. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Can you re-upload File:1stOscars.jpg TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC) "The ceremony was helded on May 16, 1929" Held, not helded Fixed TbhotchTalk C. 20:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC) "Among receivers include Emil Jannings, the first person to receive an Academy Award for Best Actor," Considering we're talking about the first ceremony, that this was the first award in the category is unsurprising. If you instead mean that Jannings received the first Oscar ever, the sentence needs a rewrite. No really, just needed a comma. TbhotchTalk C. 20:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC) File:Frank Borzage.jpg Another of those where literally nothing about the tag is right. When was this published? How do we know it's PD? Where did the image even come from? Before you ask, the local copy is no better. Courcelles 09:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Removed. TbhotchTalk C. 21:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC) General response. It is NOT the reviewers job to go Commons-side and chase bad images. It is yours as the nominator who wants to use them. Courcelles 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) In a parallel universe I remove them, now what, you'll nominate them for deletion for possible copyvios? Will you sleep tonight for not do it? I can remove them, just with a click (except for Chaplin, Jannings, and Gaynor images that are free, and replace the Warner for another (they still producing, free images exist)), I feel that are in the PD, for the reasons stated on their summary, but you, will left it as it?. TbhotchTalk C. 04:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I may or may not come back to the image issues. I haven't gotten a chance the last couple days, though, so it's not fair to the nominator to leave these out. (Besides, it would be better if/when I return to start fresh.) Courcelles 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

:*Entire first paragraph is unreferenced Per WP:LEAD references in the lead are unneeded since the information is [supposed to be] in the body. For the other references I'm tweaking them into N&W section. TbhotchTalk C. 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Do The Devil Dancer and The Magic Flame warrant redlinks? Notables enough, they were nominated for an Oscar. TbhotchTalk C. 02:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't 'References' come before 'Bibliography'? Done "It consisted in a private dinner with thirty-six banquet tables, where 270 people assisted, tickets cost five dollars" - need a conjuction after 'assisted', rather than a comma done. TbhotchTalk C. "It was hosted by AMPAS director Fairbanks, during a fifteen minutes event" → It was hosted by AMPAS director Fairbanks, during a fifteen minute-long event" done There are four references to verify the date, and another four for the host. Isn't this a bit of overkill? Over[external]linking is not forbidden meanwhile those links support the fact. TbhotchTalk C. 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good, I'm not sure about image licensing, so I'll leave those to Courcelles. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Ready for promotion.--AlastorMoody (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 12:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Background: the semi-colon after "which would then be joined into Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer" should be just a regular comma. "In August 2008, Mayer contacted the Academy Central Board of Judges to decide winners." He did this in 2008 for a ceremony in the 1920s? I have a feeling this date is wrong. Try not to start a sentence with "But"; if you feel a sentence must be in this form, try "However" and a comma. Add "the" before Academy Award for Best Picture? Ceremony: "It consisted in a private dinner with thirty-six banquet tables". "in" → "of". And is "assisted" the right phrasing? The source says that's how many people were at the dinner. Doesn't sound like they were assisting. "It not received broadcast on radio or television." Grammar is all wrong here. Nominees and winners: "Among the receivers include". Again, grammar isn't the strongest. How about "The recepients included"? "Frank Borzage won the Best Director, Drama". Read along with the preceding part, this doesn't flow well. "Frank Borzage for Best Director, Drama" would be better. The next bit ("meanwhile Lewis Milestone") would be improved as "and Lewis Milestone for Best Director, Comedy...". "Awards also would favor big film's producers". Is "film" meant to be plural? "Three categories disappear after the ceremony." Should "disappear" be in past tense ("disappeared")? Reference 12 is from Time, not People. Our article on People says it wasn't even published until 1974. It looks like it was just a part of Time magazine at the time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC) I think I did all. Thanks TbhotchTalk C. 05:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Found no issues beyond what Giants found; will support when he acknowledges his concerns as addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:16, 22 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:04, 8 November 2010 [57].

---

List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

These virtually unknown ships were the direct ancestors of the pre-dreadnought battleship and the dreadnought. I think that it's about time that they got a little love. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. I think the lead should have an explanation of what monitor is.
     • Breastwork monitor is linked already.
       • That is not enough. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
         • Monitor is already linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
           • I mean you should write a single sentence explanation. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
             • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
               • Where? Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                 • 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                   • These sentences have not changed since 9 October, when I posted my comments. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                     • So you want explanations of breastwork monitor and monitor both?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                       • I think the lead should have an explanation of what "monitor" is. I think this is sufficiently clear. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                         • I disagree, the improvements listed of a breastwork monitor over a regular monitor provide enough context for a reader who can click on the link provided if he wants more info. The focus here is not the monitor type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. The units conversions are not consistent. Gun calibers are sometimes converted to mm from inches, but sometimes not. The same with armour.
     • Only the first use is converted.
       • It is not always the first use. 12-inch shell is mentioned before the first table. In addition 12 kn is converted 3 times. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
         • Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. The section about Cyclops-class ships is too short. It should contain something more specific than were slightly modified versions of Cerberus.
     • I'm not sure what else can be added. The stats are very comparable and they didn't lead exciting lives.
       • You can write what those slight modifications were. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
         • Done.
  4. Can years be added to images?
     • Done where it is known.
  5. Pre-dreadnought_battleship article says that HMS Devastation was the first sea going breastwork monitor. I am not an expert in ship classification, but should not it be in this list?

Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1. • Not in my opinion because Devastation was far larger than these ships and not intended for the same type of roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments " Sir Edward Reed, Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy during the 1860s" would have a comma after Navy here so it's clear what is "during the 1860s". "then ordered another just like it" not keen on "just like it", sounds a little too colloquial. Is there a link for "draught"? Think non-expert again. I would say that Half Moon Bay is off Australia otherwise it's not clear. "rarely, if ever, left their home port" since there were only two of them, it should be easy to say whether one of them never left home port. Sturm, do you know which? - Dank (push to talk) As far as I can tell the ships only left port for gunnery exercises, but I'm not sure where exactly that was so it could well have been in the outer areas of the port.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Would have thought BritEng to be predominant here, so "maximise" not "maximize", "mobilised" not "mobilized" etc. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) Done, but I'm not good at catching the differences unless they involve extra letters for BritEng. If you see any others, please speak up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Especially as I thought USEng spelled manoeuvre as manoeuver? We spell it "maneuver". - Dank (push to talk) Okay, but the Engvar needs to be internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Beeler ref needs an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Done except as noted. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support All criteria met. I checked the photos and all is well in that department. I cannot vouch for the condition of the Commonwealth English as I don't use it myself. Brad (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - see nothing wrong after a full read-through; definitely meets the criteria. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
*Comments Why aren't the ship's articles linked? Some of the ships have articles, but no links to them in this list. That's all that strikes me here. Courcelles 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Most of them are stub or start quality, but it's easy enough to fix.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another fine list. Had never heard of this particular type of ship before, so it was a nice read. Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:37, 16 November 2010 [58].

---

Timeline of town creation in the Hudson Valley

Nominator(s): Camelbinky (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is complete, accurate, and is useful not just for casual readers but also as a resource for improving Hudson Valley town, city, and county articles. Camelbinky (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

One glance comments. The lede is too short, and colour shouldn't be used as the sole way of presenting information per WP:ACCESS. Courcelles 23:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Added letter coding to supplement the color coding. Also expanded the lead.Camelbinky (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• More Comments

"Other changes that occurred include the transfer of Dutchess County's northern section, the Livingston Manor, to Columbia County; and Greene County was formed in 1800 by the combination of the southernmost towns of Albany County with the northernmost towns of Ulster, the history of the towns of Greene and Columbia counties can be found at the Timeline of town creation in New York's Capital District." Whoa... take a breath. That's an incredibly long sentence. It actually becomes unclear so much is thrown into some of these sentences

I'm really not sure about this format. Perhaps I'm just the type that hates charts and glosses over them, but this "list" is a maze at times, especially in Orange and Putnam. I wonder if a table with explanatory prose in a note column wouldn't be simpler. Or even a map? I mean, for pete's sake, I know this area and am getting lost.

The general ref- location is Syracuse. But, I'm wondering if something 150 years old is really the best source available?

Ref 5. What is this and why is it reliable?

Ref 4, same thing, why is it a RS?

Ref 7, more bibliographic details please. Also, have you examined this source in detail, or just the 50-word excerpts available online?

Ref 11 needs fuller bibliographic detail. (publisher, location, ISBN if available)

There's more sourcing problems. Personally, it looks like only online sources have been examined. For this subject, that leaves no confidence the best sources have been examined.

Courcelles 09:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose by the following reasons: The lead is not a good summary of timelines. It should at least mention that parts of Ulster county were transfered to Orange. And what is Greene County? Why is not it mentioned in the lead? Rockland County would be formed from Orange in 1799 and Putnam County from Dutchess in 1812 It is not clear whether they were renamed or split. from which town(s) a particular town was created from (in the second paragraph) I think one 'from' is redundant. A note in Dutchess County section says that its government was formed in 1713, while the lead says that it was administered from Ulster County, until 1698. Which year is correct? The Manual of Style says that ndash should be used in ranges, but in in all timelines dash is used instead. It is not clear what dashed lines in Ulster county' section mean. Ruslik_Zero 14:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Expanded the lead and added info you mentioned was missing. Changed word from formed to split. removed redundant from corrected date according to the source I believe to be more authoritative. added ndashes Only one I'm not sure about how to fix... the dashed lines are used because the lines would cross those other lines and did not want to cause confusion; I guess I could use a note on that section to explain its use. Keep the notes coming, I hope to address all concerns and even if this doesnt pass FL at least I'm learning what it takes and this article is getting much better thanks to everyone's help.Camelbinky (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, please add a note. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Done. What's next? Camelbinky (talk) 19:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment: I am impressed by the diagrams, and find this to be a very informative list. One suggestion might be to add one or two relevant images to the lead for additional visual value. (I do not feel qualified to offer support or oppose the promotion of this list, as I am particularly unfamiliar with timelines on Wikipedia, but I think you did a great job--even if it does not reach FL status!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Added photos and maps to a few of the county sections and a photo to the lead. To be honest you shouldnt worry about being unfamiliar with this type of article since to my best knowledge it is unique and a first for Wikipedia (except for the other ones I have created for other NY regions such as Timeline of town creation in Downstate New York). I am quite relieved that it has been received so well, I was afraid initial reactions might be against something so new.Camelbinky (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No bold links please.–Done " more direct say" feels a little colloquial for me, perhaps tighten the language a bit.–Done "in 1683 divided itself into twelve counties" pretty sure it didn't do it "itself".–Done "timeline" or "time-line"...–Changed all to timeline. Done Refs in numerical order please, e.g. you have [7][3].–Done Why do notes have a space between them and the text they relate to, e.g. Fredericksburgh [A] while refs don't?–Removed space between town name and note. Done. Ulster county section, note [D] explanation appears indented.–Done Is "In 1863 the Orange County Board of Supervisors erected two new towns from part of Monroe, named Highlands and Southfield. This was declared null and void by the state legislature in 1865 and therefore those towns are not shown here." referenced?–Done Rockland County image has five towns, not the four listed, I think Havestraw still seems to exist.–My observation is that Haverstraw is there as a town. Ref 3 is so overused, perhaps consider making it a general reference.–Done. Made it a general reference, still used about 8 or so times as a specific reference where removing it would cause confusion as to the what is referencing a specific date or statement. This was done based on recently promoted baseball-related FL's from a couple months ago. Ref 4 has a spare .–Done Ref 5 vs Ref 8 - some first names first, some last. Be consistent in the references.–Done Ref 18 - a) is it reliable?–Yes. b) is it actually "Stony Point" rather than "Stony Brook"?–Stony Point and Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I can get those things fixed, probably today if I dont get interrupted by real-life, otherwise give me a couple days. 1 through 8 should be easy to change to your recommendation. 9 however I believe you are mistaken in your count, as Haverstraw is indeed listed in the timeline as a town (I believe you are looking at the precinct and not noticing the town) so you are correct that there are five towns in the map, but you are incorrect that Haverstraw is not listed in the timeline. 10, 11, and 12 should be easy to fix. 13- Yes reliable, done by the town historian so it counts as a RS, you are correct should be Stony Point not Stony Brook, my bad due to being used to SUNY-Stony Brook publishing a large number of sources I have used in other articles. Thank you for your help and let me know if there is more once I am done with the 12 here that can be fixed.Camelbinky (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Done with all problems listed so far...Camelbinky (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Just one small thing to point out: I see "southernmost" and "northern most" in the lead. The two should probably have a consistent style, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DoneCamelbinky (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2010 (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 21:36, 1 December 2010 [59].

---

List of Buso Renkin episodes

Nominator(s): DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list since I believe it is also on the same level of quality as other featured anime episode lists. Criticism will also help improve the article for it to reach the featured standards. The sources are reliable and archived. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 04:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Quick comments I think Xebec (studio) is what you mean to link to (refs, etc.) not the Mediterranean sailing ship. Fixed. Per MOS:NUMBERSIGN you can't use "#" in "EP#" Replaced with Ep No. Where are the references for Title, Director, Writer, Animation Director? They're the same references used for the dates, I didn't want to spam the same reference onto the three directors since its messy. Can I suggest adding a "Ref" column then, and put the references in Aux4= (use aux4 not aux3 so it goes to the end). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I went with that so I think its fixed. Basically, these don't reference the Director/Writer/Anim. Dir. or if they do it is in Japanese. You are giving English names so the cite should be of English names. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I got the English names through the English episode's credits, I could source them directly to the episode or to their DVDs, which would be a better choice? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Is the information on DVD notes or the back cover?If so use {{Cite DVD-notes}}. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC) It is only found on the episode credits. I could add a Template:Cite episode to every episode later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Okay. Seems a bit strange, but I guess primary source is better than no source. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) I went with sourcing the episodes to their DVD sets since they would be too empty with the cite episode template as the episodes were not aired. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC) This has come up before but I can't remember the outcome. The majority of this is WP:NONENG which states that they should include "both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote". So there may be concerns about the abundance of Japenese sources here. I added the Viz Anime website to the episodes so their contents can be verified for non-Japanese speaking people. I was thinking more for director/writer/an. director which Viz doesn't seem to cover. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC Yeah, the only English translation I've seen for them is from the English DVDs, I could source them with that if needed. No English sources of equal quality and relevance are available for the information otherwise. Per above, whatever is needed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Done this. Not sure what the precedence for this is, but I notice this is effectively the main article Buso Renkin (anime) as it is the only article predominently about the show (Buso Renkin#Anime is the only brief mention elsewhere). As such should there be a history of how the series was proposed, who voice actors are that kind of thing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Typically the episode list is a sub-topic of the article and there is only certain information that goes into the list article, the primary coverage is in the main article. Although the Buso Renkin animated adaptation is only specifically mentioned in that one paragraph, the article in its entirety is about both the manga and the anime. We can only really include production information if its available. --Kraftlos (Talk

• Takao Kato or Nobuhiro Watsuki need sources. They aren't mentioned (in English) in any of the sources.

• I might have gotten these from the episodes, I will investigate further when I get the chance

• Are these now properly sourced? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• They should be properly sourced with their DVDs now; they were found in the opening credits of the episodes.

• I find the themes 真赤な誓い, ホシアカリ, 愛しき世界 in the reference, but the transliteration and litary translation are unreferenced. The WP:NONENG rules are not clear cut as to how far we must go with this in featured content. Might be worth asking directors about this.

• The romaji were taken from the episode credits themselves, but the literal translations were done by me, I could remove them if suggested.

• I have sourced the romaji's with the DVD and could remove the literal translations if necessary. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• The same goes for all of the first production paragraph which I can't verify myself. Assuming good faith it is there in Japanese, but I don't really know.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• These might also be from the episodes and I will investigate by Monday. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I sourced them with the DVDs after confirming the names were on the opening credits. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• From a brief readthrough, this article seems like it's at the same quality level as the other FL episode lists. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Link Buso Renkin in the opening sentence (but don't bold it) Done Should you be consistent with italicising Buso Renkin? I think I got it all Consider linking "Alchemic" to something relevant. Linked to Alchemy In prose I consider leading zeros to be pointless, so avoid "04 October" for instance. I think I got it all "were later collected by Geneon Universal Entertainment" what do you mean by "collected by"? Reworded to "The episodes were later released in nine DVD compilations between January 25, 2007 and September 21, 2007 by Geneon Universal Entertainment." "The episodes use three pieces of theme music: " perhaps add "each" after "episodes" here. Reworded to "The series use three pieces of theme music" Is "Animation Director" really capitalised that way? Replaced Director with director Refs in episode titles should be outside the quotation marks. Couldn't be done since its a template so I took the refs out and placed them in the reference section under the general heading. "uses a Kakugane to " does that need to be a capital K? Replaced all Kakugane's with lowercase k. L.X.E. or L.X.E - be consistent. Replaced with LXE as dubbed by Viz. You link " in his great-great grandfather's" and " Dr. Butterfly," to the same thing, it's confusing to non-experts. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC) I've done what I can, I think I got most of it. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs)

Comments: The list looks to be in good shape. Here are the issues that stood out to me. Grammar issues Not necessary, but I'd switch "which" → "that". "That" is a stronger word that is more appropriate than "which" for definite statements. In the lead: "...Viz Media announced the release of the English dub which would be released in two DVD sets..." In EP 4: "Koushaku explains he intends to turn himself into a Homunculus with a specially made Homunculus matter which will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus;" Switch "that" → "the" in EP 4: "...to be that the monster from his dream..." Excess words (struck out) In EP 1: The second part of the sentence after "and" sounds like it is being quoted, while the first part is not. "These monsters are created from alchemy and that they can only be destroyed by specialized weapons..." In Ep 8: "While" in this case suggests that the two verbs should match in tense"...while Tokiko is given the task of protectings the kakugane..." Missing commas: Commas are necessary for introductory phrases and words (underlined). EP 3: "After learning that the Homunculus creator is a student at Kazuki's school Kazuki and Tokiko attempt..." EP 9: "However the twins are actually humans..." Commas are necessary when connecting two independent clauses (underlined) with a conjuction. EP 3: "Kazuki and Tokiko attempt to search for him on the school grounds but they fail to find him." EP 3: "A Plant Homunculus appears and prepares to finish off Kazuki but Tokiko intercepts its attack and kills the Homunculus." Missing "that" (underlined): I'm not sure on the grammar rule, but I believe that "that" is necessary after certain words depending on the usage, like describing dialog rather than quoting it. I'm not certain on this, so please double check me on it. EP 3: "...promises to Tokiko that he will work harder..." EP 4: "...Koushaku explains that he intends to turn himself into a Homunculus..." EP 8: "...declares that he will defeat Kazuki and then leaves the scene." EP 16: "...tells her that Kazuki will be killed." Pronoun order: I would consider moving Kazuki's name earlier in the sentence and them reference with a pronoun at the end: EP 17: "Tokiko manages to find his Kazuki's body in the ocean and is able to revive Kazuki him." Structure The "Production team" section seems more appropriate for an article rather than a list, but I don't see any problem with it being here. Images An image expert may need to be consulted on this, but File:Buso Renkin Staff.png is a non-free image of living people. Since they are not actors portraying a character, I believe this fails WP:NFCC number 1: "No free equivalent". As such, it should be replaced with a free image of the people or removed. Once the items above have been addressed, I'll be happy to support. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)) As for the production team, it was suggested to be added to the list, but if there's a general consensus to move it to the article, I wouldn't mind. And for the image, I'm having it checked out right now, if it is suggested to be removed, I'll remove it. Thanks for the review. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Support: my concerns have been addressed and I believe this list meets the FL criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC))

• Comment Have all reviewers been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I forgot about this. I'll go ask. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Kouhei Tanaka directed the opening and ending themes while Gyo Yamatoya composed the music used in the episodes." - a comma would be nice to break up this sentence Done "... he is killed by a monster after trying saving a mysterious girl" - trying saving? Done "After a long enduring battle" - wording seems strange, with 'enduring' describing the battle. Should it be "After enduring a long battle"? (I'm open to comments). Took your suggestion, I thought it sounded okay to begin with. "The Butterfly of Black Death" summary. Ambiguous use of "he" and "him" etc. Who turns into a Homunculus? I think its fixed. "having been resurrected by the LXE's leader whom is also his great-great grandfather" should be who Done, thanks "to return Kazuki back into a human being" - how about turn him back? Done "Tokiko and Gouta are able to defeat the enemy, Shinobu Negoro and proceed to search and regroup with Kazuki" - probably needs another comma before 'and'. Done I noticed some of the titles do not include Japanese counterparts. Any reason? The titles were presented in English even in the Japanese version. I could add a note if needed. I believe a note would be beneficial. Jujutacular talk 04:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC) I added a note beside the titles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular talk 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for catching the missed grammar mistakes. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - great work all around. Jujutacular ^talk 04:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, I see no further issues beyond what's already been fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Quick ones from the episode summaries... Episode 2: "that someone was using the lab to create Homunculus matter." From later description, it sounds like this should either be "Homunculus matters" (if more than more were being created) or "a Homunculus matter" if only one was created. Of course, you'd need to have seen the show to know for sure, and I haven't. Done Episode 10: "while at the same time, receives Shusui's wound on her own body." For a little better flow, try "while at the same time receiving Shusui's wound on her own body." Done Episode 26: "Papillion, uses his white kakugane restore Victor's humanity and the two begin their long awaited duel." The comma would be better placed after "kakugane", though this is a minor point. Done Decapitalize Human later in this summary, unless the capitalization is intended. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Done, thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments late, so apologies, but some things: "announced by the release of..." what form did that take? Was it cinematic/internet/something else? Added internet before trailer. Second para is a little clunky to read. Lots of single-fact, stubby sentences. Consider merging a couple to make it flow better. Just tried my best to fix it, it should be a little better. "In December 20, 2009," should be "On". Got it. "uploaded weekly henceforth" not keen on henceforth, and since it was historical, shouldn't it really be thereafter? Replaced with thereafter. "for the rest of the episodes is" perhaps "for the remaining episodes"? Thanks. "coordinated the colors" I'm by no means an anime expert. Is this phrase commonplace? I was unsure how label someone who chooses what colour this and that object should be. Would be good to say where Salami studios is (I assumed Japan, but it turned out to be Hollywood). Added "located in Hollywood" at the end. Picky - table headings - Ep. No. should be Ep. no. (no need to overcapitalise that No) and Ref. should really be Refs. Fixed. "the leader Homunculus" would make more sense to me if was "the Homunculus leader". Fixed "using the lab to" ->laboratory. (and other instances of this) Fixed. "parasitic embryos that turn its host into" shouldn't that be "turn their host" since embryos is plural? Fixed "but they fail to find him" no need for "they". Fixed "intercepts its attack and kills the Homunculus" "and kills it" is fine, no doubt in the subject here. Fixed "turn himself into a Homunculus with a specially made Homunculus matter that will turn him into a Human-type Homunculus; a humanoid Homunculus" reads poorly to me, Homunculus is noted four times in this sentence, "turn ... into" twice. And no need to capitalise H of Human, is there? Rewritten "and declares that he will defeat Kazuki and then " replace first and with a comma. Fixed A number of uses of "proceed to" which usually seems quite redundant to me, e.g. "Tokiko proceed to defend the..." could be "Tokiko defends the..."? Fixed some, should be less now. "and is soon overwhelmed" perhaps "but" instead of "and". Fixed "is able to pierce through Bravo's buso" why not just "pierces Bravo's buso"? Fixed "accepts the fact Kazuki has become" just "accepts that Kazuki has become" would be tighter. Fixed Episode 21, "battle" is repeated three times in a single sentence, not great. Rewritten, should be better now. Note A should go outside the quotation marks. I don't know how to get it outside the quotation marks since its a template. Again, apologies for popping by so late in the day, but I think these are mainly trivial so shouldn't be too difficult to resolve. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lot of work done, good effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2010 (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 The Rambling Man 17:04, 8 November 2010 [60].

---

List of Denver RTD light rail stations

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail stations, List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations, List of UTA TRAX stations) Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Presently" - timeframe needed. The title of the list is "RTD light rail" but you continually refer to "RTD Light Rail". Is this inconsistent? "RTD has adopted " is this usually referred to as "The RTD"? Would be useful (I think) to see fare zones discussed in the lead since you list them in the table. Reference->References. Maybe it's a personal thing, but since the under construction stations are all (a) on West Corridor (b) due for completion in 2013 and (c) referenced by [16], I'd remove all three of those columns and write some prose to introduce the remaining part of the table along with that repeated information. Ref 11 could really use a page for that article. Same for ref 15. You have a template called "TheRide Light Rail" but this isn't referred to in any way in the lead. Any reason? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC) All of the above comments have been addressed. Capitalization issues have been corrected, additional prose added, and both the references and template amended. Thanks for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You're welcome. I'll re-review tomorrow and cap. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks as good as my rail lists, LOL. Though all the PDF refs need to have format=PDF—Chris!_c/t 01:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! format=PDF added. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support can't find any issues with the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is not well written. I fixed some problems but many more still remain. Some examples: As of 2010, there are thirty-six stations on the five lines in the RTD Light Rail system This sentence partially duplicates the second sentence of the same paragraph. I suggest a merge. All of the stations along the RTD light rail network are open-air structures featuring ... It is not necessary to repeat "RTD light rail network" in every sentence. In addition, should not "light rail" be capitalized like in the first paragraph? The RTD has adopted specific design standards that are incorporated into its station design, with a specific emphasis ... Can repetition of "specific" be avoided? Its fare structure incorporates a fare zone system used for calculating the price of tickets for travel What does "its" refer to? Transition plaza from the previous sentence? So we have "fare system of the transition plaza"? Additionally, all stations include works of public art ... Additionally to what? To the fare system? (The previous sentence is about the fare system.) Can a scheme be included into the article? Otherwise it is very difficult to read the third paragraph. From reading the third paragraph is not clear when all five lines were constructed. The word "included" is used to often, in my opinion. The article needs a general copy-edit by someone not familiar with the text. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Worked to address most of your comments that I can. A copy-edit from a 3rd party still needs to be made, and is "scheme" a map? Thanks for the comments. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I copy-edited the first paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've retracted my own comment. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added column scope to two tables, and row headers+scope only to the main table. I don't think the "under construction" table would find much benefit from row headers as it has only two columns. I've also added summaries to each table for use by screen readers. I believe this candidate is compliant with WP:ACCESS as far as the tables are concerned. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

*What is "side center style"? Can it be wikilinked or explained in a footnote? Note added to clairfy. To me it is unclear what the " specific design standards" are. Can you explain? In fact the sentence starting: "The RTD has adopted specific design standards..." reads a bit like advertising (unencyclopedic) to me. What does "...at the facility." in the same sentence refer to? Reworded and cleaned-up a bit. How about rewording the sentence: "Each is subject..." to something like: "The RTD has established (certain) criteria for station design with the intention/aim of incorporating each station effectively into its surrounding community."? That sounds much better. Done. What is "multi-modal access"? Wikilinked I think I understand what it means. Just a question about words: neither Intermodal passenger transport nor Mixed-mode commuting has the exact phrase "multi-modal access". Should it be added as alternative name to these articles or changed in this list? Good call. I removed the phrase altogether and linked Intermodal passenger transport by itself. What additional information does the phrase: "for travel from station to station on the network" convey? Could it be removed? Gone Maybe spell out "Golden->Golden, Colorado" as the sentence reads a bit confusing to somebody who does not know that there is a place called "Golden". Done Why is the number of parking spaces relevant to this list? I left them there as they were part of the original list on the RTD Bus & Light Rail page. I have no feelings on leaving them or removing them and am agreeable to whatever consensus is made. In my opinion they could stay if they are part of the stations themselves (operated by RTD). They should be removed if they are just parking spaces in proximity of the rail station (not operated by RTD). All of the spaces associated with the station in this list are owned and operated by the RTD and not private entities. Fine. Could you add a sentence or two explaining the fare zone system, i.e. which fare Done Good. Can you add in the same sentence which zone "Downtown Denver" is ("A" zone or "D" zone?) Noted that downtown is in the A zone. Any chance to have a map? Done Initially I though about a real map, but this schematic plan is perfectly fine. On my screen there is a large empty space to the left of the plan. Could this be fixed? (I know that it is virtually impossible to make it look good for all browsers and screen resolutions, so if you tell me it looks good on your/most screens, that would be fine with me.) Looks good on my screen, but I am not as familiar with specific syntax that may help with this on other monitors. Any suggestions on how to do this would be greatly appreciated. OK. Is it meaningful to have the "Lines" column sortable? You're right. Now unsortable. Are there inofficial transfer stations? Not quite sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate more? There are "Official transfer stations" in the color key... On other lists of metro stations (List of Washington Metro stations & List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations for example) only differentiate between the "official" transfer stations as identified by the agency and not list every station where multiple lines run and transfers can be made. I see. The LA list did not have the "official" when I checked. I don't think this point is very important so I leave it up to you whether to have "official" or not or whether to explain in the text what an official transfer station is. bamse (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Comments addressed. Thanks for taking the time to check it out and providing feedback! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) One more thing. After more carefully reading the intro, I think that the second and third paragraph need a copy-edit (you could ask the WP:GOCE for help). Examples of prose that needs to be addressed in addition to the sentence I mentioned above are: "...and passenger services can be found between the platform..." I see what you mean but it reads a bit cumbersome. "In addition to the design standards, all stations are decorated ..." Is this really an addition or a rather something completely different? "...expansion took rail to the southeast..." is this proper wikipedia English? bamse (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular has taken the time to take a second look at the prose and perform a copyedit. I hope this does resolve some of these concerns. Thanks again for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have the prose issues been resolved, and have Bamse and Ruslik been asked to revisit the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues noted by Bamse have been addressed and am waiting for a second response. Issues from Ruslik have been addressed as best I can without a peer review as the rules state "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Patriarca12 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I examined the prose and did a copyedit, looks good to me. Jujutacular ^talk 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jujutacular for the copyedit. It is much appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of my issues have indeed been addressed. There are still three outstanding items though (see above). I don't care too much about the 2nd and 3rd issue (a reply would be appreciated though) but the first, i.e., the sentence: "The transition plaza is the area where tickets are purchased and passenger services can be found between the platform and where intermodal access is available." still reads confusing to me, partially due to the doubled "and". Maybe it could be split in two sentences? bamse (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments. I went back and tweaked all three of prose concerns mentioned above, and I do believe they read much better. Let me know if anything else needs to be amended. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much better now. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no current issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support After all comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks to meet criteria. Afro (Talk) 23:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Nominations for removal

List of deaths at the Berlin Wall

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

List of Indian Premier League captains

Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [61] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Africa

Notified: Ericleb01 Arsenikk, WikiProject Africa

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has been tagged for update (for over a year), some descriptions are empty, some are straight up copied from the unesco website with no attribution, some images need alt text and is straight up missing some world heritage sites. 48JCL public (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll remain neutral in the voting and get to work fixing/updating the article. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Tone for awareness, as they've been working on World Heritage Sites lists for quite a while now. --PresN 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. As mentioned, I've been working on those lists for a while and somehow the continent-wide lists are out of date and of bad style, compared to what the current FLs use. Also, due to its sheer size, the list is really difficult to maintain properly, as new sites get added every year, endangered list is getting updated occasionally etc. Having coordinates in the table is rather pointless since these sites are often not limited to a single location. Area is also not very informative, and sometimes even missing. Pictures are formatted randomly, sometimes centred, sometimes not. And technically, tentative sites should be mentioned, which probably more than doubles the list. I'd suggest trimming this list down to only a list of sites per country, without descriptions or images, and links to country articles. Speaking of, lists for Peru and Madagascar are not in a good shape and the list in danger is so-so (mostly excessive info in the table, as mentioned above), although better than this one. The three I mentioned are fixable, but this one probably requires too much work to be taken care during the FLRC process. --Tone 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  There are several FLs on WHS. For example, List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Have a look ;) Tone 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)