Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/August 2008

List of Assyrian kings

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

first FLC (15:51, February 9, 2007)

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 09:24, 25 August 2008 [1].

---

List of Brotherhood episodes

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

I'm resubmitting this. All previous objections have been addressed but no one voted. I'd hate to see the list, which I think qualifies for FL status, miss its promotion simply because no one cared to have a look at it.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support vastly improved since the last time I read it. Seems to fulfil the criteria. Good job.--Opark 77 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.dvdtalk.com/
  • http://www.ugo.com/

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool.

They're both professional, reputable sites with edited content.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here's some stuff:
  • http://www.dvdtalk.com/welcome.html - "about us" information for DVD talk
  • http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/static/corporate.asp - and for UGO
  • http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/07/ugo-networks-fi.html - article about UGO being bought by Hearst, which means they now back the site
  • http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/11821581.html - article in the Star Tribune recommending DVD talk as a reliable source

Hope that helps.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:53, 24 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 09:24, 25 August 2008 [2].

---

National Basketball Association awards

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

I am re-co-nominating this article with Chrishomingtang because we still believe that this article is ready for this promotion. The reason why this article lacks pictures is because we both cannot find any that we can use that isn't non-free content. I am also re-nominating this article because of the lack of comments on the last one and I hope that more of the FLC reviewers will look more into this FLC. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

• There are several years which aren't linked at their first occurrence. For example, 1947 is in the lead but not linked until the "History" section. 1949 is not linked at all. Neither is 1975

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• "First awarded in the 1956," - remove the.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• "first awarded in the inaugural NBA Finals in 1947." - first awarded after the Finals; it's not awarded during the game.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the trophy was not named the Walter Brown trophy until 1964, then it should not be referred to as such at the beginning of the paragraph. Did it have another name before that (e.g., NBA Championship Trophy, etc.)?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The only individual award in the NBA Finals is the Finals Most Valuable Player" - follow by a comma.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Center the numbers in the "Created" column of the second table to match the first table.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Change the link on "commissioner" so that it links to the section of the article on commissioners in sports; otherwise, the link doesn't make much sense.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• New comment: References for awards should go to league-independent sources if at all possible, to pass the independent sources requirement of WP:N.

Check if the one I put on works. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly does, it was the one I was hoping for. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

• "the Most Valuable Player is presented to the most valuable player of the regular NBA season." - you use the term "MVP" (abbreviation mine) to define itself. Can you expand on what MVP means in the definition? Also, it should the Most Valuable Player award.
  • I think the readers will understand what most valuable player means so does it really need a brief definition?
    • A) I think it would be better to have a definition than a recursive definition; B) You have to remember that a list, and especially one that's going to be featured, should cover topics so that someone who knows nothing about basketball would not be confused by anything within it. For those reasons, yes, I believe that it does. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but is there any reason that it's not referred to by its official name? I just checked the ref and the award's official name is apparently the "Maurice Podoloff Trophy". That should at least be mentioned. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Added —Chris! _ct 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Why is the first table sortable? there are only two(!) items.

Done —Chris! _ct 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Why do we need the See also section here? All necessary links are already in the templates.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the section with this link since it is not in the template.—Chris! _ct 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is that link important? If that link is really that important, why isn't it listed in the template? --Crzycheetah 20:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will remove it.—Chris! _ct 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Reference → References

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 06:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support--Crzycheetah 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The following deadlinked:
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveofyear.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_finalsmvp.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_executiveofyear.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_sixthmanofyear.html

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed —Chris! _ct 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I know it's a little late in the day but I think I'd prefer to see the lead expanded and, possibly, subsume the History section. If this (as I suspect) is going to form the primary article in a Featured Topic then I think it ought to be downright amazing, rather than simply excellent and expanding the lead would help that enormously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to merge the history section with the lead. Is that right?—Chris! _ct 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the lead is very brief indeed. I was thinking that you could merge the history section with the lead but do it well... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. What do you think?—Chris! _ct 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I just need to understand what note [A] means and I think I'm done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is used to explain the voting system of that particular award.—Chris! _ct 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being dense perhaps but what do you mean by the "tenth" vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The award is usually determined by nine vote. but in at least one final, fans votes are counted as the "tenth" vote.—Chris! _ct 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, can you reflect this in the note so I don't have to ask the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did. What do you think?—Chris! _ct 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Top drawer. I'll sleep on it (tired) and no doubt it'll see success shortly...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. —Chris! _ct 19:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great work on this list; I can't imagine it being put together better. Hello32020 (talk) 03:39, 25 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 07:18, 22 August 2008 [3].

---

Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

Alright, let's try this again. It failed a couple days ago, due to a lack of support, despite having the majority of the issues addressed. Now that the article's polished up from the last FLC, I'm hoping this will be easy. In any event, thanks for the reviews! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - I meant for my last !vote to be a Support once you had addressed my concerns, but I suppose I should have been more explicit. I know voting without proposing actionable suggestions is generally not given much weight, but your last FLC addressed all of my suggestions. Brilliant article. Plasticup ^T/C 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found this by typing in the direct address. I think that you forgot to list is on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Plasticup ^T/C 12:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, I could have sworn I added it. Oh well, done now. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - your lead says the season ended Nov 30 but the list says the season ended Dec 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This tends to be a little confusing. You see, the National Hurricane Center designates the Atlantic hurricane season to officially begin on June 1 and officially end on November 30. That is the period when most tropical cyclones form in the basin. However, it is not unprecedented for storms to occur outside of those dates, similar to the way snow can fall before or after the winter months. Hope that clears it up some. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that I think but the wording in the list contradicts itself directly so it's a source of confusion. The Dec 3 entry reads "ending the season" while the lead says "season, which officially began on June 1, 2004, and lasted until November 30" - perhaps it needs a footnote or something to avoid this confusion. Also, Charley and Danielle are bold once each, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Boldings removed. I must have missed them when removing the others. Also, I reworded the list to specify that November 30 was the last storm of the season, not the official end. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Super job, thanks. Final question, might have asked it already - why not use the {{convert}} template for guaranteed consistent conversion and non-breaking spaces per the MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • • As wind speeds in storm reports are most often rounded to the nearest five mph, using {{convert}} would give a specific, non-rounded conversion. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Have you looked at using sigfig in the template? You could round to the nearest 10 kph for 323 kph->320kph by using sigfig=2? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm terrible with templates, so I can't seem to figure out how to work that parameter, but I'll continue to tinker with it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • That template would not be precise enough. The original sources have a resolution of 5 kph/mph/kt, so using convert, even with sigfig=2, modifies the value of the conversion away from the original source. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • I thought since the original sources would all be imperial (being US-sourced), then they'd all be in mph. I've checked quite a few and they're all that way. Converting to kph doesn't need to be to the nearest 5kph, what's the logic behind that? 1mph is nearly 2kph so if you were really keen to make a logical rounding, kph should be rounded to the nearest 10kph. But frankly I'm not sure why the rounding of the converted unit needs to take place at all. Right now you have arguably incorrect conversions through an arbitrary rounding. And in the list there currently exists " 45 mph (72 km/h)" which isn't resolved to 5kph either...You also have "240 miles (390 km)" where 240 miles is 386km (so rounded to the nearest 10km?). Are there cut-off points which I'm unaware of where you round to nearest 1, 5, 10 etc? Can someone advise? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • Yes. Maximum sustained windspeed measurements and position fixes are provided by the source material by using the original value in knots, rounding it to mph and km/h, and then rounding up all the values to the nearest 5 or 0. This is due to the resolution of the grid used by the National Hurricane Center and other Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres in tropical cyclone forecasting. There are other measurements, like recorded peak gusts at measurement stations, that can be converted to the nearest unit because these measurements have a higher resolution than the position and max winds measurements. Essentially, we follow whatever value the source uses, and we don't see a problem with rounding up or down manually. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well whoever "we" are, your rounding is not explained clearly and is inconsistent. It appears that numbers below 100 (?) are rounded to the nearest unit. Rounding to the nearest 5 or 0 seems to occur at an arbitrary point too. Your sources here appear in mph to the nearest 5mph, it doesn't mean the converted values have to follow any such rule - it just compounds the error. What's wrong with the {{convert}} template which provides consistently correct answers to a definable sig fig? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We = WP:WPTC. Again, whatever rounded value is used by sources operationally (like this source for a current storm) is what we tend to use. Note the in the link, the NHC says that 40 mi = 65 km/h, while with convert, it would be 64 km/h. {{convert}} is unnecessary, and would introduce deviation from sources; I would object to this article being promoted if the template were used for this purpose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, the penny has finally dropped! In that case, may I suggest a footnote which says all conversions are as per the source information? That way we all win - you can avoid using the template and I can shut up about the dodgy conversions! Is that a deal or is that a deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about the text I just put there? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll shut up now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments 1) the first thing that lept out at me when i looked at this article was that the season begining and end are not marked in the prose where as on the 2005 Atlantic timeline they are marked within the prose 2) Referencing - There is only one dates that does not have a reference on it which is August 3rd Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since my comments have now been Resolved i Support the nomination Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - reference #1 (HURDAT) is missing an access date, and links to page that doesn't reference either a) the number of storms in the season, or b) the definition of a major hurricane. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ugh, the problem with that reference is that it will be broken next year. I guess if you keep an eye on it, it shouldn't be a problem. I still don't like the second paragraph of the lede that much, but I think it is clearer than the version in the first nomination. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:13, 12 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.

List of Stars awards

previous FLC (00:28, 11 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:55, 9 August 2008 [4].

---

List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni

I would like to submit this list of notable graduates of the USAF TPS, created in the same style as List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima. The list has many wikilinks on each line which is not in keeping with MOS, but it seems popular with lists of people, perhaps because each person in the list is unique and not necessarily related to the others. Having wikilinks on each line does allow a reader who is interested in a particular person to more easily access an element in that person's life rather than hunt through the list for the previous wikilink, although at the expense of potential distraction. I am curious to read the opinion of the reviewers on this issue. Skeet Shooter (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good but I do have a couple suggestions.

1. Create articles for th persons listed with red links.

• Agreed. I will start working on them though WP:WIAFL does allow a minimal portion of red links. Skeet Shooter (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Working on article for Richard Lawyer, but fixing all four red links will take some time. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Finished article on Richard E. Lawyer Skeet Shooter (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Is this a complete list of notable alumni and what makes them notable?

• I think so, but it depends on how one interprets WP:BIO. All the astronauts and four star generals are included, but there are a number of two and three star generals (who don't currently have Wiki biographies) I think could be added. There are also a few who received professional awards (but don't currently have Wiki bios) that should probably be included. I plan to work on these although they may not be notable enough for Wiki. Skeet Shooter (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Some of the list rows have refeences and some don't, recommend adding inline citations for the rest.

• Per WP:CITE, I added references to items that were likely to be challenged. The individual articles on the astronauts and generals are well documented so I didn't provide separate citations for them in the list. The articles on flight test pioneers varied a great deal—some were stubs or had "citation needed" tags. These are the ones for which I included separate references in the list. I can add references to all the list members, but it seemed unnecessary when access to the reference is available by clicking on the person's article. Thank you for your comments! Skeet Shooter (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Does a list need to stand alone with respect to references/citations or is it acceptable to wikilink to the article which provides the detailed references/citations? Standing alone is good in a sense, but it seems to needlessly duplicate info which is bad from an article maintenance standpoint. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

--Kumioko (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Military leader criteria for inclusion unclear and not stated in article. Articles mentions that they encourage foreign students - but none are included in the list. Aren't any of them notable? Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Response: Criteria for all sections based on WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#NOTE, and I will add this. I included all the TPS four-star generals, and two colonels who were notable for actions other than flight test. Should I break this section into two? I think there are several lower-ranking generals that might be included, but I decided not add them until I could create Wiki biographies for them. Surprisingly, I've had no luck finding notable foreign students. Skeet Shooter (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done (updated list to reflect WP:BIO and WP:MILMOS#NOTE use in selection of notable alumni. Does this address your concerns? Thanks.) Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• After reviewing WP:LISTV, I think inclusion in this list is based on two areas: a) graduating from the TPS, which is reliably verified by the TPS book in the references (and less reliably by the Wiki articles of the subjects); and b) notability, which is verified by WP:MILMOS#NOTE and the fact that all subjects but four have Wiki articles. Perhaps I am just not understanding the issue. Help please... Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the mention of the criteria is good (although I think the criteria is much looser in fact than the way you are actually applying it here - so others may want to add more names under those criteria.) Rmhermen (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There are a number of names I would like to add, but I thought it appropriate to create articles for these individuals first rather than putting too many "red links" in the list. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

New comment: This line has difficulties: "Many TPS graduates were selected for the U.S. space program and others earned astronaut's wings by flying in the X-15, Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle programs". Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle programs are part of the U.S. space program, not of "others". Either "others" should be removed as X-15 was a U.S. space program (It doesn't say a NASA program) or "Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle programs" should be removed (less correct). The only other possibility I can imagine is that a TPS graduate flew only in the Russian space program but I don't know if there are any examples of that - and the sentence doesn't mention that. Rmhermen (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Done. The intent was to show that a group of astronaut-trained TPS grads were selected for the space program and a subset of that group went on to earn astronaut wings by flying in space. I have rephrased the sentences to reflect that. Thanks. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments I always like the ones I can relate to.. Edwards AFB is just up the road from me.

I really enjoyed the time I lived at EAFB years ago and southern California is still a very nice place (San Diego is home now). Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Lancaster. San Diego would be nicer! :) Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think you should say where the Test Pilot School is, and provide some background information about Edwards (the base, not the man). It's rather important, for example, that there is only one School in the entire nation

 Done. But don't forget the United States Naval Test Pilot School in Maryland. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that. Perhaps it could be mentioned that there is a test pilot school for the navy?

• You could wikilink Edwards Air Force Base in the image caption

 Not done. Since I had already wikilinked EAFB when I addressed your first comment. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't force bold text. notable alumni isn't necessary

 Done. I thought bold in first sentence was per WP:MOS, but does your comment indicate the text isn't the full name of the article? Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. The bold text would be The United States Air Force Test Pilot School alumni, which would mean recasting the first sentence and removing the wikilink. Per WP:BOLDTITLE, the bold part shouldn't be linked, and if only part of is bolded, or the bold parts are separated by wikilinks or plain text, then the bold title is forced. If it doesn't come naturally, it doesn't have to be bolded.

• On its first use, use "United States" instead of U.S., so the link would be United States Air Force Test Pilot School

 Done. But such a link goes to a redirect. Somewhere I thought I read that should be avoided, but I can't find the reference now. Skeet Shooter (talk)

But you should also use whole words rather than abbreviations on their first use. It's a bit of a balancing act. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Change the header from "Listed by claim to fame" to "List of alumni". Claim to fame borders on WP:WEASEL for me

 Done. I had borrowed this from List of United States Military Academy alumni but I agree your wording is better. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Make a subheading ===Key=== for the bit before the actual lists

 Done Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DASH – spaced endash

 Done Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of

    This along with the * (asterisk), indicates that the individual was killed in a work-related (aviation) accident.

  you can do

    *   Individual was killed in a work-related (aviation) accident.

  Small text should rarely be used due to WP:ACCESS, and "this along with this" isn't encyclopedic in tone

 Done Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mind having redlinks in the list. It encourages readers to create the missing articles, and just because no one has created a WP article yet, doesn't mean they're not notable.

Agreed. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't say "website" in the references, as in "Nova website" or "Air Force Link web site"

 Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ref [10] say "On date September 27, 1956" Is this when it was written?

Milestones in Aerospace History at Edwards AFB by Young is a PDF which has no page numbers. Instead, it lists events by dates, and September 27, 1956 is the date Mel Apt became the first to exceed Mach 3. I couldn't find how to properly reference a document that has no page numbers, but I wanted to provide some way for the reader to find the section on Mel Apt. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ref [14] has no page number

My intent was to provide a reference to show that Pete Everest was the subject and co-author of The Fastest Man Alive, so the reference pointed to the entire book (no page numbers). It does look a bit odd, especially since I couldn't find an ISBN number for the book. Please let me know if there is a preferred way to deal with this situation. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ref [3] uses "pages 3–4", but others use "p."

 Done. Replaced with "pp. 3–4" Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Try to use {{cite web}} and its equivalents
• If each entry is notable, each entry should have a reference
• If you do that, then I think a ref column would be a good addition

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More

• You could link to Mojave Desert, Southern California or Kern County, just to provide a little more context to readers.
• Could you change "CA" to "California" in the image caption, please?
• With regards to 60A, being the first class in 1960 - is this how the School has named its classes, or is it how you've put it together? If it's the latter, it's WP:OR. I'm just concerned because it's the only one without a reference.

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'd like to see (AFB) after Air Force Base so non-experts know what AFB is on subsequent use.
  • I think the lead could be expanded - WP:LEAD would suggest at least two paras.
  • "twenty-six " = 26
  • I would link NASA in the lead.
  • Because this doesn't contain all alumni, there ought to be a statement of scope.
  • Borman's caption shouldn't end with a full stop. MOS says if one complete sentence in a caption then all sentences, including fragments, should have full stops so check the other captions.
  • "First female pilot and first female commander of a Space Shuttle" reads a little odd, could be taken she was the first female pilot and then the first female commander of a space shuttle - i guess you mean she was the first female pilot and then commander of a space shuttle? Also her entry in the table doesn't mention her being the first female commander.
  • I don't like blank cells - perhaps civilian ranks could have an em-dash (with appropriate key) to indicate that they didn't have a rank.
  • James M. Taylor has no article, seems a shame, not even a stub if he's notable enough to be on this list? And the other two...
  • Oh, and rank - does that mean current rank or rank when they left their respective force? Perhaps some of these alumni are still employed and their rank could change?
  • What does "(Faith 7)" mean?
  • With lists which have two or more tables with identical columns, I'd prefer to see them made the same width from table to table.
  • "BGen. Robert Cardenas, USAF. YB-49 flying wing" - he wasn't a YB-49, presumably he was a test pilot for that platform?
  • Bong, is he best ace ever? I'm not sure. I think his picture is probably more appropriate here, as well.
  • With the heading "pioneers" - I'd definitely talk about this in the lead, what you mean by that and who's included.
  • Not clear why your first, third and fourth references are in bold.
  • Instead of "pages", "pp." will do.
  • What exactly is AWOH?
  • "pages 207-208." - "pp. 207–8"
  • "482 mph " convert this for our metric friends.
  • NASM should be expanded.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:08, 8 August 2008 [5].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

This is probably the most complicated of the Guitar Hero lists (due to the type of gameplay in the game, and the amount of downloadable songs) but it is consistent with the other GH lists (or more specifically, recent reformatting to clean this list has been used in the other GH lists so that they are consistent with each other). Note that the downloadable content section will continue to expand likely through the end of this year, but the format is set and not expected to be a problem when new tracks are added. --MASEM 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose because majornelson.com, Twitter, Joystiq, Kotaku, and wowwiki.com are not reliable sources. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:VG/S for more information on sources relating to video games. Major Nelson's blog is noted there. The author of the Twitter piece cited is a notable reliable source. Same for Joystiq and Kotaku. wowwiki is not used as a source in this list. —Giggy 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been able to remove or replace the twitter, wowwiki, joystiq, and kotaku reference links (ec with the above, some of those were easy to replace). However, on majornelson, Larry Hyrb is VP for Xbox Live material, so he has the dates and other information for releases on XBox Live. His "Major Nelson" blog is not done as part of his job, but on his own time. Thus, it is not the best source for certain types of information but is appropriate for release dates and contents of the various song packs on the service. Now, if these are still a problem, I should be able to replace them but I don't believe this to be absolutely needed. But if you feel they have to be, I'll do it. --MASEM 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No bold links in the lead please.
  • Can we refrain from starting lists with "The following is a list of "... use your imagination to come up with something more catchy?
  • "music video game " linked twice in two sentences.
  • Is " music video game video games" really necessary?
  • "To date, there " what date? As of July 2008, ...
  • "There are also four songs exclusive downloadable songs " doesn't make sense.
  • " One other downloadable song was only available for a limited time." for what platform(s)?
  • "These songs are arranged in eight sequential tiers based on their relative difficulty, and the player(s) must complete some or all of the songs in the tier (based on the career difficulty selected), including the Encore, to open up the next tier." tier is used three times (I think) in one sentence, makes for clunky reading.
  • "different Encore songs than " different from.
  • Avoid small text in the notes.
  • Order refs numerically unless there's a good reason not to do that.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A editor, in good faith, had jus changed the lead from the non-bold/non-"the following" approach, but that has been fixed; the other points mentioned in writing style have been corrected. I took out the small notes. However, I don't know what you mean on the numerically ordered references; the article uses standard WP referencing system , and yes, I see there's a few refs in the bonus song section that look out of order, but that's because its the same refs used earlier. Unless there's something else, then if you can explain where you see the problem so that I can try to fix it. --MASEM 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm talking about "Track Pack[17][15]" where I'd prefer to see "Track Pack[15][17]" please. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Aha, got it, and fixed. --MASEM 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "3 "Boss Battle" songs, 6 co-op career exclusive songs," MOS:NUM says to write out numbers under 10
• WP:ACCESS says not to use small fonts
• footnotes [a], [b], and [c] of the first table should ideally be in the same column

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Numbers have been spelled out, and notes a and b are moved (throughout the list where applicable). I will note that ACCESS doesn't say anything against using small fonts, just that one should not use the FONT tag or CSS (which was being used here and has been removed) to define them instead using SMALL/BIG to adjust sizes. I will note that without sizing, the 3rd table will likely be limited by the page width and may have some odd formatting for those with narrow windows. --MASEM 00:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm.. It used to. It's so that hard-of-sight users don't have to strain to read the screen. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I do note I took out the sizing here by any means, so it's all at normal font size. --MASEM 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Is 90% size for the font really going to cause anyone to strain their eyes? It was put in mostly to make the list look less dense and make the table more manageable in size. And I think 90% is reasonable to still having the text be readable at the same time. As for the footnotes A, B, C being in different columns - that is because the information they are supplementing or indicating notes for are relevant to those columns. The note about a song being re-recorded for GH3 was put in the Master Recording column because such an item directly impacts whether a song qualifies to be called a Master Recording vs. a Cover Version. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
          • It looked a lot smaller than 90%. And it made the reference letters almost invisible. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
            • I have a feeling it's browser dependent so it shouldn't be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:08, 8 August 2008 [6].

---

List of Bloc Party awards

I believe this is a suitable candidate. Thanks, WilliamH (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "made NME's Album" – italics for the magazine

 Done

• Link the albums, singles, band, etc. in the awards tables. Only link the first mention of each term.

 Done

• "Bloc Party - A Weekend in the City" – shouldn't this be only "Bloc Party" if it's for "Music Artist"? Also, if not, then the dash should at least be an en dash (–)

 Done en dash added. It might look a little abstract at face value..but that's what the GLAAD award ultimately is and naturally I can't alter that. Thanks for your response. WilliamH (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "This is a list of awards..." bleugh. I'd be much happier saying "Bloc Party are a ..." and then "The band have been nominated for, and won,... " - don't get obsessed with bold lead stuff.

 Done

• • "met each other by chance a year later " met each other again?

 Not done That would implicitly suggest they met each other deliberately following on from the first time they met. "by chance a year later" disambiguates that.

• • "got their break" - too informal.

 Done replaced the idiom with a noun ---> "received their breakthrough"

• • The article should be in Brit Eng so "labelling" should be used. "recognize and honor " should be "recognise and honour".

 Done

• • "The buzz generated off the back of the single" too informal again.

 Done buzz ---> interest

• • "a ceremony whose scale stunned the band." - can you quantify this "scale" please - what made it such a big deal?

 Done Elaborated: the gig's turnout and volume. WilliamH (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Does the bit about "Mercury", Zane Lowe and the new album add anything to this list? The discography sure, but not the awards. Unless it has won some already. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not - all I would argue is that it's merely a very succint comment on the band's current status quo. WilliamH (talk) 21:30, 5 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:56, 7 August 2008 [7].

---

Bryan Adams discography

Nominating it again. Skomorokh said he would copyedit the article later. Much work has been done to fix the article. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

See previous FLC (08:23, 8 July 2008)

• Comment - then you should really wait for the copyedit to take place before you nominate it. Have you taken this list to peer review as I've recommended to you in the past? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • 6 paras in the lead is too much. Merge.
  • "Adams' released his breakthrough" no need for apostrophe.
  • Is it platinum or Platinum?
  • I don't think Canada needs to be relinked in the second para, do you?
  • "followed by such hits as" this isn't a music mag review, it's an encyclopaedia so stick with facts, avoid "hits" for instance.
  • " follow up " needs a hyphen.
  • "didn't" avoid contractions.
  • "previous album it included" - comma after album.
  • "peaked at number two in Norway." - that's a hit single? Perhaps. It needs a reference in the lead since you've referenced a few other claims.
  • Don't link individual years, eg. 1991.
  • "The album has sold a total of 10 million copies worldwide and has become Adams best-selling album worldwide." - try something like "The album became Adams' best-selling album worldwide selling over ten million copies." or something like that.
  • ""(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" is a song co-written and performed by Bryan Adams, it was featured on the soundtrack for the film ..." gah..
    • You want to link song and film?
    • relinking Bryan Adams?
    • Why do you feel the need to reinforce the fact it was by Bryan Adams - this is his discog after all.
    • "Adams, it was..." poor grammar.
  • " an enormous chart success" - hyperbolic. Define enormous but do it encyclopaedically.
  • UK Singles Chart takes capital letters.
  • "n the Canadian singles chart in Canada." - where else would the Canadian charts be?
  • "which wasn't able to match " avoid contractions.
  • " thirty-one on the Billboard 200 and four in Canada."
    • 31 on...
    • italics for Billboard.
    • number four.
  • "Adams' became the " no need for apostrophe.
  • "The follow up to Waking Up the Neighbours was 18 til I Die which wasn't able to match the sales of Waking Up the Neighbours which lead to the album reaching thirty-one on the Billboard 200 and four in Canada.

In 2006, Adams' became the first Western artist to perform in Karachi, Pakistan, in conjunction with a benefit concert to raise money for underprivileged children to go to school. He would later go on to perform in Tel Aviv and Jericho as part of the OneVoice Movement concerts, aiming to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The peace concert for supporters of a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel was called off because of security concerns." no citations.

• • "Adams' released" no need for the apostrophe.
  • "...t eighty on the Billboard 200 and one on the Canadian Albums Chart. So far only one single has been released from the album." - he didn't release it at 80, it went in at 80. And "number one" on the Canadian charts. And "So far" needs a time frame. And which single.
• These comments relate purely to the lead. As you can, this needs a lot of work so I'm withdrawing the nomination until the list has been adequately peer reviewed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 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 not promoted by User:Gimmetrow 11:53, 7 August 2008 [8].

---

NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award

I am nominating this list with User:K. Annoyomous24 because we believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "[1], to " move comma to before ref.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "to the best player " no - to the player voted to have been the best?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "award given since the 1953 All-Star Game[1], to the best player of the annual All-Star Game. The award was established in 1953 when NBA officials decided to designate an MVP for each year's game. " these two sentences effectively say the same thing.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "The league also re-honor players from the previous two All-Star Games." every year? or just the once?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "who cast vote after " their vote? their votes? do they get more than one each? a first/second/third?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Image captions look like complete sentences so need a full stop.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "NAME (X)" just "Player (X)" or "Name (X)" is fine. No need for all the SHOUTING.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Los Angeles Lakers (6)" - did you intend to add the number awarded to each team?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Image:George Mikan 99.jpg has no fair use rationale for use in this page. And I doubt you can provide a satisfactory one.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Eleven voters, how can you get joint winners? Needs explanation.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "The most recent winner..." - The 2008 winner.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 16:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:07, 7 August 2008 [9].

---

The White Stripes discography

This was previously worked on by User:Gary King, I think. I know the amount of discographies must get annoying for reviewers and such, but here's another one. Red157(talk • contribs) 11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Cannibaloki 14:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

• Comments Well...
  • Why this included a column for Japan with none charts positions? (Studio albums);
  • Peak chart positions - the countries are out of order;
  • alignment and size of the tables this totally wrong!;
  • Video albums? The normal is Videos;
    • Album details? NO: Video details;
    • Certifications (sales thresholds) twice?
  • You must follow the order of infobox;
  • I would be really happy if you reduce the number of positions to a top ten;

...also a good look at MOS:DISCOG.

Cannibaloki 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support you don't need to remove extra chart positions. MOS:DISCOG recomends it nothing else. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 07:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Order citations numerically unless there's a helluva good reason not to (e.g. [6][1] should be [1][6])
  • twenty-six->26.
  • "well liked" needs a hyphen.
  • "first truly successful album, receiving near-universal acclaim" - reads a bit peacock. If you're quoting sources then use quotation marks. Otherwise, stick to facts.
  • "Platinum" in the lead, the first time, should link to certifications.
  • "2× Platinum " - two-times Platinum, in the lead.
  • "successful singles" define a "successful single" please.
  • " first and only live DVD," stick with first - otherwise you need to timeframe it (i.e. as of July 2008).
  • " Both album's" - no need for apostrophe.
  • "US: Gold[5]" why all the spaces?
  • Release dates don't need to be wikilinked.
  • Why repeat label links when you don't repeat format links?
  • ref [22] should be replaced with something that doesn't point to a search engine.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • All done, except the point about the spaces in the certifications (If it's really a problem, I'll overhaul the entire table... will need to have help though) and ref [22]. Unlike the US one, links literally can't be found direct to each artist on the Canadian certification site and that reference has been used in articles for both the Foo Fighters and Nine Inch Nails without major fault. Red157(talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Having said that stuff about the Canadian certifications, I've now found direct references for all of them. Red157(talk • contribs)

Comments

• All the good ones get taken... :)
• Wikilink to discography please
• Unlink the full dates in the Lede, as you have in the main sections
• [[Studio albums|studio album]]s, not [[Studio albums|studio albums]], and [[Single (music)|single]]s, not [[Single (music)|singles]]
• I'm also unsure about the extra space in "US:     Platinum"
• Don't use IMDB as a reference for Blackpool Lights. It's user-edited, and not considedered reliable

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Bar the thing about the extra spaces in certifications. Though I'll see if I can get someone to fix it. Red157(talk • contribs) 20:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spacing passes a format-test. The linkpiping being used was bizarre. See WP:PIPE for future reference.Skomorokh 14:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's correct to say [[Studio albums|studio albums]] instead of [[Studio albums|studio album]]s? Red157(talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops... [[studio albums]] redirects to [[studio album]], what I meant was you should do [[studio album]]s, not [[studio albums]], and [[single (music)|single]]s. Sorry about the confusion. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, there is no need to pipe when linking a plural phrase to a singular article; you just tack on the "s" outside the bracket. It's fine to use redirects, as they may be made full articles in the future. In summary, don't pipe unless you have to. Skomorokh 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments II
  • In the lead you have "one video" - is this a "music video" or a "video album"?
  • Can you explain where ref 15 tells me Blue Orchid made 18th in Norway? Presumably you're expecting me to click on the actual song title at that reference? So, in other words, the reference you've provided isn't a specific reference at all, it's a general reference. You can link to the actual page required using this link so I don't see why you wouldn't. This is a problem wherever ref 15 is used.
  • ""There's No Home for You Here"" row seems incomplete - a cell with a line missing.
  • "White Blood Cells " has UK: Gold (some undefined spacing) while "Under Blackpool Lights " (which is it, music video or video album, by the way? section heading needs fixing...) has "UK: Gold[30]" - one space. needs to be consistent.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First and third issues addressed. Skomorokh 12:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the remaining issues have been fixed. All references are correct and the spacing is now consistent. Red157(talk • contribs) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Red, great job. Allow me some moments to recheck. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Overall looks really solid. A few suggestions:

• MVDBase is not considered a reliable source.
• The band's allmusic page would be helpful as a general reference.
• I know this has been brought up already (and subsequently refuted by another user), but the charts should ideally be brought down to the top 10. There are many reasons why this suggested at , the main main reasons being to focus on the important information, and to avoid a indiscriminate stat-dump just dump on the user. That, and to make the list accessible to those with lower-resolution monitors. Thats a recommendation, its not jet a rule and remember if you have anything against it take it up at the MOS:DISCOG talk page, you can't oppose cause of that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Dude, take it easy. A) I didn't oppose based on that, B) I didn't demand 10 columns, and C) it has been brought up at MOS:DISCOG already, as you're aware. Drewcifer (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• "whilst pushing the band to the forefront of the current alternative rock scene." borders dangerously on POV. How awesome they are has nothing to do with their discography.
• "Having signed to V2 Records, 2003 saw The White Stripes major label debut, entitled Elephant which has since gone Platinum in the United States and two-times Platinum in the United Kingdom." Alot wrong with this sentence, mainly am awkward passive tone and a bit of a run-on. Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Will remove MVDBase as a reference and change the sentence in the last point, but otherwise, I disagree with you. Red157(talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're certainly welcome to disagree, but may I ask why? I obviously have reasons for suggesting the 10 columns thing and the other points, so I'd appreciate a more in-depth rebuttal/argument than "I disagree". Drewcifer (talk) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Go to the MOS:DISCOG talk and say what you have against it, remember its a recommendatiion not a rule. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing statement - there seems to be some outstanding discussions that could have a significant effect on this list. I was not happy with the super quick supports which were clearly given without much consideration to the quality of the list, the comments that followed clearly demonstrated the list was nowhere near FL standard. It's much closer now but I'd prefer to see these style issues discussed at DISCOG since the outcome may effect all future discog FLCs. Don't forget, this isn't a race to succeed, the list is welcome back to FLC anytime but preferably after these issues have been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Its a recommendation and its many more people on wikipedia that against it, their are many people that don't even know this is being discussed. Thats unfear. :(--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:26, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:52, 6 August 2008 [10].

---

Periodic table (standard)

This table was never submitted for FL, but I think it does not miss anything to be rated as such. Any comments/suggestions are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

This page is simply a copy of some parts of the article for periodic table. So far, does not add on nothing! Cannibaloki 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Periodic table (large version) is Featured and contains all the information that is in this one, and more. I have to ask – why is this one even needed? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This one is specifically designed to fit on a screen without requiring scrolling. The large and featured version isn't - and probably breaks some rule somewhere because of that. Rmhermen (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I'm still trying to suss out if this really is a list or not, and if it has a purpose beyond the featured large version. In the meantime...
  • "symbol and atomic number of each element" - right, talking to a non-expert audience, what's a "symbol", "atomic number" and "element"?
  • "The periodic table is now ubiquitous within the academic discipline of chemistry, providing an extremely useful framework to classify, systematize and compare all the many different forms of chemical behavior." ubiquitous? says who? "extremely useful"? according to whom?
    • According to probably just about every single introductory chemistry textbook published in the last 100 years. Statements that are such common knowledge don't need a source. Sure, we could cite any random textbook, but then the question would be, why that specific textbook? --Itub (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You really felt the need to link engineering and industry and dare to claim it has found wide application there? I work in the engineering industry and I never use it. I'd be more specific, less hand-wavy.
    • Sure, not in every industry. The film industry and hydraulic engineering probably don't use it much, but it is used more in some other industries (chemical, materials, metallurgic). I suppose it depends on the meaning of wide. --Itub (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As of Jan 2008? Why not July 2008? Also anomalous since your specific reference is date July 2007.
  • Also, as this is basically an (internal) linkfarm you could add some commentary on why the periodic table is arranged as it is.
  • "This common arrangement of the periodic table separates the lanthanides and actinides from other elements. The wide periodic table incorporates the f-block. The extended periodic table adds the 8th and 9th periods, incorporating the f-block and adding the theoretical g-block." While this note may be true, it is utterly inaccessible to non-experts. Think again.
  • Is the second "table" a key? It needs explanation.
• Comments notwithstanding, I'm interested in whether the rest of the community think this is a list at all, of any use beyond the more comprehensive version and thus whether it's actually part of Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would support the claim that this is a list and is a fine work but am undecided whether both should be featured. It may be helpful to look at the discussion of the first list: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Periodic table (large version) Rmhermen (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• • • Actually, when reducing the horizontal size of the browser sufficiently on this list, it simply crops information rather than allowing a scrollbar to get the information which is worse that having to scroll. And if you could point me to the "fits in one screen" rule, I'd appreciate it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Which list? I see the standard list all on screen at once and the large one with a scrollbar. Is this a browser issue? Rmhermen (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • IE7. Reduce the width of the browser and eventually it just crops the right-hand side of the periodic table (which is being called a "list" for the purposes of this FLC) and does not provide a scrollbar. This is worse than the bigger periodic table page where, no matter how big or small the browser is, I can access all the information using scrollbars. And please remind me of this "fits one 'screen' rule"... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved on-and-off with developing aspects of this version of the table. Of course it's a list. It's a list whose main purpose is to be transcluded into the Periodic table article (and maybe elsewhere). Of course, it deserves consideration as a featured list on its own merits, just like the large table when it became featured in 2005. But I think the bar for a featured list should be a lot higher now than in 2005. This standard table is better than it used to be, but I agree with some of the comments above. The table should have the following changes:

1) Add a key (with the label "key") in the blank area above the p-block with callout lines to links to atomic number and chemical symbol, similar to what is done here. This will take a little work, but not too much.

2) Revert the introduction. Information about the table should be in the Periodic table article, not here. Here there should only be information about this particular table with a reference that justifies its use. I've made this reversion but left the reference in. Someone should revert the other tables too. Please spend time improving the periodic table article to make it more accessible to a general audience instead of writing these unusual little two-paragraph summaries on the tables themselves.

3) Add the label "Legend" before the "second table."

4) Change "Element categories in the periodic table" to "Background colors show element categories" to match the style of the other parts of the legend

5) Remove all the text: "This common arrangement of the periodic table separates the lanthanides and actinides from other elements. The wide periodic table incorporates the f-block. The extended periodic table adds the 8th and 9th periods, incorporating the f-block and adding the theoretical g-block." This information (or something like it) should be in the Periodic table article after the standard table is presented, but the standard table does not need to explain why it is different from the wide table.

If all those things are done, I'll support it as a featured list. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• CR 2. The Lede is just two sentences, and does not engage the reader or define the scope.
• CR 3/4. While the important stuff is wikilinked, this doesn't help anyone using a printed version or someone without pop-ups who has to navigate away from the page.
• CR 6. No need for the itallicised text under the main table
• CR 3. I still fail to see why this one is considered more useful or as useful as Periodic table (large version), which is already featured and contains more information. Sure you have to scroll sideways which is somewhat annoying, but I don't think it's even in the MOS that this is not allowed.

It just falls far short of what is expected of a FL at the moment. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:43, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 07:29, 5 August 2008 [11].

---

Prostitution in Europe

A giant list that has tons of references and is well done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeTheSpook (talk • contribs) August 4, 2008

• Oppose
  • Lead is non-existant. There's even a tag that states it.
  • Rather than creating 42 one-sentence sections, a table should be created with some additional columns.
  • References should be cited properly. See, {{cite web}} for examples.

I recommend withdrawing this nomination.--Crzycheetah 22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close, this fails all FL criteria. --Golbez (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Further to the three provided by Crzycheetah, WP:CS says references should be placed after punctuation
• Sentences such as "Prostitution in the United Kingdom is not formally illegal, but several activities surrounding it are outlawed." do not help the reader at all.
• The prose in each section needs major work. Withdraw. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy close - per above. Not feasible to improve this sufficiently barring herculean efforts. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:05, 5 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.

List of provinces of Iran

previous flc

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 4 August 2008 [12].

---

Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)

previous FLC (15:03, 11 July 2008)

I'm nominating this article for featured list because I think it passes all of the FL criteria and the information it provides is not easy to find on catalogs or in the internet (it is staggered in several sites, incomplete and in different languages). I believe it is well written, well-sourced, properly formatted and the information it contains is complete (all Austrian euro commemorative coins from 2002 until today).

As a background, the Euro is currently being used in 15 countries of the European Union. Each country can mint circulating coins and 2 euro commemorative coins that are legal tender in the entire Eurozone. But as a legacy of the practice of minting silver and gold coins, very high value in precious metals like silver, gold, titanium, niobium, etc are still minted. These coins only have a legal tender in the issuing country. Collecting these coins and seeing how difficult is to find information about them was the main reason why a set of Wikipedians decided to start a Euro gold and silver commemorative coins set of articles, one for each of the countries.

This article already have all suggested changes to promote the sister article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) to FL, that can be seen here. Also, as a result of a previous FLC nomination, the article was heavily copy/edit'ed by a lot of editors, that can be seen in the history of the article.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: possibly the largest non-free galley on this site! Please clarify the copyright status of these coins in Austria. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We always have this type of concern. These images depicts a unit of currency. Some currency designs are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain. Others are copyrighted. In these cases, their use on Wikipedia is contended to be fair use when they are used for the purposes of commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself. Any other usage of them, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement.

Since the article is about describing these coins (including the design), we have no copyright issues. The same applies to an already FL Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) and another FA €2 commemorative coins. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am uniterested in some generic discussion of the issues regarding "Some currency designs ..." copyrights. I am interested in the copyright status of the images specifically in this list. oppose Fasach Nua (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To Miguel mateo, do note that if the images are copyrighted, then the sheer amount of images in the list is a violation of WP:NFCC, and they will probably have to all be removed. A single image in the lead to demonstrate the appearance of a commemorative coin would be fine though. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth & Fasach Nua, I have read carefully WP:NFCC, {{Non-free currency}}, and each of the images fair-use rationale. IMHO all images meet the 10 criteria to be included in Wikipedia as fair-use. Nevertheless, I am willing to look for information to see that there is no copyright on these materials, and if any, that Wikipedia is allowed to display it. Please understand that if you were correct almost all images of coins in Wikipedia will need to be removed, almost all of them have {{Non-free currency}} in their license. Any help in how to start this process? Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that each image has a good fair use rationale and that all of them will have to be removed. For a more specific point, see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Non-free image use in list articles. An image of the individual members of an entire list is clearly not acceptable. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, I really disagree, but you seem to be more an expert than myself in this topic. Why exactly are you saying that all of them will need to be removed? I just read carefully that section, and I do not see why. Also, what is the meaning of {{Non-free currency}} then? Is this license explanation incorrect? And going back to my previous point, how can I make sure these images are copyrighted or not? I was under the impression that a fair-use for currency images is OK to be used within Wikipedia (based on the previous license). As I said, if you guys are correct (and I am not questioning that), then pretty much every article in numismatics in Wikipedia will need to be revised and images will need to be removed. There gotta be another solution. From a numismatic stand point, describing the coin without seeing it, it makes no sense at all. Have you ever seen a coin catalog without the pictures of the coins? I am just trying to understand your view. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is the amount of copyrighted content. Excessive amounts of copyrighted content is never appropriate, and in a list like this, having a fair use image for every single item in the list is merely decorative. WP:NFCC stresses minimal use and this is the opposite of minimal use. Again, the fair use rationale itself along with {{Non-free currency}} is fine. All of them are fine. Sorry, but NFCC is pretty non-negotiable in situations like this. Would the article look better with all the coins? You bet. Is this explicitly against Foundation policy on the issue? Yes. As such, I would recommend removing the images and placing a single image in the lead to demonstrate the appearance of a commemorative coin. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that this article makes sense without any images, and I am sure that the numismatics community will disagree too. Each coin is being described, from the physical point of view (weight, alloy ... etc.) and from the design point of view (both obverse and reverse). That covers the fair use of each of the item. Is there any difference between having this article or creating one article per coin? I think that what it needs to be addressed is can they be used as fair-use (I think it can based on everything I have read so far but you seem to be the expert) or how can the license problem (if any) can be addressed. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If the issue of the licencning is sorted out, FU might not even be an issue Fasach Nua (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I followed Fasach's advice and all pictures I can find of these coins in German Wikipedia, are free to use (which gave me the idea that maybe there is no copyright). I went to the Austrian Mint website and found this line (it is difficult to find, there is no Legal section per say, but it is in several places): "Leagal statement: All pictures can be published without naming the Austrian Mint as the holder of the copyright". Does this mean that this discussion is over and I can change all licenses as free to use based on that statement? Advice please Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Advice (per request): provide a link to the official Austrian Mint site (with access date) for each image (sorry about the extra work).

Two issues

1. Team playing: Fair use of non-free images, in general, does consider factors like quantity. Hence, good faith editors will often have good reason to ask the question that has been asked above, and they need to know: (a) that this question has already been asked and (b) that a reliable source outside Wikipedia has settled the matter. Documenting this is a matter of educating good faith editors, and is best practice for the sake of co-operative editing and reader confidence.
2. Being legal: legally coin art is Public Domain. There are various rationales for this. One is that the practicalities of legal tender mean that images on vending machines and in other places are simply a matter of commercial necessity. The government changes coinage at will, it doesn't impede the economy by copyrighting images of what it has deemed to be legal tender. Copyrighting legal tender would be exceedingly hard to police, counterfeiting is the more important issue—production of realistic replicas. Finally, the government contracts and remunerates artists on the basis of their work becoming PD, waiving collection of royalties as a potential source for reducing up-front payment.

But whatever the rationale, the fact remains that coins, by virtue of being legal tender, fall into a special class and are public domain worldwide (there must be an exception, but I don't know of it). As PD the fair use of non-free image issues of quantity do not apply—any number of public domain images can be published.

It is precisely because of the above that the Austrian Mint has the statement that it does. A better solution for this issue is to document somewhere that coin art is public domain. The only copyright issue is the photographic process. Typically, government photographs are also public domain, since they are paid for by taxes levied on the public. In other words, those who use government photographs have actually already paid for them.

I hope this clears up why both parties above are absolutely right in the positions they have taken, and yet there is room for both of them to move towards something lasting and helpful for Wikipedia. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alastair. Basically you are saying that nothing needs to get done about the images, and potentially they should be changed as public domain? Also please note that all coins in the article, without an exception, they have a link to their respective subpage in the Austrian Mint website (I just fixed the only one missing) that can be found in the name of the coin. Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alastair, your statement seems quite plausible, if coin art is PD then perhaps a template would be in order linking to the source that can WP:PROVEIT to be the case. This template can be added to all coin images Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer (to above): Others know more than me, Fascah Nua, but here's the link to the Template:Non-free_currency. That seems to be saying some money is PD and other money should be acceptable Fair Use. In other words, either way we can use "stock" images of currency. The quantity issue is probably covered by Wiki restricting Fair Use to articles related to the money depicted. So, for example, copies (unless PD) decorating User pages is not acceptable Fair Use. Given that Wiki deems articles on commemorative coins to be better served by lists than short individual articles (and I agree), this means the Fair Use is concentrated on a few pages, rather than distributed across many. Either way, Wiki is generally only using each image once.

So, again, usage does seem to be in line with policy, others have documented this for us. The question was a good and important one and will be asked by concienscious or curious editors again, but we do have an answer. It's OK. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• I am glad to see the image issue resolved. Now, a question: Although all coins are assigned a Market value, the Vienna Philharmonic Coin is given a Market Price. Is that intentional? Waltham, The Duke of 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done A small typo (good eye!), thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• oppose the image issue has not been resolved, the images are still tagged with a meaningless copyright tag, and no external evidence has been presented that the images are available under a free licence Fasach Nua (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Fasach, I thought you said you will built a new template with all the information provided here, only then I can do the tedius work of changing the license template for almost 200 images. Let me know if I understood incorrectly. Is there any other template I can use to change all images? Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Good, good. And another thing now... You may have seen it coming, perhaps not. What would your reaction be to my de-linking the dates? It won't affect my attitude towards the list, of course, but I consider it an improvement. It has been successfully done to the Belgium list, after all. Waltham, The Duke of 11:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Promise me that once this is finish you will tell me where you buy your glasses! :-) There were four linked dates in more than 100 dates all over the article ... Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Great teamwork...a success story. Congrats to all involved--Buster7 (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The first date on the page was linked, so I assumed that all of them were. Now you can stop with the compliments, Miguel... :-D

This, of course, is an admittance that I have yet to check the entire page. I'll try to do it in the following hours. Waltham, The Duke of 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments while you guys sort out the FU issues, here are some comments on the list.
  • "though a €100,000 coin was minted in 2004" - the "Vienna Philharmonic Coin" is 100k Euro but was best selling in 1992, 1995 and 1996?  Done I hope is better now. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "although it inevitably ends up in private collections. According to the World Gold Council, it was the best-selling gold coin worldwide in 1992, 1995 and 1996." - citations?  Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "world-famous" - remove, not required - just stick to facts.  Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "fineness" - what is this?  Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "For many, St. Benedict is the patron saint of Western Europe and the father of western monasticism. The directive for monastic life initiated by St. Benedict in the sixth century is still valid today. Together with his sister, he also founded an order of nuns following the same instructions." - need citation otherwise it reads like WP:OR.  Done Referenced St. Benedict as well ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "1752-2002" - en dash?  Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The two flanked soldiers are a reminder of the unsettled times in Vienna in 1529." - references, further explanation needed.  Done Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " brother of the famous Holy Roman Emperor Charles V" - I think famous is redundant here, if he's an emperor of the holy roman empire, he's notable enough. {{done} Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "He had been entrusted by his brother with the government of the Austrian lands and was to succeed Charles V to the imperial throne upon his resignation in 1556." - what relevance does this (unreferenced) sentence have to the coin?  Done We (collectors) have a tendency to talk a bit of history of the issuing country when describing a particular coin, maybe I went too far with this one. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "most probably influenced the design of the castle." reference please.
• Okay, I won't go further - I think a lot of the descriptions are a little, well, floral - so they need to be tightened up and made more factual. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reached a point but have had to stop in confusion... Are you using British or American English, Miguel? The two styles are mixed, and although this is only obvious in a few places (at least to me), the inconsistency is there, and it must go. Other than that, the errors were basically minor—I've left a couple of tips in the edit summaries if you're interested—but there must be internal consistency in dialect. On other points:

Thanks TDW for the so many corrections. My background is American English, but after working four years for a British boss, I might be flexible and confused once in a while. Honestly, I have seen people changing "centre to center" and viceversa so many times that I no longer pay attention to it. How do we control the English style of an article? I assume a comment in the talk page or comments in the article can help, but people may not read that. As of now I can imagine that closely watching the changes of an article is the only way. Any other idea? BTW, was this fixed or do you still need my attention to address this point? Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose the shuffling of the cells in the "Ambras Castle" table was intentional? It does keep the table tidy, but I don't know about any other consistency issues; perhaps someone with more experience in FLCs can comment here. In the same entry, I don't like "a representation of what seems to be..." Does this mean that it is unclear what the original picture shows? It makes it look as if it is unclear what the coin shows.

• Some coins are minted in different qualities, which means that different quantities and prices will apply. For those coins we have changed the layout of the table, to make it clearer. We have discussed that somewhere, and the decision was not to change the layout for all coins, since these type of coins are the minority. I can find the discussion thread if needed. Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• The "Hall in Tyrol" coin has a suspicious translation: isn't 700 Jahre Stadt Hall in Tirol more likely to mean "700 Years (of) City of Hall in Tyrol"? I am also confused by "giving a distinctive character of this extraordinary issue"; does this mean "giving a distinctive character to this issue" or "conveying (to the viewer) the distinctive character of the issue"? In the next entry, "2000 Years' Christianity" looks as if it might be correct without the apostrophe. What is the name?  Done Small typos in both cases. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I am also unsure about the role of the market-value question marks; I'd like an explanation about that (although there does not seem to be a completeness problem).

• The coins that have a question mark in the Market value are coins that were minted for circulation, means that they were sold to the market at face value (5 euro) However, they generally do not circulate, since if you hold it for a few years you can sell it for double the price. Since these coins are fairly new, they can not be found, in that quality, in the market yet, hence no market value. Would it make sense to change that to N/A or "-" or 5 euro? Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• There is another general issue, and this question is directed to reviewers rather than the nominator: does the accompanying text render "alt" text redundant for the images, or is it still required? There will obviously be no captions.

As a final note, I'd like to praise the quality of the images; they are all very clear and... upright. Several images in the Belgium list should probably be rotated a little, and I have no idea about the technical and copyright implications of such treatment. But I am digressing. I shall continue copy-editing after my points are addressed, and at the end of this I am rather confident that I'll give my support. Waltham, The Duke of 17:20, 30 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 4 August 2008 [13].

---

Eminem discography

I've been working on this discography for a long while on-and-off. I added a nice intro, infobox, tons of charting positions, restructured the organization of the article, created new sections and most especially added 30 more in-line citations (there were only 12 before), all with the proper "cite web", "cite book" and "cite news" templates. I've also asked User:Seegoon to review the page (ignore the whole "anal" thing!) and I've since addressed all of his concerns. Just compare the difference (though I had a two-month "break" between edits), but most importantly decide whether this discography is worthy of WP:Featured List. I believe it is (10000% not NPOV of course!) Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

• Don't start the list with "This is a comprehensive..." - featured articles don't start this way. And avoid bold links in the lead as well.

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "twenty four" - 24.

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "début " no need for the accent.

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "highest selling" needs a hyphen?

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "for the first time Eminem reached the number one " switch this around.

 Done...i think. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Don't use small fonts.

Why? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Prevents people with visualisation problems reading it easily. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yer, I removed all the small formats. Though it doesn't look as nice and appealing as it did with the "small", at least for me. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Where are the formats for each release?

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I think WP:DISCOGS usually expect album titles to be bold and italicised.

Are you sure? I've never seen that before, and per WP:Album they are to be only italicized. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just check with the DISCOG guys - a lot of discogs have come through FLC lately and they all do that... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC) _{I actually did this a while ago, forgot to add it.}

• "positions [10][11]" remove the space.

 Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• How do refs 10 and 11 help me prove, say, the Slim Shady LP made it to number 7 in Belgium? I'm very concerned that the referencing here needs a lot of work.

 Done In that space there used to be a citation with that position. I must have removed it by accident; I now restored it. And there is a reference for every single chart position (unless more "got lost" like that one, but I doubt it). Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The notes squash their respective numbers down in the table and wreck the formatting.

Are you sure it is not just your browser? To me it looks fine (you are talking about those notes explaining the 100+ positions, right?) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• UK but U.S. - why?

Per MOS:ABBR Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• No refs at all for "Featured singles" - and what do you mean by "Featured" in this context?

There are 8 references actually. "Featured singles" meant as singles as a featured performer; I changed the heading. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 20:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• A few quick comments Good start, but there are WAY too many charts. On a lower-resolution monitor the columns are a disaster. MOS:DISCOG recommends 10 chart columns, based on the artist's relative success on that chart. The singles table has 24, which to me is bordering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also the first sentence is rough. We already know it's a discography of Eminem, that's what the title's for. Also chart columns should be in English-language alphabetical order, and should avoid non-English abbreviations (such as CH). Take a look at other FL discogs for the typically used abbreviations. Lastly the chart citations are much too vague. I'd recommend dispersing them wherever appropriate into the individual country headers. I'm also very hesitant about the chart tallies at the end of the singles chart, but I'd like to get some other people's opinions on it. In general, I'd recommend taking a look at MOS:DISCOG and other FL discogs for some good examples. Normally with so much work needed I'd oppose, but I may not have time to back that up, so I just wanted to post some of my more serious concerns here nonetheless. Drewcifer (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've fixed the first sentence. Took a look at those links and now I realize they are too many charts. Using what elimination process do you think I should remove the charts, if I need to cut the number down to around 10? (EUR, ARG, SPA, RSA, NOR, FIN, BEL can go easily, brining the number down to 17, but then?) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 21:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I got rid of those charts mentioned, and clean-up some in the album charts. I believe, if I correctly understood what you said, that it is impossible to separate the in-line citations under the country headers, since they are collections of chart positions from around the world, rather than from different nationalities. CH -> SWI as well. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I cut off the charts to a fair amount and put them in alphabetic list for the singles, I'm about to do the same for the albums. Question: Is all this really necessary. It look me quite a long time to get the charts in alphabetic order, and quite frankly I did not see the great gain from all that work. Nonetheless, what's done is done. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 03:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 I've completed all your requirements...I think. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 03:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Could you wikilink to discography somewhere in the opening paragraph?
• "which produced the hit single "My Name Is" and the top five single "Guilty Conscience"." Hit where? Top 5 where? I think it's better to leave this information out, especially the top 5 bit because it makes it sound like it was in the Top 5 everywhere it was released, which isn't the case
• "In 2000, he released his following studio album" usually called a sophomore album
• "In the same year, he was granted his own imprint label Shady Records" Try not to wikilink two words/phrases next to each other, per MOS:LINK
• "Up to 2008" should be recast as "As of 2008"
• Wikilink "fourth quarter" to Fourth quarter of a calendar year#Quarters
• I'm not sure www.mariah-charts.com is a WP:RS. "+tons of other data of other artists" Looks like a fansite, too.
• MOS:DISCOG lists reliable sources for chart data, and http://www.mariah-charts.com/chartdata/Sources.html has a few links too.
• Sections should be ordered in the same order as in the infobox
• UK, but U.S. WP:MOS##Acronyms and abbreviations says "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout"
• The sixth studio album hasn't been released yet, so it's not part of the discography. It should be removed from the table. The mention in the Lede will suffice until it is released.
• I don't really understand the content of Other Charting Songs. "Hailie's Song" appears to have charted in the UK, but UK charts are based on sales only, not sales+airplay, so there has to have been a phyiscal release.
• Try to merge the certifications table into the main singles table
• Drunkenmunky released a single "E" (also "E (As In Evangeline)" outside the US), which featured, or at least sampled, Eminem's "Without Me". Image:Drunkenmunky - E.ogg. Some versions included the lyrics, other versions just the music. I think it charted in at least the UK, so maybe it should be included here.
• Royce Da 5'9"'s "Rock City" )or some other song by him featuring Eminem) charted in the UK, though well out of the Top 40 and possibly outside the Top 75. I remember reading it in the 2004 edition of Guinness Book of British Hit Singles & Albums, though I don't have access to it any more.
• Production section should come at the end, I think
• Guest appearances table needs a bit of work. Is "What's the Difference?" by Dr. Dre ft Xzibit and Eminem, Xzibit ft Dr. Dre and Eminem, or are they on equal billing? Same for all the rest
• "Ass like That" --> "Ass Like That"

I have too many concerns about this list, so I can't support at this time. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• That thing at the bottom of the singles table can go (no of #1 hits etc). Its mostly unnecessary statistics. indopug (talk) 16:21, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 06:56, 4 August 2008 [14].

---

List of S.H.E awards

I am nominating this list for Featured List status. The lead summarizes who the group is, and how their commercial success (and the awards that confirm this) led to more Taiwanese groups being formed. There is one table per award type; each iteration of each awards show is properly cited. In the "Other awards" section, the prose is not cited, because the citations are located in the "List of other S.H.E awards" drop down box. I elected to collapse that table because the list would have become much too long otherwise. If reviewers find this objectionable, I can easily revert to slapping the table onto the main article instead of hiding it. Pandacomics (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove the bold formatting if you want to keep the link per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• The columns in the tables are all different widths; can they be made the same?
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why is the reference sometimes in the Year column and sometimes in the Award column?
• " Hebe" has a funny cell issue above "Top 20 Songs of the Year"; I think there's an extra row
  • After further inspection the table in the "Hebe" section is pretty much busted, with a ton of extra empty rows, etc.
    • Hm. It may be your browser, cause mine doesn't really have any problems, i.e. no empty rows. Pandacomics (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Saw the empty cell a few days after your comment, heh. Guess you were right. Fixed. Pandacomics (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why is the Infobox split into dark blue and light blue and what do they represent?
  • I don't think the colors help unless they are actually explained in the article.
• Why aren't nominations also listed in the Infobox?
  • Hm, all of the awards lists I've seen list nominations, also (an award is pretty much always considered a nomination)
    • Well, it doesn't always work that way in every part of the world. Secondly, as previously mentioned, most of the time nomination lists are not released, so having a separate column for nominations with almost identical figures as the wins is rather pointless. By having 5 wins out of 5 nominations, it doesn't take into account the years that there were zero nominations. Furthermore, it gives an inaccurate perception that the group has won everything it has been nominated for. Pandacomics (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• remove period from the image caption. it is a sentence fragment
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• could the lead please be expanded to two-to-three paragraphs?
  • To include a bit on awards that certain albums won? Pandacomics (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• why is ""Genesis" (美麗新世界)" in bold?
  • Because five songs were nominated, but only one of them was the winning work. Pandacomics (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Unbolded. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• But I like bolds....it gives the list some audacity (har har)
• Yes. I will get cracking on that ASAP.

*When a member wins several awards on her own within the same year at different awards shows (see the Hebe section), it wouldn't really make sense to cram each of those cites into that 2007 cell. Unless there's a better way to represent that Hebe table. (dealt with)

• Dark blue - awards shows presented by a radio station, television network or government body (i.e. ones that matter). Light blue - awards shows with corporate sponsors (i.e. ones that matter less)
• Not all nominations are disclosed. It's really common to just announce winners. Not surprisingly, as noted above, the ones that have nominations lists tend to be the ones that "matter".

Pandacomics (talk) 04:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of "non-standard" though, this list is pretty much a carbon copy of the List of U2 awards, so I don't really see where it's "non-standard" other than the fact that the list covers awards in another part of the world. Pandacomics (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a more recent one: List of The Killers awards Gary King (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I will leave it at just comments for now. But, the bold at the very least needs to be done; it is either bold or link, but not both. Gary King (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One para in the lead is insufficient for a list of this size. Also, avoid starting with "This is a ..." - featured article don't so why should featured lists? And other lists that may be featured now which start like that are not good models to follow - they should be changed as well.
    • Lead done (finally, whew). Pandacomics (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You should link S.H.E. somewhere in the lead (but not in the bold, obviously).
    • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " major music awards" - what's major?
    • "The ones that are important". It's like asking, "Why are the Grammy Awards important?" Because they've been around for a while, and they're prestigious. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorry but "major" is POV. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Reworded criteria for dark blue in footnotes. Pandacomics (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Taiwanese links to a dab page.
    • Re-linked to Republic of China. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "formed" twice in consecutive sentences reads quite blandly.
    • Reworded. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "S.H.E was formed following the conclusion of the 2001 Universal Talent and Beauty Girl Contest." - this isn't a logical follow-on for most readers - was the contest specifically designed to create a group, like Popstars or what?
    • Detail added. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "of even more Taiwanese pop groups" even is redundant.
    • Redundancy removed. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "not the iteration that year." - unclear - rephrase please.
    • Well, unless you mean I should be giving an example, e.g. "If an award show is listed as the 2004 edition, but took place in 2005, it will say 2005." IMO, this is even more awkward than the current. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what "not the iteration of that year" means. I'm not trying to be clever, it's just not clear.
        • Added to footnotes section. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • N/A in the infobox is top-left aligned while the other values are all central-central aligned. Be consistent please.
  • I'd prefer to see the references in a ref col because they look really untidy next to the year - they're no more relevant to the year than any other part of the row, so creating a column for them isn't all bad.
    • Processing. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Done. Pandacomics (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If you want to use HK as an abbreviation for Hong Kong then after the first expanded "Hong Kong", place a (HK).
    • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Where does the 148+ come from in the nominations table? Surely you must know how many nominations in these "major awards" the band has received?
    • Actually, I mentioned this above, but not all awarding bodies provide nomination lists. It's just how it goes. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Well what the heck, why not say 2000+? It just seems odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Because as Gary King said, all wins are, by default, nominations. But since not all nominations are disclosed, one can only guess at how many more nominations they received because of those awards that don't disclose their nom lists. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is "Genesis" (美麗新世界) in bold?
    • Because they had four other songs nominated, and that happened to be the one that won them the award. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm asking because it's not clear in the list. If it needs to be questioned then it should be answered within this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Turns out it doesn't explicitly say in the reference. Unbolded per comment by Gary King. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "won 7 Global " numbers below 10 should be text, i.e. seven.
    • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Golden Melody - how can the award be Best Group and the work be Super Star? The group's S.H.E., right?
    • Because it's the work that earned them the nomination for being the Best Group. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • So "super star" can apply to the entire band? Odd, so it needs noting. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, it is their album, after all. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 2007 Golden Melody Most Popular Female Artist = who was it?!
    • Jolin Tsai. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Is that clear in the list? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • It's in the reference's headline. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "2001-2003 " en-dash please.
    • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • You wikilink Hong Kong in the Metro Radio Mandarin Music Awards section - surely this should have been done earlier?
    • Wikilinked early. Pandacomics (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Farhenheit is also not linked on its first appearance.
    • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If the work is the band then why not just add S.H.E. in there rather than blank cells?
    • Because I'm treating "work" as either a song or an album in the sense that it's the stuff that they produce, not who they are. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well that's inconsistent because "work" is the reason for the nom or award and plenty of them are for the band. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 2007 Best Chart Performance in Singapore Hit Awards was for what song?
    • For all of them, because all of them charted, and thus, SHA gave them the award for it. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Then state that, with notes where required. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "over the years — Cici (2001)" no spaces before/after the em-dash.
    • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • We could actually use some English references - this is, after all, English Wikipedia, and we have no way of easily verifying the citations.
    • Sorry, but the English references are going to be very few, and very far in-between. You could always ask a zh-3+ editor to verify the references. The other thing I could try to help you guys doing is giving you search keys so that you can press Ctrl+F and find that particular entry on each reference. Other than that, it's going to say as is. Pandacomics (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like their music. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment liking their music is not a convincing reason to support the promotion of the list. Keep !voting like this and your supports/opposes are likely to be ignored. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a good list and i don't see no problem, and i can't see that the references are unreliable cause i don't understand chinese. So i support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a more appropriate reason for support, not just "I like their music". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

However, I can still see how the non-English references are a bit of a concern. I'd be willing to help, but for obvious reasons, I can't use myself as the Chinese-literate editor to verify (COI). Pandacomics (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Try not to wikilink two words next to each other in the text, per WP:MOSLINK. It looks like Taiwanese girl group, which is confusing.
  • Changed to "girl group from Taiwan". Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• "S.H.E's third album, Genesis, has earned more awards than any work the group has released." I think this should be "than any other work"
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• What does "cross-straits controversy" mean?
  • Wikilinked. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Be careful of pluralising the collective noun. "S.H.E, a Taiwanese girl group, has won numerous awards and accolades during their career." should use "its" instead of "their", although this will result in "during its career", which also sounds odd. The entire sentence may have to be recast. In contrast, "the trio has recorded 10 albums...release of their first album Girls Dorm" is okay. Check the rest of the prose too, such as "S.H.E's most successful year was 2007, when they won 32 awards" (plural) vs "S.H.E has won seven Global Chinese Music Awards." (singular)
  • The group is in collective singular for the rest of the article. Fixed otherwise. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• In the MTV Asia Awards, please link to MTV Asia Awards and MTV Asia Award for Favorite Artist Taiwan
  • The first MTV Asia Awards is linked in the infobox, so I didn't exactly bother linking it the second time around in the actual section. The Taiwan one is wikilinked now. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• In Hong Kong TVB8 Awards, what does "Won (#2)" mean? They came second, they won two awards, or something else?
  • It means that out of the Top 10, the song was #2. It was either that, or just put #2 there with the green background. That then makes it more complicated for the 25 song-related awards which are unranked. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• In the Annual Music Chart Awards, do we really need to know who the sponsors were, in order to understand what awards the group won?
  • I added it cause the ceremonies themselves don't have their own wiki article. (shrug) Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• In the KKBOX Awards, Taiwanese is a dablink -- but it doesn't need to be linked anway, because you linked it in the Lede section.
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Ella's acting award doesn't link to the movie she acted in, yet in the following table, Reaching for the Stars (soundtrack) is.
  • The movie (drama serial, actually) is linked in the prose in her section. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• In the hidden "Other Awards", please use regular size font per WP:ACCESS. Those of poor sight may have trouble reading small text.
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• Make sure the songs and album titles conform to Wikipedia:TITLE#Album and song titles and band names. "Reaching For The Stars" should be "Reaching for the Stars, "Thanks For Your Gentleness" --> "Thanks for Your Gentleness", "Don't Want To Grow Up" --> "Don't Want to Grow Up", "Always On My Mind" --> "Always on My Mind".
  • Done. Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• I'm also concerned that the references are not in English
  • Yeah...I addressed it above, but really, award shows in non-English countries tend not to get a lot of English-language coverage. Unless it's in Singapore, which is why there actually are a couple of English sources in the reflist (e.g. Channelnewsasia). Pandacomics (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A few things to be resolved before I can support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, so all my concerns have been addressed, except for the one about non-English language references. I think this is going to be a big hurdle you have to cross before the list will be featured. I therefore still cannot support at this time. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:13, 3 August 2008 [15].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999

I've been working on this list for some time, and after a peer review and minor changes I think is ready to reach the Feature List status in wikipedia. I'll be ready to make more changes or answer questions regarding the content of the list. I want this list to be as good as possible.

Thank you, Jaespinoza (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Not keen on the title at all. Probably should be something like "List of Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999" or similar. Answer: DONE
  • No bold links in the lead. Answer: DONE
  • Don't start "This is a list of" - featured articles don't start "This is an article..." so we shouldn't either. Answer: DONE
  • "eleven week " hyphenate?. Answer: I changed that sentence.
  • Table does not sort at all due to the rowspans - did you try it?. Answer: In the peer review the asked me to search for another user to do the rowspans because I did not know how to do it, and this user made the change. Should I delete the rowspans?.
    • It's up to you - either keep the rowspan and don't make it sortable, or remove the rowspans and keep it sortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • • Answer: I rather keep the rowspan, I took the sortable out. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• OpposeAbstain per WP:NOT#STATS, I just don't see a reason how this list may be notable. This is just old data that will never be updated.--Crzycheetah 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But you are supporting this list of submissions for Foreign Language Film (a very good list indeed), but it is also a list with data that can not be updated, why is my list less relevant?.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaespinoza (talk • contribs)
    • The "old data" reason I mentioned was not the only one, but just one of the reasons. The main reason is that this page isn't notable as is. The submissions list is at least notable and useful because these countries actually submitted those films for the Academy Award(notable) and it's a list of films the Academy considered(useful). As for this list, there are a couple of questions: how are these albums selected as #1? Why do we need to know what album was #1 during 1999? --Crzycheetah 21:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Regarding the selection of albums at number-one I added an extra paragraph with the Billboard Methodology, you were right, there was no sign of how the albums were selected to hit the top spot of the chart. And about the relevance of this chart, I think latin music is a very important part of the music business in general, and Wikipedia does not have a lot of info about it, another of the goals of this lists is to create the record holders section of the article Billboard Top Latin Albums, but to get there I have to make the list first. Thanks for all your questions, I think you are helping me to develop a better list. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
        • If there were a list of most sold Latin albums by year, I'd support. I just don't think it's notable for an encyclopedia to list albums that were sold the most during a week. I am going to abstain here.--Crzycheetah 06:28, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:13, 3 August 2008 [16].

---

List of Texas Rangers managers

I have worked on the article, and believe it meets criteria. Thanks for the comments in advance.--LAAFan 23:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • You've linked Major League Baseball twice in quick succession in the lead.
  • "The Rangers are based in Arlington, Texas. They are members ..." merge.
  • "...first manager of the then Washington Senators in ..." confusing to non-experts who aren't aware of the mobility of franchises. Explain further.
  • "In 1963, manager Mickey Vernon was fired " this is repeated.
  • "In terms of tenure, Bobby Valentine has managed more games and seasons than any other coach in franchise history" why do you need "in terms of tenure"? He's either managed more games and seasons than any other coach or not. And is it all franchises history or just the Rangers franchise history?
  • "as Yost was never meant to be the manager" says who?
  • Lots of focus on interim managers and not much focus on the longer term managers in the lead, seems an odd bias.
  • Valentine and Oates are over-linked in the lead.
  • The franchise rename/relocation isn't reflected in the table as it could be (per NFL lists).
  • Kevin Kennedy points to a dab page.
  • Ref 3 could use a date.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Killervogel5

• "then Washington manager" should be "then-Washington manager".
• I agree with the above reviewers that there is a big focus on interim managers. If you are looking for content to address with the lead, how about managerial records? Who's statistically the best? Who's the worst? Who was there the longest?
• Why not make the table sortable? Click here for more info, or I can help.
• Darrell Johnson isn't linked in the lead.
• You have a footnote at the bottom and in the key about managers having more than one term, but no manager does. It's extra data that really doesn't need to be in the list. It can be removed, and then if it needs to go in at some future date, it can go back in then.
• If you are going to use the Texas Rangers navbox, then the list in the navbox should be changed so that it links properly to the article, rather than through a redirect.

That's all from me.

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• Arlington is a dablink, and the MOS says Arlington, Texas, not Arlington, Texas anyway, since the reader will easily be able to get to Texas from Arlington, Texas if they have to. Also, a 2×6 pixel comma isn't enough to separate links, as prescribed at MOS:LINK
• "The only Rangers manager to make it to the postseason" what or where is the postseason?
• "while with Texas." The state, or the team, which you have previously shortened to "The Rangers"?
• "In 1963, manager Mickey Vernon was fired and replaced by Eddie Yost." did Yost do the firing too? And can a better term that fired be thought of? It sounds too informal.
• "One game later, Yost was replaced by Gil Hodges, as Yost was never meant to be the manager." Why not?
• "After one game as manager, Connie Ryan." I think this sentence is missing some words

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I reformatted the Level 4 headings on this page too, as they were causing havoc on WP:FLC by having too many [edit] sections. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:58, 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 not promoted by User:Gimmetrow 16:51, 3 August 2008 [17].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies managers

I am nominating this list, which I have recently updated from a bulleted text list with no formatting. I have reviewed the FLC criteria with it and believe that it meets the criteria. Thanks for your consideration. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments (Gary King)

• Unbold the "This is a list of managers and general managers of the Philadelphia Phillies." and make it more interesting. Also, it's just a stub paragraph at the moment.
  • I think it's pretty much got all the information this list could use. If you have suggestions, I'd like to hear them, especially if they are more helpful than "Make it more interesting." Sorry if I sound like a jerk, but it sounds like I didn't just spend an entire day fixing this. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • I have added some more information, after reading several other baseball and football FLs and re-reading the info that was already there. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Use ""Philadelphia Phillies Managerial Register". Baseball Reference. Retrieved on July 23, 2008." as a General reference if it's going to be used that many times.
  • OK, I had done that, but wasn't sure. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
• "External links" goes before "References"
  • It is. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Why not place "Numbers in bold are franchise managerial records." in the Table key?
  • I actually had already done that, but forgot to remove the duplicate line. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
• "In their 125-year history" – "In its 125-year history" as it's the franchise we're talking about, not one specific group of people
  • Y Done.
• "Of the former 51, 15 of the Phillies' " – place the numbers further away from each other to cause less confusion, otherwise it doesn't read very well
  • Tried to fix it. Let me know what you think. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Gary King (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions (Maclean25)

• General Question to anybody reading: Other similar lists are named "List of [Team] managers", while this is named "Managers of the [Team]", which is correct according to WP guidelines?
  • I can't speak for the other lists (and I don't know how long they have been FLs), but I did just rename this list to make it match MOS. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Per WP:SAL, I've moved the list to List of Philadelphia Phillies managers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
• Specific Question to nominator: All other similar Featured lists and FLCs all have playoff games, wins and losses listed (see List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers, List of Seattle Mariners managers, List of Toronto Blue Jays managers (FLC)). Are you willing to add playoff records to this list? --maclean 04:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I certainly could, but it will take a while. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, so which reference says that Pat Corrales managed 4 playoff wins and 5 playoff loses? --maclean 19:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • That's been taken care of by adding all of the individual references to the table. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
        • That reference does not say Corrales managed 4 playoff wins. It says the Phillies won the NL pennant in 1983. --maclean 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm sorry, you are correct. Owens actually finished that year as manager. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Comments (The Rambling Man)

• • I'd like to see a lead image.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Four paras in the lead is twice as many as I'd expect here.
    • I removed one short paragraph (just a sentence), but this was just recently expanded in response to an earlier review. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Consider linking franchise for non-experts in this field.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • The seasons article you link to includes current statistics for 2008 so your "124 completed seasons" piped link is misleading - the stats will not tie up.
    • This paragraph has been trimmed. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Why start talking about record losses first? Seems illogical, I'd go for success first then failures...
    • I made that choice because the Phillies have lost so many games (over 10,000) and are seen at times as a perennial loser, though that's not currently the case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "losing seasons" -jargon, until I'd reviewed half a dozen baseball article, I had no idea what a "losing season" meant.
    • Gave a footnote to explain. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "The Phillies posted their franchise record for losses in a season during their record-setting streak of sixteen consecutive losing seasons, with 111 in 1941." - the "with 111 in 1941" feels too far away from the original assertion of losses for me.
    • Trimmed. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "below .430 for their careers." - careers in total (i.e. including jobs outside of the Phillies) or just for the Phillies?
    • Became "Phillies careers." Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • " with skipper Danny Ozark leading in playoff appearances with three." - skipper (in England at least) relates to the captain of the team, not the manager - rephrase and reword.. "Ozark leading the team to three playoff appearances."...
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "Dallas Green is the only Phillies manager to win a World Series" when? I'd add "in 1980" and link the 1980 to the WS win and World Series to the World Series.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "11 years of service time" -time is redundant.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "as the general manager, from 1972 " and "Owens also served as the team manager in 1972," so he was team manager and general manager at once?
    • That's correct. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "a team executive" meaning what, exactly?
    • He served in several front office positions; I decided it was more efficient to say he was a team executive rather than stating all the different things he did. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "and he was inducted into" - he is redundant.
    • How so? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "in recognition for his " - normally "recognition of his..."
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "with service in parts of eight seasons" - odd sounding. How long, exactly, did he "rule"?
    • Changed. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Sorry but although "winningest" may be a word in US-English, it's absolutely appalling and should be banned for life. Can we actually say what it means, i.e. "The manager with the most wins.." so all international English readers can appreciate it rather than just US readers?
    • Y Done. Thanks for the tone. It actually doesn't mean that, either. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Why wait until the third or so time of Winning percentage before linking it?
    • It was a mistake. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "who went winless in the last two games of the 1938 season," is losing two games really significant?
    • It is because it posts a .000 in the winning percentage column, even though he would later manage the team to other wins. Otherwise the lowest record is much higher than .000. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • And it's not clear why he would "come back" (if you like ) from the last two games in 1938 to post .278 in 1942. I'm guessing war? Or did the management give him four years to improve?
    • I don't know either, I never found a reference to that effect. However, he's not the first manager that the team re-hired for a second stint. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The worst official winning percentage..." - suddenly the % is official. Are any of the others?
    • Y Removed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • " by inaugural season manager Blondie Purcell, who posted a 13–68 record in the second part of 1883[7] (Bob Ferguson was fired after 17 games).[8]" - avoid the parentheses info - what's its context here? Unclear.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Not sure I get the key - a .714 in pink is Franchise managerial records? This is all about the managerial records. If you mean the best achieved for the franchise, you should consider a reword.
  • Why the two small grey boxes in the key?
    • They are just there as spacers; I left them blank and also took them out completely, and neither of them looked good aesthetically, IMO.
  • The key is also incomplete - what's PA, PW, PL etc?
    • That's why the footnotes are there. There are no links to appropriate articles for playoff wins, ployff appearance, etc. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "First Year" - just "First year" is fine. Same with Last year.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • You have a WS col, at least one guy has 0 and then others have the en-dash. Difference between 0 and – is...?
    • Actually, they are em-dashes, but I chose to do that because it matches another current FLC candidate, and because it makes it easy to see which managers made the playoffs. There were previously lots of 0s, and it looked very confusing and muddled.
  • I would left-align the names.
    • This was an aesthetic decision as well; I think that the table looks better if everything is centered, rather than one column being different. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Why not make the table sortable? (KV5 moved this question)
  • I'd actually merge the first and last year cols to make a year range.
    • If the table is to be sortable, I can't do this. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
    • Made the table sortable, did some research on sortkeys and combined first year and last year columns. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • present doesn't need to be in italics.
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • If you want to use GM as an abbreviation, put it behind the first instance of "General Manager"
    • Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Refs 3 and 4 need publisher or work info as a minimum.
    • 3 was trimmed, 4 is fixed. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments (blackngold29)

Fixed comments

I have been watching this review since it went up, the list has changed drastically (for the better) in that time. It's very close. "Only seven managers..." - Very minor POV. I understand that 7/51 is a small number, but where do you draw the line for "small number"? Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! "with the highest winning percentage in team history is Bob Allen" - "team" should be "franchise". You have new "team" every season. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! Is there a reason that Gene Mauch doesn't have his season's colored pink? It is a franchise high. That's a good one; I actually didn't even think of coloring that. Good catch. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! Blackngold29 03:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - This is a fine model for the rest of MLB's manager lists. Blackngold29 18:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I can't ask for a higher compliment than for others to use my work as an example. Many thanks! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the reviewers

• Do you think that I should put a hidden sortkey in the table so that the names sort by last name instead of first?
  • I did some research on sortkeys and set it up. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
• Does the general manager table need to be sorted?

--KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see a need to sort the general manager table. --maclean 19:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments (Crzycheetah)

• Oppose

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The very first mention of the franchise should state the full name "Philadelphia Phillies".
    • But they have not been the Philadelphia Phillies for their entire 125-year history. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • But they are now.--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Done.
  • 51 managers and ten general managers should not be in boldface.
    • OK. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Why link the years to "year in baseball" when you can link them to pages listed at {{MLB seasons}}?
    • I don't know anything about this template; this is the first I've heard of it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • So? You still didn't link the years to MLB seasons.--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • So... I don't know how to use the template. I feel as if I'm being treated as if I know nothing about the encyclopedia because there's a template I haven't seen before. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
          • OK, now I understand the problem here. What I want you to do is to switch {{by|1941}} to [[1941 Philadelphia Phillies season|1941]]. 1941 is just an example. Why? because right now, your years are linked to the general basball pages while I suggest to link them to the Phillies seasons links.--Crzycheetah 20:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Should I link each season manually, or is that a template I can use, above? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Manually, you can just copy the code above and just change the years.--Crzycheetah 21:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
              • I think he wants you to use [[1995 Major League Baseball season|1995 season]]. Blackngold29 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
                • To be honest, using Major League Baseball season would probably be better anyway; the Phillies seasons are far from completed. The articles are mostly empty with just an infobox. Thoughts? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

(→)That's what I suggested at first. Go ahead!--Crzycheetah 04:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Tons of raw code-lifting... I feel like a World's Strongest Man... in Wiki... which I don't really think qualifies. *wipes brow* Done! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Your first section, a level 3 headline(===), violates WP:LAYOUT, which requires the first section to be a level 2 headline(==).
    • Apologies for not knowing that. Fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • You should state that "Statistics are accurate through the 2007 MLB season" because I am only assuming it right now.
    • It is stated, at the bottom of the list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • Where?--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Um... under the list? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
          • Maybe, you should place it somewhere where readers could actually see?..using the normal font and not "small".--Crzycheetah 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Changed.
  • Footnotes and References sections should not have sub-sections.
    • Per what? Neither WP:CITE or WP:LAYOUT say anything to this effect, and these sections are organized so that readers know what references they are seeing. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • Show me one FL or FA that uses sub-sections.--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft, List of Indianapolis Colts head coaches, List of New York Jets head coaches. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
          • They're not using sub-sections. They're using headings.--Crzycheetah 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
            • What is the difference? I see. I had no idea such a thing existed. Again, I apologize for my apparently infantile attempts at coding. Fixed.
  • This article should be categorized.
    • To what categories should it be added? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • Take a look at similar lists and you'll see.--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Wow, thanks for the help.
          • Done.

--Crzycheetah 08:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I feel that there are some assumptions of bad faith in this review. This editor and i have conflicted previously in an FLC review and I feel that this is being used as an opportunity for an argument rather than an honest review. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You're the one assuming bad faith right now. I provided some comments and you just started arguing each and every one of them.--Crzycheetah 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Do not begin a sentence with Of those 51 managers... - reword that sentence
    • Why? This was already reworded in response to an earlier problem. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • Don't start sentences with "of". You can write Fifteen of the 51 managers have been...--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • You still haven't given me an answer. The question was "why?" not "what can I do instead?" KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
          • Why? Because sentences do not begin with "of".--Crzycheetah 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why are "Franchise's most by a manager" colored? If I want to know that I can just sort the columns to see who comes first.
  • Current similar FLs, Mariners and Rangers, use orange color and an asterisk to indicate Hall of Famers while here yellow color and a cross are used. How about some consistency?
    • (To the above two questions) Featured content on Wikipedia is supposed to exemplify Wikipedia's best work; that doesn't mean it has to look like it was built by robots. The St. Louis Cardinals seasons and Philadelphia Phillies seasons lists are not identical; yet they are both FLs. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • That's what I mean. Currently, this work does not exemplify Wikipedia's best work because there are inconsistencies.--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Neither does List of Toronto Blue Jays managers, and you are reviewing that one currently as well.
  • Table footnotes "a" through "f" should be in the Key section instead; plus, the WPct explanation.
    • I used the same convention here as I used in Philadelphia Phillies seasons; there was no issue with this exact same format for that featured list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • It's like me saying "hey, I paid $3 a gallon one time, why should I pay $4.50 now?" Times are changing and standards change as well.--Crzycheetah 18:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I reformatted the level 4 headings on this page to ;headings as they were playing havoc with WP:FLC, sticking edit sections where they shouldn't be. With regards to the list,
• "player-managers,"[1] -- comma should be outside the quotes
• "meaning that" -- unencyclopedic tone
• "The Phillies posted their franchise record for losses in a season during their record-setting streak of sixteen consecutive losing seasons," I don't get this.. I think its due to the use of "season" twice.. Can it be recast?
• footnote [a] (Lede) could easily be worked into the sentence as prose
• "Seven managers have taken the Phillies to the postseason," Where is this?
• "The manager with the highest winning percentage in franchise history is Bob Allen, who accrued a .714 winning percentage over his 35 games as the Phillies' skipper, though Andy Cohen did win the only game he managed." -- so the manager with the highest winning percentage actually is Cohen.
• Keys are needed to explain what WPct, PA, PW, PL, and WS mean, instead of being in footnotes
• Instead of "* = Manuel's statistics and franchise totals through 2007 season" and the * by his name, simply put in the Lede or just before the table, "Statistics correct through the 2007 season"
• If you decide to leave the footnotes in, the footnotes section shouldn't be divided into subsections, because clicking the second [a] doesn't take you to the [a] in the table
• Caption could be recast as "Player/GM Herb Pennock, 1944–1948"
• Use {{cite web}} for the general reference, too
• Can we get an external link to the team's website?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:41, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:13, 3 August 2008 [18].

---

List of Korn awards

Here's the 'Korn, now all we need is the movie! Gary King (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...has had nine consecutive albums debuting .." I know what you mean but it reads a little odd like they had nine debut albums. It's probably me but could you rephrase it a bit? Maybe "nine consecutive albums which entered the Billboard in the top 10" or similar?
  • You say they released 8 studio albums including a greatest hits, so presumably the ninth was live or something else?
  • "international icons in achievement" this is peacock unless it's a quote, in which case I'd put quotation marks around it - check the other discogs for this too please.
  • Not quite as bad, but similar for "to celebrate the most popular music videos in Europe".
  • Check my comments at No Doubt re:linking from section to section - why not link Korn if you link the singles and albums which may have already been linked in the lead etc?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments (Please note that these comments also apply to the other Awards lists currently at FLC, I just don't want to repeat myself 10 times)

• The year columns should be centered.
• The publisher values in the citations should be linked.
• Take a look at the last section of List of Nine Inch Nails awards. Could something similar be done here? Drewcifer (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great job :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:10, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:13, 3 August 2008 [19].

---

List of Good Charlotte awards

Gary King (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could at least add something to the introduction statement? Qst (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like the article to speak for me in this nomination. Problems with it can be brought up here. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Same linking comments (i.e. why not link the band, be consistent with relinking if that's what you want to do etc etc).
  • "All of the band's albums " band's is somewhat redundant I would say.
  • "Australia's first awards show to celebrate both local and international acts" same comments as before, this is probably a quote, otherwise it's somewhat peacocky.
  • Could you find a better ref 3? The title is somewhat odd (3 Welsh bands) with GC not being Welsh it kind of begs the question what was in the reference that's relevant. If you catch my drift...
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great job :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Good Charlotte is an MTV Music Video Award-winning American rock band from Waldorf, Maryland" I'm not sure this should be stated as the introductory sentence. When one thinks of Good Charlotte, is the very next thought "Oh, they've won an MTV Music Video Award", or just "oh, they're an American rock band"?
• "Overall, Good Charlotte has received eight awards from twenty nominations." Can this be anchored to month/year?
• There's a bit of whitespace between Kerrang header and the table, due to the infobox. {{clear}} should do the job. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Keep Your Hands Off My Girl" --> "Keep Your Hands off My Girl" pere WP:TITLE. That'll fix the redirect, too
• "Peoples Choice: Favorite International Group" --> "People's Choice: Favorite International Group" I think
• State which countries NRJ and TMF Awards are from.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:03, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:13, 3 August 2008 [20].

---

List of Natasha Bedingfield awards

Gary King (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Fan sites such as this one should not be used. They are not reliable. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Replaced Gary King (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...however, she only released one album, Unwritten (2004), with the label. ..." - looks like she's a one album-per-label kinda girl. The next two albums have different labels too so perhaps rephrase.
  • "for the song "Unwritten", the third single from the album Unwritten." - could you, dare I venture, call the album the "eponymous album" in this case?
  • "Bedingfield's second album N.B. (2007)" you've already linked it and already told us when it was released...
  • ""I Wanna Have Your Babies", written and produced by Natasha Bedingfield, Wayne Wilkins, Andrew Frampton, and Steve Kipner; "Soulmate"; and "Say It Again".[7] " - I understand the semi-colon can be used in this context but because you've said so much about the first single and literally nothing beyond the names of the other two, this looks a little confused to me.
  • "but has not won any of them" - "but has won none."?
  • "Overall, she ..." - maybe "As of July 2008, she..."?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments radio.nl, rockonthenet.com and crossrhythms.co.uk do not appear to be reliable sources. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

  All replaced Gary King (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I think London and England are known well enough to English language speakers that they needn't be linked
• "Bedingfield's second album N.B. yielded the singles "Soulmate"; "Say It Again"; and "I Wanna Have Your Babies"" -- should those semi colons be there, or should they be commas?
• GCap Media should be linked I think, as should BT Group
• I think you should say which Award givers are not British

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:50, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 11:13, 3 August 2008 [21].

---

List of Trina awards

Gary King (talk) 02:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Intro needs work; it's short, and the bit about her race seems misplaced or unneeded. Also, Miami should be linked, and shouldn't there be a comma after Florida? And the bit about her style is clearly copied from her article, though some other lists you've just nominated carry no statement on the singer's style. My point being, there's a dearth of quality prose in this list. --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  It's been reworked and expanded now. Gary King (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  Oppose withdrawn. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments'
  • Could we enhance the opening sentence to avoid the perennial "This is a list of awards..."?
  • No images at all (silly question I guess)...?
  • Are there any on-line references which help support the (I assume) physical Billboard references, such as [10], [12] and [14]?
  • Ref 6 has The Sun as the work - is that the British tabloid? Not usually considered a reliable source...?
  • Hip-hop or Hip-Hop? Consistency including the references please!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. I usually snatch a free image from the musician's article; otherwise, I look on Commons and a few other free places like Flickr (with the correct licenses) but couldn't find one. I replaced the Billboard ones (which are magazine references) with others. The Sun is from California :) (I clarified this). "Hip-Hop" in most cases except for "an American hip-hop magazine." because it's usually lowercased since it's not a proper noun; in the other cases, it's used in the name of an awards show which is why they are capitalized. Gary King (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great job :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just one thing -- With one award and 12 nominations shouldn't this be moved to List of Trina awards and nominations? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • With just one award and 12 nominations, is this page even necessary? Could it not easily be merged into one table and placed in the main Trina article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:58, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:15, 2 August 2008 [22].

---

List of Olympic Games host cities

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — I'm not even sure this should be a distinct Wikipedia page. It is shown as the {{main}} article for Olympic Games#Olympic Games host cities, but doesn't really offer much more than the list shown there. (Strangely enough, this list doesn't even link back to Olympic Games!) The only substantive differences are an alternate formatting style, and inclusion of the dates for each Games on this list. I know my comments may seem odd here, given that I have done some work on this list in the past, but upon further reflection, it doesn't seem to me like this is truly featured content. Are we just trying to pad the FL statistics by promoting some "low-hanging fruit"? I would propose that the good work in adding some additional references here be merged back into the main article, and yes, I would then propose PROD or AFD for this list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you say. But I think we should give others a chance to weigh in on this issue before closing this. If the consensus is merge, I am more than willing to withdrew this nomination.—Chris! _ct 01:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course! My opinion weighs no more than anybody elses.

I first saw this article over a year ago, wondered why we needed another copy of the table on the Olympic Games article, stuck it on my watchlist as a reminder to do something with it later, and forgot about it. When you started to clean it up recently, it showed up on my watchlist again, which got me thinking about what to do with it, and your FL nomination pushed the trigger for my initial response. After thinking about it a bit more in the past few hours, maybe deletion isn't the right answer. I guess the problem I have now is that it is called a list of cities, but could just as well be called a list of Games. Each table row only has a relatively small number of data items, so it is a fairly brief summary at best. But since there are only 40 cities, there is certainly room for lots more detail. Perhaps the list could be rewritten to be more "city-centric". Maybe use Wikipedia:Lists#Definition lists style so that each city could have at least a paragraph of prose text, describing things like how it was awarded the Games, bidding results (integrating content from Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for Olympic Games (ballots), lists of secondary venues attached to each main host city (e.g. for 2008: Hong Kong for equestrian events, Qingdao for sailing, and the four cities for football), etc. I guess what I'm saying is that if this is truly going to be the "main article" for the section of Olympic Games that has the summary table, then it needs to be much more than an echo of the summary table. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a great plan to rewrite the list.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Delete the first sentence because of the repeating of the title.
  • Couldn't you link "Olympic Games"?
  • If you link most of the years to its Olympic Games, couldn't you link or unlink the rest?
  • "Seven cities have hosted Olympic Games..." should be "Seven cities have hosted the Olympic Games ..."
  • Why are the Olympiads the Summer Olympics and No. the Winter Olympics?
  • What does No. stand for?
  • Couldn't you do this, {{ref label|Note1|1|1}}, instead of this, ^{('''[[#St. Louis|1]]''')}?
  • Isn't this a list of Olympic Games?

-- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 07:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Withdrawn, per this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:06, 2 August 2008 [23].

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7)

The most recent season of Degrassi: The Next Generation. I think this is up to scratch, so here we are. Part of the Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation Featured topic. All comments are welcome, and I'll address any that come up. Thank you, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "In the United States, it aired Fridays ..." - removed comma

•  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "In total, sixteen episodes aired in the US before they did Canada" - removed comma

•  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "figures for season seven were not been as high as previous" - reword (probably remove "been")

•  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• "As the adults in the series, Stefan Brogren" - remove comma

•  Done

• When you list cast or crew e.g. "as Marco Del Rossi, and" etc.- I don't think you need commas following the "and"

•  Not done Serial comma in use, common in North America Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Quite right, I'm actually a little bit embarrassed I hadn't come across that before Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Balanced opinion - you mention no bad reviews in the reception section

• I have tried to find something, but haven't. It was hard enough to find the two reviews I got for this season. I think the problem was that the season as a whole wasn't worthy of being reviewed - positively or negatively! I'll keep looking though. I'm sure when it has ended broadcast in the US, there will be a review or two. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't been able to find any negative reviews for the show. I really think this is because it was (according to fans) a rather lacklustre season, and so even TV reviewers couldn't be bothered with it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Are there any citations for when episode were aired out of order (as in 718 before 717 etc.)

• Each episode has the production code on the final screen of the end credits. I'll add a ref from tvguide.com for the US, and look around for Canada. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done ref added Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Up for debate, are the specials warrenting such an extensive mention here since they are not part of the season per se. Maybe a quick mention and put detail either in a section in the main Degrassi: Next Gen page or in List of episodes.

• They are already mentioned in Degrassi: The Next Generation. They could be moved to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation episodes I guess. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm in favour of moving to the List of the episodes. You can mention that they aired specials in the hiatus of the original run, but I wouldn't include their content here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work overall. However I'm tired so may miss some things, or incorrectly point out things that are fine, so I will come back and take a more rigorous look at this tomorrow. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

More

• Table headings, all are left aligned exept title, shouldn't it be consistent. It's personal preference but I'd centre them all, however I'm just after consistency.
  •  Not done. This is to do with the formatting of {{episode list}} (and its sub-templates), not how I rendered it on the page. Take a look at any page using this template, and you'll see they're all this way. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I originally disagreed, and tried to fix it using code in this page. It works on the article page but messes up the translusion to List of episodes, so undid my edit. While there may be some complicated way to do it, it is beyond me and I will not persue it further or object on these grounds. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• "The Degrassi students return after the winter break to find it has merged with nearby". I'd make "it"→"the school".
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• "Confidante" is feminine, I think you want the masculine "confidant"
  •  Done, good catch. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• In Another brick in the wall - "some students are do not welcome" mistake fix with your preference of words
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• In Ladies Night - "of love to Manny and give it to her with" gives
  •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• "neighbour" → "neighbor" as using American English
  • Not in Canada ;) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure about this as I don't watch the show. Should it be "Graduation Party" or graduation party, is it an official event name?
  • I changed it to "Class of 2007 Graduation Party". I'm really not sure as it hasn't aired in the US yet, and the fansite is undergoing a refit so I can't download the ep either. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• In We Built This City - "Things are going well, until her growing attraction with Damian leads to a kiss and are caught by Manny and Toby", should it be "they are" caught.
  •  Done - changed to ", which is..." Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 9 has extra [[ ]] around the date.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

comment Beter utility could be gained from Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7) if the caption was to identify the characters as well as the programme Fasach Nua (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Style_guidelines#Image, which says "The image presented in the infobox should ideally be an intertitle shot of the show (i.e. A screenshot capture of the show's title) or a promotional poster used to represent the show itself. Failing that, a DVD cover may be used." I'll identify each character if you think I have to, but I think that's a bit too much information for an infobox (there's like 20 characters there). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of the MoS, WP:NFCC needs to be met. You are right, a cast list is probably too much for the infobox, I would like to see the image used to identify the cast memebrs. It can be referenced from a different section, or indeed the image can be moved out of the infobox Fasach Nua (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Not done at this time. The image is a screenshot of the intertitles. The TV MOS says this is what should be used in the infobox, or a poster or DVD cover. Season 7 isn't out on DVD, and there is no poster, so the intertitles it is. When it comes out on DVD, the image will be changed I expect. What part of NFCC does the image not meet? And if it were to be moved, what image should be in the infobox? I don't see the point of having 2 fair-use images in an article when only one would suffice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comments
  • Infobox has capitalised "Season" for no good reason. And perhaps it should reflect the title of the list. Otherwise why the difference in terminology?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "run" in infobox doesn't need spaces between the dates and the en-dash.
    •  Not done This is how it is rendered by the infobox, not by how I typed the information. Also, WP:DASH says "All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "rape, drugs, cancer, HIV, and relationships." - personal but I'd reorder to "relationships, drugs, cancer, rape and HIV" to kind of list it in order of likelihood I suppose.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " reviews for the season were of praise, rather than criticism." - reword. I'm positive not all reviews were of praise and, even then, some of the reviews offered criticism.
  • Cast section is bluelink overdose. Why link singer for example?
    •  Done Everything but actor and character names should now be unlinked. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)
  • "in association CTV." with?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Canadian Film or Video Production Tax Credit " - which one? What do you mean here?
    • That's the name. I guess it's a tax credit thing for Canadian film or video productions.
  • "to spiral down " - wee bit weasel/POV.
    •  Done. Changed to "to fall" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The winners will be announced on 4 August 2008." somewhat destablises the list...
    • Not much though. By August 5 it will say whether they won or lost. It's one sentence that needs to be fixed, not an entire section. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "episodes 5 October – 16 November 2007" why not English like " from 5 October to 16 November 2007"?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "and went off air 9 May, and returned" - "and went off air 9 May, before returning..." (avoiding consecutive "and"s)?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Special episode is linked twice in two sentences, and worse, to "very special episode" - special or very special? and avoid overlink.
    •  Done Changed to Television special, and completely removed the sentence where it appeared the second time. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Halloween themed rap" - halloween-themed?
    •  Done
  • " PART ONE " capped for what reason? same with TWO.
    • Consistency with the other seasons. I'll change them all over the next couple of days. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Too intoxicated to realize what she is doing, Darcy allows herself to be taken into a bedroom by an unknown rapist. " - checking realize = Canadian and secondly "by an unknown rapist" reads odd - perhaps "an unknown man who rapes her"?
    • Firefox spell check on Canadian says "realize",  Done the second. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "tries a little matchmaking " not particularly encycopaedic.
  •  Done "arranges a date for him"? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I haven't got through the synopses yet, so this is a start...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Even more

• What exactly is Ref 16 Degrassi: The Next Generation 100th episode citing. I failed to see anything in that article referencing any of the sentence it follows.
  •  Done -- removed. I'm not sure why it was there. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I have a major concern with Ref 10 - Degrassi: The Next Generation - Season 7. I expect you are using the cite video template to try and reference the end credits in all the episodes of the season, however as the DVD is not out it is not possible to WP:VERIFY.
  • No, but as the credits appear on the episodes, they are self-referential, aren't they? This just provides the reader the location of where to find them. They don't have to be a physical release, otherwise all those shows without DVD or VHS releases wouldn't be able to have articles. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I can't find any reference for the american episodes airing out of order.
  •  Done - reused Ref [4], TV Guide.com. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• I feel the use of general reference Ellis is questionable.
  • The first instance [6] is saying which cast members return from the previous season. The general reference was published in late 2005 and if feel it is rather unlikely that the encyclopedia covers that the cast will return (in two years) for season 7.
    • No, but it covers which actors play which characters. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly for [9].

I think alot of names could be better covered by this

I'll add that reference as well. Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• That ref also mentions iTunes.ca & CTV on demand, worth a mention?
  •  Done thank you for finding that. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
• For the episode & video, I would order the names "Surname, First" for consistency.
  • If I understood correctly,  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for what you've done so far. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments part deux
  • Still got those PART ONE in caps...
    •  Done. Oops. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Boring I know, but is realize vs acclimatise pure Canadian?
    • I'm not totally sure. Firefox's Canadian spell check red-lines "realise", and not "realize". It doesn't redline "acclimatise" or "acclimatize". I think Gary's Canadian, so I'll ask him to go over it for me. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "in another crushing blow" little bit extreme!
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Ashley agrees but later removes his vocal track without him knowing" - lost track of which one his and him mean here.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "drug induced" - hyphen? not sure.
    •  Done. I think so too, according to Tony's excersises. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Marco begins to cling onto anyone" - a little too informal for me.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " she still can't cut" - avoid contractions.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • balk vs baulk. Just checking!
    • Not sure. I'll ask Gary Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "leaning on Ashley for everything" what does this really mean?
    •  Done changed to "relying" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • audition tape or audition DVD?
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Should Spring break be capitalised?
  • According to spring break, it isn't. Also because seasons aren't capitalised, I don't think this should be either. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "her baby daughter is weighing her down" again, a little informal - can we rephrase to mean exactly what you're saying?
    •  Done clarified and reworded
  • " but can't help feeling" contraction!
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "he medications constitute the HIV cocktail." needs rephrasing. Presumably you mean the retroviral medication mixture of drugs which constitutes treatment for HIV?
    •  Done I used what the show called it, but that sounds much better. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "who don't know him well, and believe there is no smoke without fire" - contraction and avoid colloquialisms - makes it difficult for non-native-English speakers.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Sean is being shipped of to Afghanistan" - off to.
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "if he can't bring himself to study" - contraction!
    •  Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Class of 2007 graduates. " is an odd way to end the episode synopsis. Expand a touch?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thankyou. Everything here has been done, I think. Other than the spellings, that is. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, according to Canadian English, British English is usually followed, "French-derived words that in American English end with -or and -er, such as color or center, usually retain British spellings" So I'm changing "neighbor" and "behavior" to "neighbour" and "behaviour". However, "Words such as realize and recognize are usually spelled with -ize rather than -ise." so "realize" and "acclimatize", not "realise" or "acclimatise". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Your explanation of Canadian English is sensible, as the British originally used -ize (and it is still preferred in OED). That aside just letting you know ref 6 is broken. I couldn't fix it because I didn't know what was meant to be there. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. It was cause I was using ref name, except I capitalised the name by accident. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A few things I picked up as I skimmed the first few bits:
  • In the lead, "episodes were made available for free streaming on CTV's website,[6] and registered users of the Canadian and U.S. iTunes Stores" - you could replace the bolded "and" with a semi-colon. Personal choice, really, cause I just think two ands within the span of seven words is a bit close. Your call.
  • Shouldn't mentions of Degrassi on its own (when referring to the series) be italicized?
  • "The season was also nominated for a Teen Choice Award, in the "Choice TV: Comedy" category." Comma not really needed. Pandacomics (talk) 15:27, 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 not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 10:11, 2 August 2008 [24].

---

G-Unit discography

I have been working on this for the last few days and have re-done all of the charts and added all relevant info. The list is now as complete as possible. All information such as sales, certifications and chart positions are very well sourced. Deserves to be a featured list. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Too much discussion on G-Unit. "The group's members all grew up in the same neighbourhood, they rapped and sold drugs together." This is not neccessary. Keep it to the discography.
• Music video directors needs reliable sources.
• There are a number of redundant? "Released:" on this article.
• The "Thisis50.com" table has a redundant row.

Look's good though. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have worked on the thinsg that you have pointed out. In the Intro I have removed the line that you have quoted but have kept most of it per other featured discographies such as the ones talked about above. Also, MVD Base has been used as a reference for Music Video Directors in other Featured Lists such as 50 Cent discography. Also, I have added references using youtube videos uploaded by the official Universal Music Group channel. The directors specified in the video summary match the ones provided by MVD. The extra row has been removed. However the "Released" are still there because it is virtually impossible to find exact release dates for all of those mixtapes. I'm not sure if the "Released" field should be removed or kept incase dates are found. What do you think?

Remove the release field. You need to add all directors in for music videos. MVDbase is not WP:RS, and it shouldn't be in the 50 Cent discography. Is "Over 41" precise enough? Also, the infobox order of release types should be the same as that of the titles in this article. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the released field & re-ordered the infobox but the fields seem to be staying in the same order. MVDBase is actually correct in all of its listings. All of the directors that it lists are the same as the directors named on Universal Music Group's official video channel. I know the director of "My Buddy" but cant find the link - ill keep looking. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No bold links in the lead please.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Caption is a fragment so no full stop/period.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Start the lead with something other than "This is a comprehensive..." yuck. Say something more imaginative like "The discography of G-Unit, a ...., consists of...."

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Soundtrack doesn't need to be capitalised in the lead.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • " Music videos and collaborations are also included. However, solo works from the groups' members, Lloyd Banks, 50 Cent, Tony Yayo and formerly Young Buck are not." - merge those "..are also included, but solo works...."

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "same neighbourhood" which one? And should that really be "neighborhood" since this is in US-English?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "worked hard on mixtapes" - "worked hard" sounds a little POV and "mixtape" could do with a link in my opinion.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "50 Cent was later dropped from his label after being shot nine times in front of his grandmother's house" really, dropped for being shot or dropped for not being able to record or perform?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Due to the success of his debut album, Get Rich or Die Tryin', he was granted his own record label." reads odd. Maybe, "Following the success of his..., he was given his own... by Interscope.."?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "The group continued to work hard... " by now I've lost track of who "The group" is, so reinforce G-Unit, and avoid "work hard" again - POV.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "earned them a lot of attention in the rap industry.[4] The most prominent of these being 50 Cent Is the Future, God's Plan, No Mercy, No Fear and Automatic Gunfire." - "a lot of " sounds poor. The second sentence is a run-on from the first so a full stop/period isn't appropriate.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "They released their commercial debut, Beg For Mercy in 2003, which sold 377,000 copies in it's first week of release" - Again, reinforce "G-Unit released..." and "it's" should be "its" or "their" depending on how you feel about discretionary plurals.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • " It has now sold.." - As of July 2008, it has sold...

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • U.S. vs UK, why not just US?

 Done MOS:ABBR --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • " in July of this year. " - context. so, July 2008.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "No.4" - number four or #4.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Link Billboard.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "The United World Chart counts sales data from Japan, United Kingdom, Germany and France.[11]" fascinating but probably a footnote rather than a sentence in the lead.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Mixtapes = 41+ in the infobox - what does the + mean (to non-expert readers)?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't you be bolding the titles as well as italicising them?

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Musicians/Article_guidelines#Discography_section

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "DJ Drama [34]" remove the space in front of the cite.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Reviews: All Music" no in-line links please.

What do you mean by this? --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "Peak chart positions[28][14]" order numerically unless you have a good reason not to.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • What's a Featured single? And why no references?

 Done Changed header & added refs for all features singles. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • My Buddy music video has no director.

• • Avoid small text.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 11:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments II
  • Who says "the most prominent of these being 50 Cent Is the Future, God's Plan, No Mercy, No Fear and Automatic Gunfire." is true? And if so, why is Automatic Gunfire without an article?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "...n the United States[11] and, as of July 25, 2008, 194,000 copies worldwide." - is worldwide excluding United States? Not clear.

I had this info in before and you told me to have it as a footnote - see footnote & above.

• • " 2× platinum" in lead, "2× Platinum" in the table. Choose one.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Shouldn't soundtrack "Get Rich or Die Tryin'" be in italics? And as I said before other discogs are bolding all of the titles. And what formats was the soundtrack released in?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "Reviews: All Music" - this has an in-line link which is to be avoided in featured material.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Still too much small text - there's absolutely no need to use smaller text, it just makes it more difficult for people to read.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Most other discogs us US and not U.S.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • What is the title of the second col in the mixtapes section supposed to represent?

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "Label: G-Unit/Shadyville" is repeated on every single mixtape in the first table - not really necessary, is it? Say it once and say it applies throughout.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "Other notable mixtapes" - who says they're notable? Three of them don't even have refs.
  • Bad Guys stuff is completely unreferenced as well. In fact, 90% of the mixtapes are unreferenced.

 Done --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 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.