Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:52, 8 August 2008 [1].

---

2008 WWE Draft

previous FLC (18:11, 27 July 2008)

Self nom. I am renominating this list that I and User:iMatthew expanded for FLC because the previous FLC failed due to lack of reviews/comments and no votes. Previous concerns were addressed and fixed but no objections or support was given. Like always, any more concerns will be addressed.--S_RX 02:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This probably doesn't normally happen, but I'd like to co-nominate this article. Like SRX said, the other FLC failed due to lack of comments, so hopefully we will get more comments here. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the original FLC, and all the comments made there seem to have been addressed. I have nothing to add since then, so I support. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:52, 8 August 2008 [2].

---

List of Ontario birds

This is a list I've built from scratch over the past few days. It's modeled after List of birds in Canada and the United States (which was the first FL promoted). It is fully sourced and any concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

:*TOC doesn't work as a link to sections because the original non-MOS capitalisation has been fixed, but not the hidden link. For example, the original [[#Ducks, Geese and Swans|Ducks, Geese and Swans]] has been changed to [[#Ducks, Geese and Swans|Ducks, geese and swans]] which looks right, but doesn't work, should be [[#Ducks, geese and swans|Ducks, geese and swans]]

• New World Vultures is still incorrect, should be New World vultures also Caracaras and Falcons should be Caracaras and falcons
• One of the factors in this diversity are the size and range of environments in Ontario as well as the Great Lakes, many birds use the shores as a stopping point during migration. One...are, also second clause doesn't fit grammatically

I've fixed a few other bits and pieces, AOU ref, repetition in lead etc

jimfbleak (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support and further comments I'm happy to support this now, just two things

• Earlier, I put the author (the committee) for the AOU list so that it didn't begin with (1998) - must have an author. This seemed to have disappeared, but I can't see where. Assume removal was a mistake, since no ref can begin with a date. Removed retrieval date since not needed for a paper publication even though you linked to the on-line version. No action needed unless you disagree with this.
• Ontario is known for its diversity of bird species. This is meaningless - known by whom? Compared to where - Peru? the Amazon basin? Thailand? The Gambia (800 species in a country 200 miles long and 20 wide.)? needs to go

• I changed it to "has a diverse amount of bird species". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can have a diverse amount, but my change to that may not be better

I scrapped the references section. AOU was also in notes, and ABA appears not to be used

Good luck, jimfbleak (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't wikilink as of 2008 as it's a stand alone year
• "This list of Ontario birds is a comprehensive listing" do we need to say it's comprehensive? That's automatically implied through its FL status
• "There are 32 species, world-wide" comma isn't needed
• What are "lobed toes"?
• "There are 8 species world wide" MOS:NUM says eight. There's a few of these. 2, 5, 8,
• "world wide" and "world-wide" --> "worldwide" (there's a few of these)

A very interesting list. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all the above except the toes, not sure how to access the template used for that jimfbleak (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, everything checks out. Couple things though: 'Crested Caracara', 'Mew Gull' and 'migration' lead to disambig pages. There are a number of redirect, but I don't know how you would want to deal with them (eg. pipetrick or rename or not bother at all), like, Gray Partridge→Grey Partridge, Ring-necked Pheasant→Common Pheasant, Willow Ptarmigan→Willow Grouse, Rock Ptarmigan→Ptarmigan, Northern Bobwhite→Bobwhite Quail, etc. --maclean 03:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

done jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Very good list. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 13:52, 8 August 2008 [3].

---

List of UEFA Cup winners

I'm nominating this list for featured list status as I believe that the list meets all the necessary requirements to become a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - in the key, "Champion won by after extra time on a penalty shootout" is grammatical gibberish. It should probably be "Champion won by a penalty shootout after extra time" - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out fixed now NapHit (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • See my comment re:Primary sources in the European Cup list. I'm guessing there's a couple more of these lists to come so please address these comments on those too.
  • Don't like the "pictured here" - it's pretty clear what that image is.
  • I'd like to understand the scope of the competition as early as possible in the lead rather than the inaugural winners.
  • Shouldn't the heading "Two-legs " be "Two-legged finals" or "Finals over two legs"?
  • Since the first table is unsortable you have a load of overlinking going on.
  • Not sure I'm keen on the different table types being used.
  • Be consistent with headings e.g. Country in first table, nothing in the second.
  • In the first table, "Home Team" could just be "Home team". Same for away.
  • "most successful teams" table = "Runners-Up" - just "Runners-up" please.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all these, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I brought this up at peer review but I see it's still there. In the two-legged section, the venue of the second leg, should just be in the row for the second leg, and not also in the aggregate row. Peanut4 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

fixed NapHit (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

I'm a bit confused by this list. It says it's a list of UEFA Cup winners, but the tables appear to contain a list of finals, where much more width is given to the name of the stadium, the city and the country where the final was held than is given to the winner. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The list is similar to List of Super Bowl champions where the venue and the location of the venue are included, essentially it is still a list of winners as the finals are a match, therefore having a list of winners without the scores and runners-up in my opinion would make the list incomplete, I could remove the venue and location if you wished but I feel it would be to the etriment of the list. Also there is more width given to the venue and city, as they are generally longer than team names. NapHit (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the other information being there; it ought to be there. I just think 1) too much width is devoted to the venue, and 2) the actual winner isn't highlighted in any way. For instance, do the stadium and the city/country need to be in separate columns? they used not to be when this table was on the main UEFA Cup article. Or if you think they ought to be separate, could a line break be added between the city and the country? (Afterthought: not sure how much that'd help with Monchengladbach...) The Superbowl article is different, in that the teams are coloured by Conference and there's no need for flag/country columns, so it's easy to pick out the important items on each row. Not that I'm advocating colouring the table in, you understand, how the Superbowl list does it runs counter to MoS for a start, but perhaps each winner could be bolded to make it more noticeable? See what you think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• More comments (separated from above to avoid confusion)

• • Not sure how much the 2nd and 3rd sentences would mean to readers who didn't already know how the UEFA Cup works.
  • As you're calling them Internazionale in the table, perhaps you should in the lead as well.
  • Move the Fairs Cup disclaimer to the end of the lead.
  • You've changed the page title to "winners" but still use "champions" in the key and the by-country table.
  • Bit of a stutter over penalty shootout in key :-)
  • Would it look tidier if the individual column widths in the two finals tables were fixed, so the single-final table followed on cleanly from the first one?
  • And, would it be clearer if the flag/country column for the second-named club came after the club name column rather than before? so you got club: score: club in the middle without flags interfering with the match result.
  • 1979 and 1980 have got themselves messed up.
  • Why does the Single finals table need to be sortable?
  • Typos at 1993 winner line, 1994 Salazburg.
  • In 2001, Liverpool won on golden goal, not aet.
  • Don't think you say anywhere what the numbers in brackets after the club names mean.
  • In Most successful clubs table, Red Star Belgrade has a Serbian flag and Casino Salzburg is called Red Bull Salzburg.
  • Why do we need flags in that table at all?
  • In By country table, for consistency Nation column should be called Country.
  • I appreciate why you've sought out a variety of sources, but perhaps the UEFA page for the 1989 final would be better than an unofficial Napoli site.
  • Newspaper references should have the name of the paper as a work rather than a publisher. And ref #26 should be BBC Sport rather than BBC, for consistency with the other BBC Sport refs.

Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• In 1995, could use a note as to why Juventus played their home leg at the San Siro.
  • You may not be aware that citations can be attached to footnotes in the same way as to anywhere else in an article (I wasn't until recently). See for example West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons footnotes F & G. Seeing as you've found out why they didn't play at their own ground, seems a shame not to prove it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok added the reference to the end of the note. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done all except for sorting which I feel should be included as it features on the other lists of this nature which have single match finals NapHit (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "that was" in the opening sentence is redundant
• Widen the "nat" columns so the flags and ISO-3 names are on one line.
• You've used the emdash in this list for "empty" cells, but the endash in the Champions League list. Assuming you're going for a WP:FT (or even just because they're similar lists), they should be consistent.
• "years won" and "years runners up" columns don't need to be sortable as they only sort by the first year given
• There's a typo in the website name on reference 33

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the comments Matthew I've dealt with them all now NapHit (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I added 1% to the column widths of NAT, because they still weren't on one line. I haven't tried it on different screen sizes or anything; it may be worth doing {{nowrap|{{flag|ENG}}}}, or {{nowrap|{{sort|{{flag|ITA}}}} or whatever. I'm not too sure how to do it exactly. Anyway, I can support without it. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments
• Paris needs wikilinking.
• "...losing the final"... - "in" needed.
• "Italy has provided..." - this sentence seems a bit repetitive and could do with rewording.

Otherwise, looking good. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments have been dealt with. Don't feel there's anything left to comment on. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:00, 7 August 2008 [4].

---

30 Rock (season 2)

I've been working on this article since around when this season of 30 Rock ended in May 2008 and I believe it has met the criteria. I've used the structure of 30 Rock (season 1), which is already a featured list, in this article. I'll be happy to fix any problems anyone finds in the article. -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

question Why are there two cast photos? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One is the DVD cover. The other is just a promotional photo. The cover was released after i'd already added the promotional photo. Should the promotional photo be removed or replaced? -- Jamie jca (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed per WP:NFCC 3a. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • An idea - instead of introducing this list with date facts, why not tell me what 30 Rock is about? Only one or two sentences and then head into the major facts?
    •  Done
  • "The first eight episodes aired on Thursdays at 8:30 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST),[2][4] the ninth episode aired at 9:00 pm EST on Thursday December 13, 2007,[5] episode ten through twelve aired at 8:30 pm EST on Thursday[6] and episode thirteen through fifteen aired at 9:30 pm EST on Thursdays.[7] " - this is a really bland sentence. I know it's factually correct and cited etc, but it's not making me want to read on...
    •  Done
  • "Throughout the season, 30 Rock aired under NBC's promotional banner "Comedy Night Done Right."" doesn't appear to have a reference?
    •  Done
  • I'd move [8] to be next to [9] - we can probably allow a few words between citation and material.
    •  Done
  • You say Fey is a show runner in the lead but not in her image caption.
    •  Done
  • Never happy with inconsistency - the article title (30 Rock (season 2)) vs infobox (30 Rock Season 2) vs article material (30 Rock season two)...
    •  Done
  • "Engler[16] and Beth McCarthy.[16] " no need to use [16] twice here - just at the end of the sentence is fine. Same with [17]. In fact, I'd move [17] and [18] to the end of the last sentence entirely.
    •  Done
  • "The TGS cast consists of three actors. They are the..." - first sentence is too short, makes reading choppy, so merge with following.
    •  Done
  • "played the Harvard University alumni " - if he's singular, wouldn't he be an alumnus?
    •  Done
  • Recurring characters aren't cited.
    •  Done
  • "all 15 original episodes" - not sure why "original" needs to be here? I might be missing something though...
    •  Done I ment for their original broadcast, i've tried to explain that better in the article.
  • "While reviewing the season, Robert Canning " - "In his review of the season, Robert Canning..."
    •  Done
  • "Robert Bianco of USA Today thought that towards.." - didn't just think it - presumably he wrote it too?
    •  Done
  • "He thought that" - he suggested that?
    •  Done
  • "Both Tina Fey..." - remove Tina here (unless there's another Fey I've overlooked)
    •  Done
  • "17 emmy " I'm guessing it should be Emmy.
    •  Done
  • "honoured" - is that US English? I'm BritEng so I love it but I think it should be "honored".
    •  Done I'm BritEng as well, I spelt it like that without thinking.
  • Episode 209 is redlinked, some episodes aren't linked at all - what's the difference here?
    •  Done Another editor (User:JustPhil) added the red link for an unknown reason. Some aren't linked because they don't have articles, the linked articles do have articles.
  • The Code of Prod. Code doesn't need to be capitalised.
    •  Done
  • You abbreviate General Electric - why? I can't seem to find it being used anywhere..
    •  Not done See the section on the list for episode 13 "Succession".
  • "he makes a friend in Kenneth" - "he befriends Kenneth"?
    •  Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed the points raised. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The bold title seems forced as it is separated by five other wikilinked/plain text words. Why not "The second season of 30 Rock, an American television comedy series..."?
  •  Done
• "and its head writer Liz Lemon, who is portrayed by Tina Fey." --> "and its head writer Liz Lemon portrayed by Tina Fey."
  •  Done
• You could wikilink timeslot
  •  Done
• ""Comedy Night Done Right."[8]" Move the period outside of the quote
  •  Done
• Don't overlink real person or character names. Tina Fey is linked twice in the Lede alone
  •  Done
• A two or three word description of NBC would be good for non-US readers in the Crew section
  •  Done
• "The TGS cast consists of three actors who are the loose cannon movie star" That bit sounds odd, and the entire sentence is really long. Try to split it, and rework it and stuff
  •  Done
• Southern-born NBC page, Kenneth Parcell. Per WP:CONTEXT, don't use wikilinks for words next to each other, otherwise it looks like Southern-born NBC page, or NBC page, Kenneth Parcell. The six-pixel comma does nothing to separate them either
  •  Done
• ""Episode 210," caught the attention of 6 million viewers." does this mean they watched the entire episode, or it caught their attention for mere seconds?
  •  Done
• Don't use Amazon as a reference site where possible, as its a sales site
  •  Done

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I have seen to the points that you raised. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, cool. I wikilinked a couple of words, otherwise I can support. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 10:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As good as 30 Rock (season 1), as far as I can see. Nice work. Cliff smith ^talk 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:00, 7 August 2008 [5].

---

NBA Executive of the Year Award

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why did you put nationality when all of the awardees are americans? -- K. Annoyomous24 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since all other award pages have the nationality column, I think this one should, too. It is good to keep them consistent.—Chris! _ct 00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support -- K. Annoyomous24 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What's a "front office executive"?
  • ". Unlike other National Basketball Association (NBA) awards, the Executive of the Year is not presented by the NBA. Though it is presented annually by Sporting News, it is officially recognized by the NBA.[1]" merge these I think somehow.
  • "The person with the highest votes..." - most number of votes...?
  • "The most recent award winner" - put a year on it and make it the last thing you say in the lead.
  • "the biggest single-season turnaround in league history" - sounds great. Can you expand on it for us non-NBAers?
  • No need to allow sorting on references col.
  • Link each name - the table is sortable so who knows which row will come first? You've done it for nationality and team.
  • Is there a basketball lists or NBA lists category this can be added to?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done all.—Chris! _ct 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport Why do you use that SI page so many times over when you can use this page as a general reference instead?--Crzycheetah 07:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 02:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:48, 6 August 2008 [6].

---

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners

I'm nominating this list for featured status as I believe that after a peer review which addresses many issues this list is now meets all the criteria necessary to become a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • ...however, this was changed in 1997 to allow the runners-up of the stronger leagues to compete as well. - should be sourced
  • The image caption seems like it's a fragment.
  • The table in the Champions section should have class=wikitable sortable
  • The columns with flags should have a title; can be an abbreviation.
  • Rather than putting "R" under the "year" column, why not put a note in the "notes" column? Just like you did for the games that finished in a penalty shootout. It took me a while to find that "R" you mentioned in the 'Key.
  • Since you're using a common name for Real Madrid, Ajax, etc., I suggest using "Monaco" instead of "AS Monaco" and "Partizan" instead of "FK Partizan". This helps when sorting.
  • The current ref#2 states that the publisher is "Uefa.com" while others state "UEFA". Change it for consistency.
  • Refs #2 and #3 are pdf files, so you should add format=PDF field to {{cite web}}.

--Crzycheetah 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I've dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just change "F.C. Porto" and "FC Porto" to just "Porto".--Crzycheetah 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think the opening sentence should define the scope of the contest, not who the inaugural winners were.
  • Too much reliance on primary sources (i.e. UEFA) - citations for these finals should be easy to find at reliable sources which aren't the UEFA website.
  • "Champion won after Extra time" no need for capital E here.
  • Same for capital "Times Won" (i.e. won) and "Times Runner-up" (runner-up).
  • When sorting by "Won", Ajax sorts before Bayern Munich but BM have been runners-up one more time than Ajax so I'd expect them be above Ajax in the table when sorted like that.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done all, except the Ajax sorting problem which I am unsure how to fix, help would be welcomed NapHit (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I think the list should be called List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners. Champions just sounds wrong to me. "Champions of Europe" or "European champions" sounds OK, but "European Cup champions" or "Champions League Champions" doesn't sound right. --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I think all the note labels for the penalty shootout should be placed next to the score, not in the notes column.—Chris! _ct 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree the notes column is where the notes should go the colouring and sign indicate the penalty shootout, thus all the reader has to do is look across to the notes column and click on the note to see the penalty shootout score NapHit (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "UEFA Champions league" --> "UEFA Champions League"
• I think you should start the Lede using "The UEFA Champions League is a seasonal association football competition established in 1956.", rather than European Cup, and then with the sentence "In the 1992–93 season, the tournament was renamed UEFA Champions League.", reword it to "prior to the 1992–93 season, the tournament was named the European Cup."
• "Previously, only the champions of their respective national league could participate in the competition;" --> "Originally, only the champions of their respective national league could participate in the competition;"
• Pipelink 1956 in the opening sentence to 1956 European Cup Final rather than the one that currently does it
• "Real Madrid, Ajax, Bayern Munich, Milan, and Liverpool." Don't use the serial comma in British English
• Provide the cities and/or countries for teams such as Ajax, Benfica and Juventus, where it isn't clear in the name where they come from.
• "The current champions are Manchester United who beat Chelsea 6–5 on penalties" Please reword and link to penalty shootout, and also link to extra time. You can then delink these terms in the Key section.
• 2008 final should be 2008 Final
• Is it possible to extend the widths of the Nat columns so both the flag and ISO-3 codes appear on the same line?
• There isn't any real point in making the "Years won" and "Years runners up" columns sortable in the "Most successful teams" section, as only the first year is sorted

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with everything except for the cities of teams such as Ajax, which I feel is unnecesary, if people want to know the city the team is from they can click on the article link to find out. NapHit (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. And I now Support Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:05, 5 August 2008 [7].

---

List of Toronto Maple Leafs head coaches

Finally I have a FLC for my favourite NHL team. This is modelled after the List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches. All concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

You can not match the size of the following fields for the same size?

• Regular season (-W–L %)
• Playoffs

Cannibaloki 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I center aligned all of the columns too (pre-emptive strike). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Find "Red Wings" and replace it with "Maple Leafs".
    • Done.
  • The "current coach" sentence can be merged with the second paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "Statistics are up to date as of the end of the 2007-2008 NHL season." should be a note in italics in the Coaches section.
    • Done.
  • Don't link Charles Querrie twice.
    • Done.
  • There are several names that are linked to disamg. pages. Fix them.
    • Done.
      • Armstrong and Brophy remain.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Whoops, missed those. Fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The "A" note along with the "The Win-Loss percentage" note should be in the notes section.
    • Done.
      • I don't see a notes section.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I decided to just move the note to the key section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Get rid of See also section; that link is in the template below.
    • Done.
  • For the citations, nhl.com publishes the work of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Make the necessary fixes.
    • Done.

--Crzycheetah 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Toronto Maple Leafs are a professional...
  • Could you widen the Key table?
  • Silver font on a blue background is hard to see, maybe you should change silver to white?
  • References in PDF format should have a |format=PDF field.

--Crzycheetah 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• All concerns addressed. Resolute 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• En dashes for year ranges (such as the links to season pages)
• Merge the last two paragraphs of the lead somewhere as they are short.

Gary King (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the year ranges already use en dashes. The paragraphs have been merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "from 1999 to present" should be "since 1999".
    • Done.
  • "There have been 36 head coaches in franchise history" should be "There have been 36 head coaches in their franchise history".
    • Done.
  • link all the years to its NHL season
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • link Toronto Arenas and Toronto St. Patricks.
    • I linked the Arenas, but there is no page for the St. Pats
  • "while three others have been inducted as builders: Conn Smythe, Hap Day, Punch Imlach and Roger Neilson..." you listed four.
    • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • don't you think there should be points on the table?
    • Fixed.
  • site reference for Pat Burns having a Jack Adams Award.
    • It is, in the next sentence.
  • can't you find a picture of any of the coaches instad of Air Canada Centre?
    • Nope.
  • Make all terms have a "####–##" form.
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you also add Overtime Losses with Ties because there both one point and also because when Ties are on, Overtimes Losses weren't and vice-versa.
    • Actually, OTLs were counted before the abolition of ties. You mean shoot out losses. I disagree with that, because in the end a loss is a loss.
      • I thought in the NHL, OTLs and SOLs are counted as 1 point which is the same as ties. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 07:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If all is done, I'll support.

-- K. Annoyomous24 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • To make it a little bit better, just link the years to its NHL season. I'll do the ####–## problem after I sleep. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "coaches–A running " - why capital A?
    • Fixed.
  • "has two separate terms " two or more.
    • Done.
  • "1923–24" probably should be "1923–1924" to be consistent with the others.
    • It already has an endash
  • "Joe Primeau *" remove the space before the asterisk.
    • Done.
  • The two 1980s are centrally aligned while other single year reigns are not.
    • Fixed
  • While it's factually correct to say two coaches had .000 %, they only served for four games between them so it's not that statistically significant. Could you caveat it and perhaps mention % worst coach who served for a season?
    • Done.
  • What makes a coach interim vs one who only serves for two games?
    • The difference as I see it is that an interim coach is one who coaches as a temporary replacement for another coach who they know will come back. For example, King Clancy coached 15 games while John McLellan was away for health reasons. McLellan was still the head coach, but Clancy just took over on an interim basis. Someone like Dick Duff on the other hand was brought in as a potential permanent coach but was just let go.
  • "Although Pat Quinn won the award with two different teams prior to coaching the Maple Leafs.[4]" ... this is not a complete sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • Is the W/L% calculated like that officially? If so, it should be cited, otherwise it could be assumed to be WP:OR.
    • I'll look into it.
  • Ref 4 is nhl.com but you have publisher = NHL. At the same time you have the first and third general ref and ref 1 as publisher = nhl.com. Be consistent.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of my numbers aren't adding up. For Imlach (1959–69) I keep getting 365 wins, but the list says 358. Same with McLellan (1969–73). Also, it appears two of the references don't agree with how many games Art Duncan coached: cdn.nhl.com says 49 games but hockey-reference.com says 47. How can we find out how many games he really coached? --maclean 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For McLellan and Imlach, the numbers you're seeing also include the games that were coached by an interim coach. However, there was a small error with Imlach's total, and I believe I have fixed it. As for Art Duncan, the hockey database backs up the NHL numbers, so that's the total I used. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The team is singular when not talking about the members, so "The Toronto Maple Leafs is a professional ice hockey team based in Toronto, Ontario."
  • Done.
    • Heh, CrzyCheetah pointed this http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/plurals.html out to me, so it might be worth changing it back to "are". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• "There have been 36 head coaches in franchise history" --> In the franchise history
  • Done.
• "and Dick Duff.[2] while four others have been inducted as builders" Change the period to a comma, or recast the beginning of the new sentence
  • Done.
• "Mike Rodden, who coached the team in 1927 and Dick Duff, who was the head coach in 1980 both only coached two games and neither won one." "Both only coached" sounds odd. Consider recasting this sentence as "Neither Mike Rodden nor Dick Duff, who coached only two games each in 1927 and 1980 respectively, led the team to a winning match." Or something else entirely!
  • Done.
• Can we get a more formal term than "fired" re Paul Maurice?
  • Done.
• Could you resize the second column of the Key box, so that the # explaination doesn't take up 5 lines?
  • Done.
• I think {{tl|reflist|2} is recommended for more than 20 references
  • Done.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing else objectionable. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:21, 5 August 2008 [8].

---

List of Principals and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford

List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford was given its FL star last August. Since then, many more names have been added (see the current version) and so this section was split off into its own page to save space. When the "people associated list" got its star, there were just 25 names of fellows and principals; there are now 118 names (if I can count correctly) all with references. Let me address "comprehensiveness", since this is always of interest with lists of this sort. As well as, of course, including all names in Category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford the list includes:

• every Principal of the college;
• the eight founding fellows of 1571;
• all fellows who have entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography;
• all fellows who have entries in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography (given that Jesus College is the most "Welsh college" at Oxford);
• all fellows who had an obituary in The Times between 1785 and 1985 (the extent of the free-access archive);
• at least one fellow for every year from 1571 onwards.

Comments welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - quick run-through from a tab on a Saturday evening...!
  • • You poor thing...
  • Thumbnails should not be forced in size per WP:MOS#Images, the lead one isn't so important but memorial images are just too small.
    • Ah-ha, I'd tried various sizes on different monitors to get it to flow nicely - needn't have bothered!
  • "marked with (OM)" - no they're not, they're not bold, so unbold this one!
    • Done.
  • "1571–1595" vs "1553–59" in the same row - I'd be consistent throughout.
    • Done.
  • I despise centrally aligned notes.
    • Done.
  • Order refs numerically unless there's a real good reason not to.
    • Done.
  • What's Emeritus? (I know, but readers may not)
    • Wikilinked in the lead with a brief explanation.
  • First Thomas Ellis links to Thomas Ellis (clergyman died 1673) but this list says he was a fellow until 1677 - what gives? First dead fellow?!
    • First of many... Fixed, good catch.
  • "Professor of Zoology" - no full stop? Check other entries for consistency.
    • Done (<-- wot no full stop?.)
  • "1905, 1909, 1913, 1917" odd tenure. Reason?
    • Welsh Supernumerary Fellow (WSF), held on a rotating basis as explained in the lead.
  • Pity poor Eubule Thelwall who hath no notes... nothing at all to say about him?
    • Very little, but found something.
  • "College records do not show when his fellowship terminated." - this note ought to be applied to all ? entries (if applicable and if not, other reasons given).
    • Other reasons given for the other two "?"s - it's where they're WSFs and it's unclear from the obituary when their successor was appointed.
  • 116–7 vs 53–54 in the refs for page ranges - be consistent.
    • Now consistent.
  • Is fellow capitalised or not? Seems to be inconsistent...
    • Now Consistent.
  • Looks like that photograph is slightly tilted top left to bottom right...!
    • Hadn't noticed that, clearly college is built at a slight angle! Uploaded two new images for the lead.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Anything else from anybody? Bencherlite^Talk 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - under IE7, unless I look at the list with a horizontal resolution of at least 1600 pixels, all the images push the list to the bottom. Check it out. I think it's related to you forcing the table width, but I'm not 100% sure. It's probably fine under Firefox and Safari, but, it needs to be okay under IE7 really. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Try now, I've stopped forcing the table width and the column widths. Bencherlite^Talk 10:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Works much better for me now. Found "(1689–1701). Bishop of Hereford (1701–12)." by the way - just double-check you caught all those inconsistent year things. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Pesky, aren't they? Last two (I hope) are gone. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 11:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment The following are some things I {Eustress (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)} would suggest to improve the list:

• Why do all phrases under the Notes column end in a period when not all are complete sentences? Similarly, some of the picture captions (e.g., "The college crest above the Ship Street entrance gate.") should not end with a period either per Wikipedia:MOS#Captions
  • See above (groan!) TRM picked out that "Professor of Zoology" (Paul Harvey's note) didn't have a full-stop, and asked for consistency. I took him to mean that that particular entry should have a full stop, and so should similar entries, so I added full stops throughout. What's the official line to follow here, please? As for the full-stop after "gate", it's gone. Any others? (James Howell's caption feels like a sentence to me, hence the full stop).
    • Yeah, I would completely disagree with TRM. No full stop (or period, in this case) is needed if there is no complete sentence per MOS. Moreover, The James Howell caption is a participle phrase; it has no preceding subject and verb and is thus not a complete sentence. This is consistent with other WP Universities FLs. --Eustress (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Great!</sarcasm> I'm caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea here. The FL Director wants one thing, the next reviewer says that the FL Director himself is wrong. Fantastic. Whose lead am I meant to follow - whoever speaks last? I've reworded the James Howell caption, to make it a proper sentence with a verb and everything, but I'm not going to be caught in a ping-pong battle over full-stops in notes without someone pointing to specific passages in MOS. (Pointing to other FLs gets us nowhere fast, since I can point to another similar FL with plenty of full stops in the notes.) In any case, I have a question: when there are two incomplete sentences (e.g. William Aubrey: Regius Professor of Civil Law (1553–1559). One of the eight original Fellows of the college.) should there be 0, 1 or 2 full-stops? Or should such notes be reworded into one sentence or one note (thus risking losing the whole snappiness of the notes section in the first place)? Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • "Regius Professor of Civil Law (1553–1559), one of the eight original Fellows of the college" ta-da! If you need to separate phrases beyond a comma insert a semi-colon (e.g., "I have three red, blue, and yellow hats; five orange, green, and blue sticks; and two black shoes."). Maybe you just misunderstood TRM? Perhaps he can help clarify the full stop issue, but I think the list looks pretty cluttered with all the periods now. --Eustress (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I have already asked TRM to pop back. Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • TRM has popped back (see my talk page if anyone is interested) and I have now removed the full stops. Bencherlite^Talk 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Can a description or link to an explanation of what Old Members are be supplied?
  • I've created a redirect from "Old Member" to "Alumnus#Related terms". Anything else? Bencherlite^Talk 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That link helps a lot, but it brings up another question: why is "Old Member" a proper noun (i.e., why is it capitalized)? --Eustress (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Because that's how the college itself uses the term e.g. here and here. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Perhaps it should be linked instead to Old Member (Jesus College, Oxford) then, if it's a proper noun and not just another way of saying alumnus. --Eustress (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Err, no - it's not just a Jesus College thing: see various other colleges using "Old Member" (Exeter, Balliol, Univ, and that's just page 1 of the Google search). See also Cambridge. Describing former students as "alumni" is a comparatively new thing – "comparatively new", at any rate, in the context of a university that's been teaching since the 11th century... Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
            • What do the English really know about English anyway :-) (j/k) Thanks for the clarification. --Eustress (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: After responding to all suggestions (from me and others) I believe list now meets all FL criteria --Eustress (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest you unbold the opening sentence, then link the first occurrences of Jesus College and Fellows and delink the ones in the second paragraph.
  • OK, no bold anywhere. Is this what you wanted? (If only we were allowed links in bold type...) Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• A comma somewhere suitable in the Seth Ward sentence might make it easier to read.
  • Used a colon instead. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• The last two occurrences of Principal in the first paragraph are uncapitalised.
• Do you think separating Powell's and Hazel's election dates with commas rather than parentheses might make them look less like asides?
• Why does Governing Body need capitals?
  • Because that's its proper title: see the college statutes (e.g. Statute 2, clause 2). Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Suggest restructuring the Celtic section; it's rather repetitive, and the second sentence doesn't really say what you mean. Something like "Holders of the position since its creation in 1877 include Celtic scholars such as John Rhys, Ellis Evans and current Professor Thomas Charles-Edwards." Though "current" should be avoided; see MOS:DATE#Precise language.
  • Reworded, without a current, even though there isn't exactly a high turnover in this job... Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• "musiclogist"'s lost an "o".
• That sentence would be clearer if each person's reference immediately followed his name rather than having a string of five at the end.
  • OK - but actually since these are the same references as in the main list, I've just removed the references. No point in adding extra noise to the lead. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Leoline Jenkins being a former Principal should definitely come out of the brackets.
• Delink the King Charles I in "King Charles I Fellows" and link it when you refer to him as founder. Maybe referring to him as Charles I rather than King Charles would sound better?
• The third John Lloyd's notes are still centred. Also Thelwall's.
• Change Strawson's note from "now Prof at Reading" to "since 20xx ...".
• Reference #10 needs a publisher.
• You need some consistency in reference formatting. Your publication dates currently use at least three different formats, see notes 11, 12 and 15 for example; please pick one (international format, as 29 July 2008, is most frequently used in English articles) and stick to it.
• Occasionally you have a newspaper as publisher rather than work, I've spotted notes 67 and 72, there may be others.
• Some references to Hardy have no "p." before the page number. Notes 92, 101, maybe others.

Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you very much indeed for your thorough review. Unless mentioned otherwise, all your comments have been actioned. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They have, and I hope enough nits have been picked. Avoiding the use of "current" can be taken too far; the introduction to this list would hardly have been complete without mention of the current Principal, for instance :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

As the above is getting a bit tl;dr, I'll just note that there are no outstanding issues from the above comments. Bencherlite^Talk 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Think procedurally it's probably up to the reviewer(s) to say whether there are issues outstanding, which I thought I had, and certainly Eustress had if he/she is supporting, however that's by the by.

I do have a question on comprehensiveness, provoked by the arrival of several more fellows overnight. The scope of this list appears to be well-defined and finite: either someone was a principal or fellow or he wasn't, just as in a list of footballers who played more than a certain number of games for a club, either he did or he didn't. In each case there may be no one definitive source from which to take the information, so research has to be done. If I submitted such a footballer list and said, "Well, it's not complete, but there are a lot of them, and I'll add the rest if and when...", that list would fail. Why should a different standard apply to this list? Actually, I don't expect you to be able to answer this; maybe the director can explain the difference? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point you at criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL - "It comprehensively covers the defined scope" - so, as long as the scope is adequately defined, and then the list meets the definition and the community are satisfied that the criterion 3 (and the others, of course) are met then the list can be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is purely subjective, then :-) thanks for clearing that up... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's subjective subject to a consensual agreement. We've had this debate a few times (witness List of Arsenal F.C. players) and there's never been a 100% agreement on the best approach. At least criterion 3 makes an attempt to suggest there should be a "defined scope" which is better than nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

← Apologies if I trod on anyone's toes by my note earlier - I was just trying to improve general readability, but didn't want to put comments made by others into collapsing boxes.

As for the fellows that arrived overnight, it occurred to me late yesterday that some of the Welsh Supernumerary Fellows of recent years might have articles about them that didn't mention Jesus College, and so wouldn't have shown up in a "what links here" search for Jesus College (needless to say, that's a route I've been down as well to find additional names for this list and the alumni list). So I looked in my back issues of the College Record and found a few more names, and they've been added, (each with a one or two year period of Fellowship) plus a college chaplain I found lurking in the shadows without any mention of his time at JC (Graham Tomlin). In terms of existing articles on Wikipedia, I really believe that that's now it. Of course I'm not relying on the inclusion of every article on Wikipedia as being sufficient to pass FLC: if I thought that, I would have nominated a list with about 30 or 40 names (and would have saved myself a lot of work in the process, seeing as I wrote 90+ of the 125 biographies on the list, to make it as comprehensive as possible before coming to FLC).

As for more articles that could be written? Well, I've cleaned out the three major reference sources mentioned above, and ensured every Principal and every founding Fellow is included as well, and so I think the list is comprehensive, even though I can't of course put my hand on my heart and say that no notable Fellow has been omitted. Hardy's history of the College, published at the end of the 19th century, listed 369 Fellows between 1571 and 1898, but the majority aren't notable at all in Wikipedia terms. Whilst all professional footballers playing for Arsenal pass WP:ATHLETE and so meet notability standards on WP, not all Fellows of an Oxbridge college (past or present) pass WP:PROF, and certainly don't pass that standard just by being an Oxbridge Fellow. So it could never be a "complete list of all Fellows", or even "a complete list of all notable Fellows", but I've done my very best to ensure that it's a "comprehensive list of notable Fellows". Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support A pleasure to deal with a nominator prepared to put a significant amount of work in before nominating their list and with enough knowledge of their subject to discuss and justify it afterwards. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For Thomas Charles Edwards, the date for the fellow is "1997 onwards".. Is he still a fellow? Perhaps "1997–present" would be better. Same for others that use "year onwards".
• I think it would be a good idea to add {{WPBiography}} and/or {{Blp}} to the talk page, and look into using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} as well.

Otherwise it looks good. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Both comments actioned. Thank you, Matthew. Bencherlite^Talk 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome, and I Support. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:21, 5 August 2008 [9].

---

List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients

I have done a lot of work to this article since the last time it was submitted and I think that it meets the requirements to be a featured list.--Kumioko (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does a list of recipients need an entire paragraph explaining the name of the war in three languages? --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Done

I removed this paragraph entirely. It didn't really add anything to the article.--Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No bold links in the lead. done
  • Avoid starting with "This is a list..." featured articles don't start with "This is an article..." so we shouldn't either, be more imaginative.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I did this because this is how most of the other lists start.--Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know. But it doesn't make it right. Please try to rephrase (some of the more recently promoted lists may help inspire you) so we capture the imagination of the reader from the word go! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...external powers, with each trying to topple ..." this "each" is confused, is it the Koreans or the external powers? Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "In a very narrow sense, some may refer to it as a civil war, though many other factors were at play" not sure about this sentence at all - it's a little WP:OR, a little WP:POV. Perhaps it should be something like "The conflict has been referred to as a civil war..." plus citations to back it up "... while other factors ..." plus citations to back it up...Iremoved this sentence completely. Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Link North Korea the first time, not the second. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "After failing to strengthen their cause in the free elections held in South Korea during May 1950[2] and the refusal of South Korea to hold new elections per North Korean demands, the communist North Korean Army moved south on June 25, 1950 to attempt to reunite the Korean peninsula, which had been formally divided since 1948." several run-on clauses makes this confused.
  • Why link just the date for "June 25, 1950" and the whole thing for " July 27, 1953."? I can see the armistice date is important, so linking it all is acceptable but the first date, why? No good reason so I fixed it. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't put (ceasefire agreement) after armistice - wikilinks take care of that. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "— the Korean Conflict — " no spaces when using em-dashes here. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Echo Golbez, a large part of the lead seems to be related just to the name of the conflict rather than further details on the recipients of the medal. Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Medal of Honor is linked four times (incl the infobox) ... a bit over the top. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you can't find images for everyone but just placing the medal there is a little odd.
  • A key would be useful for people who don't know what USMCR, USMC mean. In fact, you could talk a little about this in the lead, maybe going into how many of each branch recieved the medal.
  • Not sure how useful sorting on "Place of action" is, when you have free text like "along..." and "near..."
    • Removed near and along. If they are near the city or the river simply stating the name of the city should be adaquate. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Numbers below 10 are written as text. Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see where this is, could you tell me where the problem here is?--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • In the entries like "attacking 3 enemy "... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sudut's entry "Although wouned " - typo. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bleak's entry "admister " typo. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Porter's entry "Was killed " - others just say stuff like "Killed..." without the Was.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "George W. Bush March 3, 2008 [1]" link this properly with a {{cite web}} please.
  • "enemy MiG's" needs linking.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " occupied hill, Millett led" replace Millett with he for consistency.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The first Medal of Honor to be classified Top Secret" needs a citation/explanation.
  • Link POW.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "to silence an enemy gun emplacement" what did he actually do to "silence" it?
  • "single handedly " should be hyphenated.
  • "Sacrificed his life to defeat an enemy bunker." no full stop. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Medical corpsman; aided many fallen soldiers under heavy fire." ditto. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Although wounded he refused medical care to fight the enemy until all his men and casualties had been taken care of." ditto. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "For falling on a grenade to save his squad." ditto. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And that should probably be "Killed after falling..."
  • "Served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam War; In addition to the Medal of Honor he received 5 purple hearts." why is Korea linked here? and why capital I after semi-colon? and I would link to Purple Heart (and capitalise appropriately).
  • "For leading the rescue of a trapped rifle company." no full stop. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "raging combat " is this a quote? Otherwise it's peacock. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "after single handedly covering " hyphenate again.
  • He was reported KIA, September 5, 1950." what makes this more significant than all the other entries? Surely the ones who were killed were reported KIA at some point too?
  • "to place demolitoin charges" typo.Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " finish their objective" complete their objective?
  • Ref 5 needs correct formatting, pref using {{cite web}} Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 4, China's Peoples Daily is a work rather than a publisher, isn't it? Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 2, is "2,6,9." referring to page numbers? If so, I'd say "pp. 2, 6, 9" Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen " are they all really proper nouns?
    • Yes--Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Medal Of Honor Statistics" no need to capitalise statistics here. done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about full stop - it's called full stop in Brit-Eng, period in US-eng and it's what goes at the end of complete sentences. You have a mixture of whether you put these "full stops" in or not. Be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Broader issue: Could we have a link to the previous nomination. This is standard procedure for some other Featured X discussions, is it not here as well? Rmhermen (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Previous submission

• Comment: Thanks for that link. I have a few issues:
  • The first paragraph is too short. The lead should say more about the subject of the list.
  • The actual village names are mostly unlinked. I couldn't determine why some were linked and others weren't. Even if there are red I think they should be linked
  • The word Korea is linked ever time it appears in the list (unlike other terms which are only linked on first occurence).
  • A broader issue, however, is since the list is sortable should every linked term be linked every time since the "first occurance" of the term will usually change for each sort order?
• Rmhermen (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support with a further comment
  • Looks very good overall. But when I sort by rank, John K. Koelsch, USN, Lieutenant, Junior Grade appears at the top of the list with the apparent lowest rank even though he is an officer. The "O-2" in his rank may have a zero instead of the letter O. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I fixedit. Let me know if you have any more suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [10].

---

List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances

Bringing another Academy Awards list to FLC. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment bah, tried hard but it may be possible that list nomination is pretty good (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job!--Crzycheetah 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comment - For an actor or actress to be eligible for any of the Academy Awards for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, or Best Supporting Actress for a foreign language performance in a film produced outside the United States, the film must have been commercially released in Los Angeles County. Actors or actresses that have foreign language performances in films released in the United States are not subject to this requirement. - this doesn't appear to make sense. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• A foreign language performance is not speaking English in whatever role. The film itself can be produced inside the United States or outside of it. This simply notes for films produced outside the United States, they need a release in LA County for the actors or actresses to be considered eligible for any Academy Award. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that it seems to read as: "foreign language performances in films produced outside the US must be released in LA. Films released in the US are not subject to this requirement." I'd advise changing "in films released in the United States" to "films produced in". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And while I haven't seen those particular films, I'm fairly certain that Liv Ullman speaks Swedish and Marion Cotillard speaks French. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed as well. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Any chance of having a lighter yellow for "Won Academy Award" cells? It seems strange to have such a vivid yellow in opposition to the light color of the "Nominee" cells. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the same yellow used in the template could be used for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• That would be superb, actually. Looks like it warrants replacing #FFD800 with #FAEB86. Any takers? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BomBom

Comment: The list in its current form contains a number of factual errors:

1) The opening sentence is misleading. It gives the impression that prior to 1961, Acaddemy rules did not allow awards to be handed to foreign language performances. It should be rephrased to make it clear that 1961 was simply the first occurrence of such an event.

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

2) "Actors or actresses that have foreign language performances in films produced in the United States are not subject to this requirement." This is absolutely wrong. ALL films, regardless of their language or nationality, must be released in Los Angeles County in order to be eligible for an Acting Award (or any other "regular" Academy Award for that matter). This has always been the case throughout the Academy's history and is made clear in the current rules (Rule Two, § 2): "All eligible motion picture [...], must be: [...] c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County".[11] Foreign language performances and English-language performances are treated exactly the same way. The only additional requirement for a foreign language performance is that it must contain English subtitles in order to be eligible for competition (Rule Two, § 8). [12]

• Cut out entirely. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• You still do not mention the need for English subtitles. It's an important eligibility requirement.BomBom (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

3) Ida Kaminska's performance in The Shop on Main Street was in Slovak, not in Czech.

• Source says Czech. I would need a contrary source to say otherwise. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, your source is simply wrong, even though it's the official Academy website. All of the film's dialogue is in Slovak. See [13] and [14].

• Changed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

4) It is debatable whether sign languages should be considered as foreign languages. The source you cite does list them as such. However, this had previously caused controversy in another Wikipedia article. In any case, if you really wish to include such performances, then you must mention all of them. The list currently has several omissions, such as Holly Hunter's British sign language performance in The Piano.

• Again, I'm going off the list the Academy is providing, which is what they consider a foreign language performance. I would assume Hunter's performance was not considered a "foreign language performance" for whatever reason. The rule of thumb is verifiability, not truth. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I personally think that it would be better to make a distinction between foreign language performances in foreign language films, and foreign language performances in predominantly English-speaking American films such as The Godfather Part II or Dances with Wolves. I believe the latter should be listed in a separate section of the article. I'm really sorry for being so picky, but a featured list is supposed to represent the very best Wikipedia has to offer. Apart from that, I have nothing to say about the general layout of the article. Great work! Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's five films that would fall under that description. If half the list fell under that description, I would be more inclined, but in this case, I don't think a whole section is necessary. And don't worry about being picky - it's what FLC is for :p sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not an entire section then. But it would be useful if you had at least a footnote or a sentence in the lead section explaining why these five films are distinct from all the others on the list. The casual uninformed reader is very likely to think that all of the films listed are foreign language films, which is not the case. BomBom (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Added. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for taking into account all of my remarks! BomBom (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good, I have one quibble though and that's that Sophia Loren's screenshot is from Five miles to Midnight, not Two Women or Marriage Italian-Style. It's a little misleading. Is there an image from either of those two movies or one that is clearly not a screenshot so there is no possible confusion? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Both movies would be copyrighted, and thus the images would be fair use. I can stick the infobox picture for Robert De Niro (although he looks way different in The Godfather Part II) if you want. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's no big deal. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support since BomBom's comments have been seen to. Good lead, good layout—good list. Cliff smith ^talk 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support this excellent list per addressing my comment and others' comments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [15].

---

List of Phoenix Suns head coaches

I am nominating this article for featured list status because I believe it is featured list criteria. Annoyomous24 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "most amount of regular-season and playoff games." – "most regular season and playoff games."
• "by a Basketball Hall of Famer. " → "by a Basketball Hall of Fame inductee. "

DONE ALL! K. Annoyomous24 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • First sentence of lead is dull and needs to flow a bit with the next one. Start by explaining what the Phoenix Suns is and then say they've had 12 head coaches in their franchise history.
  • In general I would expand the lead a bit more.
  • You need a note to explain why second stints have a dash in the # column.
  • "Awards Won" can be "Awards won"
  • en-dash should separate the years in the link to the 07/08 season.
  • MacLeod and Johnson link to disambiguation pages.

DONE ALL! K. Annoyomous24 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good —Chris! _ct 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• "Found in 1968," should be founded
• "The Suns currently play their home games in the US Airways Center." - I think this should say "at the US Airways Center" instead of in
• "There have been 13 head coaches for the Phoenix Suns franchise" this sentence does not make grammatical sense change it to "The Phoenix Suns have had 13 head coaches."
• When clicking on the note a in the notes section, it does not jump to the corresponding ref, which suggests you have not placed the reference label to accompany the note label

Not far off FL standard just address these iisues and you'll have my support NapHit (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good NapHit (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Suns are an American professional basketball team" -- Give the team's full name on first use
• Could say in the Lede that D'Antoni left at the end of the season, or that Terry Porter is yet to coach the team in a game.
• Image caption needs a full stop
• The sentence starting "Founded in 1968,..." is a bit too long and clunky. Can it be made less wordy and/or shorter/split into two?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can support this one too, now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [16].

---

Amateur radio frequency bands in India

I'm back creating featured lists after three long years. :) I managed to raise this article from nothing to a feature list candidate in less than a day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please use wikitables (like at Help:Table#Using_the_toolbar) as it standardizes the format of the tables; it also adds lines to divide columns and rows for clarity. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added wikitable sortable class. Something new for me! =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Terrestrial service only." – period is not needed since this is not a full sentence
• What does the custom blue color for the table headers represent?
• Lowercase the header titles like "BAND" → "Band"

Gary King (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed #1. For #2 and #3, the colours and upper case are for stylistic purposes. Do all the tables need to be a dull shade of grey? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the wikitable gray to be soothing. Also, I usually prefer that the color mean something; for instance, the table colors in a team list with the team's colors would be appropriate. The uppercase titles, I think it's easier to read if they are lowercased. Gary King (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The colours are WikiProject India theme, after the national colours of India (sky blue). This is more of style and formatting, so am leaving it as is. Personally, I find the grey to be very bland. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I know very less about this area and so read it. My opinion it is very good list. But, two widely used terms radio telegraphy and radio telephony are not linked in the article. Had to put them manually in the search box to understand them. --gppande «talk» 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've linked the two terms and added what they are at the first instance where they appear. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The sorting for "Wavelength" and "freq" columns do not work properly.--Crzycheetah 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for spotting it. I'm not sure how to fix them, so have placed a request on WP:VP. If nothing works, I'll probably remove them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "licensed" vs "Licences" vs "License"....
  • "allots" - would allocates be better? That whole sentence is a little jargony, can you clarify for non-experts?
  • "clear the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate exam" do you mean pass it?
  • exam is a little casual - perhaps examination?
  • "(sending and receiving)." I'd unparathensise this and say ", both sending and receiving."
  • "Each class " what class? First mention of class - is this the same as the licence?
  • " The Short Wave Listener's Amateur Wireless Telegraph Station License allows listening on all amateur radio frequency bands, but prohibits transmission" but you don't say what privileges the others have - so either say "for example the Short Wave...", or go into further details on the other licence types.
  • Decapitalise the headings in the table and use Frequency rather than FREQ - no need to abbreviate.
  • I'd check out the {{sort}} and {{nts}} templates for help sorting your columns. If all else fails give me a shout and I'll fiddle around for you.
  • Wavelength col is very wide but the contents are very narrow!
  • Remove the capitalisation for EMISSION and BAND.
  • No need to relink AM in that table as it's non-sortable
  • "(Still images)" no need for that cap S, check the rest of those instances in the table.
  • "An emission designation is of the form BBBB 123 45" but in the table you have, e.g. A2A - I don't see how that fits the scheme. Am I missing something?
  • If you abbreviate Amplitude modulation, presumably you should do the same with Frequency modulation.
  • "12 years" + old.
  • All those headings, decap - and look at col widths again.
  • "50 W." - link to Watt.
  • I would expect sub band to be hyphenated.
  • "Authorization on non-interference and non-protection basis." what does that mean?!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look at resolving it tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I've done just about all. Some comments:

• Wavelength column is wide because the header text "Wavelength" takes up all the space. I could use the symbol 'λ, but that would not be useful for a non technical audience.
• Adding the word "old" would be redundant. (12 years)
• Authorization on non-interference and non-protection basis lol, I have no idea what that means. I have asked amateur radio experts outside wikipedia to clarify.
• For emissions, I added an example. Let me know if this is sufficient to explain it.
• Was not able to sort the columns. Not sure if I was doing it right. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Sorting of table columns is inhibited by the fact that numbers are commingled with letters and symbols (such as dashes).
  • The main problem I see for the "Wavelength" columns is that columns including numerical values in both m and cm do not sort in the order that one would wish for. That could be fixed by converting all values to m (for example 80 cm would be 0.8 m), but I wonder if that is contrary to standard usage in this field.
  • Another issue is that the "50 W/25 W" in the Power column does not sort correctly. A possible resolution for that (which would be a nice improvement in general and also could help with sorting of the wavelengths) is to move the units to the heading (i.e., "Power (W)").
  • In the Frequency column, I think you are using full stops ("dots") as separators for the thousands column. This is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Large numbers, and the effect is that the dots are being interpreted as decimal points.
  • Also in the Frequency column, does sorting improve if you add a space before and after each of the dashes?
• I don't like the way the "notes" appear in the tables. At some monitor resolutions, the entries in the "Power" column are forced onto a second line, with the word "note" on the first line and the note number on the second line. Appearance would be far better (and there would be less potential for confusion) if these notes were identified with letters instead (e.g., change "note 1" to "A"). If this cannot be done with a notation template that you are using, find a different template. (I know it can be done, as letters are used for notes in List of cities and towns in Tennessee.)
• Like some earlier commenters, I want to see more internal links in this article. Terms I see that might be candidates for linking include Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, aural telegraphy and electronic telegraphy, radioteletype, telemetry, remote control, facsimile, shortwave, satellite communication, and electronics. (I think some of these might be linked late in the article rather than the first time they are used. I suppose a case could be argued for linking some technical terms more than once...)
• Be consistent in spelling of licence/license. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review:

• I've linked up the terms as you have siggested
• Shortened the word "note" to "nb"
• Reduced the column "Type" to abbreviations
• Added W to the header
• In the frequency column, spaces are not recommended around an ndash as per WP:DASH
• Removed the lisense inconsistency
• No, the values in the frequency column are correct. The values are from 1 Mhz to 5 Ghz
• I've tried to use {{Ntsh}} now, but still the columns do not sort! :(

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, why are the 5 licenses linked in their own sections? Do they not need to be linked in the header where they first occur? Like - Amateur Wireless Telegraph Station Licence --gppande «talk» 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  They should. I've wikified the first instance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alert: In this edit, which apparently was intended to remove the dysfunctional sorting, you made several other changes, including undoing some changes that you had made in response to comments here. The edit also made factual changes to the article. Were those changes intentional, or did you accidentally revert some edits you didn't intend to revert?
• Seeing those factual changes to the information about licencing exams alerted me to the lack of sourcing on the entire passage about licencing exams in the current version ("To obtain a licence in the first four categories, candidates must pass the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate examination, held monthly ... then have a police interview. After clearance, the WPC grants the licence along with the user-chosen call sign.") Can a source be added here? --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The change was a copy-paste from parent article Amateur radio in India. This FLC was a spinoff from that article which is coincidently on FAC. That article was copyedited by User:Tony1 diff, and so I pasted the new text here. With regards to references, the whole article is referenced by the 1978 rules (there is a table in the source, and I've only expanded on it). I've anyways gone ahead and added a citation for each licence category. I have also restored the wikilinks that were removed accidently. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am still concerned about unsourced text in the introductory section. That whole paragraph about when and where exams are given, what they consist of, etc., is sourced only to a Times of India article that doesn't appear to support any of the facts in the paragraph. Wikipedia articles can't be sources for other Wikipedia articles, so the borrowing from another article does not constitute proper sourcing. If this information is from the regulations, I think they need to be cited inline; the reader has no way of knowing that this is where the information is from. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that the improvements made to these same passages in Amateur radio in India, in response to FAC discussion of that article, are also made in the list article. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, see below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• You may be annoyed at me but, no links in header for Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. --gppande «talk» 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. They were here earlier, but they got deleted. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also how is REF3 from ToI related to the information for which it is used as ref? REF3 states how HAM operators help authorities in emergency but it is used on how to clear the exam and obtain license. --gppande «talk» 08:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 3 states that a licence can take 1 year to be obtained. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not too familiar with the topic so please forgive the odd question:
  • What does the number in the Band column refer to? 6 what?
  • "...over 16,000 licenced users in India" - the reference indicates the number should be lower.
  • "...must pass the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate examination, held monthly in..." - kind of sounds like someone has to take an examination monthly. If I understand the ref correctly, the licenses are only valid for 2 or 5 years before they have to be renewed.
  • The ref appears to give A2A to all "Grade II" frequencies, but the list here only gives it to 2.
  • "F2A" is listed, should it be F2B? -- maclean 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for reviewing and coming up with suggestions: I've put up a global response.

Global response

1. Linked Mumbai, Delhi and the other cities in the lead/
2. Add further inline citations to the lead.
3. Fixed the reference on "1 year to get the licence"
4. In an early draft it was 15,000. I think it got updated in a copy-paste. I have updated the reference to reflect 16,000 operators
5. Band is now mentioned in a small legend before the table in the "Alotted Spectrum" section. (ITU Radio Bands)
6. Split the sentences on held monthly as suggested
7. maclean, I would need some time to figure out those emission categories. (the last two comments) I had sourced that information from ABC of Amateur and Citizens Band by Rajesh Verma. There seems to be a few discrepancies in the two sources, and I would need to clarify them. For example, the WPC also lists A3X instead of A3C. A3X is meaningless as far as Types of radio emissions is concerned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update 2008-08-03

• Clarified and fixed those emissions that were raised by Maclean. Now made sure that they follow the 1978 documentation only. I had to consult four sources, as they all differed.
• Split the references in the text to include the Annexures/Appendices

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Everything looks good now. --maclean 19:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment All of my concerns have been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:26, 3 August 2008 [17].

---

The O.C. (season 1)

I have tried to bring this list up to featured standard and I feel it now matches the standard of other similar featured lists. This is my first attempt at featured content so hope I have missed anything really obvious that would fail it. Thanks to Matthewedwards for his input at the recent peer review. --Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Further to my peer review, I have done a copy edit:
  • Full dates are not required by the MOS to be wikilinked any more, so I removed them
  • There was one reference with a retrieval date of 1989, so I updated that
  • I also converted all the references to {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}
  • Some of the publishers in the references were itallicised, so I removed those by moving them from work= to publisher=.
  • Made a few minor changes to some words, using AmEn instead of BrEn, such as "harbour" → "harbor", "whilst" → "while", etc and date format on "26 October 2004" → "October 26, 2004"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

question - Image:The_O.C._the_complete_first_season.jpg appears to be decorative, how does this image meet WP:NFCC? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on image policies so if this image violates policy or consensus requires it's removal I will not hesitate in doing so. Correct me if I'm wrong but I guess the criteria you think it fails is "8. Significance". This is my interpretation of why it doens't violate policy but if I am wrong please let me know:

• The image accompanies it's relevant DVD section and quickly allows readers to identify and verify various facts about the DVD, such as name, number of discs. It also shows how the DVD is packaged and distributed. Digipak is an incorrect general word often used and refers to a very specific method. It is difficult to describe exactly a seven disk set is packaged & distributed in words and an image does this very well. On that note would you be more in favour of and image like this [18] which perhaps portrays some of those aspects better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I would keep this image, move it to the infobox and lose the other two. It serves to identify the series and the characters WP:NFCC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose promotion while the three non-free images are included Fasach Nua (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of moving the image in question to the infobox as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Image prefers a poster or intertitles. Given this could you clarify you opposition, is purely based on the number of fair-use images, or on a specific picture violating a WP:NFCC, because you said you were in favour of keeping the DVD image. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The DVD image at the bottom needs to go. There is no critical commentary on said image (Critical commentary does not constitute listing the features on the DVD set). The image of the cast is a little more borderline. My question is, are we going to be looking at the same people for each succeeding season page (Appears that way on the next two season pages)? If so, then it should go, as there is nothing special about the look of any of these characters, thus standard free images of all these "living" people can be attained if images are even necessary. The only image I don't have a problem with is the infobox image, as general consensus has always been that the infobox is fair-game for the universal "identifier" image of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but i'm not sure about consensus always having existed. I feel a valid point to make under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is that earlier this year this article was promoted with seperate fair-use DVD images for the infoboxes of three different releases. Was this wrong? I think establishing a clear consensus could be useful.

Additionally although not really an issue here I will try to address your concerns with cast photos for subsequent seasons. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image of the DVD boxset served to fulfill the function of both remaining images, it illustrated the programme, and it illustrated the cast. WP:NFCC minimal uses would indicate that if one image can perform the function of multiple ones, then the single image should be used in preference to the multiple images Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. From WP:NFCC minimal usage applies when one image conveys "equivalent significant information". This is clearly not the case as the poster confirms additional significant info. like the date, time network of release none of which are information that can be obtained from the DVD image. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine the date, times and network could all be conveyed using GFDL text, therefore I oppose promotion Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Being unsure of the fair-image minefield I consulted The Rambling Man, and have done what he suggested. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one solution. You could have also just put the DVD cover in the infobox, and satisfied many elements: The cast, the name of the show, the identifier that it is the first season. It's also the image the studio deemed to represent the first season. Though, if you choose to take that route, I would crop the discs out of the picture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, I would prefer the DVD cover in the infobox, as it's the official designation of the season, but I won't stake an oppose on it. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "from the wrong side of the tracks" doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. It doesn't tell us much and sounds more appropriate for a fictional novel. Use something more concrete, like "a troubled teen who grew up as an alcoholic and drug user" as an example Gary King (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply, I agree that as it stands it doesn't sound entirely encyclopedic, however it was an official description used by FOX in their show description. The FOX website has since been removed however it is used on the official Warner Bros. page (OC Insider), and has also been used as a description numerous times in the news [19], [20], [21]. You may feel your original comment still stands but I just thought i'd raise this point incase you feel it is better kept (and possible referenced). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall that it was indeed used to describe the series; if that is the case, then I suggest getting the exact quote, putting it in quotes, and then referencing the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, the quote is split and referenced at the end of the sentence, which hopefully should suffice. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, it looks better now. Gary King (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

• Did Network Ten air the entire season, including those already aired by Seven Nine, or did they just pick it up from where Seven Nine left off? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember reading (sometime last week), they aired the other three (previously aired on Nine) before showing the rest. I am annoyed however as I can't find a reference or something to verify this. But this wouldn't be suprising as I recall Channel 4 repeating the first few episodes after their long summer hiatus. The only facts I could find were that there were six months in between the channel Nine & Ten airing The O.C., with Ten purchased all the rights.^[22]. This by no means proves my claim, and assuming no proof can be found, should I change the wording to something along the line of "with Network Ten airing the remaining episodes"? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support I provided a Peer Review, and my concerns there and here have been taken care of. Looks good. Everyone else's comments look to have been addressed, and it appears to meet the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:31, 2 August 2008 [23].

---

List of Naruto characters

The result of months of merging and whatnot. Here is WP:ANIME's first prospective FL character list. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "who can utilize" → "who can use"
• logical quotation issues such as ""cool genius,"" → ""cool genius"," and ""the archetypal rival character."" → ""the archetypal rival character"." per WP:PUNC, where the punctuations only belong in the quotes if it should logically belong there, such as if it's a full sentence and could use a period

Gary King (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "This is a list of characters ..." start with something more interesting like "The Naruto anime and manga series feature a number of ..." perhaps?
  • "two and a half" I fancy this should be hyphenated?
  • "progress as ninja in skill and character." reads awkwardly to me.
  • "ninja of Konohagakure " not really necessary to repeat where he's from since that point was made in the previous paragraph. Especially as you have Konohagakure again at the end of this sentence.
  • as a base for " as a basis?
  • the actual manga " is actual required here?
  • "he utilizes occasionally changes.[10] For instance, he utilized " can we change one of the utilized to, say, used, for some variety?
  • "After an encounter with his brother in Part I, Sasuke is beaten physically and mentally" wasn't he beaten in the encounter? Or perhaps you could say Sasuke is left beaten...
  • "After an incident " - probably needs a little expanding.
  • "double team opponents " double-team?
  • "traveling with his arms and legs " I know what you mean but this reads oddly - we all travel with our arms and legs!
  • "things actual dogs " never sure of the need for actual here.
  • "twenty-three and twenty-four" 23 and 24.
  • Just be careful about overlinking. Naruto Uzumaki, for instance, is linked in four consecutive sections...
  • Shame that Ikuko Tani doesn't have an article - the only red link!
  • Page ranges in the references should use the en-dash, not the hyphen to separate them.
• Otherwise, a really really good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Think I got everything. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks good. I think Gary and TRM have found everything, so I have nothing to do but support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:40, 2 August 2008 [24].

---

Isobel Campbell discography

Okay, it's crazy. I've never nominated a list before, and I'm nominating this one after creating it without making a second edit. But still, it could make it. Red157(talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I just saw you made a second edit. Well, there goes that achievement :)
• "Isobel Campbell performing in Bologna in 2007." – remove period. This is not a full sentence

Gary King (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice. Cannibaloki 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments

• "In 2003 she released her first album under her own name, Amorino, which recieved mixed reviews from critics." The album title should be in italic, Amorino;
• Whom was nominated for the Mercury Music Prize? Ballad of the Broken Seas or Mark Lanegan?;
• Music videos=1 or 2? - Infobox says that she only has 1;
• '''''[[Swansong for You]]{{Ref label|The Gentle Waves|I|}} or '''''[[Swansong for You]]'''''{{Ref label|The Gentle Waves|I|}}, What is the difference?
• Why using the 0 on the dates? (April 05, 1999);
• It has no link to the record labels?
• ^ I "As The Gentle Waves.", You can not be more specific?
• In the singles table should be written below: "—" denotes a release that did not chart.

Cannibaloki 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: fixed some mistakes. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Be Black Hole Sun has fixed most of those problems, and I've made The Gentle Waves note more specific. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Other appearances is missing from the infobox, such as her work with Lanegan and Wells.
  • "part time " is hyphenated.
  • " (see Belle & Sebastian discography). " nah, make it a See also if you want, but don't have that awful "(see...)" in the lead.
  • Refs 9 to 14 all point to Mark Lanegan, not Isobel Campbell. Ensure you find correct references for all claims.
  • "Despite limited commercial success,[1] they have been called the greatest Scottish band ever.[2]" clarify you're talking about Belle and Sebastian and not Campbell.
  • Ref 3 has a badly formatted date issue.
  • "under her own name, Amorino, " her own name is not Amorino, perhaps you mean, "her first album, Amorino, under her own name."?
  • "with Mark Lanegan, the album was " this reads like two sentences so either put a full stop in or improve the flow to sound like the second clause is a continuation of the first.
  • "before another collaboration with Lanegan, Sunday at Devil Dirt, released on May 13, 2008.[6]" ditto.
  • There should be at least one EP in the infobox (as you've said she released at least one in the lead).
  • 1999 note [I] is not italics, 2000 note [I] is in italics. Pick one way of display.
  • What is the purpose of ref 15?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I think it's all done. Oddly enough, many of those Mark Lanegan references still actually verify the chart claims, except the last one. Changed them all anyway. Red157(talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see "Extended plays" in the infobox... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Cannibaloki 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• What it currently is like is what I tried, the infobox doesn't link to the EP section if you click on the little thingy (I'm terrible at describing). Why is that? Red157(talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I still cannot see Extended plays in the infobox - you state quite clearly in the lead "This was followed by a solo album and EP in the same year" so there should be an EP in the infobox and a section describing EPs she has released. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, now I'm no longer confused. That was originally an EP (Time Is Just the Same), when I originally wrote the list (Alongside a couple of others in the singles table). Be Black Hole Sun did the simple thing and moved them all together, as they are all in fact singles (In a way). So that's just a thing that was left over that nobody spotted (besides yourself) and has now been fixed. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:40, 2 August 2008 [25].

---

List of Chicago Bulls head coaches

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No image of any of the coaches for the article?
• "coaches of the Chicago Bulls franchise" → "coaches for the Chicago Bulls franchise" perhaps?
• "They currently play" should be something like "As of July 2008, they play"
• "33-48" – en dash needed (WP:DASH)

Gary King (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix everything except the first point. I can't find free images for any coaches. The only possible one I could use is a Phil Jackson image. But that image shows Jackson coaching the Lakers team. I don't know if it work or not.—Chris! _ct 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You could crop one of the images here. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you upload one of these to commons:

1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/71083432/
2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/71085230/ --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If worse comes to worse you can use http://www.flickr.com/photos/swanksalot/517528414/

Skiles and Cartwright (and of course Jackson) have a lot of images on flicr. You should join and send flicrmails to people to change the licensing. If you send 10 for each person I bet you get at least one permission each.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't know how to that.—Chris! _ct 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Jackson is the only coach not only member in the HOF, I believe. You may want to say either currently in the central division or have been in the central division since YYYY. Since you make it clear about the stadium, you might want to make this just as clear. You may want to also say played in the United Center since YYYY, but I am not sure what is common for NBA coaches.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Right -- Nate Thurmond, George Gervin, and Robert Parish were all briefly members of the Bulls. (I've corrected the error.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• It should probably be clearer. Right now a person who played for the Bulls and coached elsewhere seems to be in the group you are describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• However, there's no one in the Hall of Fame who meets those criteria. There are only four Hall of Famers who have any connection to the Bulls: Jackson, and the three guys I mentioned above. The sentence in the article is accurate. Zagalejo^^^ 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support My questions have been answered although I think a better picture can be obtained from flickr.com as noted above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • link all the years to its NBA season.
    • Done—Chris! _ct 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...for the Chicago Bulls franchise" should be "in the Chicago Bulls franchise".
    • Try read the sentence out loud. I think "for" is a better preposition here.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • link "basketball".
    • Done—Chris! _ct 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "As of July 2008, they play their home games in the United Center." reference please. Also, the sentence should be "They currently play their home games in the United Center as of the 2008–09 NBA season."
    • Not everything needs a ref. A quick Google search will confirm that the Bulls play at the United Center. And I'd get rid of the "as of..." phrase entirely, since 1) there's no evidence that they plan to move out anytime soon and 2) if/when they do move, all we need to do is remove United Center from the lead. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Coached by Johnny Kerr, the team finished its first season with a 33–48 record, the best record achieved by an expansion team in its first year of play, and secured a playoff berth. " needs reference please.
    • Already did.—Chris! _ct 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Kerr won NBA Coach of the Year that year." should be "Kerr won the NBA Coach of the Year Award that year."
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The franchise..." in the second paragraph should be "The Bulls..." because of new paragraph.
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...only member..." should be "...only coach..."
  • I think you should write more about the other coaches beside Phil Jackson (even if he is really good).
    • I did write briefly about Johnny Kerr and Jerry Sloan. Is there any specific you think I should add.—Chris! _ct 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • How about that four of the head coaches never won in their coaching careers with the Bulls. -- K. Annoyomous24 07:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Nah. They were just interim coaches, so they never had a chance to accomplish anything. (BTW, there are just three - Pete Myers had two interim stints.) On the other hand, I know Tim Floyd holds some sort of futility record -- like, most losses in a three-year period, or something like that. That might be worth mentioning, if someone can find a source. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Three coaches, Jerry Sloan, Bill Cartwright, and Pete Myers, formerly played for the Bulls" should be "Jerry Sloan, Bill Cartwright, and Pete Myers formerly played for the Bulls."
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • make the thumb picture bigger.
    • Done.—Chris! _ct 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If done all, I'll support. -- K. Annoyomous24 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- K. Annoyomous24 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Have you verified all the term dates? I know that the dates for Tim Floyd, Bill Berry and Bill Cartwright are wrong. Floyd resigned on December 24, 2001, so his term should read "1998-2001". (source: "Losing, feuding finally push Floyd over edge"; KC Johnson, Tribune staff reporter. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Dec 25, 2001. pg. 1). And Bill Cartwright took over by the end of 2001, so his and Bill Berry's dates should be changed. (source: "Nearly perfect debut ; Bulls deliver on Cartwright's defensive vow; BULLS 103, CAVALIERS 80"; KC Johnson, Tribune staff reporter. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Dec 30, 2001. pg. 8) Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I based the term dates on basketball-reference.com, so I don't know. Anyway, I fixed those dates.—Chris! _ct 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll look into the other dates. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Most of the dates look OK. But Cartwright was actually relieved in Nov. 2003 [26], so I had to move a few dates up a year. Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: "The team is owned by Jerry Reinsdorf and coached by Vinny Del Negro, with John Paxson as the general manager." This whole statement needs to be dated. I don't know why the coach is mentioned at all - as that is the point of the whole list. If he is mentioned some other details should be added about him than what is already mentioned in the list. Rmhermen (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I dated the sentence. The reason I mentioned the current coach is because every other head coach pages do that including FLs like List of Boston Celtics head coaches. I can removed it but I don't think that is a good idea.—Chris! _ct 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why must we date the sentence? Shouldn't readers assume the information is current? Zagalejo^^^ 02:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:40, 2 August 2008 [27].

---

J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• ""outstanding service and dedication to the community."" → ""outstanding service and dedication to the community"." per WP:PUNC
• "It was the oldest citizenship and community service award in the NBA " – it was, or it still is?
• "(then president[a])" → "(then president)[a]"
• "who represents writers for newspapers, magazines and internet services who cover" – "who [...] who"? change a word?

Gary King (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all.—Chris! _ct 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Members of the organization..." which one? PBWA or NBA? --Dem393 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Odd formatting issues in IE7 with a reasonable width screen, lots of whitespace under the Winners heading and the key. Presumably down to the template on the right-hand-side.
  • "and then a vote is taken by approximately 150 members" which members? Sounds like an odd way of running a vote.
  • "joint J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award winners" just "joint-winners" would suffice.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done the last two point. I try to fix the formatting, and I don't know if it works. Let me know if it didn't.—Chris! _ct 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • If this is going to be a featured list, I would expect it to include more information than is available in the raw list obtained from the nba.com website. Why were the various recipients selected for the award? Why was it named for J. Walter Kennedy?
  • The article says that O'Toole was the first sport trainer to win. Was he also the only sport trainer to win? Is he the only non-player ever to receive this award?
  • The placement of the legend to the right of the table looks fine on a wide screen display in Firefox, but I think it could become problematic on a narrower display. Have you considered moving it below the table? (It also possibly could go above the table, but I suggest below because I think the items in the legend are essentially footnotes. ADDED: I see that you had it above the table earlier, but The Rambling Man was concerned about whitespace in IE...) --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add more info, but reliable source is hard to find. As to the last point, I don't know if placing the legend below the table is a good idea since all the award pages have the legend on top and they should be consistent. Let's wait and see what The Rambling Man is going to say first before making any change.—Chris! _ct 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info additions you have made so far. They add information value to the article (and I bet you will be finding and adding more informative details before long). I'm particularly pleased to see that my question about non-players getting the award is now resolved. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Current layout is fine in Safari. I don't have IE at home so I can't tell you until tomorrow morning (it's nearly 8pm where I am) if it's resolved there as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's unusual to have the legend to the right of the table, between the table and the infobox/images. With a wide display, there's a huge gap between the table on the left and the infobox/images on the right, so it's OK to use the space for the legend. However, with a smaller monitor and/or a larger font size, the table contents look squeezed, but the legend creates a wide gap between the table and the images. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is good to just keep the legend on top. I don't think the white space The Rambling Man mentioned is really a problem. With that said, I am open to make any change to improve the layout of the page.—Chris! _ct 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a problem in IE7 (but I have no sympathy for IE7 users)... it may still be. I'll let you know tomorrow morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just peeked at the article in IE7 (eek!). With some display settings, the current version has a large area of white space between the bottom of the article text and the top of the table -- this extra space is due to the NBA Awards template (which I was mistakenly calling an infobox in my comments above). I actually thought it looked better in IE7 when the legend was above the table instead of to the right of the table, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing wrong so great job! -- K. Annoyomous24 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support All of my concerns have been resolved satisfactorily (albeit not ideally, but not all ideals are achievable). I see no reason not to support it. --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why is there {{col-start}}{{col-break|width=70%}} in front of the table? I wanted to remove it, but I want to know why it was there in the first place.--Crzycheetah 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why it is there either. So, I remove it.—Chris! _ct 23:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:03, 2 August 2008 [28].

---

List of Brigham Young University alumni

previous FLC (08:36, 17 July 2008)

This list didn't really get a fair look last FLC, as few editors commented. Thanks for your (re-)consideration! --Eustress (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:LAYOUT: "See also" goes before "References"
  • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think links to categories are usually placed in "See also"? People can click on the categories at the bottom to reach those.
  • Good point--fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Every time B.A., M.A., Ph.D., etc. is mentioned it doesn't need to be linked. Just link the first mention, otherwise the page is a sea of blue. Same goes for BYU and other links that are linked more than once, especially in the same section.
  • In our last FLC we were told to link them all since they are part of a sortable list. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, makes sense Gary King (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

question Does this univerity only have the graduates listed? If there are other graduates, why were they excluded? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but in the article's lead it explains that this list "includes notable graduates, non-graduate former students, and current students." --Eustress (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it a comlplete list of alumni? If alumni have been excluded why have they been excluded? Where does the notability crieria come from? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is a complete list of BYU's notable alumni. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is "What is the definition of 'notable' in this instance?" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For this context, I feel that "Notable" = "Having a wikipedia article" Bluap (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All notable alumni, as determined per Wikipedia's notable people guidelines, have been listed in order to ensure "a complete set of items [i.e., alumni] where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items" (FL criterion #3). The only place in the list where it seemed impractical to list a complete set was for Football alumni: BYU lists 146 alumni who have played professional football; the FLC includes 24 of them (which accounts for more alumni than any of the other subcategories in the list, and which were not subjectively chosen but were included because they already had articles—perhaps because these 24 alumni had done something more unique than simply playing in the pros, like winning a Super Bowl, being a Pro Bowler, or being a Head Coach). So I believe this criterion is covered in that all of the major items have been covered since it would be impractical to list them all. Such an exception is not only built into the FLC process but is also already apparent in current FLs. For example, List of Dartmouth College alumni#Football only lists 19 alumni while Dartmouth lists 39.

Hope this helps clarify. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article is about all "Brigham Young University alumni that meet wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion", the it should be called "Brigham Young University alumni that meet wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion" per WP:NAME. There is an OR problem here, you need an off wiki definition of notable, or it is just someone point of view of what is notable. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) We've had this argument before when List of Arsenal F.C. players was listed for demotion as incomplete. The demotion attempte failed and since then we've adjusted the FL criteria. In particular, number 3, the comprehensiveness criterion states "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries." - so once a scope is defined, and once we are certain the list contains everything within the scope, it meets the criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this list is "Brigham Young University alumni", is it not? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the title of the list - if the scope is better defined in the lead then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support Support Seems to be exhaustive, well-referenced, and consistent list with a substantial introduction and accompanying content. There seems to be booster-cruft ("best-selling", "acclaimed", "award-winning", "renowned") which always rubs me the wrong way because these terms (1) they convey no actual information and (2) are inappropriate in an encyclopedia which is clearly not a marketing brochure. These terms should be stripped out and more information provided on what they're specifically acclaimed for, what awards they won, etc. Full support once that is done. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch...I believe I have fixed the booster-cruft issues. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add that it unabashedly lists alumni that are quite anti-booster (is that a word?) Wrad (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Well-referenced, covers its defined scope very well, nice lead. All the little things were fixed in the last FLC. Wrad (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the look of it, in general, but would prefer that the explanation of what BYU is was in the first paragraph of the lead, not the last. I'd also prefer the term "notes" instead of "notability" for each table - "notability" sounds a little too Wikipedia-orientated. Bencherlite^Talk 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the BYU explanation in the lead accordingly. However, four of the five alumni FLs under WikiProject Universities display the word "Notability" for the brief bio blurb, so that might be personal preference (me, at least, preferring "notability"), but the majority of the WPU FLs use "notability" as well. If other editors preferred "notes", however, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to the change. Best --Eustress (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Support. Bencherlite^Talk 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks good. Well referenced, the couple of weasel words I saw a couple days ago isn't here anymore. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [29].

---

West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons

I am nominating this list for Featured List status as I believe it has reached the standard set by other featured football club seasons lists, as well as meeting the FLC criteria. --Jameboy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

• I would remove the brackets from the first sentence, and replace them with commas. If it's important enough to mention, it's important enough to do so without looking like an aside.
• I would change top-flight to top division. Top flight is probably jargon.
• Again, I'd remove the brackets around the lowest league position, and also replace Division 3 with Division Three and 7th with seventh. Probably best as "... recording their lowest ever league finish of seventh in Division Three in 1991–92."
• Remove the brackets again around the sharing of the charity shield.
• "The club was founded as West Bromwich Strollers in 1878 by workers from George Salter's Spring Works and turned professional in 1885." It's not exactly controversial but it made need a reference.
• "In the 1900–01 season, the club moved to its current home ground, The Hawthorns." Ditto to the above.

Everything else looks fine. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Think I've addressed everything above. Still not quite happy with the opening sentence and the self reference ("the list below") but getting there. --Jameboy (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't the Key be above the table so we know what everything is before we look at the table? Gary King (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point and one that I agree with. However given that existing seasons FLs seem to have the key at the bottom, I'd like to have some modicum of consensus before making the change. Do we have any guideline or policy on this? What are people's thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that a key should normally go above the table, but the problem is that the key on these lists is huge. The aggravation to the reader who actually wants to read the key, of having to click on Key in the table of contents and then to click on the Back button to get back, is in my view much less than the aggravation caused to the general reader, who generally doesn't, of being confronted with so much key to scroll past before they get to the table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The key is still much smaller than the list, and helps to prep the reader for what the table contains. I'd rather scroll by the key and then read the table rather than read the table then realize that the key is at the bottom. I don't usually look at the table of contents; I just scroll and see what there actually is in the content. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Quick question - how did the club come to win the league title and Charity Shield in the same season (1919-20)? Surely they would have been in the following season's Shield after winning the title.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The match took place on 15 May 1920, which would be the end of the 1919–20 season. I can see how this would probably appear strange to those familiar with it as the "traditional curtain raiser". I'll do some digging around (as I'm not sure if this was a one-off or if it was always at the end of the season in those days) and add an explanatory footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, see here [30] for evidence that the shield was played at the end of the season during the early days. I have expanded the Charity Shield footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Please avoid starting the list with "This is a list of..." we're trying to be more imaginative and compelling now.

Really? :-P OK, I've changed it - it's better but still not brilliant. I'll give it some more thought tomorrow. I'm struggling with the self-referencing aspect somewhat. Can you clarify this for me? Can we mention the list at all, and if not, how do we introduce it without mentioning it? Are there any really good FLs that you could recommend as examples to draw inspiration from in this regard? --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Caption appears to be the only place where you do year ranges by XXXX–XXXY instead of XXXX–XY. I'd be consistent.

Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "In Europe, Albion" - perhaps expand a touch, maybe European competitions? Just for the non-expert.

Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Aren't [23] and [24] specific references rather than footnotes?

Yeah fair point, although I'm not sure how best to separate them as I've always lumped them together before now. Should I create a footnotes section similar to that in Norwich City F.C. and then split the references into specific and general?

OK, now done. Footnotes section contains only footnotes. References section divided into General and Specific references. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • For the sake of consistency, link Ipswich Town in the footnote about Kevan.

Ipswich Town don't deserve a link! Oh alright then, done. --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead. In the first sentence, perhaps link 'English' and 'European' to something helpful.

'English' now linked to Football in England. Strangely, I couldn't find a similar general article on European football to link 'European' to. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• In "first team competitions", think first team should be hyphenated.

Think you're right - a very quick Google Search seemed to show the hyphen being used by the more reliable sources and no hyphen by the unofficial/fan sites, generally speaking. Fixed. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• You don't actually say explicitly that the list is supposed to include only completed seasons, which presumably is the case for stability reasons?

That is the reason, indeed. I've added a hidden comment to the bottom of the list, advising would-be editors not to add stats while the current season is still in progress. I'm thinking about the best way to phrase the lead so that this list criterion is clear. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to Matthews, BCFC Encyclopedia (ISBN 978-0-9539288-0-4), and Tony Jordan, the Birmingham Senior Cup admitted reserve sides from 1905-06, not 06-07. Only mentioned this in case yours was a typo, on the basis there's no reason why my Matthews reference should be more reliable than yours :)

Matthews (1987) p202 says "...in 1906-07 the Birmingham FA decreed that local clubs could field their reserve sides in the Birmingham Cup."

Matthews (1987) p205 says "In 1906-07 the Staffordshire FA decreed that reserve teams could take part [in the Staffordshire Cup]"

Possibly a typo or misprint at source? Not sure what to suggest. --Jameboy (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Table. Would the goalscorer column look tidier left-aligned?

Yes it would. Have now done so. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Repeated links of the same goalscorer. I know overlinking should be avoided in prose, but I think a long list like this is different. The reader shouldn't be expected to chase up and down looking for the single linked occurrence. Especially as you have repeatedly linked names of cup competitions.

Now that you've pointed out the discrepancy, I've actually linked less of the competitions, only repeating the links where they are relatively distant (as advised by WP:MOSLINK). I'm also looking into increasing the linking to the divisons, as this column is arguably underlinked. With the goalscorers, I think W. G. Richardson has the greatest spread, something like seven or eight rows, which is the equivalent to a decent sized paragraph, so not really much chasing up and down required. It's tricky knowing where to draw the line though, as with lists there is often a lot more repetition of linkable terms than in articles. Could almost do with a WP:MOSLINKLISTS or whatever, assuming something like that doesn't exist already. Couldn't find anything in WP:STAND about link frequency. --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notes and references. Consider separating the footnotes from the references as done on Bradford City A.F.C. seasons, using {{ref label}} and {{note}}/{{note label}}. This also allows footnotes to be referenced without the source information getting tangled up with the note. Then you could divide the References section into general and specific.

Done. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• And one or two notes could do with inline refs, #10, #11, #16. And #16, League Cup started in 1961 but Albion didn't join in until 1965 begs the question "why not?", perhaps just add something like "like a number of First Division clubs" and a reference.

Done. Can't find the reason they didn't enter from the start, but have footnoted the (probable) reason they did finally enter in 1965-66. --Jameboy (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do you use FCHD as a source to anything in the list? if so, it should go in with the other general refs. Either way, I'd credit Mr Rundle by including him in the publisher param :)

I'd already checked all the stats up to 2002 against the McOwan 2002 and Matthews 2007 books. From 2002 I checked against Matthews and soccerbase. So the FCHD was really an afterthought and I haven't verified all the stats against it. If I do so in the future I'll move it into the References section. Have added the publisher param as you suggested though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you add |Seasons into Category:West Bromwich Albion F.C., it will sort more usefully under S on the category page rather than under W.

Good point. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• Local cups. Leave as is, on the basis you have a reliable source; or change it to since the 1900s. Either would be acceptable.

I've gone for 1900s. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Now you've gone to a separate notes section, it would be easy to add sources for those notes mentioned above, which could do with them, now notes F (the RSSSF page you cited in response to Chris above would be good), G and L. And any others you think might benefit from a specific source.

I already did that :) [F][5], [G][6], [L][7]. Is that how you envisaged it? Or did you mean put the reference actually within the footnote? --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see now. Didn't realise it was possible to reference a footnote like that. I'm learning every day. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note O should be third rather than 3rd place play-off.

Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd put the general refs back to normal font size.

Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've left a suggestion about the lead on your talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead per your comments. Reads much better now IMO. Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Satisfies the criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I am happy that this meets the criteria and is of a similar standard to existing "seasons" FLs. And what a shame it is that we don't have top-flight players with names like "Chippy" Simmons any more :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [31].

---

List of Nickelback awards

Gary King (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support P.S.: Nickelback Rocks! Annoyomous24 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Can we avoid the "This is a list of" intros (here and on your other nominations where applicable) please? We can use some imagination now!
  • First para seems to be about their releases while this article is about their awards. I know some context is useful but I'd imagine most of that first para would be in the lead of the discog.
  • Any chance of references we can check for 1-4, 8, 9, 11 and 14? I know paper references are perfectly acceptable but with a list about a modern band I'd have thought reliable references can be found on the web?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. Yeah, it is somewhat discography-related information, but I think it helps to give a background as to which albums, singles etc. the band had success with, since those are often the ones that receive awards. As for the references, I will look around, but for musicians, I find it's easier (and the sources more useful) to find references offline from music magazines and such, which do not always have online mirrors. Gary King (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [32].

---

Queens of the Stone Age discography

Nomiated again. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a novel way to do some canvassing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Cannibaloki 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

• Comments:
  • Remove the link to Gamma Ray; (DONE)
  • The references on certifications are just for search data, then you should explain to the reader how it should proceed to look for results; (DONE)
    • See Garbage discography;
  • In the CRIA website there is nothing written about GOLD for Era Vulgaris. Then remove it; (DONE)
  • Change the area of 4em to 3em on the singles table, that's very deformed. (DONE)
  • Other appearances table all albums have the same reference, then leave only a reference to the side of Song [28], since it does not need to repeat them. (DONE)
  • Remove the links to yyyy in music; (DONE)

Cannibaloki 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Other appearances should list original material not released on any QOTSA albums singles etc. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that include unreleased tracks not present on any released CD? As there was a huge list of them which was deleted a week or so ago. Red157(talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't released then it isn't discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image could use an informative caption.(DONE)
  • The E of Extended play can just be e. It's not a proper noun.(DONE)
  • You use ref 1 8 times in a row in the lead. This is overeferencing in the extreme. One per para if you're 100% sure everything in each para is cited in the reference.(DONE)
  • "Queens of the Stone Age found itself amidst the sudden popularity and attention" poor grammar and somewhat peacock.(DONE)
  • " The band's next album was Lullabies to Paralyze, released in 2005, peaked at number five on the Billboard 200 and launched several successful singles, including "Little Sister" and "In My Head"." copyedit please.(DONE)
  • "emulate the precedent " what precedent? It's not clear.(DONE)
  • Ref 1 has incorrect title. And it doesn't back up most of the claims in the lead (like the precedent comment, "Kyuss/Queens of the Stone Age EP in 1997.[1]" , Interscope isn't mentioned in this article at all, Rated R first album to chart isn't mentioned at all, "new level of commercial success", "popularity and attention" not mentioned at all in the ref)(DONE)
  • Ref 1 also refers to the label as Loosegroove, not Loose Groove.(DONE)
  • Ref 2 does not have any singles information at all so you can't use it for the Singles table.(DONE)
  • Ref 3 does not have any singles information at all so you can't use it for the Singles table.(DONE)
  • In fact, refs 4 to 9 and 12 to 18 are album charts only so you can't use them to references the singles.(DONE)
  • Ref 16 has a typo.(DONE)
  • Burn One Up isn't in ref 32, The Hard + the Heavy, Vol. 1 is in ref 32 but not in this list.(DONE)
  • In fact, ref 32 and your table using ref 32 only don't match up at all really.(DONE)
  • Ref 27 does not have any director information whatsoever.(DONE)
• Please ensure you have checked all references are accurate and correctly defined. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the referencing issues were ones Be Black Hole Sun had on the Mark Lanegan discography as well. Trying to fix them... Red157(talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I prefer people to not nominate many of the same type of list at once, the same problems exist across them all. Good luck with the fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• When you say (DONE) please make sure you really have done it. I'll give you one example - where is "The Hard + the Heavy, vol 1" in your list? I will not chase all the other issues, but right now this list will not be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs 30 and 31 point to the same URL. So does 35. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"didn't sell as much as its predecessor." prove it, and don't use contractions - "did not"... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard and the Heavy was 1999, not 1997 according to your source. Why is "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows [Soundtrack] " in the reference but not in the list? Check all the relevant entries in the reference are also included in this list. This list is currently incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Added two reliable sources. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 32 = Ref 36. Other appearances still is not the same as the reference, there are works missing. Fix the year for Hard and the Heavy (second time I've asked). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Loose Groove " in the lead - the refs called it "Loosegroove" The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it, all the missing other appearances and the other stuff. I'm sure of it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments carefully. Ref 32 is the same as Ref 36. You need to check that you have fixed every one of the issues I've told you before you tell me you've done them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Sometimes i suprise myself. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"In 2007, the band released its fifth studio album, Era Vulgaris which, the album sold more copies then its predecessor in the United States and sold approximately 149,000 copies worldwide in its first week, while Lullabies to Paralyze sold approximately 97,000 in its first week.[3]" - not English - copyedit please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"released Era Vulgaris the album sold more approximately 149,000 copies " is not much better. Please get a native English speaker to copyedit it for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried one more time, if it doesn't work i'll get an english user okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still missing punctuation and, more importantly, missing the point that it more successful than the previous album. But was the most successful of their career? I know the figures are there but without some kind of context they are a little bland. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And really, saying " fifth effort " isn't wise - they've had plenty more efforts than that, state the fact, it was their fifth studio album. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now changed it to fifth studio effort if its okay and added more about the Era Vulgaris chart positions. Another thing whats does punctuation mean, never in my life heard that word.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Read punctuation. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support As one of the editors who brought Era Vulgaris to GA, I feel qualified to say that this article is both comprehensive and accurate in its listings of releases. One minor suggestion is to include the track names in the "Other appearances" section, as the tracks are common knowledge. Regards, Skomorokh 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Skomorokh. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [33].

---

Nile discography

After few days of work, I think this discography is ready to be a FL. Cannibaloki 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Nice. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cannibaloki 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • " along with Chris Lollis since 2007" - no, you've already said "As of 2008, " so this becomes a bit too much.
  • Check you're not using en-dash where hyphen should be used, e.g. self-titled is correct, self–titled is not etc..
  • "seminal classical work" - POV - just stick with "classical work"
  • " In 1997 "Ramses" demo " presumably Ramses should be in italics without quotes here?
  • "Relapse Records was responsible for Nile's debut studio album " incorrect. They may have paid for it but the band and the studio were responsible... reword.
  • "After a extensive touring due to large success of first album" - nowhere close to English.
  • "released on same year" ditto.
  • "In mid 2004 guitarist Karl Sanders, working and his solo album entitled Saurian Meditation. It was released on October through Relapse Records. In 2005 Nile released the fourth studio album Annihilation of the Wicked, that debuted on Swedish charts at number 27. In 2007 they released Ithyphallic, the most sucessfull effort debuting on Billboard charts at number 162." - just not English - suggest you get a copyeditor to sort this all out - at least half a dozen problems here alone.
  • "two of their rare previous releases" - rare? Context?
  • "the first three music videos." - which "first three"?
  • "digital only" - hyphenate.
  • What makes Zobbel a WP:RS?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Doing... Starting the pilgrimage in search of a copy editor. Cannibaloki 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Cannibaloki 14:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The order of sections in the infobox should match the order of sections in the article.
• I've never seen any other page lay out the sections the way this one does. Check out WP:LAYOUT and WP:BETTER#Layout, or ask at the talk pages to make sure this is okay. It just looks really odd to me.
• Try to link to discography in the Lede somehow. You could do it by giving an overview at the beginning of the second paragraph in the LS: The discography of Nile consists of # studio albums, # compilations, etc etc.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done thank you for advice... Cannibaloki 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments II
  • None of the lead is cited, e.g. where the band are from, who the members are, " After extensive touring to support ..." etc.
  • The lead doesn't mention the single Papyrus. And the list doesn't mention how it charted.
    • This single didn't any chart;
  • "Chris Lollis playing bass, vocals in live performances" reads strangely to me - do you mean he always plays bass and then vocals in live performances, or do you mean he only plays in live performances, both bass and vocals?
    • I think it's supposed to say that he is only part of the group in live performances, playing both bass and vocals. Additionally, the "along" is unnecessary. Simply "with" would suffice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "the most successful effort " why not "their most successful album..."?
  • Also not sure about the easter egg-style link to the Mars ogg file. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done "...easter egg-style..." —hahaha!!! Cannibaloki 16:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [34].

---

List of Slipknot band members

I am nominating the for featured list status because I believe it's comprehensive in it's coverage and is well sourced and accurate and I believe it meets all the criteria of a featured list. REZTER ^TALK ø 06:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks great to me. But my main concern is with the prose. Most of it needs a thorough copyedit for misspellings, grammar, and run-on sentences. I did a quick one myself in the lead, but it still needs alot of work throughout. Also, what do the black lines in the timeline denote? I think they need a legend. Drewcifer (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

They are to represent the bands' releases, they should be labelled but the legend isn't showing it and I'm not sure why, maybe because there are too many labels to fit in the small image. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

After some experimenting I think the best thing to do is to add another image for the legend, my proposal is at my sandbox. If you think this is OK I will add it. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if somebody can highlight the problems you mention with the prose then we can fix them. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I like what I see in your sandbox, go for it! Like a said above, the prose needs a copyedit based on spelling (it's vs its for example), grammar, and run on sentences. I'd highly recommend asking someone uninvolved to help you out, since a pair of fresh eyes will do the list alot of good. Also, I just realized that the list should be renamed to "List of Slipknot members" per list naming conventions. Drewcifer (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I have added the additional timeline legend. Is there anywhere specifically I can request for help with the copyeditting? And regarding the moving of the page, I'm OK with it, I'm just unsure of how we would do that. REZTER ^TALK ø 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Move the page by hitting the Move button at the top of the page, next to History :) Gary King (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was done five days ago by Drewcifer. REZTER ^TALK ø 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The language is much better, but with a quick search I found a few typos and a little bit of poor grammar. Unfortunately I don't have time to help long-term, so I'll regretfully abstain. Good luck though. Drewcifer (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see the second paragraph in the lead split up as it's pretty ginormous.
• "band, his replacement " needs either a semicolon or a conjunction
• "Shortly after this" – either "Shortly after" or "Shortly after this change"
• "Jones fitted the" – "Jones fit the"
• "couldn't provide" – "could not provide"
• I definitely agree with Drewcifer that the article needs a thorough copyedit, per what I found above. The contraction was particularly troubling as those are easy to find and resolve.

Gary King (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• All done. I have made several other revisions to the intro, but any other comments are welcome. Blackngold29 04:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• How is the list of members ordered? It's not by number (which is how it is in the template at the bottom of the page), it's not alphabetically, and it's not by the year they became a band member
  • They are ordered as such; vocalist, guitarists, bassist, drummer, additional percussion, electronics. They can obviously be reordered if you think there's a more adequate order. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Prose issues:
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Joey Jordison was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a drummer." They were all drummers?
    • For every one of the original members should it list what each of them did? REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but the use of "alongside" with a list of people infers that they were all drummers. Each of the sentences that do this should be re-written for clarity. It's fine to say that he's a drummer, but not to have people think that they're all drummers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I have removed all of the "as a (instrument)", it's mentioned just above there and is kind of unnecessary. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison and Paul Gray, Shawn Crahan was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a percussionist and backup vocalist." They were all percussionists and backup vocalists?
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison and Shawn Crahan, Paul Gray was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a bass guitarist and backup vocalist." They were all bass guitarists?
  • "He replaced the spot left on guitar" he should use some furniture polish on that
    • Ahaha I like your humour, changed. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Taylor was recruited from fellow local band Stone Sour in 1997, the band's music required more melodic singing" should be a semi-colon, I think, and then "the band's" is confusing - which band do you refer to?
    • Fixed. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...vocalist Anders Colsefini struggled to accomplish." I understand that current members come before previous members, so Colsefini won't be listed before Taylor, so how about a Self link
    • I'm not sure a self link is appropriate, the changes were mentioned chronologically in the intro and the prose for each member is just an extension of that information. This is a list not an article. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Shortly after Jones entered the band as a guitarist" -- who is Jones? Self link again, I think. And why give his surname only, whereas in the previous entry, you give Anders Colsefini's full name
    • I gave his full name but not a self link. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "He replaced the spot left on guitar since Brainard's departure" Who?
    • Fixed. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Donnie Steele was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a guitarist." Were they all guitarists?
  • "Alongside Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as lead vocalist and percussionist." Were they all etc etc?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• You should explain what the numbers mean. I think someone unfamiliar with the band won't know that each member is given a number, and without mentioning it in the article, it looks a bit WP:OR
  • It is explaiend in the main Slipknot article, does this list really need it? I mean what do you propose, that theres a new section of prose about them? A mention in the lead? REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • A one or two sentence mention of it wouldn't hurt, would it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
      • OK I added a sentence in the lead. REZTER ^TALK ø

• Comments
  • Image in the lead is really dark, no better ones available?
    • I uploaded a brighter image. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "metal band " in lead probably should be linked to the relevant genre otherwise you could be referring to a wedding ring.
    • Done
  • "which peaked and has since remained at nine members" doesn't make sense.
    • Reworded
  • Ought to link "sampler" and "turntablist" really since they're quite specialist terms.
    • Done
  • "the band realized" collective consciousness? Reword.
    • Done. I double checked and it was Joey Jordison who came up with the idea... reworded. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Jones fit the position as " fitted?
    • Gary King disagrees above
  • "the band decided a new vocalist was needed" again, collective consciousness working?
    • Reworded. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "could not provide vocal melody which the band considered integral to the material they were writing. " needs reference.
    • Done. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Wanting to retain their percussive edge, Greg Welts joined the band as Colsefini's replacement." how does the second clause logically follow the first here? It's not clear.
    • They wanted to remain strong in the percussion area, so they replaced the drummer who left.
  • "In 1998, Welts became the only member who was asked to leave " try "who has been asked to leave"...
    • Done
  • "have the vocalists trade-off, " jargon.
    • Done
  • "Jim Root" then you call him "James Root" - be consistent.
    • Done - Keeping it "Jim"
  • "Mick Thomson was brought ..." just "Thomson was brought ..." is fine - this goes for all other entries, no need to repeat the first name.
    • Done
  • What particular order are the members in? It's not alpahebtical, not chronlogical, not numerical - is it just random?
    • As Rezter said above: "They are ordered as such; vocalist, guitarists, bassist, drummer, additional percussion, electronics. They can obviously be reordered if you think there's a more adequate order."
  • "head butted " needs to be hyphenated.
    • Done
  • "1997-1998 " needs en-dash.
    • Done
  • "realised " if this is US-English then surely it should be "realized"?
    • Done
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan..." boring repeat of the line-up time-after-time. Just say "Member of original line-up" (or similar).
    • Done REZTER ^TALK ø 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Page ranges need en-dash.
    • I'm unclear what you mean by this, can you elaborate? REZTER ^TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Like the references with page x–y. Blackngold29 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• A lot more work to do, 3 days overdue and currently no supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe no supports, but all comments addressed and each reviewer has been notified on their talk page, that's all we can do. Drewcifer appears to be on a Wikibreak, but I have just left a quick reminder to him, Gary King, and Matthewedwards. Blackngold29 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Much improvement since the nomination opened. All my concerns have been resolved, and it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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