Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/September 2008

List of awards and nominations received by Bryan Adams

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 18:02, 14 February 2009 [1].

---

List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks

This article was previously reviewed for Featured List status, but back then, there were not many other NFL "starting quarterbacks" lists. Some objected to the format of the list but now that others have seemed to copy off my idea, I think it's ready to be passed. There are many references and it has been updated thoroughly. conman33 (. . .talk) 08:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose/formatting issues Lead The Kansas City Chiefs are a professional American football team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chiefs are a member of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). - there is no reason to give an acronym for the AFC since its not mentioned again in the article. Numerous backup quarterbacks have successfully led the franchise in the starter's absence, most notably Mike Livingston and Rich Gannon. - why are they notable? Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962,[4] by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the Chiefs . - wouldn't it be "Texans/Chiefs"? In addition, remove the extra space between Chiefs and the period Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon. - comma before including In the 2008 season, the team's most recent, the Chiefs alternated the starting quarterback position between Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen. - I know it sounds redundant, but you need to state that it was the team's most recent "season" Thigpen played in 11 games in the 2008 season following season-ending injuries Croyle and Huard, but managed to lead the Chiefs to a 1-10 record as starting quarterback. - this sentence does not make sense, I hope you spot the error towards the middle of the sentence Starting quarterbacks The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts. - this would be best represented in a table key not in words Starting quarterbacks by season (1960–2008) - is it necessary to have (1960-2008) in the header? Its not like there are sections broken up to represent other eras. Having the starting quarterbacks column sortable isn't the best idea because some entries have two people and it really isn't representative. Either, remove the sortability function for that column or list each season more than once and list the quarterbacks in each of those extra instances Notes Since the 1978 NFL season all teams have played 16-game schedules. - comma after season Strikes by the National Football League Players Association in the 1982 and 1987 seasons resulted in shortened seasons (9- and 15-game schedules, respectively). - why does the 9 have a dash next to it? Blackledge started the first six games of the 1984 season before Kenney was retained as the starter after a thumb injury. - comma before before In 2006, Huard filled in for an injured Green after Green suffered a concussion in the first game of the season and threw 11 touchdowns and only one interception. Green returned in week 11 and finished the season with 7 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. - its irrelevant to say his game stats By Week 3 of the 2008 season, Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen had all started one game each.[6] Both Croyle and Huard suffered injuries in their respective starts in Weeks 1 nand 2. - typo on and Be consistent, link all the players name mentioned in the notes or don't link them at all. Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. References The section called notes under the table should be called "footnotes" and the "further reading" section should be called "References", or you could rename this section to "References" and make the book a general reference and the rest specific references as seen here--TRUCO 17:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (Resolved comments by nominator) Lead The Kansas City Chiefs are a professional American football team based in Kansas City, Missouri. The Chiefs are a member of the Western Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL). - there is no reason to give an acronym for the AFC since its not mentioned again in the article. - DONE Numerous backup quarterbacks have successfully led the franchise in the starter's absence, most notably Mike Livingston and Rich Gannon. - why are they notable? - DONE - Removed, this was from History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks, but being this is an article about starters, it's not notable here. Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962,[4] by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the Chiefs . - wouldn't it be "Texans/Chiefs"? In addition, remove the extra space between Chiefs and the period - DONE - changed from "Chiefs" to "franchise" Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon. - comma before including - DONE In the 2008 season, the team's most recent, the Chiefs alternated the starting quarterback position between Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen. - I know it sounds redundant, but you need to state that it was the team's most recent "season" - DONE - added "(2008)" in parentheses, link to 2008 season article Thigpen played in 11 games in the 2008 season following season-ending injuries Croyle and Huard, but managed to lead the Chiefs to a 1-10 record as starting quarterback. - this sentence does not make sense, I hope you spot the error towards the middle of the sentence - DONE - re-worded, hope it's better Starting quarterbacks The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts. - this would be best represented in a table key not in words Starting quarterbacks by season (1960–2008) - is it necessary to have (1960-2008) in the header? Its not like there are sections broken up to represent other eras. - DONE - removed Having the starting quarterbacks column sortable isn't the best idea because some entries have two people and it really isn't representative. Either, remove the sortability function for that column or list each season more than once and list the quarterbacks in each of those extra instances - DONE - changed to unsortable, The last review I underwent told me to change this to a sortable table. Notes Since the 1978 NFL season all teams have played 16-game schedules. - comma after season - DONE Strikes by the National Football League Players Association in the 1982 and 1987 seasons resulted in shortened seasons (9- and 15-game schedules, respectively). - why does the 9 have a dash next to it? - DONE - "9-" was added as if it were to say "9-game" or "15-game" Blackledge started the first six games of the 1984 season before Kenney was retained as the starter after a thumb injury. - comma before before - DONE In 2006, Huard filled in for an injured Green after Green suffered a concussion in the first game of the season and threw 11 touchdowns and only one interception. Green returned in week 11 and finished the season with 7 touchdowns and 9 interceptions. - its irrelevant to say his game stats - DONE - That must have been added in by someone else, I agree that it's not relevant. By Week 3 of the 2008 season, Brodie Croyle, Damon Huard, and Tyler Thigpen had all started one game each.[6] Both Croyle and Huard suffered injuries in their respective starts in Weeks 1 nand 2. - typo on and - DONE Be consistent, link all the players name mentioned in the notes or don't link them at all. - DONE Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. References The section called notes under the table should be called "footnotes" and the "further reading" section should be called "References", or you could rename this section to "References" and make the book a general reference and the rest specific references as seen here - DONE TO-DO Insert table to replace "The team's primary starting quarterback, or the quarterback that started at the beginning of the season, is listed first. The number of games started in the season is listed in small parentheses. Statistics do not include post-season starts." - DONE Sortable or unsortable columns? - DONE We'll need a consensus. Like I said, the previous FL review I made told me to change the table into a sortable format, but now I'm told to make it unsortable. If unsortable, should I remove the templates that make names easy to sort? All recently promoted sports lists of people (football and basketball) do not use sortable tables. I say that sorting isn't necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Note A, B, C, D, and G need verification by a source. - DONE Found link for Note B (1978 season) and Note C (strikes). Removed 3 notes detailing injuries that made Dawson/Livingston, Grbac/Gannon, and Green/Huard rotate the starting job. This sounds too detailed and if anybody wants to read up on them, check out History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks or their own respective articles. I felt they were too much and irrelevant in a broad sense. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC) Well, when all my comments have been addressed, notify me.--TRUCO 22:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC) It looks much better, the only thing, however, is that links to the proper seasons should be linked in the lead. In addition, the year column should be made sortable. Lastly, the last part of the lead should be part of the second paragraph, its too short to stand alone on by itself.--TRUCO 14:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC) DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 01:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO ⁵⁰³ 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Disambiguation links need to be fixed.
  • DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• "The Chiefs have had 31 starting quarterbacks in their franchise's history." Move this sentence to the start of the next paragraph.
• "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback, playing all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season." A bit clumsy, try: "Cotton Davidson was the team's first starting quarterback; he played all 14 games for the Texans in their inaugural 1960 season."
• "Davidson played with the franchise from 1960 to 1962, by then Len Dawson was acquired through free agency and played for the franchise for 14 seasons" a) What happened to Davidson, did they release him? b) the sentence structure is off—"by then" doesn't belong here.
• "following the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV"-->after the Chiefs' victory in Super Bowl IV
• "Three future Hall of Famers played for Kansas City, including Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon." You say three, but "including" means that there are more. Reword to "Three future Hall-of-Fame quarterbacks started for Kansas City: Dawson, Joe Montana, and Warren Moon."
• "After Croyle and Huard were sidelined by injuries, Thigpen played in 11 games, winning one and losing ten games."
• "Thigpen remained the starter through the remainder of the season." Change "remained"-->was. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Refs 88 and 89 need publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

DONE conman33 (. . .talk) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 01:46, 6 December 2008 [2].

---

State highways in Hamilton County, New York

first FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)
previous FLC (18:59, 15 November 2008)

Ok, after solving the final problem with a user on my 1st and 2nd FLCs, I finally got to finish it off, and now I believe this is a sustainable candidate for FL. Again, all comments are open and welcome.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support - The comments raised in the two previous FLCs seem to have been resolved. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't satisfy the Featured List Criteria, perhaps think about using an alternative to "truncated" in the lead on occasions. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Like Sunderland said, comments have been resolved. All looks good! iMatthew 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

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

List of Roman Emperors

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [3].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The White Stripes

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

Should be good to go ago. Co-nominating with Red157. Gary King (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my comments from the previous FLC page were resolved to meet the FL Criteria.--S_RX 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The publications/sources in the refs should be linked once each e.g. The Guardian. Otherwise, assuming accuracy and comprehensiveness, the list looks good. Great work! the skomorokh 19:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Done, I think. Red157(talk • contribs) 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You need to do all of them, I think. RTE, BRIT Awards, XFM; anything with an article. What the VMA's were intende as an "alternative" to needs to be clarified as well. Almost there, the skomorokh 12:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I missed that issue with the NME "alternative" statement. It's because the normal British NME Awards have been removed and I'm not sure why. Red157 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. the skomorokh 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Support, assuming references check out and the list is comprehensive. the skomorokh 13:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - all concerns addressed above. iMatthew (talk) 19:11, 12 October 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 International Cricket Council members

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 03:22, 13 October 2008 [4].

---

Chicago Bulls seasons

previous FLC (01:14, 29 September 2008)

After the disastrous first nom, I have improved the lead section, hopefully I have addressed every concern. A special thanks to User:Zagalejo who helped me copyedit the lead. —Chris! _ct 21:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from SRX

Comments

• Now considered one of the best basketball players of all time, Jordan averaged 28.2 points per game as a rookie and immediately turned the Bulls into a perennial playoff contender. - source for Jordan being "the best"?

Fixed—Chris! _ct 00:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• the Chicago Studebakers, - is this suppose to have a red link?

I created a stub.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• # ^ Sachare, 5–7 - you use this book ref, but you don't note it anywhere.
• Also, what is verifying the list itself?

The sources is below the references. I've moved it up.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 00:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Support - my comments have been resolved and the list has improved heavily since it was at FLC, it now meets WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 14:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What info was taken from the "Team Index" and "Playoff index" sources?
    • Team Index is removed since it looks irrelevant. Playoff index is kept since it shows what teams played in the finals.—Chris! _ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Doesn't this page serve the same purpose? Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Never mind, I've made use out of it. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • It's weird that I still see it on the page.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe you need to purge the page.—Chris! _ct 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Why color the "finish" in the seasons where the Bulls won the division? I understand coloring the "division", but why the "finish"?
    • It indicates a playoff berth.—Chris! _ct 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is there a reason why some of those cells are light blue, rather than teal? Zagalejo^^^ 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • You're contradicting with the Key section now.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Light blue indicates division champions while teal indicates a playoff berth. How is that a problem or contradictive? ??—Chris! _ct 02:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, why not just use teal for every playoff berth in the "Finish" column? It may not be apparent to everyone that a division title guarantees a playoff berth. (Which, I assume, is the logic you're working with.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
          • I see that Crzycheetah removed the coloring from some of the cells in the "Finish" column. Honestly, I think that just muddles things even more - people who quickly look at the list might not realize that the team also reached the playoffs in those seasons. Could you please elaborate on your comment, Crzycheetah? Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Zagalejo, in some instances, the "finish" column was colored in light blue, which indicates the division title per the key. At the same time, the "division" column is colored in light blue as it's supposed to be. My question was why color two columns in light blue, so I removed the redundant light blue color from the "finish" column. Later, my changes were undone, so now I colored the "finish" column in orange because, in those seasons, the Bulls actually won the championship.--Crzycheetah 02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
              • OK, but the whole coloring scheme still seems messed up to me. Look at Boston Red Sox seasons. There's just one color for each row. Couldn't we do something like that? It would be a lot simpler. Zagalejo^^^ 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I agree. Let's do it.--Crzycheetah 04:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
                  • Well, I started editing the table, but upon preview, I had some doubts whether this will work. This list is a lot denser than the Red Sox list, with much smaller letters. Because the letters are so small, they might not show up very well against a teal background. Plus, we have those little symbols to go along with the colors (†,*,^,¤), which will alter the spacing within the table, and make things look messy. So, here are our options: 1) leave the table as is; 2) pick a different color for playoff berth, drop the little symbols, and then use one color per row; 3) come up with a new solution. Any thoughts? Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(→)How about New York Giants seasons as an example?--Crzycheetah 09:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should just leave the table as is. The colors we have now aren't confusing at all.—Chris! _ct 18:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see a huge difference between that and this, beyond the fact that the Bulls' list colors in the season columns for a championship year. I guess we can just leave the article as it is. Zagalejo^^^ 18:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Why is there no team seasons for some years? It seems like they were demoted from the league in those years, were they?
    • I presume they were left out because we don't have articles for every season yet. I added some red links. Zagalejo^^^ 20:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
      • In this case, red links are better than no links and no text whatsoever.--Crzycheetah 06:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any references to verify the awards?
    • Well, this source mentions everything but Krause's two Executive of the Year Awards and Jackson's 1996 Coach of the Year Award. Krause and Jackson's awards are easily verifiable, though. I'll get going on that. (Also, now that I see it, we should mention that Elton Brand was Co-Rookie of the Year in 2000, not the sole winner.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I've added some refs, and a comment about Brand. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • There has to be a note in the "1980-81" row explaining how the Bulls moved from the Western conference to the Eastern and how Midwest division became Central.
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 21:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 20:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support--Crzycheetah 21:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zagalejo

• Comment I have a question about the image of the United Center. Is there any particular reason that one was chosen over the other available pictures of the arena? Zagalejo^^^ 06:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I choose it simply because it is the current arena in used.—Chris! _ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • • Can we use this? It actually shows a Bulls game in action. The picture of the entrance is a little dull. Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
        • OK —Chris! _ct 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• Also Some of the items in the "Abbreviation" column are not actually abbreviations. How should we fix that? Zagalejo^^^ 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "symbols/abbreviations"—Chris! _ct 02:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, not everything is a symbol, either. We can just get rid of that top row altogether. I don't see why that section needs to be sortable. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • OK —Chris! _ct 04:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from Orlady

This is much improved since the previous FLC review. Congrats! However:

• I would like to see the first paragraph provide an overview summary of the Bulls' seasons. As things currently stand, the lead section is a detailed recounting of the Bulls' history, but there's no summary to start it off. (There was an overview summary at the end of the previous FLC discussion; it had some writing issues, but the substance was good. Can the substance be reclaimed?)
  • Hmmm... I'm not sure what part of the old version you're referring to. It's a little tough to provide a pithy overview of a sports team's seasons. Maybe we could mention their all-time record, and how many times they've been in the playoffs...? Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd expect to see something like "In the 41 (or is it 42?) full seasons since the team's founding in 1966, the Bulls have had xx winning seasons and xy losing seasons, and advanced to the playoffs on xz occasions. The team has won six NBA championships, xth most of any team in the league." --Orlady (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll see what I can do. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've tried to include something like that. However, I just mentioned the number of winning seasons, because if I mentioned the number of losing seasons as well, then I'd have to say something about the one season the Bulls finished exactly .500, and that would just makes things too complicated. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• The article lead still has some sportswriter-style idiom that (IMO) needs to be replaced with normal English (wink). In particular:
  • "Every previous professional basketball team in Chicago had either folded or relocated, but the Bulls prevailed" -- Can "folded" be replaced with an alternative term? (My best idea is "ceased operation"; I'm sure there's something better.) Also, I'm not sure that "prevailed" is a good way to say "succeeded" or "survived"; the topic isn't a competition or a war, but simply "remaining in business."
    • Yeah, I guess "folded" is somewhat informal. I don't think "ceased operations" is too bad. That could work for the time being, but I'll ponder it a little more. I'll replace "prevailed" with "survived". Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I've reworded that whole section. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Any other sportwriter idioms I should fix? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "The Bulls advanced to the post-season". -- I know what that means, but it's NBA-speak, not standard English. Could this be revised to "reached the playoffs" or "qualified for the playoffs"?
    • I think so. I used "post-season" just to inject some word variety. (I figured that anyone who needs this level of detail is already somewhat familiar with NBA parlance.) But I'll change it. Zagalejo^^^ 03:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC) My previous concerns about the lead have been resolved (sorry -- I tried to post this a couple of days ago, but the server didn't cooperate at that moment), but I have a couple of new minor issues with the article as it has evolved:

• The dates in the colored legend that precedes the main table (for example, "(1966–1970/1971–present)") are a source of confusion. I don't think the dates are necessary. Could they be deleted?

• They could probably be deleted (and the second part could be renamed as simply "Conference Champions"). I think the idea behind those dates is that the Western Conference was originally called the Western Division, which leads to unwanted complications. But those complications have no bearing on the color scheme of the table, since the Bulls were neither Division champs nor Conference champs until 1975.
• I'd like to hear Chrishomingtang's opinion, though, since he was the one who actually worked on the list. Zagalejo^^^ 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem having the date deleted.—Chris! _ct 01:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• What's the difference between the "Season" column and the "Team" column in the table? To the reader, they look identical, except for one footnote. Can the headings be edited to clarify the difference between the two sets of links?

• One column refers to the NBA season. The other column contains links to Chicago Bulls season articles (eg, 1995-96 Chicago Bulls season.) I tried to clarify this. Zagalejo^^^ 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good now. Support. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TonyTheTiger

A review of my FAC1 complaints is as follows:

• What happened to the fact about the third most championships.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll add it. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Well done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
• What happened to the fact about initially playing at Chicago Stadium and moving to the United Center in 1994?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, their first home was the International Amphitheater. There are lots of details about the Bulls that aren't mentioned here. This isn't Chicago Bulls, this is simply Chicago Bulls seasons. I think the lead should mainly focus on their varying levels of success over the years. Can you think of a good place to mention the arenas? Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The Chicago Bulls should have details of which years the team played in which stadia. It should also have a lot more pre-Jordan information. If you don't want to add any further info here that is O.K. as long as other WP:FL NBA team season lists don't do so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I've mentioned the stadiums in the first paragraph. I've added a little bit more information on the pre-Jordan era, but I think I've hit all the highlights. Can you think of anything important I'm missing? The article is already much longer than Los Angeles Lakers seasons, so I'm hesitant to add much more content. Again, this isn't the primary Bulls article; it's just a list with an introduction. Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I apologize. I was not complaining about Chicago Bulls seasons. I was saying the stadium stuff may not belong here, but that Chicago Bulls needed more stuff. You did not need to add that stuff here for me.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • • Ah, OK. Yeah, I think I'll get rid of the line about the stadiums. And I agree, the main Bulls article does need much more information about the pre-Jordan era. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• FAC1 complaint that "The All-Time record section should have a footnote saying statistics include games through Month DD, YYYY. During the season this may get confusing." still stands.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the top of the "Year by Year" section says that statistics are correct through the 2007-08 season. When the next season begins, we can adjust the article as necessary. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
    • That should be footnote info, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Could you put it where you want it to be? Zagalejo^^^ 01:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
• The table key should be in the same section as the table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I removed the subsection.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, that's fine. I'm not sure why I added the section division anyway. Zagalejo^^^ 05:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 9 October 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:Matthewedwards 08:27, 26 September 2008 [5].

---

List of Arizona Diamondbacks managers

I've expanded the article from redirect, and I think it meets criteria. Thanks for comments in advance.--LAAFan^sign _review 13:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unfortunately, this list too small and not comprehensive enough. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 00:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose A good list, nothing more. This list should stay as a section in the main article.--Crzycheetah 05:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/buck-showalter/ a reliable source?

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - A great prose but the list is too small and fails Cr4.--S_RX 00:33, 24 September 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:Matthewedwards 08:27, 26 September 2008 [6].

---

List of Soundgarden band members

Created the page yesterday and got much help from -5- (talk · contribs). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from REZTER ^TALK ø 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

Oppose (for now)

• Why did Sunquist leave the band?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• What was the bands reaction to this?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• What was the bands reaction to Yamamoto leaving?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't believe it is, you've included a quote fro mCornell on the matter but he jsut explains the situation and doesn't really express any opinion on the matter, this isn't really mandatory but just some room for improvement. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I added another quote which is the best one that I can find.-5- (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why was Everman fired?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Was is a collective decision from other band members?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• How did he react?
  • Unknown, can't find an interview with him.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why did the band break up? Can you expand on that?
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why have you only cited two of the statements? The whole thing needs a LOT more referencing.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Consider adding a timeline towards the bottom of the list.
  • Will work on it.-5- (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole list feels very short, the intro needs a lot of expansion. Maybe even consider adding a few sentences about each members joining and leaving in their sections too (see List of Slipknot band members). For now I'm goign to oppose because I believe it's FAR from FL quality. Contact me again if you make changes. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:43, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• "pursue a normal family life" the use of the word "normal" sounds too POV, and not very encyclopaedic
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the drummer for Skin Yard, who became the band's permanent drummer" to clarify you should remove "the band's" and replace it with "Soundgarden's" because it can get confusing if you jsut say "the band" when you're talkign about two different bands
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Scott Sundquist was asked to join the band so that Cornell could focus on singing.[12] Prior to joining the band, he had been friends with Cornell.[13] Sundquist left the band to spend time with his family.[1] He remained on friendly terms with Cornell and Thayil following his departure.[13]" that whole section seems very disjointed, it's like 3 sharp sentances. It doesn't flow well, consider rearanging it into two sentances maybe.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is there an image of the band you can use in the infobox?
  • There's no free image available. The only image is the one on Soundgarden's main article, and that wasn't allowed to be used on either Soundgarden discography or List of Soundgarden awards.-5- (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Is there any photos of the other 4 members?
  • I've searched through flickr, and can't find any free images.-5- (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work so far, the lsit is coming along nicely, I'm leening towards support. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Support - most of my concerns have been addressed, good work. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment a 'list' with seven items is not considered to be long enough to be featured quality. I suggest you merge this information into the Soundgarden article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a personnal meaning which has nothing to do with a FLC nomination. And the list is big and has much information. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't opposed it, I'm just trying to make everyone aware of the consensus that a list of less than ten is not featured quality. Consider merging it with the Soundgarden article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I do realise that you're one of the FL directors but I don't see anywhere on WP:FLC or WP:FL? it saying featured lists need to contain more than 10 things, so in fairness how is anybody to know? How about List of Dream Theater band members? REZTER ^TALK ø 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See this. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - per comments by The Rambling Man and the fact that the article fails CR 4, structure. It's not long enough to be a list, maybe if if the band had like 15 members, then it would be good.S_RX 23:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 5 (Erlewine... ) lacks a last access date.
  • Addressed.-5- (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose simply not Wikipedia's finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 24 September 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:Matthewedwards 07:15, 25 September 2008 [7].

---

Pink Floyd discography

If this becomes a FL i'm goin to start work on The Who, Bryan Adams, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Animals, Bryan Adams, Bruce Springsteen, The Pretenders and many more discography. If any one wants to help me with this, just contact me. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

previous FLC (23:06, 26 May 2008)

Comments - please check the basics before coming here..

• Caption is fragment, remove the full stop. Done
• "This page lists Pink Floyd albums and singles." - no it doesn't. Delete. Done
• " twenty-six singles" - 35 according the infobox. Done
• "fifteen music videos, and six video album" - 11 and 7 according to the infobox... Done
• All of last para of lead is uncited. Done
• "Although they were unsuccessfully sued by Waters for rights to the name, they again enjoyed..." - that's not a logical run-on clause. Suggest a decent copyedit. Done
• "Eventually they reached a settlement out of court with Waters allowing them use of the name." - what does this have to do with the discog? Done
• ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." - once again, prove they were released please. Done
• You should discuss the fact they released Ummagumma as both a live and a studio album in the lead. Done
• 10 compilations in the list, 7 in the infobox... Done
• Release dates do not need to be wikilinked per the recent WP:MOS deprecation of linking. Done
• Ref 18 not specific and quite why I should specify QOTSA I know not. Done
• Ref 39 looks like a wiki - what makes it reliable? Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the work BBHS is doing on this article. But I notice he has been making a dozen edits to it per day, for quite some time, changing things around in tiny steps. I wish he would use a personal sandbox to prepare his changes, and move them all at once when they are ready. His edits could also use edit summaries. More to the point of the featured list request, it looks like his work is not done, as he is still making significant changes daily, and I would have liked to see the changes reach a state of completion before announcing the candidacy. How can we be expected to assess the article while it is still being developed, and is continually changing? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • One of rock music's most successful acts, the group have sold over 200 million albums worldwide[1][2] including 74.5 million albums in the United States alone.[3] - have --> has, comma after worldwide Done
  • Im not sure whether using ref 35 is okay, due to it being a video, are there no other sources verifying the director? at the bottom of the page it sais alan parker directed the video Done
  • Other than that, looks okay in my eyes.--S_RX 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The lead is largely a carbon-copy of Pink Floyd. So many books on the Floyd have been written, is there any particular reason why they haven't been consulted? Considering that the band formed over thirty years ago, I doubt newer online sources would be as accurate as books. indopug (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps only the first paragraph is needed? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Finally, a classic rock discography is nominated! My comments are mostly trivial, but I think they're important:

• Perhaps Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980–81's capitalization should be changed to Is There Anybody out There? The Wall Live 1980–81 to comply with WP:MUSTARD and WP:CAPS (prepositions under five letters shouldn't be capitalized).
• Also, should it be Pink Floyd The Wall (film), Pink Floyd The Wall, Pink Floyd: The Wall or Pink Floyd's The Wall? Should we include "Pink Floyd" in the link from the discography or should we use a piped link to only show "The Wall"?didn't get that one

  Note to BBHS: For The Wall (film), I'm talking about the piped link. Right now it links to Pink Floyd The Wall (film), but on the actual page you only see The Wall (because the link is written as [[Pink Floyd The Wall (film)|The Wall]]. I'm asking if the link should display the full name of the film in the piped link (since the movie's name appears to be Pink Floyd The Wall and not just The Wall). Another slightly unrelated topic is whether the movie's actual name is Pink Floyd The Wall, Pink Floyd: The Wall, or Pink Floyd's The Wall. Xnux the Echidna 20:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Cover sais Pink Floyd The Wall  Done--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is "Have a Cigar" really by "Pink Floyd featuring Roy Harper" or is Roy Harper merely a session musician? If so, there's no need to put (featuring Roy Harper) next to "Have a Cigar".The dud sang lead vocals Done

  I realize that. The question is if the song is attributed to Pink Floyd featuring Roy Harper or just Pink Floyd with Roy Harper being mentioned in the production credits only. Xnux the Echidna 00:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Should we include "DVD" in the piped link for Pulse (1995 film)? Done

Xnux the Echidna 15:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Out There" capitalization is correct, it is a 2-word phrase, see WP:MUSTARD capitalization #3 examples. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. That only applies to verbs, and neither "out" nor "there" is a verb. "Out" is a full-fledged preposition in this example. For example, suppose the title was Is There Anybody in There? You wouldn't capitalize "in" in this example either. Xnux the Echidna 18:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. (However, in speaking the title out loud, I would tend to put some emphasis on the word "out", so it doesn't seem right for it to be lower case. But I agree the MOS says nothing about this.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You're using the Pink Floyd wikia as a source. Using wikis is a big no no in featured content. Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• I Support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Jaespinoza (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Why is WP:BOLDTITLE ignored. And why is The Dark Side of the Moon is the third best-selling studio album in the world (not counting compilations and various artists soundtracks). not sourced? Done and none of my FL has ever used a Boldtitle so i don't think it's needed. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose
  • "as they evolved" - what do you mean?
  • " London underground music scene " potential very confusing with London Underground.what do you mean?
    • London Underground. You need to explain what you mean by London underground music scene. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "After Barrett's departure, the band released Ummagumma the album was released as a doubel disc, the first disc was contained songs performed live the other disc contained the new studio recorded songs. singer and bass player Roger Waters gradually became the dominant and driving force in the mid-1970s," - I can't begin to tell you how much is wrong here...but I'll try...
    • "...Ummagumma the album..." needs a full stop or some other punctuation here.
    • "doubel" spelling please. Done
    • "doubel disc, the first disc contained songs performed live the other..." punctuation again. Done
    • "...songs. singer and ..." - Singer (capital S please)
    • "gradually became the dominant and driving force" - what context? What do you mean?
  • "[[List of best-selling albums worldwide|third best-selling studio album in the world] (not counting compilations and various artists soundtracks" - missing a ] and various artists should be linked.
  • "Waters sued the remaining members for the rights to the name, Waters lost and the band enjoyed worldwide success " - Waters...Waters... awful - rephrase please and also, the last clause of the sentence is really a non-sequitur - it isn't a logical follow-on from the Waters business.
  • "denotes releases that did not chart or weren't released in that country." rephrase and avoid contractions. Right now, it reads "denotes releases that... weren't released in that country" - releases that weren't released... reads peculiar to me.
  • US or U.S.?
  • Odd formatting in IE7 on the col headings for US/UK for the Soundtracks table.
  • Ref 39 is not specific.
  • What makes the following reliable sources please?
    • ourworld.compuserve.com.
    • brain-damage.co.uk/.
    • Clipland
    • neptunepinkfloyd.co.uk
    • weshow.com
  • Be consistent - is allmusic a work or a publisher? Compare refs 1 & 44. Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Opening sentence could do with being combined with the second. This is the article about their discography, and so that should be mentioned first. Done
• "This list does not include material performed by members of Sigma 6." Well why would it? Who are they to Pink Floyd? Done
• Try to reduce the commas in the second paragraph's opening sentence. Done
• "After Barrett's departure, the band released Ummagumma the album was released as a double disc," looks like it should be two sentences, perhaps? Done
• "the first disc was contained songs performed live the other disc contained the new studio recorded songs." ? Done
• "songs. singer and bass player" New sentences begin with a Capital Letter Done
• The lead mentions the albums very well, but it should introduce the entire article. There is nothing relating to singles, videos, etc. What was their first single? Which got to number 1 first? What's their most successful, for example
• Ummagumma should be in itallics Done
• 26 B-sides perhaps, but WP discogs don't include B-sides because they're not releases, just tracks. Done
• Ummagumma should probably be included in the tables only once. Either studio albums or live albums, but not both, Done
• You have labels for UK and US. What about all the other countries that you give chart release information about? Stick with just the label from their home country. Done
• "The Committee: Label: ?" What does the question mark mean? If it's unknown, then perhaps the list is incomplete. Done
• "London '66-'67" WP:DASH. Done
• Use letters from the Latin or Greek alphabet for footnotes, instead of I and IIHow do you do that? done.
• Footnote I should probably be moved to the "Album" columnWhat do you mean? Done.
• Footnote II should be moved to the UK chart position columnWhat do you mean? Done.
• Pink Floyd The Wall doesn't appear to be a video album, rather a musical movie. Done
• The Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett Story is a documentary film Done
• As is The Making of The Dark Side of the Moon Done

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Where possible, pipe link to the name of the Record chart, instead of just the country.Think i did it  Done
• Tonite Let's All Make Love in London and Zabriskie Point are not Pink Floyd soundtracks. They just happen to feature songs from them. Done
• There is one dablink in the article Donethink i did it?
• "See For Miles" should be "See for Miles"  Done

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:05, 24 September 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:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [8].

---

International reaction to 2008 Tibetan unrest

The lead and content was not considered appropriate for a featured article but was recommended as a featured list. It satisfieI am nominating the list as it satisfies the guidelines on length and content for a featured list. 03md (talk) 11:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• References need to be formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least publisher and access dates. References 4–11 are missing these.
• Some dates are linked while others are not; please be consistent in this. "On April 13th, a" should be "April 13" and be linked if other dates are to be linked.
• "International protests" is mostly proseline, so it doesn't flow very well. Perhaps merge some of the paragraphs to solve this.
• "Brazil - The" – if dashes are going to be used in places like this, at least make it an en dash per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• As above, websites need publisher and last access dates at the least.
• Please give the language if the source is in a non-English language.
• Please use link checker tool to check for dead links. It shows plenty.

- Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead says it's an article, this is FLC.
• Lead is inadequate for either FL or FA.
• Not keen on the bold links.
• You haven't addressed the reference or proseline issues Gary picked up over a week ago.
• Not featured quality at all I'm afraid.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 23 September 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:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [9].

---

List of micronations

After starting a flag column, adding references and making general improvements to the list, I think this list can be nominated for featured list status. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Expand the lead per the WP:WIAFL criteria - engaging lead.
  • Improved - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• No images?
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Follow WP:DASH for page, year ranges etc. (i.e. use en-dash, not hyphen)
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Follow WP:CITE for citation placements (i.e. no spaces between cites, no spaces between citation and punctuation)
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Your references have a number of red-links for dates - fix these.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Atlantium has an odd referencing problem.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'd expect a minimum number of redlinks in order to ensure this list links articles which are notable.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Ref 11 is German so it should say this in the reference. Check others.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'd make the bibliography section a "General references" section and put it before the current section, making both sections a lower level so you have level 2 References and level 3 General references and level 3 Specific references.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Place the table under its own section.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• A lot of references are missing publishers and access dates, which they should have per WP:CITE/ES.
  • They all have access dates and publishers where necessary, there is no need to repeat Lonely Planet several times (two exceptions, but I will try to fix those). Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed - All known publishers, as well as access dates, have been added. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• "See also" goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is the table of contents below the table?
  • Fixed, this was because the first section at the time was "references", so the column began just before that section. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• A lot of the text in Description column is not actually full sentences, so those shouldn't have periods at the end.
  • They are sentences - They are short sentences, the description boxes are too short for paragraphs with full sentences. The boxes were only ever intended as a summary of the micronation's description - even short sentences have full stops. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 20:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • They aren't all sentences. "Global sovereignty group based in Sydney." is not a sentence. Where's the subject of the sentence? Gary King (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • • Could you please tell me if there is any policy or guideline on full stops? I want to keep the description column consistent and I don't think having some boxes with full stops and some without is consistent within the list - any suggestions? Thanks - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I understand what you're saying, but English dictates that only full sentences must have full stops. I don't think it's in the Manual of Style; it's pretty much up to common sense on this one. In your point of view, you'd like to keep it for its aesthetic value, but sometimes English doesn't look pretty but it still reads well. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
          • What do you think about reorganising the boxes so that they each contain a set of bullet points? Anything against the MOS with this suggestion? - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure; I've done that before with previous lists I believe and I didn't have much success with them. Gary King (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think each box needs one sentence describing (very briefly) the location and founder of the micronation (one full sentence) - I'll see what improvements I can make, thanks for your comments. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet is to check current FLs and recently promoted ones to find lists that match this one, to get ideas on how to improve it. Gary King (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I have simplified the sentences and have attempted to create better, more complete sentences. It is not easy - I didn't want to repeat the micronations' names too often, so I replaced names with pronouns where I could, but other than that it is an overall improvement. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It definitely looks a lot better. I realize the difficulty in making these into sentences as I've had to do that myself for some of my earlier lists. Thanks for addressing my concern! Gary King (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your comments and contributions. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs):

• "This article is intended as a comprehensive list of micronations whose existence is verifiable in multiple, non-trivial third-party reference sources." What is the purpose of this sentence in the lead? People reading this article will assume that it is verifiable and comprehensive, why does need to be spelled out?
  • Removed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Some micronations have managed to extend some of their operations into the physical world by issuing coins, flags, postage stamps, passports, medals, and other items." Repetition of the word "some".
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "They can also exist in various forms, including in the physical world (on land, at sea and in outer space), online, in the minds of their creators - or some combination of these." MOS breach; hyphen needs to be em dash.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Motivations for the creation of micronations can include theoretical experimentation, political protest, artistic expression, personal entertainment or the conduct of criminal activity."
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Claimed various properties owned by its founder in New South Wales as its territory." Unclear sentence; is "claimed" used as a verb or an adjective? "Various" is vague" and should be deleted.
  • Done - various is deleted, but claimed clearly is a verb, though it wouldn't matter if it was considered an adjective because the meaning is the same. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "A group claiming tongue–in–cheek independence from the US in protest at a blockade established by the United States Border Patrol at the upper end of the Florida Keys." Hyphens instead of en dashes in the phrase tongue-and-cheek.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• The BjornSocialist Republic row needs cleanup.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• "An 50 m2 area in a forest located at Posio, Finland, founded by Ari Peltonen as a joke. Radio Helsinki and Helsingin Sanomat follows what happens in the state." Should be 50 meters² (use  tags).
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Page ranges in references should use en dashes, not em dashes.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• One more thing: Date linking is now deprecated by the MOS.
  • Done - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• There are inconsistencies in the capitalization of "internet".
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Not fixed—I still see consistencies. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed - I found two uses of the word internet, both now have capital letters. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 47 does not have a publisher.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)))

• Oppose my main concerns from PR are still not resolved. (1) isn't there a reference stating that this is the complete list? what is the point of featuring the list if there is no reason to believe that the list is complete? (2) I still believe that adding a column with the location would help. even if ~20% have unknown locations, then the others at least can be ordered by some geographic coordinate. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Disregarding opposition - The reasons why your main concerns were not resolved was because they can't be resolved. Firstly the above are not good reasons for opposition, it would be better to use the title comment and even then this does not benefit the article itself. You won't ever get a complete list of micronations in the same way you will never get a complete list of stars with confirmed extrasolar planets - we nominate lists as featured because they represent the best lists on Wikipedia whether they are complete or not.

And I have already explained why we don't have a location column - micronations don't necessarily exist on land. How can a micronation have an unknown location? It either exists or it doesn't. Micronations can exist in so many ways - this isn't the list of sovereign states. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Not nearly good enough. Threadbare.

• Hyphens and en dashes—There are a number of mistakes. Please read about them at MOS. "1990's"—also see MOS.
• Year range not supplied for entities that clearly no longer exist.
• Fails the requirement for comprehensiveness: e.g., Neue Slwenische Kunst—where the hell is it? Who were these artists?
• I think "Victoria, Australia", not just the state-name. Farmer's name?

These are just odd examples; god knows what the rest is like. What about a more sectionalised table, with column for location, one for the instigator, etc.? Tony (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Vague response, disregarding majority of it - unlike the comments above, the vast majority of this paragraph is just a repetition of Nergaal's comment. I'll check the "1990s" MOS problem, however stating that there are problems with the dashes does not help - you need to be more specific, because so far you are the only editor claiming that there is still a problem. This is a list of micronations, not their founders (we already have a list for that) and the description box itself is just a summary - for detail, read the main article. I have already explained, several times, why we can't have a location column. It is a list of micronations, it gives basic information for the entities as well as its flag, therefore it has passed the "requirement" (Policy or guideline for this? Again, you need to be specific) for comprehensiveness. The "founded" column refers to the year of foundation, because micronations are ephemeral. The year of foundation is generally the only accurate information we have for the timeline of micronations. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed problems - I have fixed the 1990's problem by removing the apostrophe. I have looked at past comments, and the page itself, and I have found some minor errors in the references (fixed), however the rest of the dashes/hyphens seem to be correct. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Question: What criteria is being used for inclusion onto this list? Looking at the reference I see some micronations, like Grand Duchy of Elsanor, that are not listed here. Criteria #3 of WP:FL? requires the list to "comprehensively cover the defined scope". --maclean 19:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Inclusion generally includes reliable references or an article on the subject. As for whether the list can include all micronations, it can't because it won't. There are literally thousands of micronations, with only a few that can be mentioned on Wikipedia. You are correct, Elsanor could be added, but the list will only ever contain the vast majority of micronations, never all of them - we just don't know of all the micronations that exist as we do with sovereign states or unrecognised states. Asking editors to complete the list would be an impossible task, however this list does contain a high amount of the notable micronations - so the list will never be complete, but very close. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Why do some of the listed micronations have no Wikipedia article? Are they not notable enough to have one? If so, then why are they listed here? Perhaps only list the micronations that have Wikipedia articles as we can be reasonably certain that those are notable. Gary King (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • An article does not establish notability, references do. The reason why they don't have articles might be because there is just not enough information for a single article so they have been "merged" with the list. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.goworldtravel.com/article.aspx
    • Travel news organisation - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:34, 18 September 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 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Replaced - with Lonely Planet - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/rla.htm
    • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Did you replace it and if so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No - Self-published sources are the only sources I could find that supported this micronation's existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.kalajokimatkailu.fi/en/home.html
    • Tourism organisation - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Removed - I could only find blogs that support the existence of this micronations. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.llanrwst.net/indexEng.asp
    • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Did you replace it and if so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No - Mostly blogs and wikis support the existence of this micronation, but I found nothing reliable. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.bendruomenes.lt/comunity/sites/static.php?pid=7541&id=7554
    • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Did you replace it and if so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No - again, generally blogs. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.schnews.org.uk/archive/news131.htm
    • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Did you replace it and if so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • No - again, blogs. - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.usns.info/
    • Numismatic organisation - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • See above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Replaced - with Lonely Planet - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Per the MOS, don't put link titles in all capitals.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Please note any websites that are in non-English languages.
  • Fixed - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 18 needs a publisher and page numbers
  • Fixed - Replaced with Lonely Planet
• http://www.historytalk.org/Tom%20Vague%20Pop%20History/Tom%20Vague%20Pop%20History.htm goes to a domain registration page (i.e. it deadlinks)
  • Deleted - Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 18 September 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:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [10].

---

List of English monarchs

I know I haven't finished the Irish monarchs lists yet but I couldn't resist. I have unlinked the dates, written out numbers under ten and vastly expanded the intro in preparation. ;) Best, --Cameron* 17:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: You know what I'm going to say about the name. ;) --Golbez (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...it shouldn't stop the article from being featured, though. The name can be changed within seconds. Would you like me to raise your concern at WP:ROYALTY? I think it's the best place for the discussion. ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do. --Golbez (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm still on the fence, but the discussion has been started [[11]]. You are most welcome to comment yourself, of course! ;) --Cameron* 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question. I am curious about the use of the term 'English' in the title. The list begins in 774-796 but our article on England says that the Kingdom was created in 927. Were people considered English before there was an England? Am I correct in saying that Elizabeth II (born in London) is British, and not English? --maclean 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph of Kingdom of England. It states that 927 is the founding date, although a true founding date is impossible to decide. 927 is the traditional date (unification under Aethelstan). Kings as far back as Egbert of Wessex (see list) used the title "Rex Anglorum", meaning King of the English, so yes I'd assume he thought of himself as English, even back then. As to your latter question; Though many people mistakenly called her "Queen of England", she is indeed "Queen of the United Kingdom", which as you said makes her British. Interestingly Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of both the first kings of England and Scotland. The British monarchy is the continuation of the Scottish and English monarchs...sorry I'm blabbering on again. ;) Hope that helped! :) --Cameron* 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.thepeerage.com/index.htm
  • http://www.archontology.org/
  • http://www.britannia.com/
  • http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm
  • http://www.britroyals.com/index.htm
  • http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/index.htm
  • http://www.burkes-peerage.net/welcome.aspx
  • http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ (Note it was originally published in 1917, and definitely has a Catholic slant.)
  • http://www.geocities.com/missourimule_2000/index.htm
  • http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/
  • http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/index.html
  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/
• You have your publishers of the websites in the link titles. Please list them outside the link titles.
• Other websites don't have a publisher listed at all.
• Per the MOS, don't list link titles in all capitals.

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. As a side note, it's not at all remarkable to be a "direct" descendant of both the first kings of England and Scotland. I can claim the same thing. Anyone descended from Henry I of England can claim that, and there are LOTS of folks who can. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - no work on responding to Ealdgyth and regardless of the prose, the list has MOS problems (particularly WP:DASH), references have different kinds of date linking from ref to ref, Refs 5 to 8 are the same. Just not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 23 September 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:Scorpion0422 01:11, 24 September 2008 [12].

---

Tampa Bay Storm seasons

Worked on this article in my sandbox, and after completing it moved it to main title. I copied off the NFL season pages and copied their format to create season page for this AFL team. --Gman124 ^talk 05:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is a list of seasons completed by the Tampa Bay Storm American football franchise "...
  • We no longer encourage lists to start with "This is a list..." - FAs don't start "This is an article...." so why should our FLs? So you may need some rework on the opening couple of sentences - try introducing it by telling me (a non-expert) who the Tampa Bay Storm are, what they do, how long they've been doing it, what they record seasons are etc.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • No bold links in the lead please.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Use en-dash, not hyphen for separating scores, records etc.
  • Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Postseason Results" - why not just "Postseason results"?
  •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• WP:COLOR should be applied here - don't just color a row, what if someone is colour-blind or visually impaired and can't distinguish these rows from the others easily? Use symbols too.
  • Y --Gman124 ^talk 16:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The franchise was originally known as the Pittsburgh Gladiators, and were one..." - was becomes were here.
  • Y --Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• "loosing both games. They franchise moved from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Tampa, Florida in 1991, and changed their name to the Tampa Bay Storm."
  • losing.
  • The franchise
  • changed its name
  •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• "a 19-year streak of playoff appearances.[4] The Storm's 19-year playoff appearance streak" - repeat "19-year ... playoff appearance[s]" makes dull reading.
  •  Done Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• The whole lead is a little clunky and not that engaging. I'd seek advice from a decent copyeditor who can expand and enrich the text.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - few big issues, fails some of the WP:FL?
  • Remove bold link from lead per MOS:BOLD
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The list documents the season–by–season records of the Storm's franchise from 1987 to present, including postseason records, and league awards for individual players or head coaches. - two things, "the list?" how about "this list." But either way using "this list" is discouraged. Remove that part and place this somewhere more relevant like at the top of the table.
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 16:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of using four dashes to make a line, use a section break.
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • They franchise moved from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Tampa, Florida in 1991, and changed their name to the Tampa Bay Storm. - "they franchise?"
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, This is a list of seasons completed by the Tampa Bay Storm American football franchise of the Arena Football League (AFL). - avoid this, and instead start the sentence with something like "The Tampa Bay Storm are a blah blah for the blah blah league, etc."
    •  Done Gman124 ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

S_RX 21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

SatyrTN comments

Two comments, but neither are show stoppers:

• Would love to see sortability added for the Season, Finish, Wins, and Losses columns. However, that would mean splitting into two tables, since the full colspan rows would have to be removed. So don't feel this *has* to be done.
• At the risk of being accused of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, having a background color *and* a symbol is redundant and confusing. Does anyone know if there is a policy on this?
  • See Wikipedia:Colours#Using colours in articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
• Overall, I support this FLC. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose
  • "St. Pete Times Forum is the current home of the Storm since 1997." perhaps "St Pete Times Forum has been the home of the Storm since 1997."?
  • "...originally known as the Pittsburgh Gladiators, and was one of the original ..." 2x original - can we think of a better wording here? Especially as "original" appears in the next sentence as well... and the one after that...
  • 19–year and 22–year look like they've got an en-dash - should be a hyphen in this case.
    •  Done --Gman124 ^talk 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What does the en-dash mean in the Conference/Division column?
    • I put the dashes for season in which there weren't any conferences or divisions. Gman124 ^talk 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
      • That needs explaining in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Your four general refs are the same as the first four specific refs, right? Seem unusual.
  • Can you show me which of your references, for example, cites Brett Dietz as rookie of the year?
    • go to the "Tampa Bay Storm — Team History" link and click on year 2007 under season column. --Gman124 ^talk 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 23 September 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:Scorpion0422 22:47, 21 September 2008 [13].

---

List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season

Trying a new format for this type of article. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment. This is very premature! I'd suggest withdrawing and waiting for the relevant discussion to reach some sort of conclusion. Rushing this out means it is heading to a fail on stability issues: A work in progress is not a Featured-anything candidate. As it currently stands, it is similar in overall concept to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. That statistic article is much better developed than this article at this time.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed. I suggest you withdraw. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know the discussion was regarding this particular format. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:58, 21 September 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 13:58, 19 September 2008 [14].

---

List of Olympic records in swimming

Ho hum, dare I try two in a row? It's another comprehensive, illustrated and cited list. It may even be interesting to read? I hope so. All comments gratefully received, supports even more so! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scorpion0422

A few questions:

Is there a reason why the open water swimming events aren't included?

Should this page include records from defunct events like the 1000 m or underwater swimming or should it be limited to current events?

Is there a way to add which records were set in the finals of events, and which were set in heats or semi finals?

-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Good questions. Firstly, the easy question - this should be limited to un-defunct records. Perhaps you'd like me to clarify that in the text if it's not clear already? Secondly, the open swimming events - this edit from someone who seems to be expert started me off feeling a little nervous about including the marathon events. I had started to do so and was reverted. The IOC seem to have no clear indication that these events have IOC-sanctioned records. If you could point me otherwise then so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn't hurt to clarify that in the text. As for the marathon events that's a bit trickier, maybe you should ask at WP:OLYMPICS. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the marathon, probably right. Per the finals or heats, then is it particularly pertinent? I'm happy to try and dig back into archives forever to find out exactly the circumstances but to be fair, this is a list of the records, who gained them, and where. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's really more of a curiosity thing than anything because while reading through I was wondering who actually won a gold medal with that record and who didn't. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. It may take some time to find that information out as it's not necessarily clear from the sources I've found yet. If you consider it essential then, by all means, I'll do my best! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On quick glance it seems obvious that the majority were in the final. However, would you prefer I go through and double-cite (if required) those which weren't? Not sure it's more than just for interest but if you consider it "essential" for the FL then who am I to disagree...?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Clarified the "defunctness" of the records (can't believe that's a real US word!). I'll keep looking at the marathon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

One more (possibly) final thing, rather than continually linking to "swimming at the ____ Olympics" could you link to that event's page? ie. Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metre breaststroke. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, of course. If I'd have known those pages existed then I'm sure I'd already have done it! Cheers for the pointer. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, hang on - you mean in the Games column? I have a nasty feeling that may constitute an "easter egg" style link... but, you're right in that it seems like a more relevant link. So, should I change the column entirely to reflect not the Games but the portion of them, or just deal with the fact it's a little "easter"ish? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no need to answer, I see it clearer now I'm looking at the markup. All good, I'll change. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Got that. Hope it works for you! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes now added for those records which occurred outside of gold medal-winning performances. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion, there doesn't seem to be an explicit statement that marathon records aren't counted but this official link talks about all records broken and doesn't include them. Also, this official IOC records search page doesn't provide marathon results when searching under Aquatics-Olympic Records.... Trying to prove a negative is proving, well, challenging! What do you suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Andrwsc is partially right. They do keep records in canoeing (I remember because during the games Adam van Koeverden broke one) but I think they are unofficial records. This is probably the situation with open water swimming. For now, I suggest keeping them out. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So have I dealt adequately with your comments thus far? Cheers for your input.. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I can't support because I'll be closing this one, but you do have my approval. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The International Olympic Committee recognises the fastest performances in pool-based swimming events at the Olympic Games. - recognises --> recognizes
    • No need really, BritEng vs USEng issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I feel that the note about the world records should go at the bottom or be inserted into a separate row. it just looks awkward up there.
    • This has been discussed before and the general consensus was that because you could navigate from the TOC to the Women's records and not be aware of the key, so hence it's added in both places, prominently. We tried making it smaller, adding it in a separate table etc but this final placement seemed most useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The record IMO, should be right aligned and the character representing the world record should go to the left, it makes the table flow better (in it's appearance)
    • Well, on my monitor the records are right-aligned and the diamond is on the left. Looks fine in IE7 and Safari. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My fault, I meant left aligned.--S_RX 11:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, right aligning the numbers means that the minutes, seconds and hundredths all line up rather nicely so I think I'll leave it as is unless anyone else thinks otherwise... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the record should be made sortable, I would like to sort to see who has the best record, and things in that nature.S_RX 23:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm, I thought about this but considered it virtually useless as each event is different, their relative records aren't relevant. I'm not convinced it's required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 3 (Bejinig 2008 Official Site) has the publisher in the link title, should probably be outside it.

Otherwise, sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Eadglyth, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dweller

• First sentence bugs me:

"The International Olympic Committee recognises the fastest performances in pool-based swimming events at the Olympic Games." Is it only the IOC that recognises these as Olympic Records? Why isn't the term mentioned? Plenty of non-pool swimming events are held and have historically been held, so why are they excluded? (Especially since River Seine is mentioned) Are they not Olympic Records? Multiple problems there. And uncited.

• • No, it's not only the IOC that recognises them but it doesn't say only the IOC. But I can rephrase. Actually I think only one non-pool swimming event is held, the marathon swimming for which the IOC do not hold a world record. Other aquatic events do not fall under the category of swimming as far as the IOC are concerned. Also, there are no IOC records held that I can find for defunct records, e.g. the underwater obstacle race or the "plunge for distance" events. If it helps, I'll include a better description of the scope, i.e. non-defunct events, although I felt that was adequately covered in the note "include only those events which are currently recognised by the IOC as Olympic events". I think you're asking me to prove a negative. Since the IOC do have records of these events available to me, and I sought to exclude them from the scope, citing that they are not records is a problem as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• For comprehensiveness, I do believe that dDefunct events need to be included, but separated from "live" ones. If the IOC decides to drop some of the current events (which would be a good thing, but I digress!) the records wouldn't cease to exist because the event is no longer in favour.
  • As above, the scope of the list is constrained to swimming events currently recongised by the IOC in the Olympics. If you want to increase the scope to include defunct records then perhaps we ought to send List of Olympic records in athletics over to FLCR as it didn't include them either (e.g. standing jump etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

More to come... --Dweller (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Andrwsc

• I don't see the need for the text in the lede from "Men's swimming has been part of the Summer Olympics..." through to the end. The discussion of swimming from 1896–1904 is tangential to this article. It might be appropriate for the lede of Swimming at the Summer Olympics, but seems out of place here, on an article specifically about records. If it is desired to include a mention of the history of Olympic records, then the first official report that specifically mentions them for swimming is from the 1912 Games (page 1165 of the PDF file):
  • (ed). Bergvall, Erik (December 1913). The Olympic Games of Stockholm 1912 Official Report (PDF). Stockholm: Wahlström and Widstrand. p. 851. Retrieved 2008-09-19. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
• That document also lists a record for the obsolete 400m breaststroke, so that might be interesting for this list per comments above. I cannot find any source that shows an Olympic record for defunct events prior to 1908, so adding them for "comprehensiveness" would be original research, would it not? The 1908 report has two mentions of Olympic records in the prose text (for 100m and 1500m freestyle), but that's all. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Note: The nominator (i.e. me) has withdrawn this FLC due to lack of support, lack of interest, and a general idea that defunct records should be included despite the fact they are unobtainable. Cheers to all who have contributed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm. As the original author of that list, I am certainly supportive and interested, and I just gave you a reliable source for a record for a defunct event. If you need more support, please let the WP:WikiProject Olympics folks know about this nomination. I have seen several Olympic-related articles and lists lately that have been worked on by non-project members for featured content status, which is great, but there is lots of support for you if you only care to ask for it. Please reconsider your withdrawal—I don't think it's necessary to do that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I appreciate that. Perhaps you'd consider taking on the mantle and pushing the list on through. It's exceeded its ten-day limit already so that's why I (as an FL director) withdrew it. Feel free to continue with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 19 September 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:Scorpion0422 11:59, 19 September 2008 [15].

---

List of Irish monarchs

This list hasn't been reviewed before but it looks quite good. There are plenty of sources and the list is logical and aesthetically pleasing. Thanks for reviewing! :) --Cameron* 16:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• These days, we discourage the start of list being simply "This is a list of the monarchs of Ireland." - things have moved on. I'd opt for some background and some context on who these Irish monarchs are/were and why they're relevant. Check out some of the other FLCs here for some ideas.
• Lead is a little short - I'd look for at least two fat paragraphs.
• No real need for that bold in the caption.
• Probably worth considering a few links in the lead - Henry VIII, Church of England etc. In fact, for non-experts, some of this may even be a little too specialist... Consider "appealing to all".
• "The Kings of Irish Kingdoms to 1607" - hdg - last time I looked, headings were discouraged from having something like "The... " at the beginning.
• " consisted as few as five and as many as nine main kingdoms" - isn't it consisted of?
• "The following is a list of the main Irish kingdoms and their kings" - avoid, introduce these concepts using elegant and engaging prose.
• A bunch of words in the "The Kings of Irish Kingdoms to 1607" section which I'm confused about - e.g. "Sil Muiredaig", "Eóganachta" etc...

They are dynasties. As far as I know there is no anglicisation of the dynasty. I've made it more clear by adding dynasty after the name. --Cameron* 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Use en-dash for year ranges, not hyphen.
• Avoid linking headings, such as House of Plantagenet.
• These days, the MOS says wikilinking of dates for autoformatting is deprecated, so perhaps consider unlinking the dates in the table.
• "traditionally murdered" - reads odd to me. How is one traditionally murdered?! I know what you mean but perhaps add "believed to be" or "considered" between the tradition and the act?
• Henry VIII last cell is incomplete.
• Numbers below ten should be written in text - 8 children - eight children.
• References should use the title parameter correctly.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Make the changes, keep the FLC open. This is, by no means, the neediest list! Keep up the good work and enthusiasm. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Could you explain the last bullet to me? I don't fully understand it. Also, could you check that the intro paragraphs are "fat" enough? ;) Is the first sentence acceptable? I got it off another featured list but it's rather short and uninventive! Thanks again! ;) --Cameron* 18:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • When you reference things, use the {{Cite web}} template and fill in as much as you can, including things like title... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
        • So bascially (to a layman like me;)) convert <ref> sources to ones using the {{cite web}} template? Is this standard now? I always reference the other way. Best, --Cameron* 15:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Keep using the <ref> ... </ref> and use {{cite web}} inside it. It makes for a consistent appearance for all refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't like the name. I look at it, and I think, "This is a list of monarchs of Irish descent." But it appears to be about monarchs of Ireland. It should be named "List of monarchs of Ireland". --Golbez (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Golbez! Some of the minor Irish monarchs (in the first list, ie up to 1607) are of Irish descent. Usually I would agree with you, however all our monarchial lists use the "List of X monarchs" format. Btw you could say the same for List of Canadian monarchs. Just don't go there! ;)--Cameron* 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider this an outgrowth of my complaint on WT:FLC. Just because other lists are named lazily doesn't mean the trend should continue. And in fact I would definitely say that other list should be renamed "List of monarchs of Canada", I don't understand your fear of it. =p --Golbez (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I fear it because I will be the one left to split List of British monarchs into list of monarchs of GB and list of monarchs of UK. No matter, I will probably enjoy doing so. ;) Regards, --Cameron* 15:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: I put a note on both WP:IRELAND and WP:COMMONWEALTH. --Cameron* 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: To be honest, I don't see the point of it. It's just a list of English/British/United Kingdomish kings and queens with the word "Ireland" substituted, and a shorter list of old Irish kingdoms to give it local flavour. If people want a list of monarchs let them just go to List of English monarchs/List of British monarchs. Scolaire (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment:There are some Irish Irish monarchs on the page too, if you get what I mean. The information presented on the Irish monarchs page is actually entirely different to the English monarchs page. There are only similar on a first glance. Take another look and tell me what you think. ;) Best, --Cameron* 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I think the names, pictures, births, marriages and deaths are identical with those on the English and British lists, for the good and simple reason that they are the same people. The whole of Irish history is one of struggle against the Norman/English/British/United Kingdomish invaders, as you well know. Presenting their kings as though they were popularly acclaimed by the Irish people is pure silly! Scolaire (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Please let us keep our personal convictions out of this. I never said anything about them being "popularly acclaimed by the Irish people".

PS:There is not such word as United Kingdomish. ;) Best, --Cameron* 11:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• My personal conviction is that this is a poor candidate for featured list. It's difficult to !vote without expressing that. PS There is now :-) Scolaire (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how your comment has anything to do with the featured list criteria. Could you please explain why it does not meet the criteria for being a featured list? Malinaccier (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to it being a featured list because it is a silly list and a pointless list. End of story. I have said all I have to say. Scolaire (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Resolute 19:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say? Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Because it should include the historical Irish high-kings, probably from Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid give or take. That's a pretty big failure in coverage. But sources used are dogdy (e.g. Peerage.com) and mostly internet based (hence lazy), plus the info on each one is just a replication of info on other similar articles (per some concerns already mentioned). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.thepeerage.com/p10201.htm#i102006 a reliable source? Looking at John's entry (because it's first) it's using Weir's Britain's Royal Family, Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry DeBrett's, the old Dictionary of National Biography (which is outdated) and two websites. While none of this is spectacuarly wrong, it is pretty odd to not just use the many and varied biographies of John available. This is obviously not the best source available. (And it has John marrying firstly twice???)
• What makes http://www.archontology.org/ a reliable source?
• You have your publishers of the websites in the link titles. Please list them outside the link titles.
• Other websites don't list a publisher at all.
• What makes http://www.britannia.com/ a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/index.htm?
• And http://www.britroyals.com/index.htm?
• And http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/index.htm?

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 18 September 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:Scorpion0422 11:58, 19 September 2008 [16].

---

The Fourteen Infallibles

previous FLC (16:20, 18 August 2008)

• This list has reached FA criteria. I was failed last time duo to lack of attention, thus please check even if you're unfamiliar with the issue. --Seyyed(t-c) 01:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose FA criteria and FL criteria are different.
• the lists of people that are featured have faces too.
• the list fails to give any useful information except for the names and the period they lived in. What did these people do? Even for entry #1, you need a good description since ignorants outside Islamic countries do not actually know anything about it.
• since this is an English wiki, what does stuff like " Abu al-qasim" mean? Featured stuff should be possible to be printed, which renders the wikilinks useless.
• what is an Imam?????
• how is the infobox/picture useful to the list?
• I am not sure it is ok for an encyclopedia to reference other encyclopedias; certainly it is not ok for a FL to have more than 50% references that are encyclopedias
• going through the list/article, I certainly did not understand what is the relevance/notability of this list. I am sure this sounds like a blasphemy to a Muslim, but seriously, not everybody has read the Quran.
• I am not sure why is such an emphasis on their death.
• "868–unknown" ?????? This is an encyclopedia, where if you put death years you try to find estimates. I agree that the doctrine says he is still alive, but I am sure some sources are more precise.

Nergaal (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I agree with

I see no reason for this list. The imams are surely listed elsewhere (they deserve a list). That there are two more infallibles should not, it seems to me, matter much. Elsewhere there is surely a discussion of "infallibility" with a section on the Shi'ite doctrine. It is, of course, proper to mention that, in addition to the twelve Imams, Muhammad and Fatima are considered to be infallible. I am not sure how to do this in Wikipedia but the topic "The fourteen infallibles" should be reduced to a reference into the article of infallibility specifically at the place where Shi'ite doctrine is discussed.</ref>

For example if there is an article with all the UN members, then creating a list with all the UN-members + then independent countries that are not members (probably around 5) would be useless. This list brings little new, and is quite repetitious. Nergaal (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, just found Twelve Imams. How is this (1) on par with that list; (2) bring anything new? Nergaal (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles is a renown title and you can find list and article in notable sites.--Seyyed(t-c) 01:22, 8 September 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 15:45, 17 September 2008 [17].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Bryan Adams

All the grammar problems have been fixed and the lead re organized thanks to Washburnmav. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) previous FLC (16:08, 16 August 2008)

Comments

• "This is a comprehensive list of major music awards received by Bryan Adams.." Done
  • Don't start the list this way - featured articles don't start "This is a comprehensive article about.." so lists shouldn't either. Done
  • Don't use bold links in the lead. Done
• "but has only won 2. " - this is inherently POV saying "only" and you should use two, not 2. Done
• "Adams has received four awards from 26 nominations." - not according to the infobox. Done
• " and[6]was " - placement of citation per WP:CITE please. Done
• "Canada's Walk of Fame in 1998. [5] " - placement of cite again. Done
• Order citations numerically where possible. Done
• "and been nominated for 3." - three....Done
• "has received one award, and been nominated for ten." - perhaps turn this around to say "has won one award from ten nominations"? Done

A lot of these issues have been pointed out to you (BBHS) on a number of occasions. Please stop bringing lists here which are obviously not ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "for . He also "? Fixed
• "in 1995 and released the" – "in 1995 for the" Fixed

Gary King (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those were my mistakes, thanks for catching them. Washburnmav (talk) 21:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.canadaswalkoffame.com/newSite/inductees/98_bryan_adams.xml.htm deadlinks  Fixed
• Are the dates in ()'s in the refs the last access dates? Or a publication date? You use "Retrieved on ..." in the first two refs, that's the more usual form on Wiki, perhaps you should change to that?  Fixed
• Per the MOS, title links shouldn't be in all capitals (current ref 10).  Fixed

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I fixed all the issues Ealdgyth brought forward. I checked every ref personally and added a relevant "retrieved on..." date (today). Everything suggested to this list has been corrected promptly, and accurately. Unless there are more objections or corrections I strongly believe this is now ready to become a featured list. Thanks. Washburnmav (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - for a start, check out your accessdate edits - lots of redlinks in the references section now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it had specific formatting, those are now fixed. Washburnmav (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments II

• "Adams has been nominated for 13 Grammy Awards.." - no need to repeat his name so soon after such a brief opening sentence, i.e. "He has been..." Fixed
• Link the 1992 Grammy awards in the table. Fixed
• "four awards from 27 nominations." not according to the infobox. Fixed
• "Adams' career was launched by his 1980 debut album.." - I doubt it. His career started before that. Perhaps his first successful album launched in 1980.  Fixed
• "His fourth album Reckless was released in 1984 with sales of more than five million copies in the United States.[2]" - this is an awards list, does this sentence have any relevance?

I believe it fits better now that I changed the preceding sentence. It shows a progression of his fame to the international level. Washburnmav (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Same for the next two sentences. A discography might be interested in all these details but you need to convince people these facts are relevant to the awards Adams has won.  Fixed (Couldn't find a good way to fix it so I removed the paragraph. In this context it is unecessary.) Washburnmav (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Adams was awarded the Order of Canada[3] and the Order of British Columbia[4] for his contribution to popular music and his philanthropic work. He was also inducted into Canada's Walk of Fame in 1998.[5] In April 2006 he was inducted into the Music Hall of Fame at Canada's Juno Award," - this is good, but it's only in the lead, not expanded upon in the list.  Done
• "and was recently nominated for his fifth Golden Globe for songwriting on the film Bobby.[6][7]" - recently needs to be framed chronologically (ie "in 2008") - and he didn't songwrite in the film, he wrote songs for the film, right? Done
• Ref 6 is not specific, find an alternative.  Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why aren't there any Juno Awards on this list? -- K. Annoyomous24 05:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cause The Ramblin Man has something against searchable databases, and i can't find a direct source for it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

So this list is incomplete? You must provide explicit references, not links to search engines. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

no, you don't need to add all the awards, this is enough, if you put it that way most of FL award pages are in complete. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Acutally, that's a really interesting point. WP:WIAFL criterion 3 requires a list to meet a certain degree of "comprehensiveness" - I quote: "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items;" - we need a scope to be defined or, at least, what a "major" award consists of. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have time to add this or do anything with it but here a good direct source for Juno Awards. Washburnmav (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The man has been nominated for a juno award 55 times, that article doesn't even cover half of them, actually it does, i didn't even bother to check it, but your right. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is comprehensive enough, it has enough major awards to be seen as comprehensive. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Please define, in this list's case "the defined scope" or what comprises "the major items"? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The list contains over 20 awards which are all notable and the list contains honors which not many award list has. Question is it a guidline which sais the source is got to be direct?

"CRIA Database Search" (Use keyword "Soundgarden"). Canadian Recording Industry Association. Retrieved 4 April 2008.

Would you agree this formating would work? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments He's been nominated three times for the Academy Award for Best Original Song. It's a prestigious prize, so it's worth mentioning. BomBom (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, one would easily consider this to be one of the most "major" awards available. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

 FixedAdded the nominations. Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs) Done

• Support. I think it would be nice to have articles for every single on his discography. As for the list, congratulations, great job. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. FLC is NOT a peer review. This list is not of featured quality, and needs peer reviewing first. Bryan Adams has not won a golden globe. Try using WP:RS's - [18], he was only nominated. He has also been nominated for another four Golden Globes as well as that nomination. I'm not going to give you every reference for every award you haven't included - because there are more. This is a premature nomination that has turned into a peer review for a list not of featured standard. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Only nominated one time according to the Golden Globe page and you don't need to add all the awards. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, look harder. Just because the golden globe website doesn't go back past 2005 doesn't mean there aren't more nominations before that. e.g. 2003. [19] There are more. This just re-iterates how premature this nomination is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Premature is a bit harsh. When I think premature, I think badly formatted or lacking in the reference department. Judging by all the comments, it wasn't completely up to scratch, but besides missing Golden Globes nominations (I doubt it's a good source, but this place lists some more noms [20]), I'd give it my support. Red157(talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it.  Done --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support I never saw the state of the list when it was first submitted, but currently, I can't see really anything wrong with it. Seems a bit biased to continually hold out on not supporting it considering all the work that's gone into it. Red157(talk • contribs) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, but my issues are easily fixed, I think.

• Why are the Much Music Video Awards not included? Adams won the 1995 People's Choice Award for favourite male vocalist. [21] There may have been more.You don't need to add all the awards, theres enough as it is
• I don't understand why the infobox includes some award nominations and wins, but not others (i.e.: Golden Globes) Done
• Honors --> Honours, Adams is a Canadian artist, I think Canadian English should take precedence. Also "Adams has won three honors out of three nominations" is a bit ridiculous for that section. These are not things people are nominated for in the same way as in awards shows. Given all three are basically lifetime achievement awards, I would suggest introducing that section as such. Done

• I'll check back tomorrow, and revise my !vote accordingly. Regards, Resolute 03:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree on not needing to include all the awards. Especially if you are going to include the MTV Music Awards, but not the MMVAs. Also, I note that the totals in the infobox are not accurate. Resolute 14:37, 17 September 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 15:45, 17 September 2008 [22].

---

List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

I am self-nominating this list because I believe it complies with all of the FL criteria in terms of referencing, appealing layout, exhaustiveness... All objections will of course be promptly addressed. BomBom (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Please avoid parentheses in the lead: (which the Moscow International...) and (who is the only German...)
  • Why are "German Films Service + Marketing GmbH" and "Export-Union of German Cinema" in italics?
  • The "A" note should be placed at the end of that sentence.
  • "no German film possessed the high quality to become a nominee" should be sourced.
  • How do you know which films were submitted by East Germany? The general reference does not indicate in its list.
  • Are we allowed to put the flags in section headings? I am not sure...
  • Should the German films in other categories section really be here? This page's title clearly states "List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film"; it does not imply in any way that readers can find German films nominated in other categories here.

--Crzycheetah 22:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I addressed most of the points raised here. I added a reference that explicitly indicates which films were submitted by East Germany. I also removed the flags, as with the small size of the flag icon the difference between the East German and the (West) German flag is hard to see.

I did not address the last point, as personally I think that the section on German film in other categories should be included. It is useful and relevant information related to the subject matter and does not increase the article size beyond feasible limits. Most importantly, many people mistakenly assume that foreign films are only eligible for the Best Foreign Language Film category, so one should at least include a disclaimer of the sort this list does not cover all German films that have been nominated for any Academy Award. This section serves as a disclaimer, and even gives some additional information. Of course one could debate this, but I think that including this section is the most pragmatic solution in the interest of those who seek information on Germany and the Academy Awards. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

All of the objections raised above have been addressed. I agree with BlueSalo regarding the inclusion of awards in other categories. This article is currently the only place on Wikipedia that covers the topic of "Germany and the Academy Awards". Therefore, including information about awards won by German films in other categories is not unreasonable, especially since it is likely to interest readers who will come looking for this article in the first place. Since most of these other awards have been in short film categories, I don't think it's worth having a separate article to deal with them. However, it is true that this is not the main subject of the article. Therefore, I have mentioned films nominated in other categories in a footnote: this is a good compromise that allows us to keep the information without having it encroach upon the main body of the article. BomBom (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• are you sure the three tables cannot be merged together by simply writing in the legend that until 1990 the entries were all west German, except for those marked with (insert your preferred sign here)? This way the sortability would actually be useful
• not sure about this, but I would golden out the whole lines where there was a win (they aren't that many anyways)
• since there were only 3 times before '92 when there was no entry, a note would be nice to explain why were these exceptions (the 60's ones)

Aside for merging the tables this list looks good to go for a FL. Nergaal (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I merged the three tables in my sandbox, but I am not convinced that this is better. Having three tables makes it easy to distinguish the submissions of former West and East Germany and the reunified Germany. Merging the tables makes this much harder. Maybe one could colour code the table, but I think that would be an overkill given that the results are already colour coded. But let me know what you think, maybe there is a way of having one table that clearly distinguishes between East and West German submissions.
  • I think that colour coding the whole lines for the wins would be an overkill, too. The current layout is also consistent with all other Academy Award lists, which colour code only the cell for the result.
  • Unfortunately I could not find any information for why there were no entries in the 1960s. Educated guess is that there were no high quality films made during these years (the 1950s and 1960s German cinema was very weak), but unfortunately all sources I could find are silent about the reasons for having no submission in those years. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 16:37, 15 September 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 15:45, 17 September 2008 [23].

---

List of Carnivàle awards and nominations

Since this list was kept in an AfD, I have tried to reformat it based on List of Lost awards and nominations (FL), and want to make it an addition to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Carnivàle. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

*tsk* Those lazy cut-and-paste editors... (I am referring to me). Fixed. – sgeureka ^t•c

Heh. I knew it was picky, but if I just fixed it for you, you wouldn't learn to not do it. (I learned THAT trick from my mother...) All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't start featured lists with "This is a list..." - standards have improved here, featured articles don't start with "This is an article..." so why should FLs?
• "Although Carnivàle received praise for its production and art style from early on,..." - "Although Carnivale initally received..."?
• I don't think you need to cite the individual awards if the paragraphs preceding the table is cited.
• Oscars is a little non-encyclopedic.
• Don't like blank cells in tables. Perhaps consider an en-dash or n/a where appropriate.
• Tables which have the same columns should have them fixed at the same widths to provide a good overall appearance.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to address all of your concerns. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Image:Carnivale title.jpg can't be used in the article, it may only be used in an article about the DVD or show it came from per fair-use. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed. I am reluctant to move the nice image of Adrienne Barbeau to the lead at the moment, as I may potentially get a free image soon (snapshot of piece of the set or a replica thereof). – sgeureka ^t•c 13:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could use a photograph of a cast member who recieved a acclaimed award or maybe teh series' creator. REZTER ^TALK ø 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried that in preview mode several times, but it felt wrong to me, particularly because Carnivàle earned nearly all of its critical acclaim (including awards) for high production values, not acting. Neither actor award noms (Nick Stahl, Amy Madigan) nor a won WIN award (Adrienne Barbeau) are really lead-worthy, and the two nice free images that already appear in Carnivàle are for people who aren't even mentioned in the award list. If an intertitle shot is not accepted (Carnivàle's opening title sequence won an Emmy), then my hands are tied between insignificant lead images or no images. (For the record, I plan to ask for permission for one of these excellent flickr images after clearing up how freedom of panororama laws apply in Canada, but that discussion is not really partial for this FLC.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:02, 13 September 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 15:45, 17 September 2008 [24].

---

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead

I'm nominating this list, which I feel is an excellent Featured candidate, with an interesting subject and an excellent layout (although i'm hardly the most neutral person to judge that). Over the last two weeks i've built it from the ground up in my sandbox (compare before and after.) I've completed the list, created articles for every Member of Parliament who is present and put paragraphs after each date heading detailing particularly interesting resignations, as well as a little column to display which party the resigning MP was a member of. Ironholds 10:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 1 (O'Donoghue) needs a last access date.
• Current ref 2 (A New England?) needs at the least a publisher and last access date. This is a book? It should be formatted as such with an author, etc.
• What is "Baston, (2004)? I don't see another reference by that author listed? References need at least title, publisher and page numbers, and need authors, etc. when known.
• Current ref 4 needs a last access date (BBC)
• Is current ref 5 a book or a magazine article? Titles in " "'s usually means a journal article. Also, you should list it with the author's last name first to fit the other references.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • All done. Last access dates, ISBN's, so on; the whole kit and kaboodle. Ironholds 14:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No "This is a list of..." intros any more please.
• WP:DASH - date ranges etc should use en-dash, not hyphen to separate.
• Consider linking the pound sign for international readers.
• Three short paras in the lead - I'd consider merging and expanding.
• One or two sentences in the lead probably should be explicitly cited, e.g. "historically several other offices have also been used."
• Be consistent with date formatting.
• Don't abbreviate political party without a key.

*Other claims should probably also be cited e.g. "During the ensuing scandal James became the first QC in British history to be disbarred." And explain QC if I were you since it's significant that James was the first of his type to be disbarred.

• "in his disastrous prosecution " - a little POV? outruled, but i'll specifically cite.
• See WP:CITE for where to place your citations - where possible immediately following punctuation, no spaces.
• "were found in the bushes" very euphemistic. Explain encyclopedically please!
• "protest at the Anglo-Irish Agreement ." -remove the space.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Disastrous prosecution is anything but POV; not only was the suit thrown out but wilde was then counter-sued and jailed. The rest i'll correct. I thought all my citing was done post-punctuation; can you direct me to any particular cases? Ironholds 19:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you wish to stick with "disastrous" then I suggest you cite it directly, thanks. As for your citation issues, "(£1.74 billion at 2003 prices[2]) on new ocean-going vessels, including 10 new battleships, and £5 million (£406 million in 2003 prices [2]) on the supporting infrastructure. [3]" has three problems out of three citations... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Fair enough. They all reference the same inflation chart, so i'll just cite them all together after punctuation. Could you give particular links to the date formatting issues? I assume at some point i've switched between month/day/year and day/month/year; i'm not sure exactly where. Apologies for the excess work on your side; this is the first Featured thing i've put up and I honestly wasn't aware of any issues. Ironholds 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
        • No problem at all, it's why I'm here. It's nice to have constructive criticism appreciated and acted upon. As for your date formats, well it's more a case of the commas being an issue - the ones you wikilink have a comma between month/day and year while the table has no commas (and no dates are linked - which is good). So I guess I'm saying two things - (a) wikilink only the very essential dates, and (b) when you don't wikilink keep all dates consistently formatted. If that makes sense...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I see what you mean. Would you be able to help with something? I'm not that good with tabling; how do I get the table in the current format (with the abbreviations) to look decent? I'm trying to align it with either the TOC or the intro, but it keeps looking like a bit-part in Morph. I've redone the three intro para's and also cited the "historical offices" bit. Ironholds 19:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okeydokey... advice on the current version.

• Remove the spaces between the en-dashes and the years.
• For the "key" I'd have a look at an NFL or NHL featured list for advice (sounds odd I know but...) - say List of Atlanta Thrashers players (ignore the fact it's a bit long in tooth FL-wise - I feel like nominating it for demotion as it happens, but look at the code for the three column table - it's probably a good start for you).
• Any appropriate images you could use, just to brighten the article up a bit?
• "Unspecificed Irish Nationalist (Pre 1922) party" - try for "pre-1922"
• "Liberal Party (pre 1988)" - pre-1988.
• You still need citations for the "mini-lead" for each section.

Hope that's still helping. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • The help is excellent; again, sorry for bringing it forward in such an unprepared state. The NFL/NHL thing; do you think I should have it in a set of tables rather than one long one, then? I've removed the spaces and cited the mini-para's. I have a few appropriate images but, similar to the tables, I cant work out how to put them in without warping the text. Ironholds 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, well I'd have a single table with maybe three or four columns before the tables. As for adding images in then I'd look at some excellent work from (ahem) a "friend of mine", check out List of UEFA Cup winning managers for a nice and simple way of adding images down the right-hand side, to brighten things up... The Rambling Man (talk)
      • Three or four columns before the tables...? I've added what images I could find. Ironholds 20:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I've fiddled with cols - what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Much nicer; thanks for the help! :). Do you think the downsized text might still be good? Ironholds 20:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen on downsized text. Most of the time it depends on the browser as to how the downsizing is interpreted and implemented. So when I can, I'd avoid it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't forget to add captions to the images you're including... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • okie-dokes, image captions added. Anything else? (That's not meant to sound sarcastic, the internet is a bad way to transmit vocal cadences). Ironholds 21:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No worries, I get it. I'm going offline shortly. If I think of something else I'll let you know but otherwise it's a big improvement so far. I'll let you know more in due course. All the best... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments cont. - okay, it's been a week, so a nice review with a fresh mind...!

• Expand the lead now. I know I suggested merging but that didn't mean you should only end up with one para - I'd suggest at least one more meaty para, maybe discussing some of the more interesting Stewards?

**I've expanded the lead additionally; surely the paragraphs interspersed throughout the list discuss the more interesting resignations?

• • • Yeah, the expansion works nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• Consider an image for the lead, just to get the reader a little more interested and engrossed in the subject matter.
• I reckon you can link to a decent Member of Parliament (UK) article.
  • Link to a decent MP article.. you mean for the intro?
    • Yeah, I think Member of Parliament should be linked on its first use in the lead. Consider using List of United Kingdom MPs perhaps...?The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I've linked it to the section of the Member of parliament page dealing with UK MP's; the list doesn't explain to the layperson any details about what a British MP actually is. Ironholds 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• ""office of profit under the Crown" - the article this links to refers to it as The Crown rather than the Crown...
• Place (MP) after the first use of "Member of Parliament" so the abbreviation is obvious to all.

*Some would question the (seemingly) arbitrary divisions of time periods applied here - any logic or just looks good?

• • I believe it was originally due to elections at that point combined with it looking good. I'll add columns linking to the 1885/whatever general election.
• With the tables in their current state, it appears a good opportunity for making them sortable - this would allow me to see how many Libs took the position for example.. but that way you'd need to merge all the tables... maybe not a bad idea.
  • The tables were initially merged, but for that i'd need to get rid of the para's in between. Could I not just create an additional table with the numbers?
    • It's no big deal either way for me, just something you could consider. Sortable would need merge, unmerged means no need to sort as the sort would be incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I think i'll stick with unsortable for now. Merging the whole thing would get rid of all the interesting resignations and images and make the list a lot more dreary than it currently is. Ironholds 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
• "the Prince of Wales. [3]" - remove the space after the full stop, per WP:CITE.
• "nfrastructure.[4] [5]" - remove the space between the citations.
• "party. [6]" - remove the space.
• Football pool? Usually referred to in the plural isn't it?
• Suit is linked and leads to a disambiguation page. Either delink (recommended) or link to the right kind of suit.

*Force the column widths of each table (if you wish to keep multiple tables) to the same width from section to section.

• • One of them is forced down by an image, so i'll try and extend the para's there
• "On 17 December 1985 15" - comma after 1985 otherwise this (as I'm sure you'll agree) looks a little odd..

*MPs or MP's?

• • This would change depending on whether i'm talking about MPs (plural) or MP's (something belonging to MPs.
    • Quite so, therefore you need to adjust the caption which says "more prominent resigning Ulster MP's". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

*" holding one of the offices for a " - one of the offices? I'd reinforce that there are two offices which could have been occupied for this purpose here. *I may be wrong (so check the WP:MOS) but I think See also sections go before References?

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, but I have several concerns to be resolved before I could support it as a featured list:

• It's not obvious why the tables are separated by date. Is there some historical significance to the dates 1885, 1900, 1918, 1931, etc., or were these chosen simply for convenience? Clearly, some of these years had general elections, but not all general elections are used as subdivisions. If there were changes in the procedures or other circumstances at these dates, say so. Otherwise, the article organization seems odd.
  • It was like that when I got it; I appreciate it's a poor excuse. I've contacted the user/admin who styled the original page asking why it is so. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• It's also not obvious why the general elections of 1885, 1900, etc., are entries in the table.
  • See above Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• I think there is too much detail here about some of the specific resignations, notably those of James, Beresford, Hastings, and Belcher. Presumably the scandals related to these resignations are covered amply in other articles; it seems unnecessary to provide full treatment in this list article. (Indeed, I wonder whether it might be possible for the table(s) to include notes about the reason for each MP's resignation.)
  • I thought that it might be interesting, and a good way of dividing up endless tables with interesting notes and pictures. Including a notes column might be awkward in terms of the width of the page. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• The descriptions of the specific resignations lack necessary context. I am particularly bothered by the way the "Before 1885" section begins ("A prominent resignation during this period of time was..."), since the only information the article has given me on the "period of time" is the section heading.
  • Should be solved by the decision of above discussion. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• The References section should be subdivided to identify "Index of Appointees to the stewardships of the Manor of Northstead and Chiltern Hundreds since 1850" as a "General" reference, while the numbered entries are "Notes." (For an example of this, see List of sister cities in Florida.) --Orlady (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What do you mean? So the Index is a seperate section to everything else, or do you want notes as to where each name appears in the document. Ironholds 21:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • My thought was that the References section could be subdivided into two subsections: (1) "General", to hold the one reference that appears to have been the primary source for most of the article, and (2) "Notes" or "Specific" or something similar, to hold the footnoted reference citations. This type of split has been used in other lists (as well as non-list articles); List of sister cities in Florida is one example. Additional examples are New York Yankees seasons and List of Archbishops of Canterbury. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, that should be easy enough to do; i'll get onto it now. I'm going to post BrownHairedGirl's response below (about why the tables are so divided)
      • Right, done. Ironholds 09:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl's response

I thought that it would me more useable if divided up, and that general elections marked the logical dividing points, but that a section per Parliament was both too fine a division and too uneven. So in this edit I tried to choose elections which would divide the list into roughly equal chunks.

Where possible, I also tried to use elections which of themselves marked some sort of turning point, hence 1979 (beginning of the Thatcher era), 1918 (end of WWI, big extension of the franchise), 1885 (another franchise extension). Some points where a section break seemed appropriate didn't offer quite such a clearcut historical turning point, and 1900, 1931 and 1950 are not such clear points. I'll try to explain why I chose the dates I did, but I know that there was no clear standout date in those cases:

• 1900 election wasn't of itself anywhere near as critical a point as 1906, but I chose it as the turn of the century and because it split the 1885-1918 period more neatly.
• Some split was needed around 1930, leaving a choice between 19229 and 1931. Of the two, 1931 seemed marginally more significant as a change of era, because it ushered in 14 years of national govt.
• Therefter, 1945 was much more of a political turning point than the alternative split point of 1950 general election, but 1950 privided a more even split. It a handy round number, but it also marked a major set of boundary changes, which seems relevant to MPs.

I've merged it all to one table, added a resignations column (about which i'm open to alternative wording suggestions) and seperated the refs. The merging now allows TRM's sorting suggestion, although I worry that might make it a bit table-heavy. Ironholds 11:51, 17 September 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 07:25, 17 September 2008 [25].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies team records

I am nominating this list because:

1. I believe it meets the FL criteria.
2. it is a unique list and a unique topic.
3. this list could be a guide for others wishing to create lists of this type.

Because of its unique nature, this list was peer reviewed before nomination. To read the reviewers' input, please go here. Thanks in advance! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Some quick comments,
  • Sorting doesn't work at all
  • Names should be left-aligned

--Crzycheetah 07:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• • • I've been having problems with the sorting too, I don't have any idea what's wrong with it or how to fix it. I did check it and it works for some tables and some columns, but not all. As for the alignment, I construct all my tables and FLs as centered as an aesthetic choice because it looks sloppy to have some left columns and some center. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Sorting by name? Use the {{sortname}} template instead of the plain {{sort}} template - should fix at least one of the problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

• The problem with the sorting is because of the statistical source at the bottom of the table, because you have used colspan in the table it does not sort properly due to their being some problem with colspan and sortable tables being together. To get around this issue just put the reference next to the title on each one. Or you could have a little bit of text introducing each table and have a reference at the end of the text.
  • I can't put the references in the title per MOS. No links in section headers.

Ok then I advise writing a short sentence above the tables and putting the reference there and remove it from the list, otherwise it won;'t sort properly. NapHit (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• You can use [[{{{first}}} {{{last}}}]] to sort names instead of sort for example Billy Hamilton
  • Well, the name sorting works fine the way it is at the moment.
• Dates should be not wikilinked per recent MOS changes
  • Baseball dates (especially if they are in context to the presented facts, which these are) are supposed to be linked to the appropriate MLB seasons.

Sorry seems you got confused, I meant dates as in September 1, 2002, but they're all unlinked anyway, yeh the MLB dates are fine NapHit (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• If I'm right it's only figures that should be centrally aligned anything else should be left aligne
  • As I've said above, I center tables as an aesthetic decision; I believe that having parts of the table centered and others not looks extremely sloppy.

Hope this helps NapHit (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Replies above. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Quick comment - sorting names is easy if you use the {{sortname}} template. Give me a shout if you need any more help with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, it appears embedding the {{mlby}} template causes further problems with sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Due to a lack of time on my part currently as an editor, I ask that this nomination be suspended pending the completion of my move back to Pennsylvania, at which time I will fix the concerns here and re-nominate. Thank you for your help and consideration. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:42, 17 September 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 16:01, 11 September 2008 [26].

---

DragonForce discography

Resubmitting as per the previous FLC (07:08, 4 July 2008). — Balthazar ^(T|C) 23:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.dragonforce.com/error/404 deadlinks

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Y fixed. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 01:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - the lead is not like other lists like this. There is no explanation how the band formed. Also, few prose issues.

  • I don't think how the band formed is relevant in a discography; that's what the main page is for. — Balthazar ^(T|C)

Yes, but a small prose should be included per C2 of WP:WIAFL.--S_RX 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Their remixed and remastered version of Valley of the Damned was set for release in October, 2007 but has since been postponed and their fourth studio album Ultra Beatdown was released to the world on August 25, 2008. - this doesn't flow well. No comma needed after "October." Comma after "2007. Replace "and" with "while" .....etc. Also, "was released to the world?" Really? Just write "release." — Y done. — Balthazar ^(T|C)
  • in 2006 followed by "Operation Ground and Pound" in the same year. - how about "later that year."? — Y done. — Balthazar ^(T|C)
  • For the Music Videos, I don't like how it says that the director is unknown, has any research been done?
    • I've done quite a lot of searching for the director to no avail. Nowhere mentions the director. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 01:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well at least you tried.--S_RX 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks a little better, but I would still like to see the lead expanded for my support.--S_RX 16:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Lead is too short really, it's not engaging per criterion 2 of WP:WIAFL.
  • The tables that say " "—" denotes albums that were released but did not chart." - can you prove each of these were released and failed to chart?
    • I'm fairly sure they were all released worldwide, but I can only readily prove it with Ultra Beatdown; changed to "...that did not chart, or were not released in that country." — Balthazar ^(T|C)
  • Ultra Beatdown row is incomplete (i.e. the final cell is missing its right hand edge). Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C)
  • Ref 6 and Ref 11 are not specific. Find alternatives. Y Done. — Balthazar ^(T|C)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I will expand on the lead in about 7–9 hours after some sleep. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 03:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded on the lead slightly, hopefully enough; I don't think it will go much further without unnecessary padding or going into depth with the line-up changes. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 04:29, 31 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 16:01, 11 September 2008 [27].

---

Doctor Who (series 4)

After two false starts to the FLC, I am now confident enough that it passes the featured list criteria. I am deciding to submit as a list as I feel it is more of a list than an article; it is more evocative of Lost (season 4) (an influence) than Smallville (season 1). Although the Christmas special has not yet been named, I do not think this should cause opposition: I employ a two-out-of-three rule when creating episode pages and episode sections on lists: if a television episode has two sourced aspects of: a title, an airdate, and a plot summary; I will include it. Removal would compromise the comprehensiveness of the article. See List of Desperate Housewives episodes#Season 5: 2008–2009 for a comparison with a featured list. The list itself needs no changes beyond small improvement, apart from updating the title when announced and including the AI and viewing figures when release. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.fearnet.com/Default.aspx
• Current ref 19 (New series trailer) is lacking a last access date.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Replaced with a statement about a trailer being premiered at Comic-Con. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Don't know whether it's worth withdrawing this for the time being. D.M.N. (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre asked if I would be willing to address any concerns, so we can keep it open for the time being. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to keep the nomination live as long as comments are addressed in a timely fashion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I will also help address concerns. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No bold links in the lead please.
  • Lead is too short, just one small para?
  • Don't link all the dates just for the sake of it - think - does linking this date enrich the reader's experience? (as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd?)
  • Should "Special" (in lead, as in Christmas Special) be capitalised? Same with the next series part of the infobox.
  • Image caption in infobox is a fragment so no full stop required.
  • Production section, two consecutive sentences starting with "This..." reads awkwardly.
  • Expand RSC before using it so non-experts stand a chance...
  • "The 15 episodes comprised of 13 regular " - perhaps it's me but I always thought it should be "consisted of 13" or "comprised 13"...
  • "Doctor Who Magazine gradually revealed writers for the series..." - under what jurisdiction? Was it official or just speculative?
  • Infobox leaks over the right-hand side of the table (on my browser - Safari under Mac OS 10.5.4...)
• Sorry, I've been interrupted so I'll have to stop here for the moment. More to follow. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • As to the bold links... MOS states that the text of the title should be bolded in the lead, and that the first instance of a subject (Doctor Who) should be linked, which happens to be part of the title.
      • No, don't have bold links, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
      • FYI, see WP:LEAD which says "Do not link words in the bold title." The Rambling Man (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Link moved. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • As this is a list, leads tend to be short.
      • No, please re-read WP:WIAFL. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • There's not much to add without falling into repetition; lists are hard to summarise. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • No, they're quite easy. This will fail criterion 2 as it does not have an engaging lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Date links can be removed, as long as all dates are in British format.
      • Up to you to format them however, but don't link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding auto-formatting. Currently, it should not fail FL; List of Doctor Who serials is also a FL, with all dates linked. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Justify why you need to link all the dates then. There's absolutely no need. And just because historic lists passed with this overlinking, it does not mean the current standards are so low. Once more, as a good e.g. you have "BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres"—completed recording on May 3." Do you think this kind of "event" is likely to be comparable with other events that historically took place on May 3rd? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
            • They do not need to be linked; but they also do not need to be unlinked. They are linked for the sole purpose of auto-formatting, which is still an acceptable practice (but that may change). Therefor inactionable. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Per the manual of style, as I view it today: "The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated." Actionable once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • "Special" capitalisation  Fixed.
    • Full-stop  Fixed.
    • Double "This"  Fixed
    • RSC  Fixed
    • Comprised > consisted  Fixed
    • Doctor Who Magazine is quite authorative on the subject; they publish official announcements.
      • Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Just click it and read "Officially sanctioned by the BBC..." — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Expand that in this lead then to say "Officially sanctioned by the BBC, Doctor Who Magazine...."
            • That falls outside the scope of this article, hence the link to Doctor Who Magazine. — Edokter • Talk • 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
              • No, it falls within the scope to ensure readers are aware that it's an official source, not just a fanzine. Readers should not have to click away from this list to discover that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
                • The statement is cited to Doctor Who Magazine, which is also linked. The statement is hence verifiable. DWM has already built a reputation as a reliable source; we do not need to re-assert that. It is up to the reader to do so if they so desire. Accrediting sources falls outside the scope of any subject. Our job is only to provide them. — Edokter • Talk • 19:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
    • That should not happen... but my screen isn't big enough to test it.
      • Still needs fixing. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Can't fix what ain't broken. The page uses standard tables. — Edokter • Talk • 00:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I'm afraid it needs to be fixed regardless of your specific browsing experience. If a portion of the table is inaccessible to me then the list cannot be promoted under any circumstances. In any case, it appears to have been fixed already. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Ehm, no... If standards code breaks a browser, it is time to change browsers. It appears fixed now because I added a rather nasty hack that should normally never be used, because it breaks layout for other browsers. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Very good but ideally it should be fixed for the majority of browsers, in particular IE6, IE7, Firefox and Safari. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
    • — Edokter • Talk • 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Another "Christmas Special" in the infobox.
  • No. of episodes in the infobox is 15 + 2 supplemental, so 17 total. The lead does not back this up.
  • No source information for the fair use image.
  • "(Blocks 2, 5 and 7)" - why is Block a proper noun?
  • Is series capitalised or not? Be consistent.
  • Order citations numerically unless there's a good reason not to.
  • Episode(s) and Writer(s) should be used as col headings because a lot of the rows have only one entry.
  • premièred is now an English word without the accent grave. It's used again in the last story synopsis.
  • "announced that in a partnership with Carlton Screen Advertising a " commas missing after "that" and "Advertising".
  • "on TV" - television and, presumably, "British television"?
  • Avoid overlinking the episode names.
  • Merge first two paras of "Guest stars" - single sentence paras should be avoided.
  • "Doctor Who's format of stand-alone episodes allows a greater flexibility in story telling. " says who? is this your opinion?
  • "Like the previous three series" then "Unlike the previous three series" - reads awkwardly to me.
  • What is PC in the table? You just called it Code in the previous table.
  • Why is Doctor relinked in story 194's synopsis?
  • " CAL (Eve Newton) - a computer-linked child "- why not just a comma here instead of a hyphen?
  • Chino links to a disambiguation page.
  • " works with Doctor" - the Doctor?
  • " It will feature a new mutant Cyberman called Cybershade[44] on Earth in Victorian England[45][46][47][48] " - missing punctuation and do you need to link England? And do you really need four citations for this?
  • Doctor Who Prom is linked twice in quick succession. Avoid.
  • " the former in Block 4; the latter in Block 10." - this information is already in the first table. And why is Block proper noun once again?
  • Why didn't the other supplemental episode have a production code?
  • Why all the bold in the references?
  • ref 49 needs fixing.
  • Check all references use en-dash, not hyphen for page, date ranges etc. (e.g. ref 20, ref 50 etc).
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • • I fixed most of the above issues, minus some points; the bold refs are caused by the {{cite journal}} template, so cannot be fixed; Hyphens are acceptable practice; and there is no production code for "Music of the Spheres" because none has been published. — Edokter • Talk • 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Should indicate it's a television series in the opening sentence, not just a series
• "a regular series of thirteen episodes was aired"
• Could it say which channel the series aired on?
• Can we attempt to counter the Systemic bias, and provide a worldwide view, by stating which networks the series appeared on in other countries, especially those such as US, Canada, Aus and NZ?
• "Doctor Who had been was recommissioned"
• "The tenth production block — consisting of the 2008 Christmas special and the BBC Proms "cutaway" scene "Music of the Spheres" — completed recording on 3 May." Per WP:DASH, em-dashes shouldn't be spaced, but spaced en-dashes can be used instead.
• The table for the production block could be removed, with an extra "Block" column added to the main episode table. What's the point in repeating five columns' worth of information?
• Some dates are linked, while others aren't.
• The casting section is a distracting sea of blue links. Consider unlinking the episode titles, since they're linked in the episode table anyway
• Expand "Code" to "Production code" in the episode table
• Unlink character names in the episode summaries, and remove actors names, as it's all repetition of the Cast section
• {{citation}} is being used in conjunction with {{cite web}}, cite video and cite news. WP:CITET says only one version ({{citation}} or {{cite xxx'}}) should be used because of the different markup.
• I'm not a wiz with image use, but the DVD image seems to fail WP:NFCC, since it doesn't illustrate what it says it does (ie, a DVD cover, but no mention of the DVD in the article). But as I said, I'm not very knowledgeable on images and fair-use stuff.

That's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 11 September 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 16:01, 11 September 2008 [28].

---

Tori Amos discography

Self-nom I have been working on this discography for about 2 months and have greatly improved the overall quality. At this point, I'm looking for feedback on what is left to do to achieve FL status. Thanks! --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.everyhit.com/ (Discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard leaned towards it not being reliable).

I'm unclear what makes everyhit.com unreliable? It's not user-based or influenced, it's a chart position database. Also, several featured list discographies include this source. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Note the discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 11#Tenacious D - Reliability check. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 20 (Tori Amos to release new album...) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

 Fixed - Replaced Starpulse.com source w/ one from Billboard.--Pisceandreams (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Six paras in the lead is too much - see WP:LEAD.  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't start with "This is a discography for American pianist and singer-songwriter Tori Amos." - featured articles don't start with "This is an article about..." so nor should featured lists.  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Image caption in infobox is fragment so remove the full stop.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "A few years later" - not encyclopedic.  Fixed - replaced with "From 1984-1989" --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Amos was the singer of punk-rock band " - just mysteriously "was the singer"... ?  Fixed - replaced with "Amos fronted the punk-rock band..." --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Amos began writing and recording material that would serve as the debut of her solo career." - citation req as this seems very significant.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comma after Stanley (in my opinion) is required.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Release of the EP is glossed over quickly - what was it called, how did it do?  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I usually don't see spaces between # and number for chart placements, so #14 instead of # 14.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "reaching as high as only # 54" - redundant words - "as high as".  Fixed - replaced with "reaching only #54..." --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Order citations numerically unless there's a really good reason not to do so.
  • "a covers album" - is there a decent link for cover available?  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "After working with Atlantic for the first 15 years of her career, Amos fulfilled her contract with the release of Strange Little Girls and decided to seek another label due to professional conflicts she had with Atlantic." - awkward reading. Rewording could remove the need to mention Atlantic twice.  Fixed - replaced with "After working with Atlantic for the first 15 years of her career, Amos decided to seek another label upon fulfilling her contract with them due to professional conflicts." --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "With the changing landscape of the music industry" - is this a quote or is it your opinion?  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Infobox says 3 compilation albums, lead says one.  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "A highly active artist" - peacock, just stick to the facts.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional information column for studio albums is incomplete on my Safari browser.  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Left align album information.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (To Be Released) - make this uncapitalised at least, and perhaps a footnote to the table.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some odd number of spaces (maybe a tab?) between the colon and the certification. Why not just a space?  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you sure that "releases that did not chart" were actually "release"d in each region you claim? This includes the singles.  Fixed --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "comprised of non-LP tracks" - "comprising non-LP tracks".  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Notes on singles table seem a little small. No need.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "promotional only" - hyphenated probably.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • " garnered a reputation for releasing an extensive catalogue of CD singles in conjunction with her albums. " - this reputation needs citation, otherwise it's just "she released CD singles... "etc.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • B or b-side? And where are the references for all this hidden information?
  • Directors are not cited.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Nor are soundtracks.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 04:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 5, 10, 37 etc which are specific references need to be replaced with specific references.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Tori Amos is an American pianist and singer-songwriter whose musical career began in 1980, at the age of seventeen, when she and her brother co-wrote the song "Baltimore". - period should be in between the parenthesis, (i.e "Baltimore.")  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The song was selected as the winning song in a contest for the Baltimore Orioles and was recorded and pressed locally as a 7" single. - what is a 7" Single?  Fixed Added a wikilink --Pisceandreams (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • From the Choirgirl Hotel, Amos' first album written and recorded with a band and her first album recorded at her home studio, Martian Engineering, debuted in May 1998 at #5 on the Billboard 200 and at #6 on the UK Top 40.[16][9] - with what band? a comma is needed after "band." What does "her home studio" mean?  Fixed Changed to "From the Choirgirl Hotel, Amos' first album written and recorded with band mates Matt Chamberlain on drums, Jon Evans on bass and Steve Caton on guitar, and her first album recorded at her in-home recording studio, Martian Engineering, debuted in May 1998 at #5 on the Billboard 200 and at #6 on the UK Top 40." with wikilink to "recording studio". --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the lead really needs to be cut down or split into another paragraph as it is too long.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The following year, To Venus and Back, a double album of original studio and live material, debuted in September 1999 at #12 in the US and at #22 in the UK.[17][9 - "of original studio?"  Fixed Removed "original" --> "a double album of studio and live material..." --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Is the additional information in the table needed? It is unsourced and unverified and is a bit trivial.  Fixed Removed said column from the studio album, compilation album, live album and EP tables. --Pisceandreams (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The tables should follow the format of the Lostprophets discography, not an FL but FL's follow this format. In this way the noted are incorporated into a row in the table, and the size of the table is decreased.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • What are B-Sides?  Fixed Added a wikilink --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In the music videos section, in the 1996 & 2003 row, unknown needs to be capitalized.  Done --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further Comments
  • A bit better, but because the B-sides are in a collapsible table, they should not be in a section format since you can't access it from the ToC, I would recommend instead that you just place the section headers in a bold format.  Done - Good point and I agree with you completely on that. The issue of the inaccessibility from the ToC never occurred to me. --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The dashes in the videos section need a note of explanation.  Fixed - I opted to remove them so as to comply with other tables in the article --Pisceandreams (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The additional information in the videos, music videos, and soundtracks should also be removed because most of it is unsourced and irrelevant to the "discography" itself.  Done - Embedded a few pertinent items as footnotes in respective table. --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:DASH 1984-89
• "Shortly thereafter" sounds slightly archaic
• Visit MOS:DISCOG for what to put in the Certifications column
• Why is the album column not left-aligned? It makes the bullet points look funky
• I'm not convinced More Pink: The B-Sides is a legitimate release. It appears to be just an extra disc added to a re-release of an already released album
• Live at Montreux 1991/1992 has not been released, therefore is not part of the discography yet.
• iTunes is not a label
• Unnecessary whitespace in the singles table's header. Condense "US Adult Top 40" to "US Adult"
• B-sides aren't usually allowed in discographies, which lists releases, not tracklistings. Why are B-sides included but album tracklistings not?
• Studio albums, live albums, compilations, EPs and Official bootlegs should be level 3 (===) sections of a Level 2 "Full length releases"
• Soundtracks, tributes, other contributions should all be level three subsections of a Level 2 section
• According to The Lead and How to Swing It she only contributed to "I Wanna Get Back With You"
• Without You I'm Nothing is a dablink
• According to Last Days of the Century, she only contributed to "Red Toupee" and "Last Day Of The Century"

Oppose This list is simply incorrect and not ready to be a FL. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to your comment, "At this point, I'm looking for feedback on what is left to do to achieve FL status", WP:FLC shouldn't be used as a peer review to see what else is necessary. That's what WP:PR is for. FLC is to nominate lists that are ready to be promoted and need only minor tweaking. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:15, 11 September 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 16:01, 11 September 2008 [29].

---

List of Maryland hurricanes (1950–1979)

I can't think of a clever nomination statement... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The List of Maryland..." - firstly no need to capitalise the L and secondly, can we start it more imaginatively?
• Also, could you consider writing "1950–1979" out as "between 1950 and 1979"?
  • Done with both. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "classification of these storms" -which storms?
  • Removed "these". –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "while tropical storms and tropical depressions are generally weaker. " - interesting but is it relevant to this list of hurricanes?
  • When I had another very similar article up for FLC (List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present), I was told I needed to clarify that. I'll remove it if you feel it's needed, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Are cyclones and hurricanes synonymous here? I'm not sure so it could use a clarification.
  • Note added. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Agnes was also the deadliest storm..." - presume you mean costliest this time round?
  • Whoops, got it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• "caused sustained hurricane force winds " - I'm not clear on the differentiation between a hurricane (of which you say there were 29) and a storm with "sustained hurricane force winds" of which you say there are two. I think this needs help for the layman (i.e me!)
  • I'm not sure how I would explain it. Several storms that were once hurricanes affected the state, though only two actually caused hurricane-force winds. Any suggestions? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• There's a lot of jargon-hopping in the lead - hurricane, storm, cyclone, tropical storm, tropical cyclone... it could do with being rationalised or, at least, some guidance that all are synonymous.
  • I added a note. Let me know if it's any better. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Lead image ought not have the thumb size forced.
  • I wasn't sure about this, as MOS:IMAGES says, Examples of images which typically need more than the default size include lead images (see above) and detailed maps.
• "fourth was injured [4]" - missing full stop.
• "The heavy flooding leads to severe flooding " - really?
• Camille's map caption should have no full stop. And it's probably worth moving it up to the top of the section as it "leaks" into the following section.
• "As well, 17 farm buildings were ..." - no keen on starting a sentence with "As well..."
  • Done with all of those. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the review, replies are above. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.midatlantichurricanes.com/index.html
  • http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/index.html

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I forgot to watchlist this. Anyway, the first site is a website that copies information from a book, so I expect that makes it at least somewhat reliable. And the second is an extension of Yahoo. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:39, 7 September 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 20:02, 8 September 2008 [30].

---

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1)

Since a couple of good article listings and delistings, the article has essentially been rewritten and turned into a list. I feel that it is ready for a featured article.

Also, I contacted User:Haha169, User:Parent5446 and User:Rau J, the other recent writers of this list, to let them know of its nomination. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.animationinsider.net/index.php
    • Need a better one for that, I guess. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Animation Insider is an RS. It has early reviews on episodes of series, is given permission to host copyrighted material from the copyright holders, and is given lengthy interviews with staff of shows. Specifically for Avatar, it reviewed The Awakening before it was out and hosted music from the show for examples of when they interviewed the people who make the shows music. If being recognized by Corporations like that doesn't make them an RS, then we need to rethink what does. *SIGN* 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
  • http://www.helium.com/
    • That's a peer-reviewed website, but I agree, we probably could get better ones. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It's being used for reviews. I don't see how one review is more reliable than another. *SIGN* 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 5 is lacking a publisher (Animation Magazine?)
  • That's there, at the end of the tag, labeled as "...|Publisher=Animation Insider}}"
    • It's 4 now... (Ryan Bell "Cartoons on the Bay...") Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I get what you mean, it's taken care of. *SIGN* 21:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.nicksplat.com/Error404.html deadlinks
  • Fixed with Amazon link

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Struck the two above, but there are two broken links at the moment. Those should be fixed so they aren't big red "Error" messages. (I'm not watching this FLC any more, I trust ya'll to fix the error messages) Otherwise, it's done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. *SIGN* 01:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I believe that other than the questionable source in the lead, everything else seems OK. I am not exactly sure about the sourcing used in the Production section; it seems that the character voices are sourced to Variety.com and Hollywood.com, the latter of which I am not too sure. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 02:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, character voices do not require sourcing. They can be verified by the official site and animation DVDs.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been 5 days since an objection was raised, so, as the nominator, I support making this a FL. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I must say that since the beginning (this is probably one of the first articles I worked on where I saw its creation, though I think somebody else made the Season 1 article) the article has come really far. The article's lead successfully captures a concise plot summary, critical reception, and the DVD Release information as well as a catchy introduction. Though the Production section does not contain as much variety in sources as I would like, it provides a good amount of information on the behind-the-scenes for the show. The Reception section provides a lot of positive critical review, and I am a little worried about whether it might be one-sided (is there really no negative critical reception for the season?). Other than that, the episode summaries seem good, and the DVD release section is really good (I must say the chart standardization amongst all the lists has really been a great improvement; I was never a fan of gray). In conclusion, the article has come a long way, and despite some few flaws it might have, I provied my support in this nomination. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(message email)} 02:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "find a Waterbending master to teach Aang and Katara." -- teach them what?
  • Isn't that implied? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe I guess. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Season One of Avatar: The Last Airbender" -- Show titles must be in itallics
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "end the seemingly endless war between the four nations." -- what four nations?
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "This is with the hope that" -- not a good way to start a sentence
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Season One" vs "Season 1"
  • Do you suggest we rename the page or the opening sentence? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Anything in prose that says "Season 1" should be changed to "One", per MOS:NUM Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "It attracted more than a million viewers each time the show aired a new episode" -- the network aired new episodes, not the show
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• The second halves of the first and second paragraphs of the lead are basically the same, ie an overview of the season's plot
  •  Done by removing the second paragraph part. Although now, the second paragraph looks rather short, so I'm splitting the plot into its own paragraph. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "A couple days before the release of the fifth volume" -- "A couple of days", but anyway, it needs to be something more concrete. Does it mean "two", or "a few"?
  • That isn't even right, so I fixed it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "A bulk of the individual episodes were directed by Dave Filoni." how many?
  • The following developed x numbers of episodes each:

Dave Filoni - 8

Lauren MacMullan - 5

Giancarlo Volpe - 5

Anthony Lioi - 2

Would a sentence removal be a good idea? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about removing the sentence, but it should be a real figure, not something vague. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• "9-14 year old demographic" -- "9–14-year old demographic"
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The first season of Avatar" itallicise the title
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "The exception would be" -- "The exception was"
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• "Since this was is not compatible in most countries outside the United States North America,"
  •  Done NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why are we promoting Amazon? Use TVShowsOnDVD.com, which isn't a sales site
  • Ugh, reference changing? Will do. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately. We shouldn't be seen to be giving preference to one sales site over another. TVShowsOnDVD.com is owned by TV Guide, and doesn't sell anything so that's a better choice. For the UK, Amazon usually is allowed to slide through because there is no site similar to TVShowsOnDVD. Some cult magazines have DVD listings, though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
      • { Done, I think. I left all of the Amazon references for Region Two, which you said is fine? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 19:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor comment - Current ref 18 broke, anyone want to see how to fix it? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 18:19, 6 September 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 20:02, 8 September 2008 [31].

---

List of Stratocaster players

List clearly meets FL criteria and should be recognized as such. Washburnmav (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Interesting article. Well sourced. An excellent companion piece to the main Fender Stratocaster page. Libs (talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with the above, in that this is a very interesting article; however, I see just a few things that could be improved.

Comments from Killervogel5

• Section headings (A-E, etc.) should use en-dashes instead of hyphens.
• Bullets in the lead begin with capital letters; grammatically, they shouldn't because they are not complete sentences.
• The first sentence of the lead should be something more interesting than "The following is a list of...".
• Reference lists should not be 3 columns per MOS; reduce to 2.
• I like the way the list is put together, but it's grammatically incorrect. Nearly every entry starts with a sentence fragment. These need to be fixed.

Review by Killervogel5

 Fixed all of the above Washburnmav (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My final concern has not been fixed. This list is still replete with sentence fragments. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

That is just the writing style of all the "player" lists. This article was modelled after the, already featured, List of Telecaster players. The Gibson player, Epiphone player, Ibanez player etc all use this same writing style as it is comparable with most of the "player" books currently in publication which tend to be fairly technical and less poetic.

Just because a list is based on another list doesn't mean that both lists shouldn't change and evolve to meet new standards, which do change. If I had reviewed the first list, I would have said the same thing, and I think that the other one should be changed too. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the writing style of this article is just fine. Having participated in the push to FL for the Telecaster players list I can speak on some of the pre-history of the page. It was created to mirror the Tele player as mentioned. The writing style of both is done on purpose to give the list a "pseudo-glossary" look, as a technical writing would do, and also to give the page a feeling as though the text were a narrative lifted straight from a TV documentary about the subject. Were it done as a visual each list entry would start out with the player name... and then jump straight into the content without wasting time. As an example. Ever view "The Compleat Beatles?" A great music documentary. And Malcolm McDowell's narrative throughout the entire programme is built on sentences that start in the middle. Just like the last 3 or 4 sentences in my text here. Broken, but narrative or conversational. A style which gives the page life. It's encyclopedic. But doesn't stifle the word down to a barren cold list. A long time ago a user tried to re-do the entire page as a horrible table with a gallery at the bottom. The user broke the inline citations away from the text they were intended to source and put them into a column. That user was reverted quickly. This isn't a list of inanimate objects. It's not the periodic table. It's a list of guitar players, written by guitar players in a style guitar players are used to reading. It is a worthy featured list candidate just the way it is. Ready for elevation. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well put, but I haven't changed my position. I oppose, and will continue to oppose this list until grammar is fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose from Killervogel5

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://rycooder.nl/index.html
  • http://web.tampabay.rr.com/richm/ggg9907.htm
  • http://www.thecanteen.com/lennon7.html
  • http://www.rusharchives.com/
  • http://www.thewho.net/whotabs/index.html
  • http://www.patricktaylor.com/fender-stratocaster
• Current refs 18, 19, and 20 shouldn't the title of the webpage be in the link and what is now in the link be the publisher? Lacking a last access date also. Also these links timed out so I couldn't evaluate their reliability.
• Current ref 21 is just a bald url. Needs a title formatted correctly as well as publisher and last access date at the least.
• Current ref 35 is lacking a publisher and last access date at the least.
• Same for current ref 41.
• Same for current ref 54.
• Current ref 59 is lacking a publisher.
• Current ref 63 is lacking publisher and last access date.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 26 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 20:02, 8 September 2008 [32].

---

List of National Historic Landmarks in New York

I am nominating this list-article for Featured List status as I believe it has been ready for FL status. It is an important article for wp:NRHP, covering more than 10% of the National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) nation-wide. Together with the List of National Historic Landmarks in New York City article that it links to, it comprehensively covers the 256 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in New York State, and includes 242 photographs collected (134 in the non-NYC list alone, 108 in NYC). Major contributors are Daniel Case, Dmadeo, Lvklock, Cg-realms and Mwanner, and me in probable rough order of number of non-NYC photographs contributed (Dmadeo probably contributed the most photos if NYC photos are included), and most development and editing by Daniel, Dmadeo, Lvklock and myself. It benefited greatly from peer review, with peer review comments (and later copyediting) by Ruhrfisch.

For simplicity, this nomination is for the New York state-wide list named, and is not also for the New York City list in its separate article. The New York City one is ready for FL as a separate list, or it is nearly ready, and involves the same editors, so side comments about it would be appreciated as well. doncram (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support As noted above, I peer reviewed this and made some copyedits to it. I felt at the time it was of FL quality and has only improved since then. I also think this will be a great model for other state NHL lists. My only quibble is that "National Monumnets" is a red link in a reference 61. I am surprised there is no article on this topic. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! There is an article, U.S. National Monument, which i just now pipelinked to, to remove the redlink from the footnote. doncram (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I could not find the article somehow. Good work on the list. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - well written and referenced. Nice work. Dincher (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• May I suggest you use the ref group= syntax to sort out your informational footnotes from the actual references? As it is now, the actual references are swamped by purely informational references.

Reply Thanks. I will look into how to apply that group syntax. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Applying tips in wp:REFGROUP and in documentation of "template:reflist", done. Now have informational footnotes under "Notes" and source footnotes under "References". doncram (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I'm not sure that "Date of listing as National Monument or similar designation, from various sources in articles indexed." (Current ref 66) is a valid source reference. Hate to be a pain, but Wikipedia articles are not considered a reliable source.

Reply No doubt that Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS, but this article is essentially an indexed list to other articles (much like DYK if you think about it). If you want us to bring references forward from each of the sub articles, that's going to be another 150 - 200 or so references since *none* of them would be repeats. dm (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you were being more specific than I realized. The reference for the location column in the National Monuments table does not have a handy one place to look up list of dates. My suggestion, remove the reference. dm (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply That reference is about Date Established for the other NPS areas. I was always uncomfortable about those dates here and in the corresponding articles on the individual NPS places. Found and added a good PDF source from the NPS, "National Park System Areas Listed in Chronological Order of Date Authorized Under DOI", that covers all 13. Four of the dates previously listed seem to be incorrect. Updated here and in their corresponding articles now. Thanks for pointing out the problem. doncram (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments The list generally looks excellent, but I didn't review its guts yet. As so often happens in my reviews of FLCs, I got stuck in the introductory text:

• In the first sentence, what is the significance of "other sites of equivalent landmark status"? Clarification is needed; if this is identified as a list of NHLs, it should not include sites that are not current or former NHLs. If this "other sites" statement is intended to refer to Historic areas in the United States National Park System, make this aspect of the scope clear in the lead sentence. (However, I think it would be preferable to put those in a separate list article about NPS units in the state.)
• "There are 148 NHLs in upstate New York or on Long Island, and 108 within New York City (NYC)." - Outside NYC, New Yorkers happen to think that upstate and Long Island are totally unrelated places. Accordingly, please list their NHL counts separately. (If that's not convenient, say there are 108 in NYC and 148 in other parts of the state.)

Changed to "There are 135 NHLs in upstate New York, 13 on Long Island, and 108 within New York City (NYC)." That 135-13-108 order highlights the upstate and Long Island ones which are covered in table in this article first. I'd be happy to have it in 135-108-13 order if that reads better. doncram (talk) 08:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Good fix! --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-editing is needed. For example, I see several "which"s that I think should be "that"s; phrases like "outside of NYC" beg for trimming of extra words; locutions like "the NHLs in NYC are in this companion article" could use a better verb; and I don't think that the first and most recent NHLs to be designated are correct described as "the first New York NHLs" and "the latest NHLs" (they are the earliest and most recent designations, not the first and "latest" NHLs). I am curious to know whether "landmarked" is truly a verb that means "designated as a landmark."

--Orlady (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Very pointed and helpful comments, we'll see what we can do to tighten this up before asking you to take another look at that. For the sake of argument, if you scan through the rest or article, any other trends jump out? Thanks dm (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply To respond, firstly, a lot of consideration went into choosing to set up this list this way and choosing its title, with some rehashing at peer review, and I think the current setup is really pretty good. I agree some wordsmithing can improve the intro and the rest of the article, but the questions of what should be included and what the overall title should be are the most basic and important here. Orlady, I recognize you did not consider the whole list-article, and some of your concerns might be addressed when you get through it all and see it as a whole. But for a whole picture about why this list is defined as it is, you also have to consider the organization of related Wikipedia articles at higher and lower levels. I guess i need to expand a bit on why I think the basics here are pretty good, and how they fit in with the other articles, and what you'd need to consider if you really wanted to argue with the basics here (not saying you necessarily do, and perhaps i am too defensive already).

The list-article as written is in fact more than just NHLs in NY, it is three lists: 1) nationally-historically-important sites designated as both NRHPs and NHLs (current ones), 2) equivalently-nationally-important historic sites in the state (designated both as NRHP and another Federal designation of historic type such as National Historic Park, and 3) former nationally-historically-important sites (which happens to be just former NHLs, there are no former National Historic Parks in the state). By the numbers, there are 256 current NHLs, 20 equivalents (of which 7 are NHLs among the 256), and 3 formers.

This seems (to me) like a good group to cover in one list-article. It is all the "NHLs or higher", if you look at National Historic Sites (NHSs) and National Historical Parks (NHPs) as being "higher" than NHLs for the fact that they are Nationally Park Service operated, while most of the NHLs are privately owned. It is all of the nationally-historically-important sites in the state, and they all appear on one Google map. A reader interested in learning about, or visiting, nationally-historically-important sites in the state can find them all together here. There is not much difference between the NHLs vs. the NHSs. In a general reader's perspective, St. Paul's Church National Historic Site in Mt. Vernon is roughly the same as St. Paul's Cathedral, in Albany; it's a bit random which ones are NPS-owned and operated vs. not. In one article, we can cover them all, and it is better for the reader than having separate parallel lists and Google maps for each (one for NHLs only, one for NHSs only, one for NHPs only, and so on).

What's not in the list-article? Well, NPS-administered areas which are not of national-historic-importance, such as Gateway National Recreational Area, are not included. Only the NPS areas which are indicated in the NPS's own list of NHLs are included (yes, to emphasize, the National Park Service's PDF list of NHLs itself makes a point to include the National Parks, NHSs etc. that are of historic importance but which are not NHLs, and it omits the National Parks etc. that are not of historic importance). Note, there does exist a Wikipedia list-article on NPS areas, grouping all the NHSs together, all the NHPs together, etc., nation-wide. That is List of areas in the United States National Park System, a higher level list. Also, not included in this list-article are sites which are merely NRHPs without additional designation, at lower levels. The criteria for NRHPs further being designated NHLs are stricter, requiring more nationally-oriented historical importance, more integrity of the sites, etc. And there are many more NRHPs. For New York State, we have a separate list-article covering the NRHPs in each county (with New York County divided into 5 segments, and some other counties split out further, too). Each one of these includes the NHLs and higher designations in the given county, so there is overlap the same way as including the higher ones in this NHL list.

It was considered before and during the peer review of this article, whether to include also a list of New York State-operated historic sites (SHSs) which are NRHPs. Some SHSs are also NHLs and are included, but after developing out a separate list of the other SHSs (mostly me trying on that), many seemed to be of lesser importance, and I somewhat reluctantly dropped that list. (Its remains survive in List of New York State Historic Sites). So the article focuses on Federally-designated nationally-historically-important places only.

Also, the contents of this list-article are chosen with an eye to what works for other states, in terms of what is included and not included. In other states, there is less info available about state historic sites, or the state programs are just less developed, or the state programs vary significantly in other ways so it usually would not work to include state sites in the same list-article. In NYS, there are more NPS areas, and yes you could have a separate article about them. But on average there are 3 or fewer NPS areas of historic importance in each state, so having a separate state list would not usually work. And, even if you have a separate state list, I think i would still want to include a then-duplicative table of them in the list of NHLs and equivalents in the state, so that the reader gets to see all the nationally-historically-important places in the state, in one article. So, I come back to having the Federally-designated NHLs-or-higher, current-and-former, in one article per state.

Okay, then if you accept the nationally-historically-important definition and the 3 tables within the article, then what about the title? Well, "List of National Historic Landmarks in New York" is pretty good, I think. You don't have to have everything in the title, and 256 out of 272 (256+13+3) items in the 3 tables are really-well-described by the title. The 13 and 3 others are pretty well related, and don't need to be mentioned in the title. If you have an article of that title, the contents are what i would want to put into it. If you have the contents we have, I would want that title.

Briefly about the wordsmithing: it is not possible or desirable to put all the specific information into the first sentence, or into the first paragraph. The exposition progresses from general to more specific statements: the intro sentence is intentionally general and not too specific about the non-NHLs. The 3rd paragraph in the lead section provides more specifics about the non-NHLs. The intro to the section titled "Historic areas in the United States National Park System" provides more specifics. And footnotes provide even more. So, while the first sentence can be tweaked to be more specific, that's not necessarily good to do. Too much information about the exceptions, too soon, takes away from getting across the biggest facts about the article.

About Long Island and upstate vs. NYC, it sounds like some word-smithing could be helpful. Sure, we can report the total number of NHLs in the combo of Nassau and Suffolk Counties separately somehow, perhaps in an informational footnote.

About landmarking as a verb, dictionary.com gives definition: "tr.v. land·marked, land·mark·ing, land·marks To accord the status of a landmark to; declare to be a landmark. "

My print dictionaries don't list it as a verb. Neither do most of the online dictionaries I consulted. The vast majority of the google hits for "landmark" as a verb turn out to be New York City blogs and articles. IMO, it's not an accepted English word yet. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

So, in summary response to Orlady's comment's, I agree that some wording adjustments can be made and could clarify the article. And i will try to make adjustments that would lessen the negatives triggered for Orlady. But, in these comments, i don't see compelling arguments that would necessitate basic organizational changes. The set of related Wikipedia articles, higher and lower, could be organized differently, but this is a pretty good way to go, I have argued here. And I think in the end you have to give some discretion to the editors involved for organizing it this way. Orlady stated a potential absolute policy: "if this is identified as a list of NHLs, it should not include sites that are not current or former NHLs", but i don't want to follow that dictum too strictly. It is easy to compose other absolute dictums, and this article follows, instead, the dictum: group all Federally-designated nationally-historically-important historic sites in a state together in one list-article. Orlady, I hope this works for you; I really hope we can do some copyediting and then have your support. doncram (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow -- that's a long response to a short review! I don't have time to respond to all of your points today, much less write a similar-length essay.
However, please note that the article title uses the proper noun "National Historic Landmarks", but the broader scope you are describing would better be titled with the more generic noun "national historic landmarks." After reading your defense of the scope, I feel more strongly than before that the scope too broad. Focus on the designated NHLs, and put the other sites in other lists.
You correctly note that I did not comment on the whole list article. However, I happen to believe that a nicely formatted and thoroughly sourced table is not sufficient for an FL; every FL needs a good lead section, too. Furthermore, I don't think it's too much to ask for this list to clearly define its scope in the first paragraph, if not the first sentence.
--Orlady (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I want to see some featured lists of NHLs (to balance all those sports and pop culture lists), but I'm concerned about intellectual sloppiness in defining the scope of this list (it seems that it's a list of "national-class historic landmarks" under the title "National Historic Landmarks". (This is related, BTW, to the intellectual sloppiness of other articles/lists that use the made-up term "Registered Historic Places" for entries on the National Register of Historic Places, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 15#Use correct terminology:__National Register of Historic Places and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/NRHP renaming proposals.) --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 5 September 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 20:02, 8 September 2008 [33].

---

List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

This is a self-nomination. I believe the list currently meets all of the FL criteria: it covers an important topic, is stable and non-controversial, fully referenced and has a nice layout. Moreover, there are currently only three monarchy-related featured lists on Wikipedia, so a new addition would be good. All objections of course will be promptly addressed.BomBom (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• lots of MOS issues especially Y
• First and third paragraphs in the lead have no references Y
• "1805 till 1953." – "1805 until 1953."??? Y
• "1805-1867" – year ranges use en dashes per WP:DASH Y
• page ranges in references use en dashes Y
• "13 - 19 March 2003" – "13–19 March 2003" etc. Y
• "nineteenth century" – I think consensus is to spell out centuries so "19th century" Y
• unlink lone years like in "in 1882, the " Y

Gary King (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

All of your objections have been addressed.BomBom (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• En dash for date ranges—one there needs to be spaced. Please see MOS:DASH.
• Table: can you manipulate the column widths to give more to "Fate" in the second table: the text is like skyscrapers. Tony (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Your comments have been taken into account. BomBom (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like the use of colour in columns that big, would it be possible to remove all the green colouring and just use grey? Also, could you make the images a little smaller? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. I replaced the green background with a light gray one, and reduced the size of the images to 80px. BomBom (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't understand what all the pink is for.
• Are you sure Isma'il Pasha's reign in the Ottoman province didn't end on 7 June, and he begin with the Ottoman Khedivate on 8 June? What I mean is was he granted the title of Khedive on 8 June and he used it immediately, or was he granted it before 8 June, and he became Khedive as soon as the clock struck midnight?
• Why aren't there full entries for Aziz Ezzat Pasha, Prince Muhammad Ali and Sherif Sabri Pasha?
• Same for the rows after the Revolution
• Why is the table header "Revolution" written as "R E V O L U T I O N"? This causes WP:ACCESS problems with screen readers.
• Per Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools and WP:CITET, {{citation}} shouldn't be used on the same page as {{cite web}}, {{cite book}} or anything else in the {{cite xxx}} range. I know that the citation ones are being used for {{harvnb}}, but as I've found out from my nominations -- it doesn't matter. All the reference templates should be converted to citation, or lose the harvard referencing function. :(

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your concerns one by one:

• Where do you see pink???
• Isma'il Pasha obtained the Ottoman firman (i.e. decree) appointing him as wāli on 8 June 1867, and the decree had immediate effect.
• It seems to me the answer is pretty obvious from the article itself. Aziz Ezzat Pasha, Prince Muhammad Ali and Sherif Sabri Pasha were regents. Therefore, there should be a distinction between them and the other monarchs.
• Same answer regarding the rows after the Revolution.
• The "Revolution" table header has been fixed.
• All reference templates have been converted to citation.

BomBom (talk) 00:58, 5 September 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 12:31, 7 September 2008 [34].

---

Mastodon discography

I started to work on this discography from a request of Lykantrop, and now after all done—in addition to being really happy with my work, I think that this list is ready to be a FL. Since now, I thank all that help me with comments and suggestions. Regards, Cannibaloki 06:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please check all "releases which didn't chart" were actually released in the countries you claim they were released in. e.g. Ref 8 doesn't mention any album besides Blood Mountain so you can't use it to say their other two albums were released and didn't chart in the UK.
• The lead says the discog consists of a few things but is different from the infobox, i.e. there's a lot more in the infobox than in your lead.
• Check WP:DASH to see if you need the spaces before and after that em-dash.
• "which debuted at number " well, it peaked there too didn't it.
• One EP has reference, the others don't.
• "American Heritage " is a redlink.
• " 7"" or " 7-inch "?
• "This 7-inch EP is limited to 2,000 copies " was limited and prove it.
• In the Notes, what does "Split with..." mean?
• Singles are not referenced at all, nor do they have chart information outside the US Billboard.
• I would imagine the demo ought to be in this discog, not a see also.
• "which soon later, also helped they to " simply isn't English.

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that all  Done --Cannibaloki 22:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=10013
  • http://www.chartstats.com/index.php

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 26 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 11:52, 6 September 2008 [35].

---

Dual Irish international footballers

This article is a complete list, and is unlikely to change, and avoids recentism. I think it is a quirky and interesting phenomenon, unparallelled in international soccer, the principle author is User:Djln, whom I feel has performed an excellent job. Fasach Nua (talk) 11:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments - a few quick things.

• Citations should use {{cite web}} with parameters such as accessdate, publisher etc used where appropriate, and should be placed according to WP:CITE.
• Year ranges should use the en-dash, not hyphen, per WP:DASH.
• IFA v FAI is not a good heading - it needs expertise to understand what this means, spell it out.
• Numbers below ten should be spelled out as text.
• "After 1924 they all went onto played for the FAI XI." - grammar.
• "surprise victory" - POV.
• "two full caps with the FAI XI [16] " punctuation?
• A lot of data is incomplete.
• What makes http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/10/dual-internationalists.html a WP:RS?

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn per nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 6 September 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 16:55, 4 September 2008 [36].

---

List of Trina awards

previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)

This list is indeed fairly short but it meets the criteria and still has a sufficient number of items to justify a list. Also, it will definitely continue to grow. Gary King (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Heh, Gary is not a WP:CRYSTAL BALL :)
• At the moment I still think this would be better as a section of Trina.

Sorry, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Matthew, the article for Trina isn't particularily long, I think this could easily be merged there. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright done Gary King (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumably then you'd like to withdraw this FLC Gary? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Gary King (talk) 16:45, 4 September 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:Scorpion0422 03:41, 4 September 2008 [37].

---

List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes

I think this fulfills the FL requirements. Nergaal (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk)

• remove the link from the bold per WP:BOLDTITLE
• Format the references. What's up with "^ http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/release_detail.nbc/entertainment-20080512000000-nbcdigitalentertai.html Nbc Digital Entertainment Serves Up Users' Favorites]"?
• stuff like "Main article: The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1" can used piped text with the "l1=" parameter (to remove the brackets); check the docs at {{main}} for details
• times such as "at 9:00 " should be "at 9:00 p.m. " per WP:MOS
• I also now see "As of [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]", which should be a fixed date.

Gary King (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

First batch of comments resolved. Nergaal (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is inconsistency in italicizing the references; only publications should be italicized, so not BBC News, for instance.

• What makes the following reliable:

• • http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/news/Office-Season-4/9706

amazon would be better? everything on this topic seems to be blogs, or pages that will surely change with other topics (i.e. the official site) Nergaal (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think Amazon is okay but some have mentioned that it is not reliable, akin to IMDB. Gary King (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news.aspx?id=20051107nbc03 (this references an NBC press release, so an alternative can probably be found easily)

hmm, I thought the same but.. Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

the subarticle on season 2 gives the reference http://www.celebrityspider.com/news/january06/article012206-6.html Nergaal (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That website looks even less reliable. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.officetally.com/part-1-comic-con-interview-with-the-office-writers
• "The Office. The program" – italicize The Office
• excessive links in the lead; "the American situation comedy television series The Office" is just a blob of links; for instance, why is American linked? British?

I could remove the date links but I am not sure how would that work. Could I remove the year link at least if the year is repeating? Nergaal (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "t of Committed,[13]. Season" extra comma there?
• the article needs a thorough copyedit; for instance,
• "Season one introduced each of the main characters" – "Season one introduced the main characters"
• "The office gets a new employee in temporary worker Ryan Howard (B.J. Novak)." – "in" probably not the best preposition
• "on July 10th. The" – format date
• "NBC ordered " – unlink the NBC; lots of NBC links throughout already
• "e 2008-2009 television seaso" – endash needed here
• "premiere Thursday, September 25 and the first episode is likely to be titled "Weight Loss" or "Summer."[22]" – why is "Thursday" there? At least unlink it; I assume most people know what Thursday is

Gary King (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC) I know this sounds odd, but what is Region 1, 2, 3, 4??? Should I link them since I assume ppl outside US don't understand them. Nergaal (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think they should be linked. Gary King (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But to what? Nergaal (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably link only one of them (the first mention) to DVD region code. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Everything should be ok now.Nergaal (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "British] series"
• either link the month/day/year combinations, meaning month/day is linked together and the year (this is for user formatted date preferences), or don't link dates at all
• disambiguation links: Roy Anderson, Writers Guild of America

do you have a tool to find these or you do it manually? Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The office gets a new employee" – "The office gets new employee"
• The overviews of all of the season sections need references

Gary King (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to add refs to each section. How's now? Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The following information and/or paragraphs still require references:

• "Season two featured the first"
• "In November 2007 the Webisodes"
• "NBC ordered a full fourth season of"
• "Technology was another theme as the office staff struggled with initiatives introduced by Ryan to modernize the company."

Gary King (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Done? Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The new references need to be formatted correctly. Some are different formats from others; such as "Retrieved" vs. "retrieved". This causes problems, also, such as the date formatted in "Retrieved on 20080-08-23." and some of the access dates are unlinked while some are not.
• Also, I should have been clearer – the text I mentioned above meant that that information to the very end of the paragraph need citations. So the following are still unreferenced:
  • "It further developed into the plot of the fear of company downsizing, along with developing the minor characters in the series."
  • "In the end, due to the shutdown, the fourth season of The Office actually consisted of 19 half-hour segments, ten of which were combined to form five one-hour specials."

Gary King (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC) Done. Nergaal (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• "on DVD in Regions" is linked but I think linking the text "Regions 1, 2 and 4 " makes more sense
• There are three Zap2It links that are dead (and have been since April)

check them manually Nergaal (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1228401,00.html is a reliable reference but does not back up all of the information mentioned in the paragraph (notably, there is no mention of any of the dates, nor the exclusion of most of the mentioned characters)
• http://weblogs.variety.com/wga_strike_blog/2007/11/greg-daniels-we.html is a blog and not considered reliable

But he is one of the directors of the show... isn't that reliable enough? Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://dvd.ign.com/articles/816/816383p1.html does not back up all of the information in the paragraph; notably the dates, etc.

added for dates Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please copyedit the entire article. I was just randomly scrolling through and found a few issues:
• "But later in the day, it pays off" – "However, later in the day, it pays off" or even "Later in the day, however, it pays off"
• "But the group's fun quickly turns sour," – same as above
• there are more sentences that start with "But"; same solution as above please
• "When Michael burns his foot while at his own home, he requests that one of the employees of the office come to his house to pick him up. An enthusiastic Dwight volunteers, but in his rush, he crashes his own car before he is even able to get out of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton parking lot, suffering a concussion. But the concussion brings out a good-natured Dwight, who is kind and helpful to the other members of the office. Eventually, Jim drives both Michael and Dwight to the hospital, where they are both helped with their respective injuries. " – can be written better. Something like "When Michael burns his foot at home, he asks for one of his employees to pick him up. An enthusiastic Dwight volunteers, but in his rush, he crashes his car before he gets out of the Dunder Mifflin Scranton parking lot. Following the accident, he suffers a concussion which brings out a good-natured Dwight who is kind and helpful to his co-workers. Later, Jim drives both Michael and Dwight to the hospital, where they are helped with their injuries."
• I'll check back in a little while for an update on how the other episode summaries are doing.
• The plot summaries for the "Season 1: 2005" section should be expanded; they are significantly shorter than the other summaries, and yet those episodes still have quite a bit of content like the later episodes

Gary King (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Now? Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not ready.

• "Albeit unintentionally, Michael outs Oscar's homosexuality." can be done as "Michael outs Oscar's homosexuality unintentionally." to be more straightforward.
• "Jim tries to adjust to his new life with his new co-workers" – "Jim tries to adjust to a new life with new co-workers" – as we can safely assume that it's his life that he's adjusting for.
• The season 1 episode plots should still be expanded further.
• simple things need to be fixed, like this: "doesn't " – contractions should be expanded, so this should be "does not"

Gary King (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

? #41308789025 Nergaal (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, still not ready. FLC is not a peer review; WP:PR exists for this purpose. Just give you an example of how stringent FLC has become, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4/archive1 just recently failed its FLC because of no supports (primarily due to copyediting issues). "harassment suit, leading" – "harassment lawsuit, leading", "an easy-going office" – "an easygoing office", etc. Gary King (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I went through the entire plot summaries, and tweaked the text. It should look much better now. Nergaal (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

MOS issues and such still linger. "1 A.M. " – "1 a.m. " per WP:MOS, for example. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for spotting that, but could you be a bit more precise? Nergaal (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues like the dozens that I brought up above still exist. FLC isn't meant to be a peer review; please fix the remaining issues and then I will give my support. Gary King (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, I've went again in detail and switched some of the refs and improved the text. what is still missing? Nergaal (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I just took a quick look. How is this reliable? Gary King (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to wonder weather you even checked what was it referencing and just say that the text was altered to not need it. Nergaal (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just realized that this is a forum post and is not considered reliable, either. Gary King (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, I added a new one and altered the text accordingly. The only publisher left that has a any chance to be considered unreliable is zap2it, but it looks ok and it does not try to refference dubious facts. Nergaal (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know when this cropped up, but year ranges such as "2005-2006" must use an en dash per WP:DASH. Also, perhaps merge the second and third paragraphs of the lead (in a logical manner) as they are both pretty short. The Zap2It references are also formatted incorrectly; date goes after publisher I believe. Also, in the references, authors must be last name, first name format. Gary King (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think {{citeweb}} puts the date after author-but in this case there is none. I could move them after the publisher if you really think that is the way they should be. As for the last, first, I am quite sure that there is no strict preference, except that it must me either one of the other throughout the entire article - again, I could switch them if you really think it should be the case. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest just using cite web for the two Zap2It references just so there is no confusion; also, there should be a space after the date and before the title, and no leading zeroes for the days in the dates, anyways. The last name, first name is mandatory, not optional, as far as I know since I've been at FAC and FLC. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

as I've allready stated below, the use of cite web in this case is not possible since the url of zap adresses contains the character "

• Still are issues like the above.

Gary King (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that points 1&3 are ok in some countries/areas even in the literary English–although I might be wrong. Anyways, I solved them. As for #4, I really do not believe it needs a ref (it is a relatively minor plot detail that can be verified by watching the episode). Nergaal (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking because it might as well be specified as it shouldn't be hard to find, not because it needs a ref; which it would as a side-effect, anyways. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

why isn't this link ok? http://www.tv <delete this space> rage.com/person/id-48829/?show_all_gcredits=1#ecast_6061

also, I went through the text again... Nergaal (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The link is blacklisted; it was probably spammed on several articles before. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

so it is basically worse than unreliable? Nergaal (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically Gary King (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

←how is http://www.hollywood.com/celebrity/Rashida_Jones/186511? also, is there any point to continuing with this? I've put a humongous amount of time into this and it seems that little has changed. should I just give up on this article? Nergaal (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it is not considered reliable. Gary King (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is what 1 user thinks, and the obvious counter-question is: what makes it unreliable such that it cannot be used to list the appearances of a certain character? Also, you still did not answer wather there is any point in continuing with this FLC. Nergaal (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The primary issue is that it is unclear how the information at that URL is obtained. Also, I think I suggested at the beginning of my review that this be withdrawn so that it can be worked on before re-submitting it to FLC; if I had not mentioned this, that I will mention it now. It gives everyone more time to work on the article and it does not cause a strain on the already stretched reviewers at FLC; I'm the only person that has gotten to this FLC so far (besides Ealdgyth, who checked the URLs), so there might be other issues that others bring up that I missed. Gary King (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

With regards to hollywood.com, and a similar link on one of my FAC submissions, User:Ealdgyth at WP:Featured article candidates/Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) said "Given the information being sourced to it, I can deal with this. However, I would be much more worried about using it for contentious information." TVShowsonDVD.com is owned by TV Guide and is considered reliable. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The link shows the appearances of the character, and as a result it shows that it has been disappeared from most of the episodes. I do not think this is contentious. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://tvoholic.com/

It is only meant to say that there are x episodes, of which y are 1h long. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 25 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. On this site, perhaps you could find something like TV Guide for the information? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 28 is lacking a publisher.
• I'd try to replace the IMDb reference with something a bit less likely to get challenged.
• The zaptoit refs are showing up as deadlinks in the link checker tool.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Zap2it links are NOT dead. The problem is that they contain the "|" character, and since I've used citeweb, the template reads it as the end of the url. Any ways around that? Nergaal (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Urf. No clue. Do they work from the article itself? If they do, then don't worry about it. If they don't work, I have no idea.. you might have to format the refs by hand. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

If they don't work, consider replacing the "|"s with an ndash or colon? I'll take a look at the page tomorrow. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't start with "This is a list of..."

rephrased entire intro

• The DVD image appears to fail WP:NFCC#8

removed; but no images?

• "The program" --> "The series"
• The Office (U.S. TV series) is linked to on the second use of The Office, not the first
• "and a full-length second and third season in 2005–2006, respectively in 2006–2007." doesn't make sense
• "two sets of webisodes." -- Is "sets" the right word? Perhaps "seasons"?
• Many Featured episode Lists where the series also have season pages do not include episode summaries, and instead leave them for the season pages.
• All the Featured episode lists where the series also have season pages transclude the episode tables from the season pages. This allows for easy updating because when the season page is updated, the main list is updated automatically.
• UK, not U.K., and because of that, US, not U.S.

You suggest moving the page? Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to oppose at the moment because it's just not up to current episode list standards. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

YESSS, somebody actually bothered to write specific complains and not just a random pick. I will try to fix these issues within the next few days. Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased most of the intro, and I think I dealt with all the complains listed. Any other problems? Nergaal (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe my "specific complains [sic]" are under the "Resolved comments from Gary King (talk)" banner up top? Gary King (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

And I believe I solved all of them. It is possible to have skipped a very few but I kind of doubt that. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 3 September 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:Scorpion0422 03:39, 4 September 2008 [38].

---

List of University of Pittsburgh buildings

This is an incredibly thorough listing of buildings owned by the University of Pittsburgh. Every building on the list has a free photo. Every major building and most minor buildings have usage information, construction and architectural data, as well as any design awards.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I presume there's no specific section in the University of P article, since your link isn't to a #section. Pity. Much more information should be provided in the lead to enrich the reader's experience of the list. Cr. 2. En dash for year ranges—see MoS. Premature nomination, IMO. Tony (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• your references are just links. References should at the minimum give title of website, publisher of website, and date of last access. I'll leave the question of whether they should be attributed using footnotes to the other reviewers.

Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd agree with Tony, this is premature. But some comments nevertheless.
• Lead is far too short and fails to meet WP:WIAFL - engaging lead.
• "This list University of Pittsburgh buildings catalogs" - isn't good English and we avoid the use of "This list is..." etc these days.
• "technically separate legal entities." - cite it.
• en-dash, not em-dash for year ranges.
• Not sure the use of sorting "Designations" does - it's free text so sorting it isn't that useful.
• What does "Pitt-owned" mean? Are you saying Pitt=University of Pittsburgh?
• "Buildings in the sortable table below are initially listed alphabetically." - unnecessary.
• Why so many blank cells?
• See Also should be See also.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose No need to repeat comments. The above haven't been addressed, and with the exception of TRM's, there's been ample time to. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:23, 2 September 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:Scorpion0422 20:37, 2 September 2008 [39].

---

List of Calgary Flames draft picks

Nominating as I believe this meets the criteria. All feedback will, of course, be responded to. Resolute 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Haven't looked properly, but heck "Stats are complete"—no, "The statistics are complete" ... more formal register, please. Tony (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is is a list of draft picks by the Calgary Flames..." zzz - please start the list with some more imagination - featured articles don't start with "This is an article about..." so featured lists shouldn't either.
• "came into existence" -really? This could be reworded in my opinion, discussing a brief history of the franchise and its various locations, ending with the move to Calgary.
• "For the first eight years of the franchise's history" - is this before or after it moved to Calgary?
• I guess "The 2008 draft was the 29th in which Calgary participated, where they selected seven players, including first round pick Greg Nemisz." would make more sense toward the end of the lead rather than the end of the opening paragraph.
• A (very) brief description of how the NHL draft works would be of great use to non-experts reading this.
• "was also drafted by the Toronto Blue Jays and chose a career in Major League Baseball over the NHL.[2]" - emphasise that Blue Jays are a Major League Baseball team.
• Fix Tony's "stat" issue.
• "Goaltender stats are listed in the form of wins–losses–ties for goaltenders who played prior to the 2005–06 NHL season, and wins–losses–ties–shootout losses for goaltenders who played after." - I guess there's a good explanation for this so include it as a referenced footnote.
• "year they hosted the draft." - is there a reference for this? Does the draft location move from year to year? Again, that could be part of the explanation you could add - as a matter of interest, some of the NFL draft lists include information regarding the technicalities of the draft - perhaps use one of those as inspiration?
• Why is Penalty Minutes abbreviated to PIM and not PM?
• Seems a shame to have so many separate table with the see also's when you could incorporate all the information into one table.
• Several abbreviations seem to lack explanation, such as Ret-#2, STL, CGY, USHS, GAA etc.
• Does the colour coding indicate anything that the P column doesn't already tell you?
• I'd prefer to see column widths the same from table to table if you insist on keeping each year's draft in a separate table.
• Some players have no position, at least one has no nationality - don't leave blank cells, explain why they're unknown (or whatever).
• Is it clear somewhere that all these statistics are for the NHL entirely rather than just for Calgary Flames appearances?
• What's a supplemental draft?
• The notes need references.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A lot of very good suggestions that I will look to address in the next couple days. As a quick note - PIM is the standard abbreviation used by the NHL, and stands for "Penalties in Minutes." "Ret" and GAA are linked in the table. I'll link the other abbreviations. Resolute 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Your player stats reference needs a last access date. (Picky, I know...)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am going to withdraw this nomination for the time being. I have some ideas on how to change this, which will probably leave the article in a considerably different format when done. No sense carrying on with this nom for the time being. Resolute 23:26, 26 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 15:40, 1 September 2008 [40].

---

Wolfmother discography

Although the Wolfmother discography is short, I believe I have created a list which can be used as a template to create/improve further discographies. All charts and references are tidy and the lead section is valid and informative. I have created and edited this alone. Andre666 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Videos --> Video albums

 Done

• According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style unreleased songs and B-sides should not be included

 Done

• All music video directors need to be sourced

 Done

• All entries in the other appearances section need to be sourced

 Done

• Is their any other way to source how many copies of their album were sold worldwide?

 Done

• Fan sites should not be used (see WP:Source)

 Done

-- 00:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Relatively a short list but not that many flaws in my eyes.
  • The album peaked at #3[2] and was subsequently released in Europe (through Island Records) and the United States (through Interscope Records) in 2006. - what is verifying the release by Island Records in EU and by Interscope Records in the US?

 Done

• • The other flaw i see is with the references, for the international charts. The publisher reads as the country which the chart belongs to but it should be the name of the publishing site not the country in which it is published.

 Done

S_RX 15:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No links to release dates;

 Done

*Peak chart positions — reduce from 12 to 10 positions in the table;

You don't need to do that. So if you want to you can add it back. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Worldwide sales → remove this field from the table, and add on the lead text;

 Done

• Certifications (sales thresholds) → left-aligned (see The Mars Volta discography);

 Done

• Where is the cat. # for Dimensions & Please Experience Wolfmother Live?

 Done

• Singles
  • !rowspan="2" width="150"|Title → !rowspan="2" width="175"|Song

 Done

• • !style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| [[Hot Modern Rock Tracks|US<br />Mod.]]

 Done

• • !style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| [[Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks|US<br />Main.]]

 Done

• • "—" denotes singles that did not chart. → "—" denotes a release that did not chart.

 Done

• Music videos
  • Ref. = YouTube
    • YouTube is a valid and reliable source in this case as the videos are from Universal Music Group's official collection. Andre666 (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• References
  • Much of references not cite the correct information of which were obtained. This is a problem.
    • How's that? Andre666 (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
• External links
  • Remove Discogs and MySpace links.

 Done

• • Add {{commons}}

 Done

Oppose per the current structure of this list and the poor references. Cannibaloki 16:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments, Pt. 2

• Album details → Video details;

 Done

• Peak chart positions
  • ! style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| for all!
    • Example: ! style="width:3em;font-size:75%"| [[ARIA Charts|AUS]]<br /><ref></ref>

 Done

• • Remove FRA & SWI;

 Done

• • The countries are out of order, and should be organized by the country name.

 Done

Cannibaloki 20:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=413088
• http://undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=5903 would not load for me.

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Avoid linking the names of anglophone countries and nationalities (see MOSLINK). Remove "native", since you've told us that already.
• Avoid "currently" in this context—it won't be current in a few years' time (see MOSNUM on vague chronological items).
• Australian date format in the tables, please. Tony (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Just makes the 10-entries or more threshold, but I've seen other discogs opposed with more.
  • This I don't get. I have been told no more than 10 entries are allowed and so I reduced it.
    • No, it's no generally no fewer than 10 entries on any list at FLC. See the current discussion at WT:FLC. KT Tunstall discography failed because of a lack of entries on its first attempt. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• Page isn't up to date, despite the word "currently". According to Wolfmother, new group members have been found. This page should be updated
  • What? Nothing anywhere says new members have been found.
    • "Stockdale has two Americans lined up to replace the former band members in order to continue work on the second Wolfmother album." it implies that he has found their replacements although I didn't check the reference Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• "The album peaked at #3[1]" can the reference be put after punctuation?
  • What punctuation? There is only a full stop at the end but that reference only backs up the chart position, not the whole sentence.
    • OK Matthewedwards (talk •

contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• the quote "irreconcilable personal and musical differences" needs a citation
  • There is a citation at the end of the sentence!
    • Wikipedia:Citing sources#When quoting someone A reference should follow the quote. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• ""—" denotes a release that did not chart." they were all released in those markets, then?

 Done

• UK Albums Chart is not the publisher of http://www.chartstats.com/ Also, the reference points to the main page, rather than anything specific, and there are more reliable websites than this one for the UK. http://www.theofficialcharts.com/ has http://www.theofficialcharts.com/top40_singles_archive.php, but the BBC recommend http://www.everyhit.co.uk/
• In fact, refs [5] to [13] all point to the main pages of the sites, rather than anything specific

 Done

• eil.com is a shopping website. Can a better reference be found?
  • No, I cannot find one. Someone needs to scan a copy of their DVD in to show the cat. #.
    • The onus is on the nominator or other active editors of the article, not reviewers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
• 19 to 25 are youtube videos.
  • They are published by the band's record label, thus reliable!
    • YouTube message for me whem I try watch these videos: "This video is not available in your country." Cannibaloki 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done

• The general reference isn't needed when you have the external link

 Done

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• ""American chart". Billboard. Retrieved on August 8, 2008." doesn't link to a specific page; it just links to Billboard's homepage.

 Done

• "Wolfmother was formed in 2003 by guitarist and vocalist Andrew Stockdale, bassist and keyboardist Chris Ross and drummer Myles Heskett. The band signed with Modular Recordings and released the EP Wolfmother in 2004." needs a reference

 Done

Gary King (talk) 21:52, 29 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.