Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2009

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:02, 31 October 2009 [1].

---

List of India women Test cricketers

Nominator(s): -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it passes the criteria. The list provides a detailed view of women cricketers who have played at the highest international level (Test cricket) representing India. It is comprehensive and is current as of today. The list is likely to expand at the rate of about five players per two/three years. The lead provides an introduction to Test cricket and women's cricket, sufficient to provide context to a lay reader. There are two tables included, one table with important stats for all players and another detailing the captains' performance over the years. I will be happy to address comments/questions/suggestions promptly. -SpacemanSpiff 06:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Surely number of 50's is notable? Aaroncrick (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was in two minds about this. Most other Test lists (men's and women's) don't carry either 100s or 50s, in this case I figured having just 100s is sufficient. If a change to include 50s is recommended, I can get it done pretty quickly, no additional referencing required, and it's easy to add.-SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the volume of scoring for women is a lot lower than for men. So a 50 for women might be quite something. I saw a total of 10 100s in 34 Tests. 0.3 tons per Test is very low, for a men's game often two per team per game, or more. A lot of ODI scores in the recent WC in Australia were about 180-220 on smaller grounds like North Sydney Oval and Bankstown Oval even though in state List-A matches, a par-score for these grounds is usually 280-310. There was a game in late-2001 at Bankstown when NSW made 390 odd and Tas made about 340. Haddin and M Waugh both made centuries for NSW. Tas made 340 even against McGrath and B Lee IIRC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done Added a column for 50s. It is interesting, there are a few with multiple scores. -SpacemanSpiff 01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand why the table split in the middle. Ease of reference or some other reason? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• It appears easier to figure out which column is what with the additional title bar at that point - the extra bar ensures that when someone looks at any of the 71 entries, there's a title bar in view on screen. That doesn't interfere with the sorting etc, so the table is only visually split.-SpacemanSpiff 14:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Third paragraph is unreadable. "20 out of 34 Tests", "fourth in the list but fewer Tests than all but one" and "entered the list of top-30 players" and the like.

• Done Cleaned this up, let me know if there are any other problems.

• "The team is selected by a panel of former cricketers who have played at least 25 games at the first-class level or above. " - how do they define first class experience for women selectors ?

• Done I've linked to the First-class cricket article; explanation on the criteria is included there.

• "The panel is made up of five members, the chairperson and four other members, one member from each of the five zonal divisions in domestic cricket". From the source - "Women's selection committee: Anju Jain (chairman), Poornima Rao, Mithu Mukherjee, Vrinda Bhagat, Sandhya Agarwal, Niranjan Shah ". I count six there including Shah. Are you sure that you are not talking about men's cricket in the line quoted from the article ?

• Response The selection panel was initially formed as per the Cricinfo reference (ref 8), however it was (very soon) changed to the men's team model, and the Hindu reference (ref 9) I've used against that statement shows the Zonal split with Agarwal (Chairperson - Central), Gandhi (North), Rao (South), Mukherjee (East), Bhagat (West).

• Before Raj, Agarwal was a record holder too. 59.92.22.173 (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done I made this change before reading this comment, as it was connected to the readability issue.

Thanks for the feedback/changes, let me know if there are other concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 18:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Does the flag need to be quite that big?! The infobox setting is a fixed 280px, I'll try to modify the infobox as was done with the Rugby one. "The game, for women, includes ..." reads odd to me. Perhaps something like "The women's variant of Test cricket includes..."? "However, women's cricket was late to arrive in India." not keen on this sentence at all. Just say something like "However, the governing association, Women's Cricket Association of India, was not formed until 1973, with the first Test..."? "Test match frequency for India has been sporadic" this is followed by a sentence about time between victories. So this "frequency" is really about victories? And it isn't really sporadic if they only one test match for 26 years, it's just poor form! Done. Wasn't my intention to provide excuses :) I was really trying to say that 34 matches in 34 years is pretty low. But my comparison was the men's team. On closer inspection, England have played 51 while Australia have played 42, so the comparison is valid only against England. I've removed the sentence. "This is a list of women Test cricketers who have played at least one Test match for India" Avoid bold, and perhaps something more interesting, like "Since its inception, 71 women has represented India in at least one Test match." Link cap to Cap (sport). Why not use conventional notation for wicket-keeper and captain? I would prefer to use the conventional notations. However, "*" is already in use for not outs and I didn't want to repeat. "†" for wicket-keeper could be confused with "+" (balls bowled) in smaller screen sizes. If this is not a big enough problem, I will change to conventional notations. " No. of " or " No of " - actually, would prefer "Number of..."! Central "India women Test cricketers" heading is redundant above the table. Not convinced the sortings working out. Try BBM for instance. First click I get number 2 with an en-dash, second click I get number 22 with 1/0 (but 1/4 and 1/8 are sorting below 1/15, 1/17 etc). Sort Avg, first click I get 71 with an en-dash, second click I get 17 with 12.00 (but two below I get 41 with 141.00 average, way out of order), third click I get 41 with 141.00... I'll try to fix the problems. With BBM and BBI there are some problems I didn't foresee. I'm not sure what the problems with the rest are, but I'll get them fixed. Usually lists of names sort by surname using the {{sortname}} template, but is this different for Indian names? I wasn't sure. This is a unique problem because of the naming structures used in India (probably won't be an issue in a few years, but it is for this set). For Sandhya Agarwal, Agarwal is the true last name; for Venkatacher Kalpana, Venkatacher is the patronym while Kalpana is the given (first) name; for Mithali Raj, Raj is a patronym, a reason you'll see many sources referring to her as Mithali and not Raj. Given the multiple variations, I decided not to use the standard sort methodology. What does "3320+" mean? The + isn't in the key. "India women Test captains" central heading not required. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Done. All above comments without an inline response have been taken care of. I'll try to resolve the stats sorting issues and the flag size either today or tomorrow; let me know if the name sorting and caption/wk notations are still an issue. Thanks for the feedback. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Done The sorting has been fixed. The infobox was removed by another editor, so the flag size issue is no longer applicable. -SpacemanSpiff 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• In the key, the separating dashes should be endashes rather than hyphens.
• Also in the key, link the "not out" in * - Batsman remained not out
• The coloured heading to the Bowling section is way too dark, making the writing hard to read and the sort buttons invisible for some of us with non-standard colour vision (or using monochrome displays). See WP:Colours#Using colours in articles.
  • Done. Sorry about that, I was trying a bit too hard to use shades of the colours of the bat/ball/field without impacting readability, but I guess it didn't work. I've switched to standard Wikimedia background colours (in use on en.wiki and commons home pages). I checked both times using the AccessColor tool, but did not get any errors. Please let me know if this continues to be a problem.
• Link Balls to Delivery (cricket) rather than Cricket ball. The non-cricketing reader knows what a ball is, but they won't know that Balls refers to the number of times the bowler has bowled one.
• And Stumpings would be better linked to the relevant section of the article: Stump (cricket)#Manner of dismissing a batsman cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All Done. Thanks for the feedback, let me know if there are other concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 17:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Since the infobox that was in this article was intended for the India national women's cricket team article, I have removed it from this one. No need for duplicate infoboxes, after all :) – PeeJay 22:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Could we have an explanation why some players may have bowled more deliveries than listed there? Maybe a small note? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I would agree that this needs a note. Also, I don't like the fact the dashes sort ahead of the best averages, i.e. if you sort up to down then down to up, you never see the best figures, just the worst ones or a dash indicating no average... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done - Added note for the inefficiency in the official recording of deliveries.
    • That is a problem with the dash in sortable tables. Apparently it was discussed at this FLC too and sorting function was removed from that list before promotion. It also causes some issues in another. In this particular list, on the third and fourth sort you get the correct order with the dashes at the bottom. An alternative would be to use a hidden sort key, but that would mean that the dash will always be the lowest or the highest. I've tried help and general sources for this, and can't find any other option. Let me know what you think. -SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Looks good. Nice work. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "until 1973 when the Women's Cricket Association of India was formed. and the Indian women's cricket team played their first Test match in 1976, against the West Indies." Remove "and" and capitalize first "the" in the second of these two sentences.
• A link to the Indian women's cricket team is only needed once. The one leading off the second paragraph is unnecessary and can be removed.
• Comma after "India have played a total of 34 Tests".
• "They first won a Test in in Patna...".
• Comma after Sudha Shah in third paragraph. Also one needed after Mithali Raj.
• The names in the table are sorting by first name. Is this the intention? Most lists sort by last name.
  • This is the intention. Reasoning is detailed above in response to The Rambling Man (resolved comments section).
• Reference 3 should have the page number appear as p. and not pp. This is easy enough to do; just change the pages= parameter of the cite template to page=.
• References 6 and 9 should not have their publishers in italics, since neither Rediff nor Cricinfo is a printed publication.
• Reference 13 gives the publisher as Cricinfo.com, whereas all other uses of the site here are given as Cricinfo. It would be best to change this for consistency. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done everything above (except sortnames bit). -SpacemanSpiff 22:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:52, 30 October 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 Dabomb87 16:02, 31 October 2009 [2].

---

List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS

Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it to be complete and comprehensive. The list is quite long which I understand could be a blocking issue for FLC. If indeed this list gets promoted to FLC special thanks goes to User:Jim Sweeney who created most of the people referenced on this list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport: Impressive list!

  1. Possibly a stupid question: The list of "Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross" has no number column. Why?

  To my knowledge the German's never had a coherent numbering paradigm for the lowest grade of Knight's Cross. Only for the Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds did they introduce a formal numbering scheme. Very occasionally you come across a nomination or recommendation number for an individual, but this has nothing to do with a sequential numbering scheme. I therefore sorted the lowest list alphabetically. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  2. Could the "SS-" in the "rank" column be dropped since it seems that everybody was in the SS?

  No, because occasionally you will also find the Waffen- prefix MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  OK. At least one of the "Waffen-..." needs a hyphen. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  done thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  3. Could you make the "unit" and "date" columns sortable?

  "date" yes, "unit" not sure if this makes sense MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks for making it date-sortable. For the "unit" column, I'd suggest to decide on certain categories, e.g., "Panzer-Division"/"Panzergrenadier"/"Kavallerie-Brigade"/... (not sure what would be a good choice as I don't know much about the subject). Then you could add hidden sort keys to the table with the chosen categories.bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  done see my comments below MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  4. Possibly the first of the external links reading "Lexion der Wehrmacht" (three times) needs to be fixed.

  done MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  5. The lead reads smoother without the sentence: "Recipients are grouped by grades of the Knight's Cross." Maybe you could move it to the end of the lead section.

  done good point MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks. bamse (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

bamse (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Indeed, good list. What I miss are birth and death dates. Now a death date is only with some entries placed in the notes section. Garion96 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  I followed the same layout as some of the other military award lists that already achieved FLC status; see List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross or List of First World War Victoria Cross recipients. They don't list the birth date either. I only listed the death date if it was somehow linked (killed in action, died of wounds, suicide, execution) to action in WW2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - the list is impressive, but insanely long. As a primary editor, why did you choose to keep the lists in a single article rather than splitting them into subgroups? Geraldk (talk) 02:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  Good question, actually this is the kind of feedback I am seeking and I am open for ideas. I am unsure how to approach this. Would splitting this into two sections of A-M and M-Z make sense? What do I do with the higher grades? Do I keep them separately? If you have suggestions I gladly incorporate them. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm undecided. I'd like to see what other reviewers say. I really think you could do it either way (one unified article or separate articles), but the length of the table for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross makes it difficult to navigate, and there may be some value in splitting it. You set up a conflict, though, between navigability and the value of having a unified list. I do think, though, that both the unit and notes columns should be sortable, the former so readers can identify units from which more than one person received awards, the latter to allow a reader to sort those who were killed in action or were awarded higher levels of the cross. Geraldk (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments on sorting: I introduced a sorting scheme by unit for the 3 higher grades of the KC. Please visit what I have done. The underlying sort key is the respective SS division, corps or army. If this is what you believe is required please let me know and I will apply this to the lowest grade as well.MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

  I made it sortable as requested. However if the article needs to split up for size reasons than do note that coherent sorting will not be possible anymore. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments regarding size: How about breaking the lower grade of the KC recipients (alphabetical sublist) into two list List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS: A-M and List of Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen-SS: N-Z. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have that concern about splitting the list too. It may be that the only sensible way to deal with it would be to make the regular Knights Cross recipients of the Waffen SS a separate article and have an article of just the Knight's Cross plus other stuff. Geraldk (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question Is the size issue the only "major" issue? Just to make sure that I'm not missing anything else. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well size here is a big issue. Please split Oak Leaves from Iron Cross (Iron Cross is the main list anyway).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You also have very few images, eventhough there are more available like: Herbert Otto Gille, August Dieckmann, Hermann Prieß, Hans Dorr, Fritz von Scholz, Felix Steiner, Paul Hausser and many more....--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

    These images have questionable copy right status. What I mean is that I have seen other images of the same copy right status being rejected before. I therefore want to refrain using them here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 11:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

    • They're PD in the US and are therefore allowed on Wikipedia. I don't see the questionabilty of that. Please add these images since they are relevant to this list. Don't add the ones that are Fair use...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

      • done MisterBee1966 (talk) 04:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I moved the Oak Leaves Swords and Diamonds section to List of Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves, Swords or Diamonds recipients of the Waffen-SS. I hope this fully addresses the length issue. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think it's fine now. Better than fine, actually. Incredibly thorough. The notes section is longer and more detailed than some articles I've written. Well done. Geraldk (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Licensing seems fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Sources: No concerns. Goodraise 12:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: I'm sorry. This is an impressive list, but it's simply too long. I suggest splitting it into three parts. Goodraise 12:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. The length recommendations in the MoS exist largely to ensure ease of accessibility by readers, under the assumption that articles that take longer than about 20 minutes to read are less accessible. First, unlike dense text in an article of this length, information in a list format like this is inherently more organized and remains relatively easy to access despite its length. Second, the series of lists on the Knight's Cross is already splintered into a ton of articles, and further splintering this on some arbitrary alphabetical split will actually make the information less accessible to readers. A reader who looks at this list will most likely be interested in Knight's Cross recipients of the Waffen SS, not just the ones between A and M, and to access the full amount of information they want to, they will have to jump back and forth between two articles. Thus, while your opposition seems to be based on the letter of the law, I believe that it violates the spirit. Geraldk (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're forgetting the issue of page loading time. Not all our readers use computers powered by multicore processors with broadband internet connections. Anyway, if you believe my position is in line with the letter but not the spirit of the guideline, then why don't you hop over to Wikipedia:Article size and change it? Goodraise 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, I'm not forgetting page loading time, what I'm saying is there is no perfect solution here, but I think we should err on the side of not splintering articles too much. And I do think Wikipedia:Article size applies quite well in most cases and does not currently require changing, but there is a reason it is a guideline, as you say, rather than a rule. Geraldk (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The featured list criteria demand that featured lists "compl[y] with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages." This page doesn't do that, therefore I can't support. Sorry. Goodraise 22:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• And the very top of the page you keep citing says the following: "This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." You're really not willing to consider the possibility that the article size guideline can be flexible? Geraldk (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, we're not disagreeing on whether guidelines are flexible. They are. We're disagreeing on how flexible this one is. When I take the guideline status, the vague wording, and mix in a bit of ignore all rules, then I still come to the conclusion that a 170 KB list is too large. Goodraise 00:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, that's fair. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note taken, since two reviewers approve while one opposes I'll wait before splitting up the article until more reviewers have commented on the topic. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that arbitrarily splitting articles and lists only disconveniences the reader by spreading the same related information across multiple pages. This makes it impossible to accurately see all list members at once and renders the sort feature completely useless. Also, with the sortability of the Unit column, aren't List of Knight's Cross recipients 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, List of Knight's Cross recipients 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, List of Knight's Cross recipients 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf, etc. redundant? Hardly anything needs to be done to merge and redirect them. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Reywas that there is no need to split the list. List of Chicago Blackhawks players and List of Detroit Red Wings players are two 800+-item FLs that I can think of off the top of my head; the latter would probably be larger in bytes than this list if the many notes weren't included here. I always lean in favor of having a comprehensive list whenever possible, and don't think the size is quite at the overwhelming point where a split would be justified. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify that I have no opinion on whether the list should be split. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the list violates Wikipedia:Article size. Goodraise 02:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for the few with very slow browsers it may take a little while to load, but it's not in violation otherwise. Most of WP:SIZE refers to readability: No one wants to read a novel. But this page is a list with very little readable prose, so size limitations don't apply the same way. And remember, most of the list's size is from the wikimarkup for the table that doesn't show up on the page. It could be cut by 20% by just removing all the spaces and templates that make up the table, without making any visible difference. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Reywas92's comments.—NMajdan•talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm extremely reluctant to attempt to review this list, but am here because opinions have been requested. While I think accessibility is something that is rightly being debated very seriously, we have to weigh up the benefits of splitting against the drawbacks. I don't see how a split could be carried out in a way that doesn't detract from the usefulness of the list. There will be load-time issues, but I'd rather wait twice as long for something comprehensive than wait quite a long time in the first place only to find that I'm going to need to wait that time again to load the other page, wait even longer to sort both lists, and then have to manually cross-check them. WFCforLife (talk) 14:16, 30 October 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 Dabomb87 16:02, 31 October 2009 [3].

---

30 Rock (season 3)

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

After some heavy re-working it finally matches the proper style of other featured TV season lists, in particular the other two FL 30 Rock seasons. Have reworked this list to save the Featured Topic from removal. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• 1. The image in the cast section isn't beneficial. An image of the whole cast would be better if not then none. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, done. I figured it was good. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2. Some episodes summaries are one or two lines. Please expand to at least three to four.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Will do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• 3. A production section should be available. Read Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates#Supernatural_.28season_1.29--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• 4. A DVD release section should also be there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Could do with some non-US information (relevant maintenance tag) Such as? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Did it simulcast anywhere? Canada is quite often good for that. I know nothing of the show, but judging from this, it looks like it was quite popular in Aus. Could you find anything like that for the Reception section? Other DVD region releases give a bit more world perspective. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Would like to see a viewing figures column (like this one has) I'll get on it. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Phew, all done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) This will annoy you. Most of those figure references have gone dead, and according to the tool it happened today! That includes your general reference. Hopefully, archive.org might have them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Ahhhhhh, dammit. They have to go and update their site NOW? I'm on it. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) There we go. All but one cleaned up. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I'd like to see more criticism in the Reception section to give a more neutral POV Mkay. I tried to get a broad scope, but I'll post one or two of the very negative critics from Metacritic. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I think the plot summaries are a bit short. For example episode 14 is less than half a line! Yeah, sorry, I told Diaa I'd do this and never got around it (got sucked into other projects). On it! Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I'm still very concerned about these, some seem to be copyvios of e.g. NBC Press Releases (e.g. #22) or IGN (e.g. #21). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I'll try to repair them. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed those. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC) As Diaa mentions, a DVD release information table would also be nice Out of curiosity, what information would you include in such a section? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Apologies for the lazy reply, but this kind of stuff. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Additionally this Aus Region 4 release. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Is DVD Orchard a RS? It's the only source for that release date I can find right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) It's been argued in the past as okay. It is basically an Australian equivalent of Amazon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The black text on dark blue background is difficult to read in the infobox I'll lighten the blue a bit. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) In the references the date format needs consistency per MoS I tried to... I'll fix any inconsistencies. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I've done this for you. Figured it might be easier for me to do it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) For those PDF refs, it is usual to have |format=PDF Doing it now. Thanks, I wondered how to do this. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) More comments Shouldn't be "Eastern Standard Time", because the April episodes would have aired in Eastern Daylight Time. Suggest just puitting Eastern Time. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "11:30", is that p.m. or a.m., also put the time zone or just (local time). Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I think "Season 3" is usually written out season three, there are a couple of these and some will keep the capital "S" as they start sentences. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Stax, are you keeping track of these comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Yep, I'll get to them (lots of real world stuff coming up, yay writing a thesis and applying to law school). Right now my primary concern is finding replacement refs for the now dead NBC Universal Media Village. The old stories don't seem to be on the new site, and archive.org doesn't have that site archived. Gimme a bit. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Round 2 (still opposing on 1c and copyvio) Okay I'm a bit concerned about that edit. Ref 11 says nothing about Moroney being "limelight-craving" and Girard being "playful" it doesn't even mention the characters names. Ditto with James "Toofer" Spurlock later on. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 5 dead It was ref 6, but added archived version. Works now. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 19 seems to go to the wrong place Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 20 doesn't mention 30 Rock. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 21 doesn't mention "wise-cracking, trucker hat-wearing, repulsive staff writer Frank Rossitano" Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) There must be a better ref than 22, which is talking about a show that hasn't even existed yet. Removed (contained in the official NBC "about" ref now). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 24 seems to go to the wrong place Removed (contained in the official NBC "about" ref now). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not as worried about the recurring characters references not mentioning there character names (excluding Leo Spaceman), but it would be nice if possible. Hayek's does, Alda's 2nd one mentions his first name, but I'll dig around a bit. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Ep 11 copyvio of IGN Fixing. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Final round (opposing on 1. Prose) Ep.1: Shouldn't have to read GE Fixed, it's NBC anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.4: "there is more to Gavin than meets the eye" - this isn't a teaser, as an encyclopdia explain what is strange The problem is giving away spoilers, but ok. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) We don't care about WP:Spoilers, and are expected to be complete as an encyclopaedic article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.5: "shocks Jack with his announcement of who the new CEO of GE actually is" - I don't know who the new GE is, but presumably it is relevant to the show so say so, i.e. along the lines of Jack was shocked when he discovered Joe Bloggs had been appointed as the new CEO ..., get my drift? Again, trying to avoid spoilers. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.6: Don't see the value in calling it a "pre-nup" agreement, instead of prenuptial agreement. If you mean the 7th episode ok, but it really is a POST nup, not pre. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.9 "invites Liz for support" invites to what? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.10/12/17/19 you don't italicise TGS here, but you do elsewhere. Be consistent Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.15 "Liz tries to bring his to his attention." typo Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.15 "Tracy's contract but hits a snag when Tracy realize..." repetition of Tracy makes for an odd read Problem is if I said he it'd be unclear if it referred to Jack. So I made the first one Tracy Jordan. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.16 you usually follow the characters name with (actor), but you don't for Dennis here. Is there a reason for this? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.18 "However following a mix-up the" think it should be However, ... , the blah blah blah Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.19 "Jack goes shopping for an engagement ring with Liz for Elisa." awkward, goes shopping with Liz for an engagement ... Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.19 I had to look up what an EMT was. Additionally, if you spell it out you don't need to repeat emergency Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.20 "Tracy says feels that since" huh Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.21 "introduces supposed illegitimate" missing word? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Ep.22 "but soon discover Milton" discovers? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC) This all stuck out in my first read through, and I'm pretty bad at prose. I strongly recommend you get a copyeditor. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Leaning support. I'm now in a similar boat to Goodraise, I have looked through this list fairly thoroughly and all my issues have been addressed, but I would be much more comfortable if an external copyediter/reviewer (who is much more prose competent than I) giving this a look. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ottava for giving the prose a look, I'm much more comfortable in fully supporting now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• That page is not a true dab, actually. It describes jury duty AND dabs to Jury Duty movies. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• But why do readers need to know about the movies? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mkay. The information there is relevant, but I'll pipe (and link the first instance) to jury selection. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment According to the link checker, there are 16 dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, like was mentioned above NBC Universal Media Village updated their site on October 9th and it killed all the old links. I couldn't find the stories when I last looked, I'm working on it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question Sorry this has taken so long guys, real world stuff. Anyways, would you accept The Futon Critic as an alternate host of the press releases? This, for example, replaces the cite about "upscale" viewers. It's a direct quotation of the press releases, is that acceptable? Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I personally have no problem with The Futon Critic if it is used for direct press releases, and have used it in a couple of lists I got to FL. This particular press release doesn't actually give a specific viewing figure though, it just says the average for the first 16 episodes. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Perfect! If it's been used in FLs before I'll get right on it. That was a bad test case I found quickly last night, I'll re-cite with the exact press releases tonight. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

*There should be no bold text in the lead. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "The third season of 30 Rock ... began on October 30, 2008" - Began to do what? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "This season consisted of 22 episodes." - Has that changed? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "The third season ... was aired on NBC, terrestrial television network in the United States." - There's some sort of grammar problem here. Fixed (dunno where that phrase came from). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "The executive producers were series creator Tina Fey, .... and Robert Carlock; Jack Burditt, ... and Ron Weiner acted as co-executive producers." - A period between Robert Carlock and Jack Burditt would do just fine. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "the head writer of a fictitious live-sketch-comedy television series titled TGS with Tracy Jordan (commonly known as TGS)." - The sentence is written as if it was the first mention of TGS, yet you are already using the acronym (or rather half of it). This is extremely weird. Either use the abbreviation given above ("TGS") or write the name out ("The Girlie Show with Tracy Jordan (TGS)"). Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "trucker hat–wearing" - Use "-" instead of "–". Fixed, but those look the same. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) It's right MOS:DASH. The first is a hyphen, the second is an ndash. They look similar in an edit window, but the ndash is visibly longer when rendered in the article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "Donaghy's full corporate title for the majority of the season is 'Head of East Coast Television and Microwave Oven Programming.'" - Is the period part of the title? If not, move it outside the quotation marks. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "When Digital Video Recorder (DVR) viewers are factored into season three's ratings, an average of 1.2 million viewers has been added to each viewership total." - There's some grammar problem with this sentence. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "gave the season it an A−" - Strike "the season" or "it". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "season 'wildly uneven' and saying 30 Rock was 'merely" - Replace "saying" with "said that". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "Primetime Emmy Award" is linked way too often. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Still one too many. Goodraise 07:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed, also delinked 61st Emmy Awards which was linked twice. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The episode table violates WP:POUND. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) It is not apparent what source covers the airdates. I could add specific sources, but they're covered in the general Variety ref. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Then cite that reference after "Original airdate" in the table header. Goodraise 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Added. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) "The season was released on DVD by Universal Studios on September 22, 2009 in the United States and Canada after it had completed an initial broadcast run on NBC and is scheduled for Australian release on November 11, 2009." - This is a weird construct. Perhaps split it into multiple sentences? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "In addition to the episodes" - Add a comma right here. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The usage of serial comma is inconsistent throughout the article. Any examples? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "[T]he DVD set included unaired scenes, featurettes, and audio commentary" has the serial comma. "Rachel Yamagata, Talib Kweli and Norah Jones" doesn't. Goodraise 16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed the examples I could find. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Further examples: "Kenneth is unhappy with the new page uniforms so Tracy decides to cheer him up with the help of Night Court cast members Harry Anderson, Markie Post and Charlie Robinson." and "Tina Fey is an executive producer, a writer and lead actress." (Stopped searching after finding these two.) Goodraise 08:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed those two. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The table in the DVD release section lacks visual appeal. The release date thing bothers me too, but the problem is with an odd number of columns but only 2 release dates you can't divide it very easily. Any ideas? Maybe make the release date table a separate table so it can just get split into 2 cols? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps you could cover the release dates in prose? Goodraise 08:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC) It is covered in the prose, but the style from other lists is for it to be in table. How does this version look (with the dates in a separate table)? Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The other lists aren't up for review here. (Since the table has been completely turned to prose by Cornucopia (talk · contribs), I will strike this item now.) Goodraise 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The general references should be formated like references, not like external links. Reference 22 misuses the work parameter of {{cite web}}. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The date format is inconsistent (example: reference 25). Fixed, looking at the refs I believe that's the only case. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 38 title needs to be title-cased. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 44 misses a publisher (only website name given). The website is the publisher, isn't it? Or is that the work and The Guardian is the publisher? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC) A publisher is always an entity (company, person, government, institution, ...). In this case that would appear to be "Guardian News and Media Limited 2009". Goodraise 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I think it is okay as is. Strictly the website is the work, and Guardian Media Group is the publisher. However I recall that it shouldn't go in the work field because websites shouldn't be italicised, therefore (personally) I'd just leave it as is, but feel free to shout me down anybody. Additionally we don't usually require a publisher when the work is know and linked. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC) That websites shouldn't be italicised is a widespread preference among editors, but not prescribed by the MOS. Personally, I find it an extremely bad practice to stuff information into template parameters that weren't intended to hold that information. As for whether a publisher is required, I always demand it. Knowing the publisher of a source is key information in determining whether the source is reliable. Goodraise 08:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I went ahead and added the "Guardian News and Media Limited 2009" info. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) The fair-use rational of the infobox image is not convincing. I'll work it up. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Expanded, lemme know what you think. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Insufficient. (You may want to look at this file page for a decent example.) Goodraise 13:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC) How 'bout now? Staxringold talkcontribs 15:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Good, but now you've violated copyright by copy-/pasteing from File:Airbender-CompleteBook3.jpg without giving attribution. Goodraise 16:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) ...What copyright? All I did was copy the much better explanation. That text is free license, isn't it? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, it's free, but it's not public domain. This comment I'm writing right now is free. That doesn't mean you can do with it whatever you please. It's protected by the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. If you copy it to some other place (like for example another page on Wikipedia) without sufficient attribution for either license, then you're violating my copyright. The bare minimum attribution is a hyperlink or an URL to the page where you got the text. Goodraise 17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Kk, attribution given. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The most imporant issue I see is the overly short episode summaries. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Above allegations of copyright violations are also troubling. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Well, if you say so. (I wasn't the one who brought it up...) Goodraise 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Because of all these issues, I have to oppose this nomination. Goodraise 10:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) "This season consists of 22 episodes." - Referring to the season like this isn't very elegant. Perhaps you could incorporate the episode count into one of the earlier sentences. Goodraise 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC) How's that version work? Staxringold talkcontribs 16:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Better. Not great, but better. Goodraise 07:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC) "The third season was produced by Broadway Video, Little Stranger, and NBC Universal, and was aired on NBC." - No comma before the second "and". Goodraise 17:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 8 title needs to be title-cased. Goodraise 07:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Title-case, not sentence case. Goodraise 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Is that fix what you meant? I'm not quite sure. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC) "8.7 million viewers, and was the highest" - No comma here. Goodraise 08:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) "aired on May 14, 2009, and was viewed" - No comma after "2009". Goodraise 08:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) "Metacritic gave the pilot a Metascore—a weighted average based on the impression of 17 critical reviews—of 84%." - The number of reviews should not be part of the definition of "Metascore". Also, why is "Metascore" capitalized? I'll remove the review count (although it seems like that's useful information), but Metascore is capitalized as a proper and specific noun. Like why you'd capitalize Viagra (using a random link from another list I've been working on). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC) I didn't mean you should remove the count, just that it shouldn't be placed as part of the definition. The way you had it worded originally made it sound as if a weighted average based on the impression of 16 critical reviews would not be a Metascore. As for the capitalization and the Viagra comparasion, "Viagra" is the name of a widely used drug, while "Metascore" is just what Metacritic calls their weighted averages. Personally, I'd avoid the term altogether. Goodraise 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC) How does "Metacritic gave 30 Rock an 84% rating, a weighted average of 17 other reviews" sound? Staxringold talkcontribs 13:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Not much better. Goodraise 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC) How would you write it? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know. Goodraise 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC) How's this version? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I struck my oppose for now. Will give a new vote after I give the article another review pass. Goodraise 18:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources seem fine. Licensing and alt text of images are acceptable. As a whole, the list seems to meet the criteria. However, that I've found so many issues (see my hidden comments), while prose isn't exactly my speciality, leaves me concerned that the list may not meet criteria 1. I would cautiously support this nomination, if it wasn't for that last unresolved comment of mine. Goodraise 16:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC) but I'd really like to hear the opinion of someone better with prose. Goodraise 18:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Salma Hayek appeared in six episodes as Jack's mother's nurse, Elisa

I have made some changes to the list based on my experiences, although I hope I haven't created any conflicts with the requests of others. Here are some things you could consider:

• The lead should summmarise the entire article; however, it seems to mainly concern the awards. I think the awards should only have a small mention, rather than an entire paragraph. I'll be happy to rewrite the lead if need be.

• Any help you could provide would be appreciated. What would you add, some basic plot summary? Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I rewrote some of the lead, but the second paragraph is slim. I haven't seen this season yet, so yeah, I would suggest adding some basic plot summary. Maybe mention the main storylines running throughout the season of several characters. That should be enough. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• A production section is not needed, in case you were wondering.
• I dislike the image of Fey in the crew section as it forces the blank space. That same image of Fey is also plastered on practically every 30 Rock article on Wikipedia. I suggest removing it, and changing things up a bit by adding an image of Salma Hayek or Alan Alda, or any other actor; just anyone who is recognised by this season.

• I had this Hayek image in the cast section originally but it was removed per eailer comments. If you think it works better I'll replace the Fey with it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. I think it looks much better. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the other reviewers have said, but I dislike the DVD table, and its position. You could convert all the info to prose, like I did here, and then put it into a distribution section with the international airing.

• Fine with me, I just did it to meet the style of The O.C. (season 1). Either way is fine w/ me. Staxringold _talk^contribs

That's all for now, actally I might fix the last point myself. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, is there a problem with adding "universal acclaim"? The ref itself mentions it, so there's no violation of NPOV. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 01:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed it as it seemed fluffy. I love the show, so I'm amenable to leaving it since it's sourced but *shrug*. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's important because it gives context. For all the reader knows, a score of 84% could be common. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, go for it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 03:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments - late to the party, my apologies, will do my best to be constructive. I probably always say this but I do get overwhelmed on these series lists with the ways in which they're represented : title "30 Rock (season 3)", infobox "30 Rock Season 3", DVD caption "30 Rock Season Three DVD Cover", lead "third season". You can probably ignore me I just can't quite get my head around all the different formats... Aha, was the DVD "30 Rock: Season 3" per the lead or "30 Rock Season Three" per the infobox caption? I'm going to go with "30 Rock: Season 3" because that's what the official NBC Universal Store ref lists it as. Amazon and TVShowsonDVD actually have it as "30 Rock - Season 3" Date formats in infobox aren't the same. Fixed. Also reworked the DVD release date in the infobox per Supernatural (season 1). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) First line of "Crew" seems a verbatim copy of that in the lead, is it really necessary? I think so, just to get back to the idea of production. Feel free to remove though. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Fey isn't relinked in the list of execs but everyone else seems to be... Relinked. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "Series writers who have penned episodes ..." I feel the "have" is redundant perhaps? Removed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't Hayek's caption have a full stop as it seems to be a complete sentence? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "signifying universal acclaim" shouldn't that universal acclaim be in quotes really, as I'm not sure metacritic can claim to represent the universe. Yeah, I wasn't sure on this sentence. Put directly in quotes as you say to make it clear. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "called this decision " prefer the sound of "called the decision". Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "from network Five" not sure it's a "network Five", I watch it and it's just called "Five" and, as far as I know, it's just a channel. Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) This may have been overlooked in previous FLs or even been discussed and dismissed, but why are we capitalising No. and Code in the table heading? Just style, it would look quite awkward lower case IMO. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "new page uniforms " forgive me, what is this? As in page-boy/girl uniforms? Reworded. Kenneth is an NBC page. Actually, I had no idea that had it's own article, I'll link it in his character description. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Minor - we call flu 'flu as it's a contraction of influenza... I've never seen it spelled that way ever. Again, change the one mention if you want (but the episode title is definitely "Flu Shot" not "'Flu Shot", so that shouldn't get changed). Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) " after a diabetes diagnosis. " who gets diagnosed? I'd be specific. Reordered to get away from repetition ("tries to get Tracy to avoid sugary foods after Tracy is diagnosed") or antecedent (Kenneth... Tracy... him) problems. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "won't be awkward" we tend to discourage contractions like this. Fixed. I thought inadvertantly was spelt inadvertently? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) "pink slips" - an Americanism I suspect. Can you link this out to something us non-US readers can cope with? Reworded. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Red 48 accessdate needs to be human-readable like all the others. Ref 49, but fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Not sure you need 30 Rock as a category as you have 30 Rock episodes, but it won't kill us. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support on prose. I don't see any glaring issues, and I do not know much of the FL requirements to support on the rest. I was asked to look through the grammar. It was mechanical but fine (the lengthy lists of names makes it mechanical). Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. All my comments were addressed and I can't fault anything else. Nice job. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:21, 28 October 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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [4].

---

List of Oxford United F.C. players

Nominator(s): Eddie6705 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i feel it is of the standard to be featured. A peer review in February was very helpful and all suggestions were implemented, (nothing much as changed since then). Any comments will be appreciated and hopefully rectified. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why aren't all the Oxford United F.C. players on the list? This article should be named to List of Oxford United F.C. players with 100 or more appearances if you only include those players. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Colin's comments and Scorpion's closing comments at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Arsenal F.C. players/archive1, I don't think there is a requirement for the title to explicitly reflect the inclusion criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Struway, this is kind of like those "Tallest building" lists, where the level for inclusion is within the article. Though at the same time there are lists like the "MLB Players with 100 triples" where it's explicitly in the title. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

I'm not sure that's an apt comparison. You need to set a lower limit to 'tallest buildings' or you will end up with every building. If this were called List of Oxford United F.C. players with the most appearances it might compare. But the name suggests that the list should be all-inclusive. Geraldk (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC) But what's the point of not adding all the players? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oxford United were founded in 1893. If all of the players were added to the list (at least 800), the list would become way too big and unmanagable. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but you only start the list once the team becomes professional in 1949 anyway. How many players are there since 1949? A couple other minor comments: In the intro to the table you say that the lists includes players with 100 appearances or an international cap. Dean Windass fits into neither of those categories. Rectified You have two sections titled 'footnotes'. the latter should probably be folded into the references section, which should be subdivided into general and specific references. Done Why are some of the players unlinked rather than red or blue linked? Those that are red-linked are notable enough for an article. Those that are unlinked are not notable enough for their own articles as they only played in the Southern Football League, which isn't deemed a notable league in WP:ATHLETE for players to have an article. You may want to scrub the second paragraph of the lead and see if there are any statements that need to be referenced with an in-line citation. I didn't catch any, but a second pair of eyes may help. Found one which i added a citation to. It may be interesting to add to the lead some additional trivia summarizing data from the table. Where do these players come from? How many are from Europe, how many from other parts of the world? etc. Added a sentance about nationalities, may add more later. Geraldk (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Changes made. As for the number of players since 1949, i am not sure of a specific numbe and will have to research that. My understanding from the Aresnal list Struway2 mentioned above and from other lists in the past was that although the title may be misrepresentitive, it dwould be too complex for all lists to state the requirements as part of the title. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) That was impressively quick. I guess the best way to resolve this before you go do a ton of research is to ask what other similar lists do. What's the precedent? If the precedent is the 100 appearance mark, Im happy to go along. Geraldk (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC) (Outdent) Of the 11 List of xxxx F.C. players that are FL, 7 use the 100 and more appearances. Two of the four that don't are Australian league teams who were formed in 2004 and such can easily incldse all players. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) That's good enough precedent for me. I won't worry about it then. Noticed though, that not all of the current player names are bolded. Geraldk (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. They were added recently and i must have missed them. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - all of my concerns are now addressed. Geraldk (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please add images of the players at the side of the list. (not all just the best images of the best players we have)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Diaa im working on that now. Eddie6705 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment According to the link checker, there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the dead link. Eddie6705 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment image of Big Ron has no alt text -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added alt text, although as i am not really familiar with it, i hope it is alright. Are there are other points you need looking at? Eddie6705 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a gander later. The alt text issue just happened to jump out at me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Many of my concerns were dealt with at the peer reviews, even if they were a long time ago. Couple of picky little comments: Where you had to use allfootballers.com as a reference, could those now be sourced to the Brodetsky book instead? Indeed they could, Done. And if not, there's something wrong with the formatting of Ceri Evans' and Gary Smart's refs, looks like you've missed a pipe character out. See above Note C says stats are taken from Howland except where stated, but several players in the list have a note 5 which references Howland. What's the difference? Erm, not too sure to be honest, have 'removed. One thing I do wonder about is section 5a of the FL criteria, which says the list should have "a minimal proportion of red links". I'm aware this was the subject of discussion and an RfC recently, and I'm not sure what conclusions were reached, if any. But there do seem to be rather more red links than how I'd understand "a minimal proportion". Perhaps one of the FL directors might clarify the matter? I am going to use the Broetsky books to create articles for all of them if possible. I will try and do some today. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I have created 11 new articles and think that the few left would be classed as minimal. I will make the others later, i think i'm getting square eyes. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC) comments resolved, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – List appears to meet FL criteria now. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Aren't they based in Oxford? Have things changed? Changed to Oxford I thought we were in the 09/10 season now. Updates "Headington F.C. before adding the suffix United six years later" odd since this would possibly mean you're saying "Headington F.C. United". It needs rewording. Reworded "The club was elected into the Southern Football League in 1949, before replacing Accrington Stanley in the Football League in 1962" sure. before means that it happened earlier, but how, exactly did it? There's a big gap here, I know this isn't the potted history but you need to make the sentences logical and sequential. Removed before and slightly reworded. "The club spent 44 years in the Football League, reaching the First Division at the end of the 1984–85 season, spending three years in the top tier.[2]" This sentence seems to have two clauses, the first is fine but the second should be a sequitor so say something like "season and spent..." perhaps? Yes, changed. "with 478 being in the league." - "being" is superfluous. Removed "John Shuker, the team's longest serving player, made a total of 534 appearances with 478 being in the league. He holds the club record for the most league appearances and the most overall appearances" - almost repeating yourself. By "longest serving" do you mean most appearances or longest signed to the club? If the former then the current wording seems a bit over the top.. Removed longest serving player. There's an issue here - you say that Atkinson made more appearances than Shuker but discount some because of appearances in the Southern League. This needs serious clarification. Have clarified in the article. Shuker holds the records since 1962 when the club turned professional, Atkinson hold the record including those games before 1962. Perhaps you could add a note to the top of the page saying something like all OUFC players with a Wiki article can be found at Category:Oxford United F.C. players? Done. Footnote B is fine but it doesn't explain situations when you have two date ranges like Joey Beauchamp. Expanded note Some redlinked players and some without redlinks at all. Presumably all non-redlinked are "non-notable" per WP:ATHLETE? Otherwise be consistent. Correct. All non-redlinked players are not notable. I am in the process of creating articles for the red-linked players. If I had my way, I'd prefer notes to be standalone, so, for instance, note E would say "John Aldridge ..." - it may not be policy/guideline, but it would make the note more useful. I don't no if it is plicy, but it does make the notes easier to understand. Added. Technicalities like "transfer fee" and "full international" in your notes may need linking. Linked. First gen ref could use an en-dash (even if the authors didn't use one). Done I think you only really need the OUFC players cat, not necessarily the OUFC players cat. But it's no biggie. Removed Oxford F.C. cat. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Changes made. Eddie6705 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Query - you state that "Ron Atkinson made 560 appearances, including 125 matches in the Southern League while Oxford were playing as amateurs", yet his career started in 1959 and elsewhere you state that the club turned professional in 1949, so there is a contradiction there.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, i haven't explained it like i thought it in my head :S Basically i'm trying to get across that Shuker played his legue games in the league, whereas Atkinson played some in the southern league, although i'm struggling to put that into words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie6705 (talk 15:53, 19 October 2009

Now the article says that Oxford turned pro in both 1949 and 1962! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Eddie6705 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – First two sentences: "Oxford United F.C. is an English professional association football club based in Oxford. As of the 2009–10 season, they play in the Conference National which is...". Is the club singular (is) or plural (they)? Please pick one and make it consistent throughout the lead, unless there is a good reason for the existing system. "they play in the Conference National which is the first tier of non-league football, and the fifth level of the English football league system." I'd be tempted to move the comma to after Conference National. "reaching the First Division at the end of the 1984–85 season and spent three years in the top tier." "spent" → "spending". Comma after "the most overall appearances since 1962"? Another before "netting 107 times"? Little tip on the alt text: it doesn't generally have names like Ron Atkinson. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I think i have dealt with all concerns. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support – My comments were all addressed and the list seems to meet FL standards now. Giants2008 (17–14) 01:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - think everything looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 21 October 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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [5].

---

List of concert tours by Michael Jackson and The Jackson 5

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I have revamped it to a comprehensive list that I believe meets the FL criteria. The list is structured in a similar fashion to List of Kylie Minogue concert tours. Pyrrhus16 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text checks out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The brothers remained in their homeland for two more US tours, before successfully breaking out into Europe in 1972 and the world the subsequent year." This is a bit awkward and redundant. Is Europe not part of the world? Changed to "and the rest of the world the subsequent year" "biggest and highest-earning tour" What does it mean to be the "biggest ... tour"? Changed to "largest attended" "Summer 1971" It's winter in half the world. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC) There is no specific starting date or month for this tour; the book only cites it as beginning in "Summer 1971". Would adding "(US)" after "Summer" solve the problem? Pyrrhus16 20:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I think that would confuse it more. What about "Mid-1971"? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Pyrrhus16 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Oppose in its current form. There are a number of copyediting and visual issues that need to be dealt with: The table itself needs some work to make it readable, as does the Kylie Minogue list you modeled it from. Because both the informational cells and the summary cell are the same color, it is visually confusing to the reader. Even a subtle difference in color would help, as in The Simpsons (season 1), which uses Template:Episode list. Added a bit shading to the headings. There has to be more information about some of these tours than the one sentence a couple of them have. The early tours aren't as well documented as the later ones. Little information exists on them. The lead image claims that the bad world tour was, "one of the most successful tours of all time." Define success specifically. Highest grossing? Biggest audiences? Most moonwalks? Changed to "highest grossing". lead "breaking out into Europe in 1972 and the rest of world the subsequent year" could use some rewording - breaking out into is unwieldy. Altered, not sure if it's a great improvement though. lead "Their 1981 36-city circulation of the US—the Triumph Tour—succeeded." in what way? "Succeeded" in that it came next. lead "release of the band's Victory and Michael Jackson's Thriller" need to make clear to the lay reader that these are albums somehow. They could also be wikilinked. Made it clear that they are albums. Dates for the 1971 and 1972 tours make it seem like they visited fifty venues in one month. Fixed the end date for the 1971 tour. Don't know what needs done for the 1972 one; the description states that it was only a 12-day tour of Europe and there are no specific start/end dates for it. in 1970 "Boston, Cincinnati, and New York" vs. "New Zealand, the Philippines and the West Indies" - it doesn't matter whether you use the serial comma or not, just pick one version and be consistent with it. Done. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions. Pyrrhus16 14:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Good work on the quick cleanup. I do think you need to find a better way to say what you are trying to say about the 1981 tour, the meaning of 'succeeded' you use is a fairly rare usage and makes the meaning of that sentence unclear. Geraldk (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I've changed it to "came next". Pyrrhus16 12:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - my concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 12:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Not sure why the location of the tour is included in a cell called "Duration"? Would changing the cell name to "Durations and locations" help? The reader may want to know when a particular continent was visited. Maybe really picky, you could link $ to the US variant as you've mentioned Canada in the same sentence. Done. "the subsequent year" - not keen, personal opinion warning though, would prefer "following"? Done. "1992/1993" all other date spans in this list appear to use an en-dash, why not here? Done. This may have been discussed and discounted, but you end the intro on his "last" tour, would it be worth mentioning the "This Is It" planned tour? I think it's so significant that it could at least be mentioned? Added. Question - is there a criterion 3b issue here? Could the details of Jackson 5 tours not be easily merged into the main Jackson 5 article and likewise with the MJ tours? The MJ article is already 140,000 bytes, so we're trying to reduce the size of the article. Also, a list is more helpful to the readers that may want compare each of the tours. All the the info is in one place, so they won't have to search for each tour to see which had the most number of performances etc. I was asked to comment on this. I do not see a glaring 3b issue, although I do see that argument. However, as mentioned, the MJ article is very long, and the info here is a bit too detailed to warrant going in the main article anyway. So, I'm fine with this as a stand-alone article, at least when the article is in this format. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) Four of the five descriptions of the Jackson 5 tours start with "The Jackson 5 ..." which is a little repetitive and not really needed since this is in its own Jackson 5 section anyway. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Pyrrhus16 20:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The sources look good and image licensing and alt text seems fine. I think there is still room for some visual tweaks. For example, perhaps you could set the "Year" columns to a reasonably small fixed size and center their text. I also don't think the number of references warrants the reduced font size. However, this is not enough to keep me from supporting this nomination. Good work. Goodraise 13:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reduced the column and attempted to center the text. It doesn't appear to be working with the narrower column size, for me at least. Were you asking for this to be done when asking for reduced reference font size? Pyrrhus16 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't asking for reduced font size. I was asking for normal font size. The reduced font size currently used in the article is caused by the templates {{reflist}} (a replacement for <references />), {{refbegin}}, and {{refend}}. Goodraise 14:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Done. Pyrrhus16 14:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Any particular reason for giving the brothers' names in that order? I suggest alphabetizing. Done. "…an interim series of concerts…" what does "interim" mean in this context? Changed to "their Interim concert series in 1978". In the last sentence of the second paragraph, the comma can be taken out. Done. "of 1992 – 1993" the endash should be unspaced. Done. "…an 82-date…" can"-date" be taken out? (also appears in table) Done. "in which Jackson performed for more than 4.5 million fans" can be reworded "attended by more than 4.5 million fans". Also, I think "from around the world" can be removed. Done. "residency" isn't the right word; was he going to live for an extended time in London? Changed to "concert series". "This Is It" has quotes while the other tours don't. Be consistent. Removed quotes. Add a ref for the last sentence of the lead because "This Is It" isn't covered in the table. Done. Why is the Number of performances column centered but others aren't? All columns now centered. In the first entry (The Jackson 5 First National Tour), the dashed date range being October 9 while the text says October 7. Fixed. New York is the state, not the city; fix the link. Done. In the second entry, "the five brothers" is used twice. Replace the second with something else (the quintet, the group, etc.) Done. Why are some locations linked upon first mention (New York, Boston) while others aren't (Japan, Hong Kong). All now linked on their first occurence. "setting a new world record" (for the Bad World Tour), what exactly was the record? Added. For the first link in "See also", I suggest changing "consisted of" to a comma for consistency with the other two links. Done. Remove the last "See also" entry because the same is said in the lead. Done. For the listing of Category:Michael Jackson concert tours, add |* like you would pipe a link the this article lists first. Done. After these are fixed, I'll be happy to support. Mm40 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Pyrrhus16 21:58, 25 October 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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [6].

---

DHL Delivery Man Award

Nominator(s): Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We are working on creating a featured topic of baseball awards, and so I have gotten this up to FL status, I think. Please let me know if there's anything I should change or if it's good as is. Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Lead needs expanding. I can help later this evening. A couple of minor formatting issues there with the bold that I will look at. Great, that would be helpful. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Think I've got it now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Fractions should use the {{frac}} template instead of straight ASCII characters. Done That template is new to me --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Statistics should be linked at each occurrence (each row of a table should be able to stand on its own), especially since these are sortable tables. Done --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Remove Rolaids award and List of MLB awards from "See also" since they duplicate the navbox. Done --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Since MLB.com used to belong to a different company, I would change the work "MLB.com" to the publisher "Major League Baseball". You don't need both, and Major League Baseball leaves no ambiguity. Done --Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Have sorted those a bit; I think we got our wires crossed. Publishers are now Major League Baseball. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Just those few things for now. Admirable job, Muboshgu! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you sir! --Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment from KV5

There are, I believe, too many images. On my monitor res at home and at work (one standard 1024x768 and the other widescreen 1280x800), the images run over into the reference section and compress them so they are hard to read. Ideally, the images should end before that section begins. The general standard on other MLB awards lists is to have one lead image, a key image if there's room, and three images within the list, or within each league's list, if they are separated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done I had wondered if there were too many images. There had been one for each year when years were a subsection, but combining them all did make them run over into the references. That's been taken care of. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The alt text needs substantial work. Currently it is little more than a repeat of the caption. Ideally, the alt text should describe the photograph in the same manner that you would to someone unable to see it. See this guideline for more information. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is that better? I don't know how else to describe the pictures. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It really should be a visual description of the picture. For example, telling someone that there is a picture of Trevor Hoffman pitching doesn't help a visually impaired person who doesn't know what Trevor Hoffman looks like. You really don't even need to mention the person's name, because the caption does that. A visually impaired person, using a screen reader, needs a description of the subject of the image proper. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• So would "a man in a windup", the only way I can describe these pictures, be understood and therefore acceptable as alt text? --Muboshgu (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Probably not descriptive enough. I will see if I can help out later today. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Update: alt text should be completed now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "for his 41-save perfect season for the Philadelphia Phillies in 2008." Could "perfect season" be clarified for the non-baseball fan readers? It wasn't like Lidge didn't allow a baserunner for the whole year, after all.

• Done --Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• References 29, 31 and 33 need publishers.

• Done --Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Make the Major League Baseball publishers consistent. Right now, I see Major League Baseball, MLB.com, and the odd Major League Baseball (Major League Baseball) [this one actually comes from the Yankees' web site]. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note, but MLB.com is separate from Major League Baseball. Those refs should be consistent, since they're all from the same source, but those are different groups. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• But Major League Baseball is still their publisher, when they appear on MLB.com. That's always safer because MLB.com used to be owned by another company. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support by Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Resolved comments from Staxringold

Are the two award titles really "DHL presents..."? Not just the "DHL Delivery Man of the Year/Month Award"? Believe it or not, they are; see the press releases that are used as references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Could the tables be set to a unified size? Done --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning the Rolaids Relief Man Award? I think its appearance in the navbox is likely enough. The only other place for it would be in the "See also" section, which is nullified by the navbox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Should the charitable donation prize be mentioned? Probably... I'll look for it. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I made a few tweaks. One comment: be consistent in formatting the MLB refs; some have MLB.com as the publisher while others have Major League Baseball. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will fix that too. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Too much bold in the lead, see WP:MOSBOLD. They are the award titles, though. Should they be italic? They need to be emphasized somehow. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Could be in quotes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) The link to MLB says it's "the highest level of play" - how can this "entity" present an award per your opening sentence? I'm not clear on what you mean here. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I would, more rapidly, introduce the concept of the monthly and annual prizes. Done --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) "is voted on by " people normally vote for things don't they? Done --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) "The panel has included Darryl Hamilton and Mike Bauman.." panel has since included? It may be tough to find the full makeup of the panel and all the permutations of said panel, but I'll try to find it. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) "on the award more than any other" more times? Where's that? Is that the thing I just removed? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) "perfect season (41 saves in 41 opportunities)" - unclear what this means to a non-expert. I tried clarifying it before, so now I'll just take it out. It was added by a Phillies fan anyway :P --Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC) You then link save the following sentence. Clarify please? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Not clear why the stats aren't in columns of their own, i.e. saves, ERA, strikeouts etc so we can sort them accordingly to see who really is the best. Hmm hadn't thought about that for some reason... That would be much better. I'll get on that tomorrow. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I started now actually. Question: any other stats I should add? I think it'd be best to go with walks and hits for monthly winners, instead of WHIP for annual winners, because WHIP seems less meaningful in the smaller sample size. The articles and press releases for monthly winners (where I got the stats) never mentioned WHIP. Thoughts on that? --Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Don't think you should have individual tables for years, that should be incorporated in one big table.

• Should they be? Hmm. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the usefulness of the list would be improved if we could compare, say 2007 winners with 2008 winners against their various attributes. What do you think?

• • I like it in theory, but if done improperly, it will mess with the sort function. Let me see if I can work around that somehow. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Done --Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Columns with fractions in don't sort correctly.

• How so? They sort well to me. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Well in Safari the fractions appear to break the sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh I see now... That is weird. I'll have to read up on Template:Frac to see if I can fix that. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• What do blank cells mean?

• They just haven't been filled in yet. I'll finish them this weekend.
  • Ok, makes sense!

• • Done --Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

--Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Innings pitched column not sorting properly. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• We're aware of this. I asked a question as to why this is happening on the talk page of Template:Frac. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• So there's been no response... I was afraid of this, but I'm going to have to use Template:Sort in addition to the Frac template. That's gonna take some time, and time I don't have very much of at the moment. This FLC is still active. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try to help out this evening if I can, Muboshgu. I've got a good amount of experience with the sorting template. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Or now. Sorting is... well, sorted. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Great :) --Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Forgot to watchlist this. My bad... Hope some user that know the codes well can fix it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is fixed, as per above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• I meant fixing the template. If the template is also fixed, then :D. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh OK, got it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No comments for four days... Are we good here? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To my eye, everything has been completed. Probably just waiting on the next bot run for a promotion at this point. I'm sure TRM will revisit at some point for a once-over, and we should be good to go. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:00, 29 October 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 The Rambling Man 17:31, 29 October 2009 [7].

---

Snow Patrol discography

Nominator(s): Suede67 (talk), User:RichV (talk)

This FLC is a joint nomination between me, User:Suede67 and User:RichV. Collectively, we have worked on the list, and feel its the best that's possible. We believe it meets all the criteria. Thank you. Suede67 (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments According to Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Restrictions_on_linking you can't link to material that infringes copyright. So usersubmited youtube videos of their music videos should all be removed. Also of any other video hosting website of course.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done Give the General reference you used for the list. For example how did u know that "Starfighter Pilot" was released on 13 June, 1997? Do this like on Santigold_discography#References.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done Wikilink Snow Patrol in the lead and don't have it bolded if it's wikilinked. You don't need to wikilink Discography.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done RichV 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Disambiguate Cassette.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done It says in the lead two extended plays while they are six.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done RichV 22:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC) No need for one table saying "Chasing Cars" certification. You could just have one column in Singles for this certification like on David_Bowie_discography#Singles. Was that single distributed alone on a venyl disc or what exactly? I put it separately because the band has had just one certification till now, adding just that one in a table of 25 singles would not look right, empty colums, just one filled, so I thought to list it separately. If there are more certified singles in the future, i'd integrate them in, but just 1, it'd look odd. I hope you won't mind if I let it be. Suede67 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC) It's ok.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) What's non singles? Isn't this just another song in the "Eyes Open" album?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, its a song of the album Eyes Open but it wasnt released as a single, it charted on its own, maybe because of airplay? Its the same thing as listed here as "non-charted songs". Do you want me to change the title, or let it be, now that its clear? Suede67 (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC) It wouldn't be clear to other readers. The song is listed under Singles, but isn't a single. Change it to "Other charted songs" or something.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, done Merge Page 2 and 1 in general references. No need to split them a user can click next page.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done, i added a note to the ref to direct readers to see the 2nd page as well DJ Mix Compilations should be under Compilation albums in the infobox or maybe included int the Compilations. I posted on Template talk:Infobox artist discography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies regarding this issue.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I have added those 2 pages to my watch. But in the meantime, do you want me to increase the count (in the infobox) to 3? the dj mixes are already included in the main compilations section as a subsection. Then you would have to remove DJ Music Compilations from the infobox. I guess you can keep it it's not that big of a deal.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Section "Other appearances" has notes which don't have references. Please reference those.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. I thought the wiki articles for those songs would do the job, but anyway. But on of the songs "Signal Fire" has been a single, which is listed before in the singles table. Should this need a ref also? Suede67 (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Some more comments: Wikilink studio albums, compliations, extended plays and live dvd the first time they're mentioned in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done EP should be written out in the lead--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done "and now based in Northern Ireland and Scotland", not needed and troubles the sentences flow. Done Don't bold anything in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done Please try to focus the lead more about their discography. More about the awards they received for the various songs and albums, their success and so on.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done I'll need to read through the prose to spot grammatical or spelling errors. It seems though that the list is well written and feature quality. I'll be away for a week and hope till then more reviewers would review the article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you!! Suede67 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC) "the band were signed to Fiction/Interscope in 2003" "was" and what's Fiction/Interscope ? Is this and or or? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) They're the names of the record labels the band is signed to. Fiction is for the UK and Interscope for the US. Thats how the official website lists, so I decded to go with that. link Should I still change it? If yes, to what? Actually the lead needs a lot of fixes. The listing of Awards is bad and the history in Paragraph one is too long. Try to focus it more on the release of each album...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I've tried to. I think I've fixed the awards problem as well, but not sure. If its still not satisfactory, please tell exactly what you expect on the "awards is bad" bit. They were added only because of your request in an earlier comment.

• Support the list is now of featured quality and meets the featured list criteria.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Suede67 (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment—remove the mention of awards from the lead. They aren't mentioned anywhere else in the article. They are unnecessary for the lead of a discography anyway, as a discography deals more with quantitative information like chart positions and sales figures. indopug (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would, but Diaa abdelmoneim asked to do this. Comment above. But do you think the current mention of sales/sertifications in the lead is good enough? Suede67 (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I do. Especially since none they don't seem to have won any major awards like Grammys or BRITs. Further:

• Why are the EPs sorted in two columns?

There are 7 EPs, I thought one column would leave too much whitespace on the right, it feels odd to me.

• Instead creating a whole extra table for "You Could Be Happy", how about including it with the other singles, and then adding a hatnote "not released as a single"?

I'm not too sure, because it wasnt a single. Do you have any other way? How about if i remove the countries from the table in which it didnt chart?

• Same for the promotional single, and the one with the certifications ... That info can be conveyed with hatnotes well enough.::(In the case of the certification, you can even create an extra column in the original table)

Diaa abdelmoneim also suggested this above. He agreed to keep it the way it is, as it'd look odd to list one certification in a table of 25 odd singles. I changed it a bit, is it good now?

• What does exactly does that "Compiled by" column signify? I do not believe I have seen this in any other discography. indopug (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I too havent. Two of the band members are DJs, and they've compiled mix albums. Meaning chosen songs by artists they like. See DJ mix. The 'compiled by' column lists which member compiled the album.

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Suede67 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) ""—" indicates singles that failed to chart." Prefer "denotes" to keep consistent with other discographies. Done Can you make the numerican footnotes in the discography clickable by using a system such as {{note label}}? I tried but cant understand how to use it, can you please do it if you have time? I have done this. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I'm dubious about references such as "Confirmed director's name from Jeepster, and later the director himself. (Can reproduce e-mail conversation)", because a) they are very self-referential, b) how are readers going to know who contacted Jeepster, and c) this conversation is not verifiable, one of our core content policies. I myself emailed both parties. How if I paste the conversation's text itself? Because nowhere on the net is there a source for this. The conversation can be reliable, if you (a neutral party) emails them and asks for verification. But i'm not sure. I believe you need OTRS permissions for this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC) How can I get it? Whats the procedure? Suede67 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I've asked someone knowledgeable about this to help out. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you! Suede67 (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, the emails cannot be used to verify the information. Read this comment from an OTRS volunteer (he does give advice on another way to verify that info). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) In fact, I had asked the director just that, didnt work out. Suede67 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC) What makes http://www.mysanantonio.com/entertainment/Snow_Patrol_comes_out_from_the_cold_and_into_the_big-time.html a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The website is of the newspaper San Antonio Express News. Heres their about us page. Suede67 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC) EDIT: The citation using the source has now ben removed, so this is now redundant. Suede67 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Kiac (talk · contribs)

Resolved comments from Kiac

"Guitarist Nathan Connolly joined the band in 2002,[7] the band was signed to Fiction and Interscope record labels in 2003.[8]" - use an "and" instead of the comma? Done First mention of the UK should be United Kingdom; so it could be: "Boosted in the United Kingdom by the top-five hit "Run",[9] the album sold 1.6 million copies.[10]" Done Ivor Novello Award (redirect) → Ivor Novello Awards Done Certifications in tables: BPI → [[British Phonographic Industry|UK]] IRMA → [[Irish Recorded Music Association|IRE]] ARIA → [[Australian Recording Industry Association|AUS]] RIAA → [[Recording Industry Association of America|US]] Done Remove the Worldwide sales figures, they aren't verifiable, just claims. The My San Antonio article states "nearly 5 million worldwide, according to Nielsen SoundScan"; Nielsen SoundScan tracks US sales, nothing else. And Snow Patrol.com as a source is not particularly justified for something as adjustable as album sales. Plus, worldwide figures aren't the standard usually anyway. I see, done. Top of the EP tables: EP → EP details Done Throughout article: Digital Download → Digital download or digital download. Same goes for Digipak and Box Set, etc. Done "Single was certified" → "Chasing Cars" was certified Done What verifies "Just Say Yes" as an upcoming single? I thought the article would do. Ref now added. Swiss Charts → Swiss Music Charts Done Usually we would call the DVD section "Video albums". You wouldn't call the Studio albums section "CDs", would you? Link to DVD in the formats. Done Link to MusicBrainz as an EL. Link to Rolling Stone as an EL or General Ref. Link to Allmusic as an EL or General Ref. Done There is a lot of non-publications in italics in the references, if you have two different mediums to list you would usually do: '|publisher= Australian-charts.com. Hung Median|' instead of using the work tab and making something italicised which perhaps shouldn't be. Done Websites (non-magazines, etc) like MTV, Allmusic and VH1 should not be in italics. Have also confirmed with Jeepster → Has been confirmed with Jeepster. Just need to sort out that email reference issue then I will support. 02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Done, except the email problem. Ref #58? Is this viable, anyone? Can it do without a ref for the video director? There's no other way really as I see it, and i was lucky to even get a reply from the label (who told me the director's name) in the first place, which I then confirmed by emailing the director himself. My only problem is that it's not verifiable by anyone other than you, say in 5 years when the article is reviewed, it's going to be scrutinized. I'm not sure if you can somehow publish the email or something, this is an issue above me - someone browsing the review might know? Well, as I said to Dabomb before, it can be reviewed by someone other than me, a neutral party like yourself can email the label and confirm, I can provide you with my email details etc which will help them in recognising they conversed with me. Something like that. Suede67 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC) This TFD seems to be quite clear in saying emails shouldn't be used as sources: [8]. Hmm. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 05:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe the OTRS will help. Dabomb may have an answer later. Suede67 (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Awesome work, very close :) k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 06:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you!, especially for making the clickable notes, much appreciated! Suede67 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied, well done. Support. Kiac (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!!! Suede67 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment

1. According to Allmusic there are two new albums released in the next two months. These are listed here as compilation albums...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont know why there are listed under main albums, but they're essentially compilations. LTN is Late Night Tales, where artists create an album with music they like, and add a track of their own, and Up to Now is an album containing tracks spanning the band's career, and there are a few (3) new songs. Theey're definitely compilations.

1. Another video album "Phenomenon" isn't listed here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Phenomenon isn't an official release from the band. I dont know if its a fake, but it was released by a Koch records, a label the band has absolutely no ties with. Suede67 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Everything seems fine, I supported already above :)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

:) Suede67 (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Nice, generally. Just a few things here and there

• "Gary Lightbody ," -- space before the comma

Excellent catch! I think it was even missed in the PR.

• The compilation albums section is usually placed immediately after the studio albums, so that all albums are grouped together.. any particular reason why the layout is different here?

No specific reason, just how it turned out. I have moved it now.

• Because "Crazy In Love" appears as a B-side on one of their singles, I don't think it's right to include it in the Other appearances section just cause it's included in a compilation album that has nothing to do with the band. Otherwise you could add all their Now! appearances

I see, but now, but now the cover is being included in their own compilation Up to Now. Should I mention this album instead? Or delete the entry?

• Who is the artist for Comeback Girl? Since it's not linked to an article, I'd say this is pretty important information

Done

• A few website names appear in italics in the references when they should be normal text

Good otherwise. Answer/fix what I've commented and I'll be happy to support. Matthewedwards :  Chat  02:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Kiac also mentioned the italics problem, now fixed.

Support Happy with everything that's gone on in this nom, all concerns seem addressed, and I trust that the business with the director will be sorted out one way or the other soon. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Atleast someone's optimistic :) Suede67 (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments The lead disagrees with the infobox in terms of the number of singles. Done Snow Patrol linked twice in two sentences. Done Abbreviate EP first before using (i.e put (EP) after extended play in the opening sentence). Done " Boosted in the United Kingdom by the top-five hit "Run",[9] the album sold 1.6 million copies in the UK" United Kingdom (or UK) mentioned twice in one sentence - a bit dull - any chance you could rejig the prose? Done, is it okay now? Link Meteor Music Award. Done Is it correct to list Shrug's Yogurt EP under Snow Patrol's discog? If this has already been discussed and resolved, feel free to ignore me...! Shrug was the first name of the band, which had to be changed because another band had the same name, its not a different band actually. Same for Polarbear (under which they released their second EP). Second note ""Warmer Climate" was released as a promo single..." doesn't link to anything. And I'd prefer not to see "promo", instead "promotional"? It doesnt link to anything because the song "Warmer Climate" isnt notable enough to warrant an article, however, i added it because seemingly, other discos like the Goldfrapp discography lists the promotionals. I have changed "promo" though. Not clear what "other charted songs" is if it isn't a single? The section lists the songs (song, in this case) which charted without being released, maybe because of airplay. UK or U.K.? US or U.S.? Be consistent please. MOS says always UK, never U.K., but both US and U.S are okay, as long as they are used consistently, but if UK is used, you shouldn't use U.S. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Okay then, changed them to UK and US. What does Ref 56 mean? And how is it reliable? Ah yes, that's being sorted out, hopefully (by Dabomb87). Date formats in the references should be consistent, i.e. if you have a human-readable date then you should have human-readable accessdate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I believe Dabomb has fixed this. Thanks!

Support prose – The lead seems fine. The only part I'm not thrilled to see is this: "charting in the top 5 and the album subsequently sold 1.6 million copies there." A comma after "top 5" would be beneficial, although this is a minor point in the end. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a little rephrasing. How is it now? Suede67 (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Is this now officially deadlocked? There seems to be only one issue, the director ref. In the past I have seen FLCs go through even without no citations for directors, apparently because the video was the source (if i'm correct). What is the official policy now? Suede67 (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you can find a verifiable publication of the video that states the director, I would be satisfied (played on MTV, Fuse or something). In contrast to your comment, I've also been on the sour end of noms missing out for one or two directors missing, so it's not a new thing, there isn't much we can do about it. The thing that has always bothered me is, if there is no reliable sources that verify the existence of the video - why are we even including it? It could then be removed and the list would be featured. I guess comprehensiveness comes into play, but if sources don't exist what do you do? k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no verifiable publication online, i've searched thoroughly. I checked Fuse now as well with no success. In fact, there's very little informtion relating to the band itself from the time, as they were quite unknown then. There may be some in print, but I don't know. I dont have access to any old magazines/publications of the time. So even if the video was played on TV, there seems to be no hint of it now. I emailed the director once more, lets see what happens. But you are correct, why not remove it from the list for now, until a source is found? Because if you take aside the fact that the director and record label confirmed the fact by email, the general reader can see no proof of the video's existence apart from a low quality fan uploaded version on youtube. The only information on a reliable source relating to the video itself is this: a hotpress magazine review, but no mention of the director is there. Suede67 (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I personally believe the Hot Press reference should suffice, without the director. It is a lengthy commentary on the video itself and proves the notability of the video's inclusion... I find missing a single director as such a minor issue that this verification can replace the void left. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel so! Thanks for the support. Suede67 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to add the Hotpress reference! Kiac (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is my mind? Done now Suede67 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments: One reviewer, Indopug has not yet revisited the FLC to see if their issues have been resolved. I and Dabobm87, however, have notified them on their talk page. Suede67 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 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 Juliancolton 02:43, 27 October 2009 [9].

---

List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created this list based on the current FL List of East Carolina Pirates head football coaches. It's a fairly short list and I believe it meets all the criteria.—NMajdan•talk 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment "This is a complete list of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches" - FLs no longer start like this, just remove it will be fine dashes in empty cells should be emdashes Table should be sortable —Chris!c/t 00:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Removed the first sentenced. Changed the empty cell dahses to emdashes. On the sortable table suggestion, there are over 50 existing FLs for NBA, MLB, Soccer, NFL and college head coach articles and none of them have sortable columns (if they have 2-row headers). I would have to reformat the header row to get rid of the two-row header in order for the sort to work.—NMajdan•talk 04:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, most of the coaches FLs don't have sortability. I brought it up because I don't know if they should be be required to be sortable. That has been discussed before, but may still need further discussion. Also The alt text is good, but there is no need to mention the name of the person since people who can't see the image don't what he looks like anyway.—Chris!c/t 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC) There are head coach FLs that do use sortability rather than a two-row header; see List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, List of Minnesota Twins managers, List of Baltimore Orioles managers, and the soon-to-be-promoted List of Kansas City Royals managers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Those are baseball lists. They don't have multiple sets of the same classification (multiple Wins/Losses/Ties columns). Look at any NFL list, college football list, or NHL list.—NMajdan•talk 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I'm aware; I wrote most of them. I'm just clarifying your above statement that said "none of them have sortable columns", which included MLB. They do have "multiple sets of the same classification": there are regular season and playoff statistics contained in the tables. The MLB lists had their header formats changed to be sortable. This list should too. Just because other lists use a certain format is no reason to limit this one; the criteria are dynamic, they change and evolve, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is no reason not to change with them. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC) You're right. I included MLB when most of them are single row headers. However, just one list uses a certain format does not mean they all should. FLs can establish precedent and when every single football coach list is structured a particular way, then that establishes precedent. Criteria can evolve but this is not an evolution. This is an abrupt change. Looks like the last NFL, CFB, or NHL coach-related article to go through FLC was List of Chicago Blackhawks head coaches in June and the sort issue was even raised. Also, making this table sortable would mean that the code would have to be changed to include the {{sort}} template which I think over-complicates an article making it nearly inaccessible to new editors. Not to mention this is a list with 21 items, not an overbearing number that would require sorting. I will address your other issues below shortly.—NMajdan•talk 14:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I don't believe that this can be considered an abrupt change; sortability has been part of the criteria for quite some time. It doesn't hurt the quality of the list for it to be made sortable, and what we're trying to accomplish is Wikipedia's best work, and meeting the criteria as closely as possible while doing so. I don't think this is something to be ignored. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Now that I think about this, the table should be sortable. There is no reason not to other than arguing that it is not consistent to other coaches FLs. But all of those non-sortable lists should be sortable as well. I guess I will have a word with the editors or wikiprojects involved to request that.—Chris!c/t 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The CCs and NCs columns do not sort correctly. Add a sortkey using {{ntsh}} should make it work.—Chris!c/t 23:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC) How would {{ntsh}} fix something that is broken by {{nts}}? The only problem I see is when I sort in descending order, it puts the emdashes first, which is how other articles I've seen handle it. More guidance would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 02:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) To make em-dashes sort as "0" or "blank", adding a {{sort}} with a value of 0 or -1 should do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Using {{Sort|0|—}} did not change the way the columns with em-dashes sorted.—NMajdan•talk 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Hm, have you tried -1? That's what I used in List of Philadelphia Phillies managers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Aha. I got it to work with {{ntsh}} as Chris originally suggested. Sorts correctly now, I believe.—NMajdan•talk 14:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Does indeed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - great work—Chris!_c/t 02:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Further comments from KV5 No need to duplicate first and last names in the lead; once the name has been mentioned, last name only will suffice. "eight coaches have brought" - have led would be better "Bennie Owen is the all-time leader in games coached and years coached" - comma after "with .000 despite Harts having lost the only game he ever coached" - the wording is confusing. Changed the wording. Does it flow better?—NMajdan•talk Wasn't quite what I was looking for, but I made some minor changes and it should flow all right now. Do not use color as the sole indicator of a fact, per WP:COLOR and WP:ACCESS. Do not space en-dashes in year ranges. Link "Win–Loss percentage" to winning percentage "National Awards" should be "National awards", and should not be two lines. Incorrect usages of bold in the table, per MOS:BOLD "1999 – present" - remove italics, unnecessary What makes SoonerSports.com a reliable source? It is the official site for the University of Oklahoma athletics department.—NMajdan•talk Good enough for me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The navbox doesn't have a direct link to this article; it needs one or it should be removed. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions.—NMajdan•talk 15:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sure. My comments above have been resolved; as a note, though, you should allow reviewers to strike their own suggestions when they feel they are completed to their satisfaction. A notation saying which comments are completed is sufficient when responding. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Ok. Coming back from a multi-year hiatus. Some protocols have changed.—NMajdan•talk 15:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sure, no problem, I figured it was something like that. Hope to see you around FLC often. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The conference championship column is very unwieldy with all of the years. Just make it a number of championships won. If you think it's important to show specifically when they were won, use a footnote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 – a job well done by Nmajdan, and a nice-looking list that presents a plethora of information in an organized and coherent fashion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – There's a discussion on FLC talk about whether or not this should be removed as a second nomination in quick succession. Since I need to know if a review should be provided, is this staying up? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what the problem is with having two listing. Its not like FLC moves so fast that an editor can't handle two. The user that responded to me on the talk page said he/she would take care of it so I never took action. I think since this listing has already been active a week and already generated discussion, may as well leave it up. Unless the FLC director or another user has an issue with leaving it up. Regardless, any comments you have would be appreciated since even if this is removed, I will put it back up very soon.—NMajdan•talk 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I decided to keep this listing up since it had already received several comments. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Good. Now that that's settled, I'll review the list as usual: Link Oklahoma Sooners in the first sentence to the article on the football team. Done.—NMajdan•talk One key aspect is completely missing from the list: national championships. I'd expect mention of coaches that won them in the lead at least, and probably in the table as well. I will work on this.—NMajdan•talk Done.—NMajdan•talk The three coaches to win Coach of the Year could be named in the lead as well. Done.—NMajdan•talk Note 5 needs a cite. Done.—NMajdan•talk Names should not generally be included in alt text. Done.—NMajdan•talk I asked about SoonerStats.com and College Football Data Warehouse in the seasons FLC, and they are here as well. This is more for the benefit of the other reviewers, so they can gauge the site's reliability. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC) They are also secondary sources to the main source, the official site of the OU Athletic Department. Thanks for the review.—NMajdan•talk 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Leaving this one out until other reviewer(s) comment, either here or at the Sooners seasons FLC. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Dabomb stated at the seasons FLC that he thinks the sources are all right, so I'm willing to go along with what he says. Everything else was fine before, and I appreciate the added sorting function. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Would be nice if you make the table sortable like List of Minnesota North Stars head coaches. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This list is very similar to Oklahoma Sooners football#Coaching history. Do we really need a separate list? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You're right. I need to remove that list and add text and link to this list.—NMajdan•talk I also think the table should be made sortable. I sense a consensus developing...—NMajdan•talk "In those games, eight coaches have led the Sooners to bowl games" Doesn't make sense. Reworded. Better?—NMajdan•talk Note A 1 is unnecessary. Since that part of the lead is summarizing the list, it is understood that it doesn't need references. Done.—NMajdan•talk Link "conference" in footnote four? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC) The math text is inaccessible to some readers. As per the suggestion here, just use plain text. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources Per my comments at the Sooners seasons FLC, I lean toward the sources' being reliable, but other reviewers may have other opinions. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The list is now sortable. I also separated the conference championships and national championships into two columns so you could sort by those as well.—NMajdan•talk 17:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "Oklahoma Sooners football program are a college football team ..." program is singular, are is plural, a college football team is singular. Confusing start.
  • The first sentence was added by another editor. I changed it to is.—NMajdan•talk
• "team has had 21 head coaches. Oklahoma started organized football with the nickname Sooners in 1895." I would merge these otherwise the prose in the lead is very choppy.
  • Restructured. Better?—NMajdan•talk
• "in a total of " a total of is redundant.
  • Dones.—NMajdan•talk
• "giving him a .000 winning percentage" I think this is not needed as you've already said he lost the only game he coached.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk
• Stoops caption is an incomplete sentence so doesn't need a full stop.
  • Done.—NMajdan•talk
• Is it postseason or post-season?
  • I think hyphenated but could be wrong.—NMajdan•talk
• Should Conference championships be Conference Championships?
  • I would say the former.—NMajdan•talk
• Some have 0's for CT some have en-dashes. Why?
  • For conference ties, you're probably referring to the two most recent coaches. Note A3 says that rules were enacted in 1996 to prevent ties, so the dashes simply indicate that ties are not possible for those coaches.—NMajdan•talk
• Note 4 - this isn't how other sports compute winning % - do we have a reference for this?
  • I'd be curious how other sports that allow ties compute winning percentage. I did originally look for a source, but couldn't find one and its made harder by the fact that ties are impossible now. So I either need to find a source that says here's how you compute winning percentage when there are ties or find a college football-specific source from before 1996.—NMajdan•talk
    • Found a couple sources. Would either of these fulfill your request? [10] <nevermind, apparently content as associatedcontent.com is blocked>—NMajdan•talk 10:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Got one. Done.—NMajdan•talk

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments.—NMajdan•talk 10:42, 22 October 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 The Rambling Man 19:11, 24 October 2009 [11].

---

List of recessions in the United States

Nominator(s): JayHenry (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never nominated an FLC before, so apologies if I'm unfamiliar with unstated criteria. It's comprehensive, stable, etc., I think. I'll work during the course of the candidacy to address any issues of which I was unaware. I think this is an authoritative list of recessions in the United States. JayHenry (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This is a list of recessions that have affected the United States" Featured lists no longer start this way; see recently promoted lists for more engaging starts. For example, you might start with "In the United States, a recession is defined as..." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll study some other articles and rewrite the lead. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Review by --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Content The lead should be expanded, the second paragraph should be twice that big and generally Each paragraph needs more info. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I will rewrite the lead. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Why doesn't "Recession of 1833–34" have a "Time since previous recession" info?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I will add a clarifying note about this. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Please add a column showing how much the GDP was affected.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I believe this would be inappropriate for a number of reasons. This data has only been compiled on a quarterly basis since WWII. Prior there was some annual data, but in the 19th century this annual data is extremely controversial. The data would not be comparable throughout the list, including it would inevitably take a side in a contentious dispute between historical macroeconomists, and I worry that only including GDP, and not other data, would give the article an inappropriate Keynesian bias. NBER does not even look primarily at GDP. While I understand that this sounds appealing, I don't believe it would be appropriate. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Another option, that just occurred to me, would be to break this list in half -- one for Pre-WWII and one for Post-WWII. The list of Post-WWII could contain the standardized data that people have come to expect when thinking about recessions, such as GDP, unemployment, housing, interest rates, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) This would be the comprehensiveness part of the FLC process. Information like that shouldn't be skipped. If Pre-WWII isn't reliable then I suggest you go ahead with your idea. Create two sections one prior to WWII and one after. With each having a 1-2 paragraph lead giving an overview of the accuracy of the data and how the United States economy was affected during the time.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Each causes row should have at least four lines of information and not merely something like "This was a period of slight production growth, but declining commercial activity, declining industrial activity and deflation." --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) If you could point me to the recessions that have too little information I will expand, but I disagree with an arbitrary minimum number of lines and don't see that this is required by the criteria. It's easy to forget in the aftermath of a severe recession, but many recessions were not actually very important. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I'll do so after you finish all the other comments, since there is really much work other than expanding Causes now. Main thing is that you add references to the causes of these recessions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Format Why do u link some recessions and others not? Link all and also include them in {{US recessions}} if they are truly recessions.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I don't believe that every recession that's ever happened in the United States needs its own article. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You have to disambiguate Willey.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed, good catch. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Because of the use of Months and years in "Time since previous recession" and "Duration" when sorting they don't sort correcting since 30 months appears larger than 10 years.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Oh well spotted. Since 10 years =/= 120 months, I will have to fix this with a sortkey. Does FLC have a preferred method for sortkeys? --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) No preferred format; whatever works is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC) References Every Book you reference should have a page name and an ISBN so that it would be Verifiable, which is very important so we can check whether all of this is true.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) My apologies, I've been away from this so long, I really should have cleaned up the references more. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) "Business Cycles" is used extensively but doesn't have the page numbers. Please reference each time through the Last name, date then Page number. For example "Zarnowitz 1996, p.XX" --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/secretary/embargo2.htm is a dead link.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You need to standardization the publication dates of references. For example, US style "July 12 2008" or GB style "12 July 2008" or ISO format "2008-07-12" . But never mix. I like the US style.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You used http://www.nber.org/cycles.html throughout the article so I suggest making it a general reference like on this list List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Diego#References--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for this suggestion -- I will follow it. --JayHenry (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Please read through the previous nomination Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of recessions in the United States/archive1 it seems that it has some open suggestions. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Try creating a wide chart about the post world war II (1954-Today) GDP declines possibly in relation to World economy.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Put some images describing people's state (Hunger, Protests etc.) during the various recessions along the side of the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I'll be away for a while and might not reply quickly.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Could u please do a wide chart about the GDP decline and growth of the different section please?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I don't really see how this is relevant to the FLC, but I have done this. --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Well it gives an overview of the recessions during that time and a clear visualization of the relative declines. Thank you for doing it...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) "Since there were no national accounts, these dates were reconstructed well after the fact – these recessions were first dated in the 1920s." could u clarify that sentence?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "studied business annals" spell out annals. Are you asking to explain what is meant by annals? If so, I've explained a bit. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) wikilink Cleveland Trust Company Done. Turns out it is now KeyBank. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "Beginning in 1834, an index of business activity from the Cleveland Trust Company" I think "by" is more appropriate. Agreed. Changed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "In a study of these early business cycles, two economists specializing in business cycles concluded: "In sum, the historical records decrease in both volume and reliability when pushed back into the past." why are these economists considered important? You're right, the quote is unnecessary. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "In 1791, Congress chartered..." why is that after "Beginning in 1834" ? The first two paragraphs are about the available data, the third paragraph is about the monetary policy at the time. I think this is more logical than a paragraph about available data, a paragraph about monetary policy, and another paragraph about data. I think subject matter is a more appropriate grouping than simple chronology. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) In "Panic of 1797" you are mainly describing the British economy. Please concentrate on the effects and issues of the US. Okay, I've rewritten this a bit, but please keep in mind that this is but 20 years after independence and that scholars believe that this recession was caused by Britain's deflation. Note that the one source is even titled "Victims of an International Contagion". --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "1802–1804 recession" why did the foreign trade decline? Did the US sell weapons to any party ? Clarified. Just a typical war boom, peace adjustment cycle. I don't know about armaments, but think what's there is sufficient? --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "Embargoes end in May 1810, and a recovery gets underway." It was repealed as I understand it... and it was for not entering the Napoleonic Wars...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Yep. Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "The United States entered a brief recession at the beginning of 1812. This recession was brief primarily because the United States soon focused its energies to the War of 1812, which began June 18, 1812." Is the war a reason for the stop of the recession ? Production almost always increases during war. Clarified that this is indeed the case here. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "Shortly after the war ended on March 23, 1815, the United States entered a period of financial panic as bank notes rapidly depreciated." as bank notes were rapidly depreciated. Why were the depreciated? Explained. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "colonies and in 1827, the United States adopted a counter-prohibition." why Comma? Just a typo. Thanks. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "The Cleveland Trust Company Index, one of the only measures of economic activity in this era" you already mentioned this before. Thanks, fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) You say "This recession" a bit too much... Oh gosh you're right! I hadn't even realized! --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Always spell out "Annals" As above. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "The 20s up until the Great Depression " The 1920s Reworded. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Wikilink surplups and defict Done. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC) "See also: 1973 oil crisis, 1973–1974 stock market crash." make this into a sentence. And done. Thanks Diaa -- these were very helpful points! Let me know if I misunderstood about annals. --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Oppose do far:

1. The link in ref 8 is dead.
2. Some rows in the second table need inline citations (marked by {{cn}} tags).

I fixed dashes myself. Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text looks good. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Can the reviewers please state what has been completed and what still needs to be done?
  • The list has been significantly expanded. Due to this the whole review should be restarted and everything checked. The three sections need more prose and explanation of why it has been split in these sections (in the list). Sometimes the acronym mos. is used while other times months is spelled out. The list is near feature quality but many changes are still to be done. If the nominator wishes to proceed with the nomination I would continue to review this list. Otherwise the nomination should be delisted.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I am still chipping away. Give me just a few more days and I'll have the refs cleaned up, intro text to each section, and further information about the recessions, and a few of the other things mentioned above. Above you suggested adding images to the right of the table. I like this idea, but I'm not sure how to do this without significantly scrunching the table. With the additional columns it's already pretty scrunchy on my monitor. --JayHenry (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to replace the last {{cn}} with a ref? Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. And going to add more on those that are briefly explained. --JayHenry (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

When you finish the expansion please indicate so here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your patience with me through this process. I have tentatively completed the descriptions of the characteristics in the tables. I'm still going to work on the lead and the intro to each section a bit. But the table themselves are ready to be reviewed, and I can address any that you feel are too thin. --JayHenry (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The date range for the most recent recession reads "Dec 2007 – ?" The question mark signifies that the recession has ended, but the month and year in which it ended is not known. Is this the case? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As the text explains: "By July 2009 a growing number of economists believed that the recession may have ended; as is often the case at the end of a recession, unemployment is still rising.[48] The National Bureau of Economic Research will not make this official determination for some time." Is some further indication of this necessary? One option would be one of those special footnotes. --JayHenry (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's fine as is. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Support. Tony (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Not well written.

• Why is "United States" linked?

  An editor felt it was a good way to link Economy of the United States. If this is against some guideline then feel free to remove. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comma required, but why not put "However," first?: "(NBER), however and the NBER defines". It's hard to work out the contrast—why not "The NBER's definition of a recession is different from ..."

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please see "Ellipsis" in the MoS for the correct spacing.

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• "government policy and government spending"—remove one word. Same with "trade".

  Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of the general "trends" in the banking industry, can it be more specific? At a guess, it's "leverage", or "debt to something ratio". I've heard it expressed neatly.

  Rewritten. It's not any one thing. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• "have affected economies".

  Rewritten. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• So these 47 are under the NBER or the "popular" definition? This is all very woolly.

  This should be clearer now. Everything is NBER. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• "The average duration, from peak to trough, of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2007 is 10 months."—"has been 10 months". Can you relocate the nested phrase ("from ...") so it's smoother.

  Rewrote. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• "in the past" ... does this mean "previously"? (i.e., before 1945?)

  Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• "determine recessions" ... what is "determine"?

  Clarified. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• See the MoS on spaced em dashes.

  I have complied with this completely arbitrary MOS stricture. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• The image of the USS is not well integrated into the text.

  Removed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Again, the tense is wrong: "has provided".

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And I see more I don't like, casting my eyes through the text. An independent copy-edit is required, preferably by someone who know a bit about economics.

• It seems like what's needed is a robot that's memorized the labyrinthine and mercurial MOS. Julian has copy edited and I've given another write through the prose sections as well. I've begged for help from WikiProject Econ members but unfortunately the active members of the project all seem consumed in a mediation request. Hopefully this is approaching the standard set by List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Table: "mos" is awkward for "months". Why not say that all durations are given in months in the table, and give just the numerals (I see 46 months at one point, yet "yrs" is used too). It would thus be good to give more horizontal space to the final column by saving on the others. "Decline in trade and industrial activity": is that per annum? Or from the onset to the peak decline? Needs precision, probably in the text above. Is someone like Zarnowitz reliable? He's relied on a lot. What definition, what criteria, what analytical tools did he use in the 1860s? Surely it was primitive by comparison.

I have the uneasy feeling that this should be an article, not a "list". There seem to be no references to articles on the economic history of the US. Surely there isn't such a large gap in WP ...

If it's fixed up (quite a big job), it might be acceptable, but it needs to be couched in relation to other articles.

Altogether not comfortable. Tony (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After all the improvements and expansions done, I think the list comprehensively covers the topic and gives a really good overview of all recessions that happened. Through sorting the reader can see how the GDPs fell in contrast with other recessions. The list may not succeed in this FLC, since too much change has happened for one nomination. After a thorrow copyedit and some style fixes the list would meet the FL criteria. This is a list and not an article. I believe it should stay as a list. In my opinion, this a very unique list with a great potential to set new standards for Recessions overviews and general analysis.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Tony! I'll work on all these points this weekend and seek out a new copy editor. Zarnowitz died in February. I can see how that introductory paragraph could give the impression that he was a scholar of the 19th century, rather than a modern scholar who studied 19th century economics -- I will definitely clear this all up. Since this received so few early reviews (raelly only Diaa's), I'd ask the FLC directors' indulgence in keeping this open. There are two comments that leave me perplexed. I don't know what to make of the feeling that a List of recessions should be an article rather than a list. I also don't know what you mean that there are no references to articles on the economic history of the United States -- the list links to nearly 70 such articles. Is it possible you meant something that I'm not understanding by these comments? --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about the length of the FLC; however, if it drags on for more than a week or a week and a half, we may need to close it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reworked, clarified various points raised. Unfortunately years and months are not convertible in this case, so I cannot simply convert the roughly two year recessions to 24 month recessions because they are based on annual series. Surely you can see it wouldn't be appropriate to convert the monthly data into a number of days? If there are further objections please let me know. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can help copyedit if needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the status of the prose? Has Tony been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have thoroughly gone through the prose sections and Julian made some fixes as well. --JayHenry (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You might ask Tony to take a second look, then. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Much better; nice work, guys. And I notice a few nice specific links in the lead. Tony (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Two images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  I believe I've fixed this. I've never dealt with alt text before (How has WP:CREEP not been marked historical yet? The featured content processes have flagrantly disregarded it for years with permanently creeping laws and regulations), so please let me know if I'm unfamiliar with some subordinate clause-provision. --JayHenry (talk) 21:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

  No, the alt text looks fine. I tweaked it a bit for brevity and verifiability, but you did a good job. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks to Matthewedwards for alerting me to this discussion. First glance indicates that this list is radically changed from the list I reviewed back in March 2008, and the concerns I expressed back then are no longer relevant. Thanks and congratulations to those who did the hard work to make it comprehensive and to add sourcing. I have not reviewed it beyond that first glance. --Orlady (talk) 14:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support now that most of the issues above have been addressed, and the prose seems to have greatly improved since this nomination was initiated. Nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) I must say I've never seen "mos." used as an abbreviation for month. Isn't it usually "mth"? Okay, I'll change it. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Can you put references in the notes, for example the rule of thumb should be referenced. This requires a coding change and you go from <ref group="nb">Note</ref> to {{#tag:ref|Note<ref>Cite web/book/whatever</ref>|group="nb"}} Similarly you can use that work around for the other notes, which I notice are using a Havard style. Not sure if you were aware of this workaround, but if not it should now allow you to have a consistent referencing system. I wasn't aware of this. I'm happy to do it although it will take me a bit to figure out the syntax. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I think I got this correct. --JayHenry (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I made one slight fix, but yes that was good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The average duration of the 11 recessions between 1945 and 2007 is 10 months, compared to 18 months for recessions between 1919 and 1945 and 22 months for recessions from 1854 to 1919.[4] That citation does reference the 22 months for 1854–1919, but does not reference that 1919–1945 average, the average given is from 1945-2001, and there is no mention of this in the body of the article either. I'm sorry, but you've not read the table correctly or something. All of this is verified by the source cited. There was no recession between 2001 and 2007. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) I know what you mean but the reference says: "1945-2001 (10 cycles) , 10 , 57 , 67 , 67", by extrapolating that to 2007 is WP:OR. There was one month of recession in 2007 and this might be enough to change the average. Also is an NBER release published after 2007 and they still break the period down to 1945-2001 not 1945-2007. As the most authoritative source on this, I cannot understand why you choose to do something different? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC) This is not different. Please read WP:OR. --JayHenry (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC) Never mind, don't worry about reading the policy. I went ahead and did it your way. Can we just end this thing yet? Honestly, if the conclusion is that this is still not on par with List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania then I'm not sure what else I can do. I'm really baffled and frustrated with all this. --JayHenry (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC) As the data get older, their reliability worsens., needs rewording, not sure to what perhaps "...data gets older its reliability..." or maybe you can come up with something better The word data is plural. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Might be a UK/US thing as I read in data that "British usage now widely accepts treating data as singular in standard English,[5] including everyday newspaper usage[6] at least in non-scientific use.[7] UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural." Apologies, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 20% of the young country's currency. don't like young here unless its referenced (which I don't see). Not sure you really have a young country, it's just not encyclopaedic. No source is needed to call the United States a young country in 1796. I refuse to add sources that lemons are yellow or that wheels are round. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Meh, I still think it is bad prose, but seeing as I found examples of books that use it, I'll let this go. (p.s. yellow lemon? :p) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC) fallen 3.9% as of the 2nd quarter of 2009, firstly do we have more recent data, and secondly I think, as it is prose, it should spelled out "second quarter". Yes, this is the most recent. Data for the third quarter are not available yet. The initial estimates will be released around the end of the month and I will update at that time. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) (the deepest since was the 10.8% rate..., you have deep recession, but do you have deep unemployment? Perhaps just "lowest since" for this one Changed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) In the "Free Banking Era to the Great Depression" table the "Decline in trade and industrial activity (peak to trough)" column sorts the dashed columns between the 8.8% and the 10%. Good catch, thanks! Not sure how that happened since I'd tested it pretty thoroughly! Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Was it the "Recession of 1937" or should it be "Recession of 1937–38" because I notice peak unemployment was in 1938. Similarly for Recession of 1953. In both of these cases I just went with the title of the associated article. It's not unusual for peak unemployment to occur once a recession is over, so this isn't really a factor in naming. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Generally this looks good, considering this isn't exactly an easy list to do. I haven't looked at the prose in the table, but hopefully I'll get some time to come back to this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks RR. The list has been a lot of work but I'm pleased with how it's turning out! --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support as all my comments have been resolved. Judging by your last edit summary I'm sorry if you feel frustrated, but we are all just trying to help. I don't think anyone is saying this is not a good list, we're just trying to make sure it ticks all the criteria boxes. Featured candidacies can be frustrating, but I think you have done a great job on this list, and I really do hope this will not be your first and last candidate. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

More comments from Tony1 (talk · contribs)

• Rejoinder: Jay, yes, if you can link it to "Economy of the US", sure, but best if it looks like a more specific link than merely to the huge US article. I see the link has been removed, anyway.

  I was agnostic about it, so I'm fine with it gone. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Spaced em dashes: not arbitrary MoS-cruft, but a reaction to editors' distaste at the look of them. One rarely see them in print. I see an en dash in 19th–century recessions, but a hyphen is required. It's just connecting two words, not expressing a range, an opposition, or a "to"/"from" relationship.
  • Fixed that dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry for being grumpy earlier. Believe we're all fixed up here now. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Recessions after World War II appear to be less severe than earlier recessions,...". The tense is a problem—too much you looking over your records now. Better "appear to have been".

  Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• "1919 and 1945 and 22"—needs a comma.

  Fixed. Thanks! --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see more complaints about "mo.". Tony (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

  Got rid of the abbreviations. --JayHenry (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think this is a very nice list. I didn't review much of the prose, but everything else meets the criteria.—Chris!_c/t 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. There is a ref problem in "Late 2000s recession".

   Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Ref problem in Dates header.

   Fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Have the Time column in year and month. Like 1 year 3 months so the reader wouldn't have to calculate like what 50 months means.

   I don't really like the look of this and think it makes it a bit harder to compare, but okay. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Create key legends for your tables instead of filling the header. Like "Decline in business activity (peak to trough)" just have "Business activity" and explain it in a key.

   Like this? --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well I meant like this, but this works too.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Could u find a better picture for the lead that could encompass (be about) the whole list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   A single picture that is about all the US recessions since 1790? I'm open to suggestions but nothing is jumping out at me here. Maybe like a collage of breadlines, a threadbare Christmas, a collapsed and rusted crane, a bank run, hobos, a broker jumping out a window, a crashing Dow line, farm implements sinking in the mud, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 23 October 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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [12].

---

Territorial pick

Nominator(s): Martin tamb (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. The topic itself is often forgotten but is notable as it includes a lot of notable players. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - nice list—Chris!_c/t 00:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Very nice list you've got here. In the first sentence, "after 1950" might be better than "since 1950." "Since 1950" makes it sound like it's still going on. Also, if you could explain why the NBA stopped having territorial picks, that might be interesting. --Coemgenus 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done the first one, still looking for any reference about the second one. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you find it or not, I still support, I just thought it would be interesting. Coemgenus 13:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the above comments; this is a very nice list indeed. I just have two comments:
  • Shouldn't the sorting be done by the name of the school (i.e., University of Cincinnati should sort before La Salle University)?
  • The first image is fair use and needs to be removed, as no appropriate rationale could be provided for its inclusion. Two free-use images should be enough for this article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done both! — Martin tamb (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing at all about American basketball, but found this an interesting topic and a well-presented list. Technical note that there are no dab links, the external links all work, the sources used appear to be reliable and the two images have alt text. Now for a couple of comments:

• "after the BAA was renamed into NBA" – is "renamed into" an American-English turn of phrase? (It isn't an English-English expression; we'd say "renamed the NBA")
• Can you reword the first para of the lead so that we don't have links to 1949 and 1966 that look to the casual observer as simple year links? E.g. "since the [1949 draft]" and "when the draft system was revamped before the [1966 draft]".
• "Having a popular college players from the teams' local areas was a way to increase the local fan support" - grammar has got a bit mangled here, and you use "local" twice; how about "Having popular players from colleges in a team's local area was a way to increase fan support."? Or did you mean that the players were from popular colleges? It was a bit unclear...
• "6 picks from 5 different colleges" ought to be "six picks from five different colleges" (MOS:NUM says to spell out numbers less than ten (or do I mean less than 10...?))
• Does the "college/city" column have to be so wide?

Hope these help. Bencherlite^Talk 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All done, thanks to User:Chrishomingtang who fix most of the issues. — Martin tamb (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Bencherlite^Talk 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "Territorial picks were eliminated when the draft system was revamped since the 1966 draft." Try "when the draft system was revamped in 1966." Better grammar and avoids repetition of "draft". "11 players have been inducted to the Basketball Hall of Fame as a player." "to" → "into". "The Philadelphia Warriors had the most territorial pick...". Make the last word plural. "The" needed before University of Cincinnati. "The 1965 NBA Draft, the last draft in which a team could have a territorial pick, had the most territorial pick in a draft with three territorial picks." Do we need to have "territorial pick" three times in a sentence? It's terribly repetitive for the reader. Note a: "The NBA agreed to the argument". "to" → "with". Giants2008 (17–14) 20:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed all—Chris!c/t 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Nice list on an interesting topic, and it meets the criteria. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Opening sentence ends a little clumsily with two "after"'s in quick succession. Suggest linking first draft to Draft (sports). "In the early years" when were these "early" years? This is a bit woolly for me. "support in its local markets" do you mean the NBA was trying increase the size of fanbases of teams local to those fans? It's not 100% clear to me. "Having popular players from colleges in a team's local area was a way to increase fan support.[1] To help the teams acquire local players, the territorial pick rule was introduced" I would merge these sentences and reduce the subsequent redundancy. "Among the 22 territorial picks..." "Of the 22..."? "players have been inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame as a player. " this just reads strangely to me. Perhaps "as players"? Not sure. The repeat of player (despite the linking) makes it odd for me. Same with the key. "had the most territorial pick in a " picks? "Denotes player who have been inducted " either this should be "denotes a player who has been" or "denotes players who have been" - preferably the first. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Done all, hopefully the lead is better now, thanks for the reviews. — Martin tamb (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Grammar's gone a bit wonky in the lead now : "the league was trying to increase the size of fan bases of teams local to those fan"? "which subsequently increase the local fans support"? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fix them again. Really sorry for the grammar mistakes, English isn't my first language, but I guess this shouldn't be an excuse for the grammar mistakes. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a go at rephrasing some points, so TRM can now direct his comments at me! Don't be afraid of asking for help in future. Bencherlite^Talk 18:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

"Where's there's a blame there's a claim"? Good work all round, thanks Bencherlite for your assistance, and Martin, as B says, don't be afraid to ask! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for all the help in making this nomination successful and I promise won't be afraid to ask for help in the future. — Martin tamb (talk) 03:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Yet another interesting NBA list. It meets the FL criteria (I made a few tweaks). My only suggestion is to move one image into the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [13].

---

Premier League Player of the Month

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while since I nominated once of these, but I got working on this today and have completely revamped it from its former state. I hope I remembered any new FLC requirements (like alt text etc.) and I apologise if I didn't. Thanks in advance for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Martin tamb (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Why does the shared awards was counted as half award? I personally would count them as a full award for both players, similar to the NBA All-Star MVP Award. However, I don't know what's the usual counting methods on shared awards in football. — Martin tamb (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Um, I don't think there is a precedent, but a shared award indicates to me that the one award is halved out (not award doubled up). Usually if there is prize money attached to an award that is split equally in the case of a shared award. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Okay, good enough for me. Also note that I have separated the shared awards into two separate rows for better sorting abilities. — Martin tamb (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC) FWA and PFA need to be spelled out on their first use on the prose. Since you have 'Win by nationality' and 'Win by club' section, it might be worth mentioning in the prose that England and Manchester United players won most awards, and perhaps France as the foreign country who won the most awards. Other than that, the list is great, alt text looks fine, great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC) All done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Additional comments: Robert Pirès' article stated that his main position is a winger or attacking midfielder, but he is listed here as a forward. Sylvain Wiltord's article stated that his main position is forward (at the lead prose), but he is listed here as a midfielder. Other than these two, all others players' position checked out fine, nice addition to the list. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for looking through them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments In the lead, there are several mentions of "presently" / "most recent", with no indication of when "now" is (bearing in mind the most recent entry in the list is five screens away...) Personally I think the present Barclay name is fine as is, but I've added an {{As of}} for the most recent recipient. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fair enough The second para could do with a copyedit. Might be me being thick, or just because it's hard to copyedit when I wrote it, but I see no problems here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) It was the 2 sponsorships and a sponsor within 14 words, and "There already existed..." seemed an awkward way to start a sentence. Could turn that one round to say "Carling introduced new Manager of the Month and Manager of the Year awards for the 1993–94 season, to supplement (or complement, or add to) the existing Football Writers' Association and Professional Footballers' Association Player of the Year awards." Just varies the word order a bit, the prose in award lists is always desperately repetitive. But if I'm the only critic, then leave it how it is :-) Done both. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Image captions only have a full stop (period) if they are complete sentences, so some of them shouldn't. I did know that I'm just rubbish at identifying which is which. Is it correct now? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Robbie Keane: either remove the full stop, or remove the "who", thus making it into a complete sentence, and leave the full stop Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) If you're going to link entries in the year column, you have to link them all, with the table being sortable. Do the month and year need to be in separate columns? was just wondering why anyone would want to sort all the Januarys together. (Wouldn't expect you to change it, just wondering why.) With respect to both of those do you want me to go to a format like this (the first few rows). I can, but it is a long laborious manual task so it won't be an instant change. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Not sure it doesn't look clearer with the month and year separate, however pointless. If it was me, I'd leave the format as it is, and either link all the years to their season if I thought they were valuable links, or delink them if I didn't. Done. All linked. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) As the key is only one item, could you move it to the top so we can see it before we come across the mark in the table? Also, could you change it to a different punctuation mark, an asterisk or dagger or something: when I first noticed it (against Edu) I saw it as a diacritic, and even now I know what it's for I can't help interpreting it as something to click on to go up the page :-) Done, it wasn't my choice in the first place. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Multiple winners etc tables. Don't like halfs: Shearer won it 4 times, as his picture caption says, even if somebody else won as well in one of those months. Think the prize money (if any) argument is a red herring. Question. I have done this for the individual awards, but when English Liverpool clubmates Fowler and Colymore share the award in Jan 96 is it really right to count it as two Liverpool and two England awards? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't it be original research (or something) to do otherwise? their shared wins would surely count to their club/country had they occurred in different months. I might just be irrationally prejudiced against the idea of ½ an award, but if it said 4 (1 shared) rather than 3½ it might not be unreasonable to sort 4 above 4 (1 shared). Though to be serious, if you kept the halves, you'd need to note at the By club table why Liverpool have 16 entries in the main list but that only counts for 15 in the By club table, and you'd be doing well if you made it sound convincing and not like original research Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Also on halves, the number columns in the Wins per club/country tables don't sort properly. Will fix/remove pending answer to my above question. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) References. Some of your archive mirrors have the wrong archived-on dates, probably comes of c&p'ing a long citation template :-) Done I'm sure I doubled checked these, obviously not or perhaps I didn't save it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Ref #4 BBC "Why Carling called time on Premiership" has an author who should be credited. There may be others. Done. Good spot, because the BBC don't usually list them. I checked the other beeb ones too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) With BBC pages, Premier League match reports and analytical-type articles generally do have authors, lower-league match reports and straight reporting generally don't. I only bother checking anything that looks like it falls in the former category. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC) External links. The Premier League one gives an error page, and the premiershiplatest one thinks for ages and then comes up with a blank page. Done. Removed section. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Also, have you considered having a column for playing position (not detailed, just basic Goalkeeper/Defender/Midfielder/Forward). Wonder whether winners by playing position might be at least as relevant a breakdown as by country. Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC) hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support meets criteria, as far as I can tell. One more suggestion, would the list usefully belong in Category:Lists of football (soccer) players? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion it would not be a useful category. All of Category:English football trophies and awards are stand-alone lists in the sense that not only are they an "article" about the award, they are also the list of winners. So in that sense I think the "English football trophies and awards" category is almost a kind of subcat of "Lists of football (soccer) players". Maybe something needs renaming though? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Overlinking: I don't see the need for two Premier League links in the lead, or two of Manager of the Month. "The inaugural season had no sponsor until Carling agreed a four-year for 12m that started the following season." Huh? A few words appear to be missing from here. "with France being the foreign country that has the most wins." This is an awkward structure, as can often happen when "with" and "-ing" are this closely connected. The Ref column in the table doesn't need to be sortable. Wins per position: Sorting from lowest to highest is off, instead sorting by what the first number is. The BBC Sport references should not have the publisher in italics, since they are not from a printed publication. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I've have done all of these except the last point because the publisher is the BBC, and {{cite web}} says "work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work.". Here BBC Sport is part of the larger BBC website, and this BBC Sport FAQ states that the BBC owns the copyright (publisher). With respect to the other points, I can only apologise for how many problems this list has had. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – No need to apologize; I've seen lists with far worse problems than this one. I made one further grammar fix to help this along, and everything else appears in order. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Just wondering if you could move the Gerrard image to the lead as he's the top dog here and it would (in my opinion) enhance the aesthetics of the list to have a lead image. Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Not keen on the way sponsor is linked to a very specific part of the Prem League article while the next use (sponsorship) is linked to a generic definition of the word. Done. Also the link target is hopefully clearer now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "and France are the foreign country that has the most wins" I know what you're saying but this seems an odd way of saying it. Perhaps something about overseas players from France winning more than any other non-English country? I dunno, that's not much better. But can you see what I'm saying? Any better? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) You'll have to promise me to update the winner on a month-by-month basis with that last sentence of the lead! I will, and it also would populate the relevant out of date category. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "first Player of the Month award for August 1994" (caption) - perhaps "in August 1994" rather than "for"? Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Miniature thought about sorting the positions - you have, in the key, listed positions from back to front (very logical from a footballing perspective) but sorting the position col goes alphabetically which isn't quite as logical for me. No big deal, just a thought. Okay, that shouldn't be too much hastle with AWB. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Sorted! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps it's my settings but I could use one or two more images down the right-hand side. I'll have a look around for a couple more, but I'm keen not to fill it up with poor quality images just for the sake of it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Sure, no worries, I stumbled on a nice John Terry image (on his article), that just made me think about it... Here are a few more. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC) As I've been "reminded" on the hat-trick list, can you prove those players you have indicated as "current" players are, indeed, current? I think this is okay here as I don't have your international retirement issue to cross. Actually conveniently all those players are not injured and they all played in their clubs last Premier League fixture (lucky me!). I can get sources if you need but I just checked them all on fantasy football. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, I was referring to the Premier League hat-trick article, not the England one...! So while I'm happy with it, be prepared that other's won't be... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Another mega-minor one - I'd prefer "Wins by position" rather than "per position"... Done Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I cannot believe that Marcus Bent won this award. Perhaps that month should be scratched out forever... Question. Would a footnote something like "Despite winning Player of the Month, Bent has been relegated with four different clubs!" be appropriate? :p Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "Of forwards 68 awards..." - my grammar skills are lacking but should there be an apostrophe there somewhere e.g. forwards' 68 awards? Done. They are less lacking than mine! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Nice use of the archive field in the cite web template. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I believe I've addressed them. Let me know if you have anything else to add. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a typo in this alt text: "He has short black hair, green eyes, and is perspiration is visible on his forehead". Eveything else looks good, so I am happy to support on the assumption that you will fix the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for the support. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from – PeeJay 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

**Is there a reference to support the fact that Carling established their own "manager of the month" and "manager of the year" awards? Attaching a reference to Jurgen Klinsmann winning the inaugural award would also be helpful. (lead section, paragraph 2) I also think that a reference may be required for the mention of Torres' win. (lead section, paragraph 3) The references that indicate the maths used to determine that over half of the winners have been English and most of the awards have gone to players of "Big Four" teams (currently References #9 and #10) should probably be migrated to the footnotes section. I have modified the BBC and Premier League references to include both "work" and "publisher" information. Other than those things, this is looking like a superb list, and I would be happy to support once the above changes are put in place. – PeeJay 10:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Done all of these. I actually think adding "|work=premierleague.com" is wrong because I've been told before at FAC that websites are not a work and should not be italicised, however it is a minor detail and I will leave it as is. Thanks for your comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Thanks for making those changes. I'm happy to support the promotion of this list, and I hope that Premier League Manager of the Month will be next. – PeeJay 23:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I feel section headers such as "wins by x" sound like games won rather than awards; perhaps you can say "awards won by x"? Change the "Year" column to "Season". The key in the Multiple winners column should be above the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Done the bookends, but for the middle one although the link is to the season there is no 1999 season, therefore I think if you changed the column header to season then the year 1998 would need changing to 1997–98 or 1998–99 as appropriate, which is in my opinion clutter. Do you have any further thoughts on this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC) The purpose of changing the name of the column is to better prepare the readers for those easter-egg year links. Perhaps you can add a note about where the links go, as in List of New Jersey Nets head coaches (note b). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC) Okay then, I added a note. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [14].

---

List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples

Nominator(s): Coemgenus 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after improving the appearance and the references, it meets the criteria. --Coemgenus 20:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment The leaders section has too many images, resulting a large white gap between the section It actually has too few on my monitor. How many should I take out to make it work for your display? I took out two. Coemgenus 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Why wasn't the closest active players section in table format? With only four, it didn't seem worth it. I'd be glad to make it into a table, if that would help the nomination. Coemgenus 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I just thought that the sections should be more consistent.—Chris!c/t 02:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I changed it to a table, and I think it does look better. Coemgenus 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC) All images require alt text—Chris!c/t 21:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC) This is my first featured anything nom since the alt-text thing came about, but I think I've now added it correctly. Let me know if it's not right. Coemgenus 14:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 01:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold

Comments The last section of the lead, dealing with the notability of no currently active 100+ triplers should include Steve Finley who also had 100+ triples and also retired in 07 (especially since HE is the active leader for 07 in the B-Ref source given), so something like "Since the retirement of Kenny Lofton AND Steve Finley in 2007". That fact is notable enough to keep, IMO, even past the 2010 or 2011 season if Rollins and/or Damon cross 100 (that 08-?? was the first time in more than a century no active player had 100+). I listed Lofton as the last 100+ active player because his last game was in September '07, while Finley's was in June '07. Coemgenus 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The number of images looks fine to me. As with your display they stop well before the table does. I think the alt text is ok, but could use a bit more expansion (the idea is for people with screen readers, so perhaps mention the uni colors and such). I added some colors and what not, where applicable. Coemgenus 18:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The See Also section needs a bit of trimming. You don't need ALL those other baseball lists. I agree, I just didn't want to provooke an edit war by trimming it. I'll cut it down and see what happens. Coemgenus 18:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Random idea, but given any thought to at least short mentions of other triples records, such as the MLB-single-season (Chief Wilson's 36 is a big chunk of the 100 to make this list) and maybe other league's career records? Yutaka Fukumoto apparently holds the Nippon Professional Baseball league record with 115. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I put Fukumoto in the see also section -- I couldn't really think of a way to work him into the main prose. Wilson's record is mentioned in his picture along the side -- do you think I should add more about it? Coemgenus 13:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Just some ideas. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

"Deeper fences in old ballparks, such as Pittsburgh's Forbes Field and Detroit's Tiger Stadium, also produced fewer home runs and more triples on well-hit balls. As a result, most of the players on this list have been retired for decades." - Needs reference I'll see if one can be found. Do you mean a reference that the ballparks were bigger, or that the sized caused more triples? The former is easy enough, but the latter seems self-evident. --Coemgenus 03:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I found a cite that should work for both. --Coemgenus 03:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Excellent! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC) "...his Detroit Tigers teammate..." Needs reference You mean I need to reference the fact that they both played for the Tigers at the same time? --Coemgenus 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Yep. This can easily be source from Baseball-Reference, or elsewhere. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure it needs a reference. Would anyone dispute it? A look at either man's article would show that they were teammates on the Tigers from 1905 to 1917. --Coemgenus 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Laugh out loud. Referencing Wikipedia article are not allowed. You have to reference everything on the article, and all the references need to be cited on the References section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Laugh all you want, I still maintain that not every fact in an article needs a reference. The featured list criteria certainly don't require it. --Coemgenus 13:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC) That is certainly true, but having a source is better than not having one, as readers can reference check. Like I said, Wikipedia articles cannot be sources for Wikipedia articles. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Could anyone beside Coemgenus comment on this? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Never mind. Cross that out. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Some older sources give Crawford's career total as 312." Which other sources? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) The Hall of Fame still does, for example: [15]. MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com both give the updated total, arrived at after statistics were given a more thorough review. Should I add that to the footnote? There's quite a bit of citation already. Coemgenus 01:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) It could be like "Some sources, like the Baseball Hall of Fame, give Crawford's career total as 312." or something similar with the citation after it. Could you find any more reliable sources that indicate 312? That will be great! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I added the HOF page to the cite. It's hard to find a more reliable source for inaccurate information. Coemgenus 01:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC) IMO, the rank column should be taken out, as it is the same as the number of triples column. Would it be possible to tell when the players got their 100th triple? It does arrange the list in the same way, but I think people would like to know where players rank, not just how many triples they have. --Coemgenus 03:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Cross the first part. What about the second? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe, but I haven't found a book or website that lists it. Perhaps by looking into box scores day by day, one could figure it out for the players in the modern era (when better records exist) but even that would probably be original research, and would certainly be more work that I would want to do. --Coemgenus 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I'll try to help. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) After searching Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet, it's pretty impossible to find when the players hit 100 3Bs. I think the best way of finding them is by searching news sources like NY Times, LA Times, Boston Herald, etc., but that will be too bothersome, so no bother wasting a load of time in one column. Would be nice if you could somehow add additional columns onto the table, since it looks very thin. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I agree it looks thin, but to have sortability it must be all in one column. I couldn't think of anything relevant to add that would widen it, and I didn't want to add extraneous information just for appearances (not to mention that it might only appear too thin on some monitors and not others). If you have any suggestions of relevant info, I'd be glad to consider it. Coemgenus 01:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I think inserting the years of which they completed the 100 triples is definitely possible, as it is on all the players' Baseball-Reference pages. Any thoughts? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure. I think it verges on original research. Does anyone else have an opinion? Coemgenus 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Whether we choose to add another column of info or not, do you think the list meets the criteria? Coemgenus 16:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You said to me you used that ref to show a player was active. Perhaps just include their last active year in the list if there's a consensus to include a "timeframe" for when these records were achieved. It's relevant as you said in the lead how it used to occur so much more back-in-the-day than it does now? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) That makes good sense. Should I just add their last year, or would the MLB debut year make sense, too? Coemgenus 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I added both years. Coemgenus 18:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC) You should denote what the columns mean, since readers may not understand. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I revised the headings -- should be clearer now. Coemgenus 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (outdent) Now how about adding the year in which they got the 100th? I would volunteer to insert it if you would like. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I still think it's borderline original research, and now that their career dates are added, I'm not sure how much it adds. Coemgenus 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nice job on the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "with neither the benefit of a fielding error not with another runner being put out on a fielder's choice." Remove the second "with", since it's doing nothing but making the structure awkward. Quite right: done. Coemgenus 23:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) "249 of them were with the American League." "with" → "in". Done. Coemgenus 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC) "making 2008 the first season since 1885 in which no active player has more than 100 triples." "has" → "had". We're now in 2009, after all. Done. Coemgenus 23:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) For the photographs of Sam Crawford, Jake Beckley, and Tris Speaker and Harry Hooper, the date of publication needs to be established. Publication is what counts for public domain status, not merely creation. I replaced the Speaker/Hooper pic. The Beckley pic is from a baseball card, and such cards are published soon after the photo is taken. I replaced the Crawford pic with a baseball card that was certainly published during his career. Coemgenus 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Reference 3 could use an access date. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC) I accessed it today, so there you go. Coemgenus 23:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Forgot one comment that I wanted to give above: there should be a note for the year links that says they link to MLB season articles. Without one, readers may think that the links are for articles on years, which aren't of much use. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Do you mean I should add a footnote in the heading, or a sentence at the top of the list section? Coemgenus 19:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Either will do, though I would add a footnote if I was working on the list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I added a footnote. Coemgenus 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments nice, I learned some stuff from this list which is a good start! I know nada about baseball so forgive my probably stupid comments... by "Deeper fences" do you they were further out, i.e. the in-play area was larger? Not sure "deeper fences" is exactly what we're looking for... but no biggie if a reword proves too hard. "Deeper" is baseball-talk, but "more distant" is probably a better explanation. I changed it. Coemgenus 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC) You link the hall of fame twice in quick succession, no need. Fixed. Coemgenus 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "249 of them were in the American League" - this may be significant or mean something of note to a baseball expert but I'm not sure what its relevance is to, say, me, a total non-expert? I think my original language got a bit mangled. I moved it to a footnote to explain why Crawford is not the AL or NL record-holder, but is the MLB record-holder. Coemgenus 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC) American League is linked but National League is not. Is this deliberate? And American League appears to be linked twice in quick succession. Fixed. Coemgenus 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "hit 200 or more triples." not overly keen on this turn of phrase, you could safely say "hit at least 200 triples"? Fixed. Coemgenus 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Are these triples all from just league competitions? Or do play-offs etc (should they exist!) count as well? Only regular-season games count for records. I think that's true in all sports, so I didn't include it in the description. Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC) I'm no so sure. I don't think it would do any harm to make that clear, a simple one-line statement? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC) You're right, it doesn't hurt to add it. You made me curious about who has hit the most post-season triples, so I added a parenthetical about that, too. Coemgenus 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Not sure the Cobb+Jackson image caption needs a full stop. Fixed. Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "Mike Marshall" links to Mark Mitchell - which name is correct? Fixed -- it should be Mike Mitchell. Thanks for catching that! Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Once again, forgive my ignorance, but does any of the "active player"'s references state that they're actually active? The refs show that the players played last season, and (unlike inactive players' refs) don't show a date for their last game. Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Gotcha. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Ref 3 needs fixing for accessdate field. Fixed. Coemgenus 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Keep format of dates in references same, so don't mix human-readable and ISO formats as you do, say for 10 and 11. All ref dates should be in one format or the other. I think I got 'em all. Coemgenus 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) There appears to be an MLB statistics category, is this better than plain baseball statistics? I know next to nothing about the hierarchy of categories -- if you say it's better, I'll be glad to take your word for it. Should I change it? Coemgenus 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Well, if you're happy that this is really a list about MLB baseball statistics (which I think it is!) then yes, a more specific cat would be useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Coemgenus 18:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Only 249 of Crawford's triples were in the American League." What does this mean? Did he hit 249 of those against AL teams? It explains why Crawford is the major-league leader in triples, but the AL or NL leader: he hit some of his triples while playing in each league. I clarified the footnote some, I think, to better explain this. --Coemgenus 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) It would make more sense to link to MLB season articles where possible. I thought I had done this for just about every year linked. I'll see if I missed any. --Coemgenus 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) You don't need "black-and-white photo" in the alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I took it out. The I haven't done the alt-text thing before. --Coemgenus 03:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_trip1.shtml a reliable source? If I have commented on this in an FLC before, please call me out on it. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know how to address that. Is there something that makes you think it's unreliable? WP:RS doesn't raise any red flags for me as applied to this website -- it's the same data I could've gotten from baseball-reference.com, but it's arranged better for the purpose for which I cited it. --Coemgenus 04:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • This did come up in an FLC I was involved in, but never got resolved one way or the other since I was able to easily replace the reference. This one is a bit trickier, since the first few pages of a Google search I tried didn't yield anything as direct as Baseball Almanac. Maybe it would be worth posting to the Reliable Source noticeboard, since Baseball Almanac does sometimes have useful information. My own view (when I originally used a B-A source in an FLC) was colored by the Baseball Almanac that was published annually in book form through at least the mid-60s. But I am not sure the on line site has any connection with that book, so I am not sure myself whether it meets RS guidelines (although I have never noticed any significant accuracy issues).
    • That said, I am not sure that should stand in the way of this particular item. Although it may border on synthesis, I believe that simple arithmetic, counting and table look ups are allowed under WP:V and WP:SYNTH, and Baseball-Reference's Sam Crawford page clearly shows his AL/NL split. Since I don't think anyone disputes that Cobb and Wagner spent their entire careers in the AL and NL respectively, it is pretty clear from the Baseball-Reference Triple Leaders page that they lead their respective league in all-time triples. So maybe include the B-R Crawford and Triple pages in addition to the B-A reference to demonstrate that even if B-A is not an RS in general, the relevant information in the concise table is reliable.Rlendog (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
      • This list already has 174 citations. I'm reluctant to add anymore without a good reason. Is there any reason to believe the information on Baseball-Almanac.com is inaccurate? Coemgenus 15:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Verifibility to reliable sources is what's key; blogs and hobby sites can be accurate too but that doesn't mean we should use them. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • OK, what do I have to do to make the statement in question reliably sourced? --Coemgenus 00:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I found out how to sort the stats on MLB.com by league, and I linked to that instead of Baseball-Almanac. --Coemgenus 01:10, 20 October 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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [16].

---

List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a companion list to List of new churches by John Douglas, a FL. Its format is precisely similar, and much of the text is common to both lists. It completes the ecclesiastical works of John Douglas. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

resolved issues from Bencherlite

;Comments from Bencherlite Good work. A few small thoughts before I support: I think you need to change the wording of "Most of Douglas' new churches have been recognised as....", since this is not the new church list. I agree - this was a touch of laziness! Amended. Personally, I'd like to know more about the churches in the lead and less about Douglas. Someone coming to this list from the new churches list will see five paragraphs of text, four of which are about Douglas and the same as before; the fifth one is virtually the same as before, save for the sentence defining the contents of the list ("This list consists of the works carried out by Douglas, alone or in conjunction with his partners, on pre-existing churches and includes restorations, additions and amendments to churches, and ecclesiastical furnishings.") Pick out some highlights. I have reduced the details in some of the paragraphs and added a section to the last paragraph giving some more specific information about Douglas' work in this area. Do you have a photo of an interior that you could use to show Douglas's work, as an additional image in the lead? I have not been able to find a suitable photograph of a Douglas restoration - and such a photograph might be problematical in that it would show both parts of the original church and also Douglas' work, which might be difficult to separate. However I have found an image of an item of church furniture which is out of copyright and this has been added to the lead. Also in the lead, is the information about the definition of category B and C Scottish churches relevant when there's only a category A in the list? Information about Scottish Categories B and C deleted. In the final entry, "has now been demolished" would perhaps be better than is now demolished". Done. The Cadw lists - where are they from? Internet or printed sources? (I'd be interested in getting hold of them myself, you see...) Some more details in the citation would be good (including date) This was a problem because the information is not available on line and I was not aware of any printed source. So I e-mailed Cadw, requesting details of the listed churches in in the relevant Welsh counties. They were very helpful and replied by e-mail attaching the requested details which I have been able to print. So I know the information is reliable, but I did not know how to reference it in any other way. I can add dates (ie 2009) but wonder if that if of any value. Only one of the three All Saints churches has a possessive apostrophe - is this a deliberate variation? No, but it reflects, I suppose, the inconsistency in this matter to be found across WP. The apostrophes should be there, so I have added them, and moved the relevant articles.

Strong support – a well-researched and excellently-presented list, that is clearly the result of a lot of hard work, not just in writing the list, but in writing the supporting articles. This is the type of list and the sort of long-term effort that those people who complain about the unfairness of a minimal redlink criteria in WP:FL? would be well-advised to look at. This list would not be as worthwhile without links to articles about the churches.

In addition, you have clearly visited some of the churches on the list to take photographs, and spent time looking for free-use images elsewhere to upload to Commons. A particularly strong pat on the back for the alt-text (can't have been easy thinking of variations on the phrase "it's a church"). No dablink problems, external links fine, sources all look to be reliable print / web, images are all free-use at Commons. Bencherlite^Talk 10:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Response. Thanks for the helpful comments. I have tried to answer all the points. I agree with your comments about the quality of Featured Lists; IMO they should be more than "good" lists and should also contain material of "added" value above what would be expected in a "good" list. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Just one reply to your reply: I think that adding (2009) to the Cadw lists would be helpful, for future reference. Thanks for the tip about emailing Cadw directly: if Anglesey council doesn't get back to me about listed buildings, I'll try that. Bencherlite^Talk 13:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Date added. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks5489 I ran through this in some depth a few days ago, before Bencherlite's comments. Most of the points I would have raised have been resolved: here are a few minor stylistic observations... The table itself Because Grade A = Grade I, I would add the Grade I colour to the background of that cell, using this code:

A Applied background colour as suggested, but with a different template, which seems to work. St John's Church in Burwardsley and in Trofarth should sort before St John the Baptist's in Chester and St John the Evangelist's in Ashton Hayes, I think. Not sure that this is really necessary - but I've done it. Christ Church, Bala and St Mary's, Edmonton are missing line-breaks between the county and the coordinates template, causing them to wrap round. Fixed. Table notes In St Dunawd's, Bangor-is-Coed, "Douglas was married in this church in 1860" is snappier. Likewise with St Paul's, Boughton: "Douglas worshipped at this church". Or perhaps keep one as it is and change the other, for variety of prose. Agreed. Both amended. In St Peter's, Little Budworth: I suppose the "thin incorrect minimum tracery" quote is from Pevsner (it sounds like one of his!). I can't get my head around the meaning ... could you just check that the quote has been correctly transcribed? If it has, I'll just put it down as one of his eccentricities. It is, as you suggest, a quote from Pevsner - hence the quote marks. St Mary's, Mold: the blurb is in the passive voice: this is OK sometimes, but in this short sentence it sounds a bit odd. Changed to the active; in order to prevent repetition of text (Douglas ... x3) I have also altered the start of the previous entry. Alt text Second pic in lead (the prayer desk): "...the carved side of of the prayer desk in front of it" → "...the carved side of a prayer desk in front of it" St Chad's, Holt: "filed" → "field" St Paul's, Boughton: "A church is..." → "A church in..." St John the Baptist's, Chester: "tansept" → "transept" All Saints, Gresford: "...see from the southwest" → "...seen from the southwest" All above corrected (well spotted!). St Peter's, Chester: not sure you need to mention the car Alt text is, I think, supposed to describe the image as it is, rather than just the parts of it relevant to the article. The car is irrelevant to the article, but is rather prominent in the photograph. I will delete the reference to it if people think that would be more appropriate. St Matthew's, Buckley: I would remove "monuments which include", as not all of the fixtures described are monuments. Alternatively, try "fixtures which include" Text amended - I think this makes sense now. Refs In current ref [65], p. → pp. Current refs [91] and [96] are duplicated: both point to Hubbard p261. Current refs [111] and [112] are duplicated: both point to Hubbard p271. All corrected (well spotted again). Other bits Lead is excellent and well focused. Google coordinates link works; so does Bing. Sourcing, pics and all other aspects are up to standard, and I concur with Bencherlite's comments. I look forward to John Douglas becoming a Featured Topic, hopefully! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Response. Thanks for the detailed review and the supportive comments. I have dealt with the points raised. To get John Douglas to FT will require much work on the two remaining lists; they are on structures more varied than churches, and supporting articles will not always be easy to write for every object. But thanks for the encouragement. Peter I. Vardy (talk)

Support accordingly; everything has been dealt with or—in the case of the alt text on St Peter's, Chester—explained to my satisfaction. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Why are there several dates in some churches? I just skimmed through the list, so I may have missed the explaination.—Chris!_c/t 00:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Douglas carried out more than one item of work on many of the churches; each date represents one of these items. I have tried to explain what happened when in the Notes. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - nice list—Chris!_c/t 02:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "His output included new churches, alterations to and restoration of existing churches, church furnishings, new houses and alterations to existing houses, and a variety of other buildings, including shops, banks, offices, schools, memorials and public buildings.[1] His architectural styles were eclectic, but as he worked during the period of the Gothic Revival, much of his output incorporates elements of the English Gothic style." "output" in consecutive sentences ... can one instance be changed (picky I know)? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Second "output" changed to "work". bellcote is hyphenated in the Wikipedia article, so either this version needs to be added as an alternate spelling to the Wikipedia article, or it should be changed to match the article. The glossary in both the Buildings of England and the Buildings of Wales series uses the word unhyphenated. I have added this to the Bell-cot article. "The church has now been demolished." "now" is probably redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "now" deleted.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• You use both {{citation}} and the cite xxx family of templates (e.g. cite book); use one group or another but not both (this should probably be fixed in other lists too).

• "cite book" changed to "Citation".

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Response Thanks for the comments which I have addressed. I suspect that there has been some change in the citation policy which I have missed. Also I was interested that you have run what appears to be an automatic program which, amongst other things, has changed all the <br> to <br />, although here WP advises <br> to produce line breaks (just interested). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions, though generally minor on this list, which is well done:

• "Douglas' father was a joiner by trade[10] and it is likely that this influenced his own work." is the portion after the citation from source citation 11, or is it OR?

• Not OR; it is in the next citation, but as this covers 4 pages, I have added a more specific reference.

• For St. Mary's: "The other works are attributed to Douglas; these are: the addition of a southeast vestry and organ chamber, a lych gate, and a screen in the northeast chapel." is that meant to be 'the' or 'three' other works. Also, the structure of the sentence is a little painful, with the semi-colon and colon. Could it be reworded to flow better?

• Wording amended; is this OK?

• In my browser (IE), for some reason the vertical images (like St. Chad's) have a wider cell than the other images. I can't figure out why. Any of the other reviewers have an answer?

• Sorry; I use Firefox and it works perfectly. Perhaps there is something I can add or amend that will make it work as well in IE. Open to ideas/suggestions.

• From St. Peter's: "inserted "thin incorrect minimum tracery" into the windows" this confused me as a lay reader. By incorrect, does the quote mean there is something wrong with his work, or is this some sort of technical term? Not sure how to clarify within the limited space available.

• This phrase has been a problem for another reviewer. It is a direct quote from Pevsner and Hubbard. It adds little to the description so I have deleted it.

• From Holy Trinity: "It is thought that the west tower is by Douglas" - Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Also an issue with St. Peter's, though less so.

• Hubbard gives a firm attribution to Douglas, so I have strengthened it from "thought that" to "attributed to".

Geraldk (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Response Thanks for the comments; I have dealt with what I can. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Note from Hassocks5489 Peter, the only alternative I can think of to fixing vertical images at 60x60 and centering them is to treat them the same as other images: i.e. not specifying alignment within the cell and fixing at 100px. (I have faced the same issue with my church and listed buildings lists.) I have IE as well, and I changed a few to 100px and previewed it (didn't save it). I thought it looked OK, although you have to decide whether the resulting uneven height of the rows is worse than the misalignment, which as you say only happens in some browsers. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I'll leave whether to make the changes per Hassocks up to the reviewer. The list is exceptional either way, and it is a damned if you do damned if you don't kind of decision. Geraldk (talk) 18:03, 12 October 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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [17].

---

List of counties in Missouri

Nominator(s):  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. I substantially improved the list between Sept 14-17, then requested a peer review. Additional improvements were made there.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm sorry to do this to you, but the images need ALT text, including the county maps, which can be inserted using the |Alt= parameter in {{countyrow}}. I feel your pain, I did this for List of counties in New Jersey (although this wasn't nearly as bad).

  I noticed that {{countyrow}} creates a default alt text - "State map highlighting X County" (see altviewer). If you feel that a more specific alt text is required (like you did in NJ), I will do so. This will take me some time with 115 of them :). On a side note, the map at the beginning of the article does not have a caption or alt text. It uses {{Missouri County Labelled Map}}, which I am not at all sure how to create alt text or a caption for. If you or anyone else could assist, it would be greatly appreciated. In the meantime I will get working on the alt text for maps highlighting the various counties.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  03:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  Well I got on a roll and did all of the county row alt texts. I'm a little tired though, if someone could look over my work. Anyway, the map at the top still needs figuring out.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  05:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  I added the "caption" parameter to {{Missouri County Labelled Map}}. In {{Image label begin/doc}}, it says that this specifies the "alt text", but the altviewer still says it does not have alt-text.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  05:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done thanks to Eubulides.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  09:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• If there's any information available, add to the lead regarding the function of counties in Missouri. See the NJ link above for a recently-promoted example. Mm40 (talk) 02:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  I will check for information available related to this.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  03:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

  Done  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  00:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Geraldk

Comments In the etymology for Caldwell County, you give reasons for notably for the other two possible sources of the name, but give no identifying information about Mathew Caldwell. Who was he to be notable enough to (maybe) have a county named after him? The etymology for Henry County needs a grammar check-up. As with Caldwell County, the mention of Thomas J. Howell under Howell County is not given any identifying information. No sources I can find give identifying information about him, but merely list him as a possible origin of the name. Do you recommend removing him, or leaving it as is?  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC) In the etymology for Iron County, the word iron should not be capitalized For Lafayette County, you probably want to explain why Lafayette was important In Lawrence County, why link the wikiquote article rather that the article Last words? Also in Lawrence County, do the sources really suggest that "Don't give up the ship" is still a popular battle cry? Macon County, 'and' should be either 'who' or 'who also' Platte County, the etymology column needs to be reworded so it isn't sentences with periods, to match the others under former county names, Lillard County, it isn't clear whether he served in the Tennessee or Missouri legislature Geraldk (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Done with everything except Howell County (see comment above).  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  23:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support - If there are no sources that say who he is, then don't worry about clarifying. You have to keep his name in, though, as the sources do say the county may be named for him. Good work, as someone who has done county lists before, I know this one must have been a headache. Geraldk (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no outstanding issues.陣内_Jinnai 17:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues 陣内Jinnai

Question If St. Louis City is listed as an independent city not inside any county jurisdiction, why is it on the county list?陣内Jinnai 20:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC) The county lists include sub-state government entities that are considered county-equivalents. When state constitutions and governance recognize a city as having the same powers and role as counties, there is no real difference except a name. For example, List of counties in Maryland includes Baltimore City, which is treated by the state government and constitution as the equivalent of a county. Geraldk (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Comment I don't see anything mentioning the border changes due to the 1812 New Madrid earthquake.陣内Jinnai 03:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) The last of that series of earthquakes occurred February 7, 1812. The five original counties in Missouri were not formed until October 20, 1812. True, the earthquakes changed the course of the Mississippi and altered what would become state borders (Missouri became a state in 1820), the internal county borders of Missouri did not change, as they had not been formed. Although it is a very interesting event (it formed an exclave of Kentucky, an entity I hadn't heard of before this), I do not believe the event warrants mention in a list of counties in Missouri.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Oppose Support Seem to be an awful lot of old county names without entomology. As I found information on at least of them Niangua County I believe others could reasonably exist.陣内Jinnai 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I assume that Jinnai meant "etymology" :) Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I have expanded the former county name etymology section.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  16:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Seems there is some disagreement on the origins of Atchison County. That site list it as originating from Holt County.陣内Jinnai 19:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Holt County was part of the Platte Purchase, so Atchison is also part of the Platte Purchase. Its origins were listed as "Holt County, Platte Purchase" - so I changed it to: "Holt County, part of the Platte Purchase". Let me know what you think.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Other problems: Chariton County - has a disputed naming history Technically, the naming history of the county is not disputed. All sources say the the county is named for the Chariton River. The river has a disputed naming history. Do you think it would be beneficial to include this information?  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Probably link to the river. Something like "Named after the Chariton River whose naming origin is disputed." or something like that.陣内Jinnai 21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Done  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC) McDonald County - originally defined in the legislature as Seneca County Seneca County is already included in the former county names section.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Other things that could be noted Gasconade County - could add info on it being one of the oldest known suriving satirical names for the region. Osage County - could add info on the corruption of the word per other county names Ozark County - Add the meaning for the word Ozark Vernon County - that originally Venom County was formed having the same territory as Bates County陣内Jinnai 03:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Done with "other things"  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  22:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) According to this, Moniteau County's area is 416.52, so shouldn't it be 417 in the table? Fixed  JUJUTACULAR

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support—NMajdan•talk 14:57, 23 October 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 The Rambling Man 18:39, 24 October 2009 [18].

---

List of Oklahoma Sooners football seasons

Nominator(s): ?NMajdan•talk 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have created this list based on the current FL List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons. I believe it now meets all the criteria after a peer review helped me clean up the prose a bit.?NMajdan•talk 17:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• You need to provide ALT text for the images you used.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thought I already did but I went ahead and gave more detail. My first time adding alt text.?NMajdan•talk 20:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I improved the alt text a bit, you should imagine describing the image to someone on the phone who can't see the image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - please put Conference championship game results in table format.—Chris!_c/t 21:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.?NMajdan•talk 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Chris!_c/t 03:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – What makes http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/ a reliable source? And is it even needed, considering most of what it's citing has other sources? The number of bowl appearances probably doesn't even need a cite as it is verified by the list itself. What makes http://www.soonerstats.com/ reliable? The home page says "this site ... is just a hobby". Note that this is different from soonersports.com, the team's official site. "They have also recorded 42 total conference championships, have twelve undefeated, untied seasons and have the longest winning streak in Division I FBS history with 47 straight victories." To make the grammar better, the final pair of "have"s should be removed. Why is World War II linked? This is so common that I can't see the purpose. En dash needed for "win-loss". "In 1947, Oklahoma promoted Bud Wilkinson, then an assistant coach at Oklahoma, to head coach." The "at Oklahoma" bit is a redundancy, as it adds nothing. No need for two Southwest Conference links in the lead. In the table, should Independent be linked? NCAA Division I FBS independent schools appears to be an appropriate article. Of course, I root for Army and Notre Dame, so I know what an independent school is by now. :-) Another thing I note is that there are quite a few red links scattered throughout. They don't bother me that much, but this has been a topic of discussion lately on the FL criteria page. To avoid any questions, consider adding some stubs on particular seasons or bowl games. Period needed at the end of note 4. En dashes needed for page ranges in references 6 and 8. Italics should be used for publishers in cases where references are from printed publications, like in refs 6 and 11. 1991 Gator Bowl is a disambiguation page. Apparently there were two Gator Bowls that year. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. I have made some of the suggested changes above and I will comment on the rest. http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/ is pretty much the one-stop shop for all college football data. It is used extensively by many other articles and is a great resource. Per the references part of the site, the creator has used hundreds of various resources to compile the data in his site. Same thing for SoonerStats. It is the Oklahoma Sooner equivalent of CFBDW. The site has compiled the data from nearly every football media guide OU has produced as well as various books. You're right, I am using SoonerStats as a secondary source as its sometimes nice to have multiple sources in case one goes dead. Regarding the red links. I can remove them if needed. But I don't think creating 25+ separate articles should be a requirement for this FL to pass. Regarding the italics for publishers on one of the refs, I'm using the citation templates so if it needs to be italicized, it should be done in the template. 1991 Gator Bowl is a disambig page, but the specific article for that game doesn't exist, so I thought the disambig page, which points to both games of that year, was better than a red link.—NMajdan•talk 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, it's better to link to the redlink article that doesn't exist, as it not only points to the correct location, but increases its ranking on the list of pages that don't exist but should be. You could also stub the new one :-D. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I agree on leaving the red link as opposed to delinking it. And yes, adding those other articles is in my long term plan.—NMajdan•talk 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Do any other reviewers have an opinion on the sources I questioned? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) For the CFBDW, we need proof that they cite their sources (is there a bibliography page or something)? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Indeed: http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/reference_materials.php —NMajdan•talk 17:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Same for SoonerStats.com: http://soonerstats.com/credits.cfm —NMajdan•talk 14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your diligence. I think they should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – I'm going on the assumption that the two sources discussed are reliable enough, based on Dabomb's commentary. The publishers for printed publications were taken care of by yours truly to expedite matters, and all my other comments were done earlier. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) You might add asterisks (where necessary) after the conference finish to be consistent with List of Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons. There's already an asterisk in the year column. Adding it to the other column is just duplicating the same information.—NMajdan•talk "Switzer began similarly to Wilkinson, with eight consecutive conference championships and national championships in 1974 and 1975." Am I missing something? Eight championships in two years? Two separate thoughts. I will reword. He won eight consecutive conf championships in addition to winning natl championships in 1974 and 1975.—NMajdan•talk The citations are inconsistent. Also, don't mix citation template families; use either {{citation}} or the cite XXX (e.g. cite web, cite book, cite news) family, but not both. Seriously? As long as I'm either using templates or not, I really don't see why which template matters.—NMajdan•talk Yes, and they are two different families. In any case, I fixed the one inconsistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) The alt text is pretty good, but there are a few problems. For example, don't mention the provenance of the images, such as "Black-and-white photograph of". Also, some of the details cannot be verified by looking at the image alone; for example, you can't tell just by looking at File:1915 Sooner Football team.png that the men standing there are players and coaches (or that sixteen are players and two are coaches). See Wikipedia:ALT#Verifiability for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC) I will rework the ALT text. The first reviewer who helped me originally with the ALT text is the one that added the "black and white" part, so I thought it was ok. If not, then I apparently need to also modify the ALT text on some other lists I am working on. Also, is it too much of a stretch to assume in an athletic picture that the two individuals wearing suites are coaches and the other sixteen wearing identical uniforms are players? Just curious. Thanks for the review.—NMajdan•talk 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Alt text is subject to Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability, just like everything else. So yes, it would have been a bit of a stretch. To you and me, it may seem a natural extension of what we know, but not to everybody else. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources I invite reviewers to comment on the sources given above, but I myself lean toward reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 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 Dabomb87 14:45, 24 October 2009 [19].

---

List of 1924 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This list is modeled after the 2006 Winter Olympics medals winners FL. It's been a while since I've nominated a list, so I'm sure I must have made a mistake somewhere, and you should feel free to go to town. Geraldk (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• The alt text needs some work. Ideally, alt text should describe the content of the image itself For example, what does the poster look like? I'll be happy to help if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm happy to do it, it's certainly something I need to learn, but do you have a good example you can point me to? Geraldk (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out the image is non-free, and using to illustrate this article is not appropriate. I'll hunt for an image we might be able to use, but I suspect it will be difficult to find one. Can a list pass FLC without an image? Geraldk (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a replacement. Geraldk (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the two redirects in the toolbox.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Support: This meets FL list criteria, and I agree it should be promoted. Good Job.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

Just a few minor things:

• A couple of uncapitalized Olympics/Olympic Games here and there (image caption and footnote, specifically)
• "The inaugural 1924 Winter Olympics were held in Chamonix, France, from 25 January to 4 February 1924" - I feel like saying 1924 twice is redundant. How about piping "inaugural Winter Olympics" to 1924 Winter Olympics instead; that way, you only say 1924 once.
• Ref section:
  • General reference, instead of "references"
  • "Notes" should probably be its own section, before references, instead of a subhead under references.

That's all from me for now; well done! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All very helpful suggestions, all implemented as suggested. Geraldk (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A well-done list. Support – KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – First off, an FL does not require images, although they should be provided when practical. If there had not been a free image avaliable for the lead, it would not have caused the FLC to fail (at least I hope not).

• Here's a tip on the alt text: it shouldn't just be a restatement of the caption. Chop the part that copies the caption and begin the alt text with "A male figure skater performing...", and it would be ideal.
• "in the count of total medals, with four medals each." Removing this unneeded duplicate word would serve to tighten this sentence. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Have fixed both. Still on the learning curve for alt text, so I appreciate the tip. Geraldk (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – Very good list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Approximately 258..." always gets me. That's a very precise number (i.e. to the nearest one) to be considered "approximate"... "16 events in 9 disciplines" could be misconstrued as a total of 16 x 9 =144 titles? Link International Olympic Committee. Also, add (IOC) after it because you use the abbreviation later. Why five in the four-man for Belgium? Probably a sub, but worth a note. Sweden's I and II in curling needs explanation. You have "ladies singles" etc in the lead and "ladies' singles" in the table. Medal leaders table - when sorting by total, I would expect to see the guy who won 3 golds top when I've sorted by total, not the guy who won 2 silvers and 3 bronze... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review, TRM. I've addressed each of these. Please check the medal leaders table, however, to make sure that's what you were expecting. I fixed the table to match WP:Olympics convention regarding listing by medal type rather than overall quantity. Geraldk (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I notice that "games" here is in lowercase (e.g. "dominated the games") while the 2006 list uses uppercase. Please make it consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. How's that for quick response? Geraldk (talk) 22:39, 23 October 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 Dabomb87 14:45, 24 October 2009 [20].

---

List of places of worship in Adur

Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the third list in the planned series of places of worship in Sussex by district. It is modelled on the FLs covering Crawley and Brighton and Hove, but incorporates the recently implemented ALT text requirement. This is my first attempt at writing ALT text, so feedback on it would be particularly appreciated. With the current redlink discussions in mind, all notable churches have articles; I am satisfied that the others have insufficient reliable source information to write viable articles or stubs. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I worked really hard to find any flaws, and couldn't. Although, as a lay reader, in your explanation in the lead of the different classifications of listed buildings, it isn't entirely clear to me which status is considered highest and which is the lowest. Some tweaking could clarify it. Geraldk (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Gerald; I have reworked that sentence to describe the order, and will do so on other lists as well. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support. Excellent work here – you have created a well-researched, well-presented list for consideration, but deserve further credit for your work behind the scenes: judicious creation of subsidiary articles, investing time in visiting many of these churches to take photographs, and uploading these and other free images (e.g. from Geograph) to Commons. Needless to say, there are no dablink problems, the external links are all working, the sources used are reliable, the images all pass review, and the alt-text more than sufficiently detailed (not that I'm an expert in that last aspect!). Perhaps the only comment to make is that the alt text for Erringham chapel shouldn't say that "(including the former chapel itself)", since a non-expert looking at the image couldn't know that from sight alone. You mention in the list that the chapel is now a barn, anyway, so no information is lost. Bencherlite^Talk 10:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Bencherlite, especially on the ALT text. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment from Hassocks: Note that one church has been moved from the "Open" section to the "Closed" section. An IP editor made this change; I have found and added a reference [68] to support it, so thanks are due to the anonymous editor for picking up on this. (I must admit, when I went to photograph the church in question, it looked disused...!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Two links are dead. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that will just be a temporary glitch. I can't get on to the online planning site at all at the moment (on adur.gov.uk), so the whole thing must be down. I will investigate further in a few hours. I think there are PDFs that I can link to if necessary. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 07:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks to be OK now; have just rechecked. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - nice list—Chris!_c/t 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support try as I might, I couldn't find an en-dash out of place. I must be losing my touch... great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 18 October 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 Juliancolton 01:10, 22 October 2009 [21].

---

Pink discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article was nominated prematurely last time because their was alot of problems. The issues surrounding content, formatting and sourcing have now been resolved so i am re-nominating the article. Mister sparky (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support the comments of the previous nomination are all resolved, the references are correctly formatted and everything seems FL quality. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I also support, I noticed major improvements and the sources are reliable. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 17:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Nice work on finishing this off, I've spotted just a few minor things:

• There's a little bit of overlinking with the "Certifications" and "sales thresholds" links being repeated, the compilation albums table repeats the chart links from the studio albums table, and the "as featured artist" table repeats the chart links from the singles table. "Sales thresholds" also needs brackets in the first table and doesn't need repeating in subsequent tables.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LINK says repeated links in a table is OK, as "each row should be able to stand on its own".  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  14:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at FLC (at least in all the discographies that I've seen go through) has been for a long time that rows in a non-sortable table don't stand on their own. --JD554 (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. As I am very new at FLC, I will defer :)  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• In all the tables, the Australian chart column precedes the UK one, except the compilation album table.

completely forgot about that one! done. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• The "title" column in the music videos table would be better if it was the same width as the "single" column in the singles tables.

fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• The "I Don't Believe You" hasn't been released yet, so either shouldn't be part of the discography or should have a due to be released date with citation.

have added a footnote. if i remove it'll only be constantly replaced. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer, I meant it needed to say what the "due to be released" date is along with a reference so it doesn't breach WP:CRYSTAL. --JD554 (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

haha no worries, added now. Mister sparky (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lead and the singles table (when excluding "I Don't Believe You") has 24 singles, when adding the 2 "featured artist" singles, that makes 26, but the infobox says 28.

another thing i forgot to change, the lead said 24 lol. changed now. Mister sparky (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

--JD554 (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

All my issues have been addressed, I support. --JD554 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment Some of the music video directors still don't have a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

they do now. Mister sparky (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lead says 24 singles, infobox 25. fixed, its 25. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe worth a note that her first album, while not her most successful, still went multi-platinum? mentioned. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) You could #link the Lady Marmalade link to the correct version. done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Did Arista Records lose the Records part of their label name between 2001 and 2003? Same comment for LaFace? fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Is it M!ssundaztood or Missundaztood? on the albums cover it is written as "M!ssundaztood" so have changed all occurances to that. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Do we have a link for OST? added wikilink to soundtrack. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Note 1 - could place an "on" before the date. makes more sense, added. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references e.g. ref 32 has a mix of human-readable and ISO formats. Same with ref 38. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Improved a hell of a lot recently. Good work. Aaroncrick (talk) 19:53, 11 October 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 Geraldk 20:29, 21 October 2009 [22].

---

Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after its recent expansion, it meets all of the criteria. I know that there is no lead image; I have not found a picture of the trophy itself, which would be appropriate, and do not want to highlight one winner more than another by adding a second picture in addition to the ones already in the table. Mark McGwire doesn't have an image, so he's currently the only recipient without one. All concerns to be addressed as quickly and efficiently as possible. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support Looks great! Small thing, shouldn't the default order of the table be by the presentation year? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Traditionally, it's sorted by the first column, which in this case is the name. I chose that way because the presentation isn't time-dependent (it's not an annual award, a monthly award, etc.). Since the table is sortable, it's really easy to do either one quite quickly. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Meh, your reasoning makes sense, it really isn't a year-by-year award so I guess that sorting wouldn't make as much sense. I'll give this a better going-over later, looks good though. Mind looking at Major League Baseball Comeback Player of the Year Award and letting me know what you think of the formatting (on my talk page, this isn't the place. :) ). Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. I'm okay with ordering it by name, as it's not a yearly award. I find it odd WP doesn't have a fair use picture of McGwire though. I'll also check out the Comeback POY page, and just so you know, I just finished DHL Delivery Man Award and nominated it for FLC. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Try to get this image released as cc-by-sa or cc-by
   • A better picture of the award is shown in one of the references. I don't believe that the time and effort that is involved in trying to get an unwilling photographer to release their work to the world is necessary for a picture that's low quality and doesn't truly show the award. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
     • I contacted the author and got the image released as cc-by-sa. Please upload http://www.flickr.com/photos/allthegoodnamesweretaken/744407380/ to commons and add it to the list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
       • What does it add? This picture isn't of any encyclopedic value to this list because of the coloration; the whole photo is underexposed. I don't even know if I can make anything of it with Photoshop. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
       • I'm still not sold on the encyclopedic value, but I think I've managed to do at least something with it, though I think finding an image of Mark McGwire would be more beneficial to this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Arrange according to year and not name, I know it's not a yearly award, still arranging according to year makes more sense, because the award is presented chronologically to recent achievements of the persons. Arranging according to name isn't, imo, beneficial at all. Please make the first column the year and arrange according to it. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
   • I've expressed my views on this above. In addition to the reasons I gave, there is no way to get this in true chronological order because, in some cases, it's not known on what date the trophy was presented. That means that sorting by year initially is impractical because it could be flat wrong on the chronological order. The functionality is provided, but it's better to be safe than to inadvertently put factual errors in featured content. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
3. Expand the info about the trophy, its value, size, designer ...etc.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
   • Obviously I've written lists about trophies and awards before. Obviously, that's information I've looked for. Besides the fact that it's designed by Tiffany, which I've included, the info is unavailable. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
     • I don't see why that should be obvious at all. I don't know your history of contribution and even if I did it's a simple suggestion that needs an answer. A simple "The info isn't available" would suffice.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment – "2001 saw the most awards presented in a year: Cal Ripken Jr. and Tony Gwynn". What comes after the colon presents a sharp break from the rest of the sentence; I would rather see a number after it. This would also make it clearer that there were more winners than 1998. Also, try not to start the sentence with a year. The rest looks pretty clean. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I got it all in one fell swoop. Let me know what you think of the new wording. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Support – That did the trick. As I said above, the rest was already clean. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The award consists of a trophy manufactured by Tiffany & Co.:[2] a gold baseball sitting atop a silver trophy base." "The award consists of a trophy" just sounds strange. Why not just "The award is a trophy..."? I actually think "The award is a trophy" sounds strange. Might just be a difference of opinion in prose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "first to be presented with the award for " Wordy, could be "first to receive the award" I don't consider it to be so, but done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "The first awards were presented during the 1998 season, to McGwire and Sosa. " This was already mentioned in the first paragraph. Reworded. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "for the majority of his career" Could be "for most of his career" unless you want to stress "more than 50%". Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "The award was given in each year from 2004 until 2007: Roger Clemens was honored during the 2004 All-Star Game, and Ichiro Suzuki was presented with the award for breaking the single-season hits record in 2005." Seems strange to mention these two but not those who won in 2006–08. Did. The award wasn't presented in '08, but the '06 and '07 winners are mentioned in the first para. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Ripken broke one of baseball's "unbreakable" records by playing" Did I miss something here? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Oops, sorry. I didn't mean to post this sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Seems strange that the list is sorted in alpha order, especially when all the other awards lists are in chronological order. (I saw the discussion above, but just my opinion) You might consider centering the year column. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think that "scholarship" is a high-value link. I linked it based on the context, but removed since you disagree. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Another achievement that shattered a record many thought unbreakable" This will sound strange if the reader sorts Ichiro Suzuki before Cal Ripken, Jr. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) You might change "Awardee" to "Awardee(s)", since the Mariners consists of multiple players. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "McGwire's name is indelibly linked with that of fellow 1998 award winner Sammy Sosa for their part in the Major League Baseball home run record chase of that season." "indelibly linked" just sounds like journalistic puffery. I thought it was pretty nice prose myself. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Small comment Could the lead sentence on Barry Bonds be reworded? "Barry Bonds became the third player honored with the award for breaking the single-season home run record in 2002" sounds like he broke the record in 02, not that he received the award then. Maybe something like "Barry Bonds (2002) became the third player honored" or "Barry Bonds was presented with the award in 2002, the third player honored..." Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done and done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Tiffany & Co.:[2] " the 'period' followed by the colon followed by the ref looks odd. I'd be happier if you could rephrase this to avoid the double punc+ref issue. Have tried to do so. See if the current wording is better. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Why is the most recent recipient two years ago? Is this award now defunct? Perhaps you need some intro notes that explain that this award isn't annual and that it could be awarded only once in a while. Comment added. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Worth noting in the lead (briefly) why Robinson was awarded. You say she's the first woman and first non-player but don't say why she won it. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Not sure we should be using words like "star" - a bit journalistic. I can find references for it if you like; Alex Rodriguez was all the Mariners really had before that season. He was their superstar, their cornerstone, and no one expected anything like that from Seattle after he was traded away. Perhaps "Awardee" is standard US-English, I'd usually expect "recipient(s)". "Awardee" is certainly standard to my ears, but I can change it if you'd like. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "is indelibly linked" journalistic or OR or POV unless you quote it. Removed "indelibly". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC) "spotlighted the National League Central division" what do you mean here? I meant put the NL Central in the spolight; I suppose it was an awkward choice of phrasing. Changed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "three 60-home-run seasons (1999, 2001)." I know this is okay but "three... seasons" followed by two years is odd. Added. "unbreakable" doesn't appear in either of your references. Do you mean for Ichiro or Ripken? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Both have refs now, with quotes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC) " traded star shortstop" star again. "In shattering a record many thought unbreakable,..." journalism. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) As per my comments above, references were provided for both "unbreakable" (with quotes). Was waiting for a response on "star".KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC) If they're direct quotes then they should be in quotations. And it wasn't "unbreakable" that particularly bothered me, "shattering" is journalistic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) I get the feeling we're going back to robot lists here. Just because we don't have a "brilliant" prose requirement here is no reason to only use "breaking" for a record. Other verbs and adjectives exist. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Going back to a neutral and encyclopedic tone you mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fine. Your prose is acceptable, mine is not. I'll change it. Things like this is part of the reasons I'm leaving the project after these noms are completed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Not at all. I suggested your prose was not neutral in tone nor particularly encyclopedic. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) Fine. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 20:29, 21 October 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 Geraldk 20:19, 21 October 2009 [23].

---

50 Greatest Players in NBA History

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, this will be the 64th NBA featured list.—Chris!_c/t 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment it's been semi-protected for over a year now - is this still necessary? Bencherlite^Talk 16:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• It think we can try to unprotect it. Previously, this was a major target of vandalism.—Chris!_c/t 18:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Unprotected with the blessing of the protecting admin, Kingturtle (talk · contribs). Fingers crossed... Bencherlite^Talk 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Try not to start a sentence with a number like in "47 of the 50 players...". Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC) I believe collapsable tables, such as the list of selectors, cause accessibility issues with mirrors, printing and such. "Nelson was the only member to have never won a championship as a coach, even though he has won five as a player." Drop "has"; he's not going to play again. Is the coaching record supposed to sort by winning percentage? If so, not sure why Pat Riley is sorting before Red Auerbach in that column. Remove comma after "in which" in last sentence of Teams selected. Note f: "Having been injured in the second game, Baylor missed the entire 1971–72 season." If he played in two games, he really didn't miss the entire season. A re-phrasing might be in order. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed all except point 4. Sorting is correct since Riley's .702 should be before Auerbach's .662. Note that the record in italic include records after 1996.—Chris!c/t 02:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Nice list that meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Martin tamb (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Coaches selected: The coach statistics are incorrect, the footnote says that "..the preceding record is that of the coach at the time of his selection", however the records are up to the 97-98 season, while the selection occurred prior to the 96-97 season. I have fixed the record, but I'm wondering, should the italicized records updated to include the 08-09 season. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Teams selected: What's the criteria on the common sixth men. For example in 69-70 Knicks team, the sixth men is Cazzie Russell, but the reference shows that Mike Riordan played more minutes per game than Russell. Also in 88-89 Pistons team, where Vinnie Johnson is listed instead of Dennis Rodman despite having more minutes per game. Teams selected: What's the criteria on the common starting lineup. For example in 88-89 Pistons team, Mark Aguirre is listed instead of Adrian Dantley who started more games. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The statistics could be incorrect, so I will double-check all of them. (Actually, I forgot to do that :)) As for the lineup, I will include all members of the roster, to avoid disputes on who is the starting five or six man. Thanks for letting me know.—Chris!c/t 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Everything should be fixed.—Chris!c/t 23:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Comment I have made some changes that I hope will improve the FLC: Fix Patrick Ewing and Magic Johnson position according to the references. Fix 'Team(s) played (years)' details, especially players with partial seasons. Make 'Most Valuable Player won' column sortable and added link to the corresponding season. Fix number of formers NBA players in the voters who were team representatives (Thirteen former NBA players: Attles, Baylor, Bird, Cunningham, Embry, Hannum, Holzman, McGuire, Reed, Shue, Thomas, Unseld, West). Other than that, the players list looks fine, all contents have been checked for accuracy. Will have a look at other sections later. Just some comments and suggestion though: The coaches list have their Hall of Fame induction year mentioned, should the players list have them as well or it is just unnecessary and irrelevant? I think the 'Season/team' column in the teams section should be split into two, one for 'Season' and one for 'Team', just to give the reader the ability to sort the table by team names. Done both.—Chris!c/t 23:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC) — Martin tamb (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I think Finals MVP awards should be included. Not a bad idea, but there is not enough room in the table.—Chris!c/t 18:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC) We might be able to create space if we can reduce some column's width by abbreviating (e.g. Points-->Pts, Rebounds-->R, Assists-->A, Most Valuable Player-->MVP, etc.) Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Ok, if you insist :)—Chris!c/t 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Need to define those position abbreviations in the key, though. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC) It might be worth mentioning that the 1995–96 Chicago Bulls had the best single-season record in NBA history. For the "Players in Hall of Fame" column, you might link to List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (players). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Done all.—Chris!c/t 00:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Instead of using the headers "teams selected" and "coaches selected", I think you should use the official names of those lists (e.g. "Top 10 Coaches in NBA History"). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 03:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments

1. Could u please add a year column instead of adding this under the Names? This would allow sorting according to Year.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Why not have an image column? This wouldn't crush the list that much since "MVP won", Championships won and Finals MVP won are mostly none and could have their width reduced.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a good idea since the image column would be empty. Most players don't have free image available.—Chris!_c/t 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like 22 of the 50 don't have an image...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Half of the column is empty. That doesn't seem visually pleasing for me. What about I added some images up in the voters section? That way, the article has more image without having to add an additional column to the table. Also the first point done.—Chris!_c/t 21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, please add the images to the voters list, choose the best (images) players, add a good caption and alt text.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This will take a while, but considered it done.—Chris!_c/t 22:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.—Chris!_c/t 01:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please add one more image to the voters section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I originally had one more but not enough room.—Chris!_c/t 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "as the NBA's 50th Anniversary All-Time Team " I think the "the" is incorrect here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Doesn't "Grand Hyatt Hotel in New York City" and "Commodore Hotel" have wikilinks?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No—Chris!_c/t 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1. How does the vote exactly work? Does each one of them write a 50 member list or do they raise hands for supports and opposes or what exactly?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. The NBA never disclosed that.—Chris!_c/t 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1. There is a problem with the Year sorting because of the dashes. The third and 4th time you click sort by year stay on dash.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a hidden sort key so it should sort before the earliest year.—Chris!_c/t 22:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Alongside the selection of the 50 greatest players, was the selection of the Top 10 Coaches in NBA History." "Alongside the selection of the 50 greatest players, was the selection of the Top 10 Teams in NBA History." Are very similar to each other , could u rephrase one?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The title "50 Greatest Players in NBA History" doesn't really reflect the content. The list isn't just about the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History but also the Top 10 coaches and top 10 teams. Should these lists even be in this list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't include the top 10 coaches and teams. Please summarize the sections in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the primary announcement made by the NBA is about the 50 players, so the title reflects that. Both the coach and team lists are just additional honors selected to accompany with the main player list. Also, the second sentence in the lead already mentions the coach and team lists. Don't you think that summarize the sections adequately?—Chris!_c/t 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Everything seems fine, Suppport--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 20:18, 21 October 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 Geraldk 20:11, 21 October 2009 [24].

---

Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the few lists related to the Phillies that I haven't brought to FL yet. The main reason is because the old format wouldn't have been able to pass through the metal detector here. However, I completely revamped the format (just today!) and I think it's ready. The only concern that I have is that I have not been able to find another written source on the web that verifies the members of the Centennial Team. I know that they are correct, in my head, but my head is not a reliable source. There are also quite a few pictures out there that show what's on the current plaque at Citizens Bank Park and what was on the old plaque at the Vet. HOWEVER, I could use some help from reviewers on finding a source. I bet that it's in the "New Phillies Encyclopedia", which is a resource that I would love to have at my disposal, but my local library does not have it, and I have never been able to get my hands on it. Online versions that I've found don't show the info because it's not available as a free or limited preview source. Anyway, aside from that issue, this should be ready to go. I'll address everything and anything I can as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm not a reviewer, but I noticed that this image doesn't have a description. Suede67 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments Images Move "Phillies Wall of Fame.jpg" below the TOC and have it as as a panorama view or 250px or something. Go over to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phillies_Wall_of_Fame.jpg please and add notes saying what each Plate belongs to with a Wikipedia link of their name.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Clean up the images description pages.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Move File:MLB-Ed Delahanty.jpg and File:Phillies-Parade Harry-K crop.jpg to commons.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Could u extract an image of each plate from File:Phillies Wall of Fame.jpg and add it in the table? If you live in Philadelphia I would suggest taking a picture of each plate alone with better quality...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) To all of the above image comments – I do not live in Philadelphia and have not been able to go to a game all year. The individual plaques are not of high enough resolution to be extracted from that image. As far as I am aware, moving images to Commons and cleaning image description pages, as long as they meet the minimum requirements, is not a prerequisite for featured content, and I wouldn't be able to move the images to Commons even if I wanted to. I have no idea how. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Content Reference the last part of Paragraph 2 of the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) There is no single reference that states this explicitly. The table confirms this information, and the individual references for each row contain the necessary info. There is no reason to expect that the last sentence should contain nine references to communicate one fact, and that the penultimate should contain a copy of every single reference in the article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Why isn't the paragraph in Philadelphia_Baseball_Wall_of_Fame#Centennial_Team referenced?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I mentioned this above in my initial comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The whole see also section can be found in the Phillies Template. Remove the See also section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) These were put in before this was even thought of for featured content, so I pretty much ignored it. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Could u use another sign than the cross? It's used more to denote the death of a person and not their inclusion. Maybe using a star would be better. At the same time using the cross to denote the death of this player.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) It's used in most of the other baseball FLs to denote members of the Hall of Fame. The dagger does not always mean death; it's commonly used to denote a footnote, as shown in the linked article. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I requested from a flickr user an image from each plate and he promised to do so in three weeks or so.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC) OK, that's fine, but I don't want to replace all of the images with plaques. Might be better if I double the images, with the person's photo next to his plaque. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) I think I'll create another column with "Plaques" as header displaying for each inductee his plaque. I'll leave the images on the side be.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support The list is of featured quality and has a very well written prose with a good table style.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – List looks clean, except for these few comments. To address a couple of the above comments: quality of images/media is not a criterion in any article review processes I know of (we are dealing with free content, and beggers can't be choosers most of the time), and inline citations are not required in the lead if general references or cites in the table cover facts. Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "21 members of the Wall of Fame are also members of the Baseball Hall of Fame." Ooops... done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) The Ed Delahanty photo offers no proof that it was published before 1923, not just created. The sentence on the photo page is dead wrong about the licensing requirements. I agree with you about the sentence definitely being wrong. I don't know how to verify the source since none is given. It's been used in several other baseball FLs to this point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) If a source can't be found, I recommend replacing the image with one of another inductee. There should be enough to choose from. The photo situation is unfortunate, but I find it best to lean on the conservative side regarding image licensing. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I've done so, but I really wish I could find info on that image. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Could expand the Juan Samuel caption to give the year of induction, like the others. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Oops again, was too focused on the alt text. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Came here to support, but ran into one OR concern on a second look: the "possibly due to the Phillies' win in the 1980 World Series" bit in Centennial Team cries out for a cite. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I know; as I mentioned in the header of the FLC, I haven't been able to locate one. The Centennial Team can't be removed, as it's an essential part of the PBWOF, but the only sources I can find that show the info are pictures. I wish they were reliable, but they aren't. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Have you asked around at WT:BASEBALL? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC) You'd think I would have done that by now... I've been kind of peeved with some people over there so I didn't really think about it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Any luck, or is the present form the way it's going to be? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have asked for sources, and the only editor to provide any input at all only had a reference that verified the team's existence. The potentially WP:OR statement has been removed; hopefully, the remainder is uncontroversial. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)re

Support – Thought about this one more than I usually do, and think that the one section in question is uncontroversial enough to be all right as is. Rest of the list looks fine. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "mounted on a brick wall in the Ashburn Alley section of Citizens Bank Park" Why are there two links to the same article here? If you don't think the context that the section link provides is worth linking to, I'll remove it. The point of the park link is, I assume, obvious. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) A compromise would be to combine the links into one: "mounted on a brick wall in the Citizens Bank Park#Ashburn Alley Ashburn Alley section of Citizens Bank Park". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Done. Good thought. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC) "made great contributions to the organization" The "great" repetition in this sentence is grating (heh), perhaps "significant contributions"? I was confused as to what you meant until I re-read the whole lead. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) "The Phillies have inducted three players for achievements at first base, four for their careers at second base, five third basemen, three shortstops, one utility infielder, two catchers, twenty-one outfielders, eighteen pitchers, seven managers, one general manager, one coach, two team executives, and two sportscasters." The phrases "for achievements at" and "for their careers at" seem redundant given that you've already explained that why players are inducted (in any case, it's fairly obvious), and disrupts the paralell structure of the list. If by parallel structure you are referring to that which I call redundancy or repetitiveness, the disruption was intentional on my part. I wanted the reader to be drawn slowly into the sentence rather than just flying down the list of 1 of this, 7 of that, blah blah etc.. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I understand that, and the current phrasing does sound better in spoken English, but in written language it's just grammatically strange. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Do you suggest removing the sentence altogether (I was trying to summarize from the list) or just removing the additional wording at the beginning? Just those extraneous phrases (i.e "additional wording"). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) "the club with which they had arguably the largest impact." This is quite subjective; isn't there a more concrete criteria that can be used to determine this? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC) There is none. The team simply inducts the players/figures who they feel are most worthy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC) But how can one decide if a player had more impact with (say) the Phillies than the Athletics, but wouldn't it make more sense to list them with the team with which they played more? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) If I knew the answer, I would probably be on the WoF committee. Haha. Just as a hypothetical, if a pitcher threw 11 years with the Phillies (who played miserably for a large part of their history) and then won three World Series with the A's (I don't know if it's possible, but just suppose), wouldn't you expect him to be inducted with the A's? It's really a toss-up. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC) You could list both teams for those players, and use a hidden sortkey with {{sort}} so as to not mess up the sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC) But the players were not inducted for their achievements with both teams. The Wall of Fame is not like the Hall of Fame, measuring the sum of a player's career. It only measures careers with the Phillies/Athletics. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I get the feeling we're talking past each other. Let's start over: if a player played for both the Phillies and the Athletics, why not list that they played for both teams instead of having to judge which team they were more influential on? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Because we're not judging it; the induction committee already has. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC) I agree with KV5 on this point. The induction people decide on their influence, not us. So, listing both team is incorrect.—Chris!c/t 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Ah, I didn't realize that they were listed as such on the website. Sorry for the trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC) To alleviate further confusion, I clarified the statement in the footnote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support "Once Veterans Stadium closed in 2003, the wall plaques used to recognize the members were moved to Citizens Bank Park; however, the Phillies no longer induct notable Athletics." needs a source or two, one for the move and one for the no-more-Athletics (though that could be in a common source). Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the general ref verifies the second, as no Athletics have been inducted since the close of the Vet. I will try to locate a ref for the move of the plaques. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• If the general ref is going to serve as the reference for that fact I think the sentence needs rewording so it doesn't sound like there's a verified/sourced policy shift. Something like "No Athletics have been inducted since XXXX". Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since I like the current wording, I've added another ref from the A's Historical Society to supplement the general ref. This should cover both facts. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm only worried about "arguably". That's pure original research. If there's a quote you can use then fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• No idea why the discussion moved, but again I say: there is no reference. If all it takes is removing "arguably", I'll do it, but it invites argument. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• This was addressed below under TRM's resolved cap. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments "Once Veterans Stadium closed in 2003, the wall plaques used to recognize the members were moved to Citizens Bank Park; however, the Phillies no longer induct notable Athletics." - I'm not sure the second clause is related to the first. It is, but it was missing the fact that it was the Phillies' plaques that were moved. Done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) " is most remembered for his managerial career" - prove it. While I was frustrated by the way you asked for it, the reference has been found and inserted. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It was a quicker way of writing WP:PROVEIT. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "retired a number or honored a "P" " I like it but it doesn't help non-experts understand what on earth "retiring a "P"" means. That was why I linked it; an explanation of the process doesn't seem germane. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Fine, no big deal, just know that no-one outside the States would have a clue what this means so the link may just about cover it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Since a large portion of the list is given over to the Centennial team, and it's highly relevant that 1983 had no inductees per the regular methods, you should discuss this year in more detail in the lead. All of the information that I have on the topic is located in the appropriate section of the article; if you prefer, I can move it to the lead instead, but I don't want to say the same thing twice. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't want you to move anything, just explain in the lead why 1983 was different. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Centennial Team - odd order - once you've reordered it you can't get back to the original listing. What do you suggest? Neither the name nor the position will get you back to the original, but numbering them seems pointless. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Order them differently to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The baseball fan in me doesn't like the positions being out of their "numerical" order, but it's done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Caption: "The Centennial Team plaque is placed to the left of the image." - no, it's on the left hand side of the image, not left of the image. Done. Footnote A has no reference and contains the word "arguably" - dodgy ground. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Then what do you want me to do with it? We already discussed it above, and there's no reference available. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Find a reference. Statements like "arguably" are WP:OR and should be discouraged. And it is currently unclear exactly what this note is doing here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC) As I've said, there is no reference. The note is serving only to clarify that players who were members of both teams were only inducted for their achievements with one or the other. There's no WP:OR about it, because, as I mentioned to Dabomb87, no one here has made any determination about their worthiness to be included with one team or another. The induction committee has already done that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Perhaps I'm not making it clear enough. Stating a fact and then saying "arguably" is inherently problematic. You must see that, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I do not. Any man, entitled to his own opinions, may argue any point he wishes. In this case, John Doe may hold the opinion that the career of Player X was more influential to the Athletics than to the Phillies; however, the induction committee thought otherwise, and inducted Player X as a Phillie instead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oh well. I believe that anyone writing in an encyclopedia would consider a statement such as "arguably" to be inherently problematic. Never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I don't want this to be a "never mind" kind of issue. I respect your work, TRM, and I know the community does too; otherwise, they wouldn't have asked you back as director. I'd like to work to a consensus on the issue, but I don't understand your point of view that this is original research. As I said above, if this is simply a matter of removing the word "arguably", I can do that; I just don't want its removal to invite arguments from outside parties. When we say "Wikipedia's best work", I strive to meet that goal, but in this case I'm finding it difficult to see your point of view. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Okay, "arguably" is inherently POV, no matter how you look at it, e.g. "one could argue that the sky is light blue, not blue". The note says " the club with which they had arguably the largest impact, as judged by the induction committee." so if you are stating the induction committee had a policy or made a decision that came to a conclusion that a certain player made a more significant impact then you should be able to reference it. Otherwise, where do you get your information that suggests the committee made the decision based on your published statement? All I want to see is evidence that the "arguably the largest impact" statement is actually true rather than just a supposition based on original research. The clause should not be removed - it should be referenced and then its application made more specific. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC) OK, I get that. However, there's no information out there, at least not in sources that I've been able to locate, about who the induction committee is, why they do what they do, how they do it, etc. I will try to find something, but I don't know if I can find any further info. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I found some refs but I had to change some things to make them work. Let me know if it's good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 20:12, 21 October 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 Geraldk 19:47, 21 October 2009 [25].

---

List of University of Central Florida alumni

Nominator(s): Scpmarlins (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after considerable work I believe that it meets all featured list criteria. Work that needs to be done will be done quickly and fully to fulfill any concerns that arise. Scpmarlins (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This list of University of Central Florida alumni includes graduates" Featured lists don't start like this anymore; see recently promoted lists, such as List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government, for examples of more engaging lead sentences. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead has been rewritten. --Scpmarlins (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Bencherlite

Oppose This list falls significantly short of current standards, I'm afraid, but is on the right lines. Firstly, I'm worried that the list is far too close to its main source. done 6 dablinks need fixing The names shouldn't sort by first name, but by surname. Use {{sortname}} - I've done "Basketball" for you, to show you how it works. The names shouldn't be in bold - see MOS:BOLD The names should either be links to articles rather than plain text. If they're notable enough to have an article, write it then add them to the list. If they're not notable in Wikipedia terms, don't mention them in the list. Yes I know it's a lot of work, but that's why it's difficult to write a university alumni list - there's so much more work involved behind the scenes than writing some other types of lists. The "Notability" and "Reference" columns should not be sortable. The images all need to have alt text added. done "A "—" indicates that the year of graduation is unknown." - Put this at the start, not the end of the list. I'd suggest using a "?" instead, as a dash suggests "did not graduate", not "graduated but we don't know when". This sentence shouldn't be in bold either. I experimented with using a "?" and just leaving the respective boxes blanks, but ultimately felt that "-" was the best alternative. It is explained to the reader that it "indicates that the year of graduation is unknown."--Scpmarlins (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Don't use "&" in titles. What's the source for "Alumni Status is open to all graduates of the University of Central Florida, and all former students of UCF who regularly matriculated and left the university in good standing"? Is that a UCF definition? If so, it needs a source. (Are there in fact any non-graduates in the list?) Does "Status" need to have a capital letter? Why is the phrase in a textbox? The lead needs to tell me something about the people in the list, not just a bit about UCF. The list only needs to be in the UCF alumni category, not the main UCF category. Needs a good copy edit e.g. done "UCF's First Rhodes Scholar" - "First" should not have a capital letter (although I doubt this person is notable) "Pulitzer Prize Winner" - "Winner" should not have a capital letter. (Which prize? When? More details where possible, please.) done "Famed Commodities Trader" - exactly the same wording as the alumni website, for one thing; too many capital letters; and "famed" is a POV description. Sentence fragments e.g. "Current WNBA player." should not have a full stop at the end. done Images - generally, forcing the image sizes (e.g. 130px) is not recommended; I'd suggest removing the size specification and letting the images be at default sizes. During a test edit I did remove the image sizes from the images and the size then completely threw off the symmetry of the tables. In their current form, the images line-up with the respective sections and just look neat and clean which is diminished when the size limit is removed.--Scpmarlins (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC) More generally, I'd like to know what steps you have taken to see that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items" in the words of the criteria - I'm not expecting the list to have every notable person who's ever attended UCF, but some idea of the work you've done to track down names would be helpful. Besides using the the main athletics site which has the most complete list of university alumni, I utilized a list (not available since the site was redesigned, can be seen in earlier edits) that was by the alumni association, as well as lists compiled by the individual colleges. I also browsed through alumni newsletters, alumni "hall of fame" introductions and performed general Google and Bing keyword searches to try and locate as many notable alumni as possible.--Scpmarlins (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Citations shouldn't use ALL CAPS even if the website does. Citations of websites should give the page date/year where one is available, not just the accessdate. done 5 references to IMDB, which is not a reliable source. Sources: not otherwise checked. Images: not checked. That's all for now. BencherliteTalk 20:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I have addressed the majority of your concerns, and am still currently working on a few others.--Scpmarlins (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for acting so promptly, looking much better already. Look forward to seeing what you do next! BencherliteTalk 08:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Can it please be elaborated what needs to be further done to the article. Thanks! --Scpmarlins (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The alt text is a good start, but needs some work. Per WP:ALT#Verifiability, when describing images in alt text, don't add things that cannot be verified by looking only at the image. Therefore, names and other proper nouns should not be used in alt text. done Please review basic capitalization rules. Common nouns such as "director" and "comedian" are not capitalized unless they begin a fragment in the notes or begin sentences. done "Class Year"-->Class year Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC) done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following sites reliable? done
  • http://www.fanbase.com/Paul-Miranda done
  • http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/military-research-building-started-1.1773456 done
  • http://www.infosportinc.com/ericvasquez.html done
• Newspapers are italicized. You can fix this by changing "publisher" to "work" in the cite templates. done Dabomb87 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The above suggestions have been completed.--Scpmarlins (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://aricalmirolaracing.com/ a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC) done
• The reference titled "Atari Bigbi Biography" (58) redirects to the home page of the Packers website. That link needs to be fixed to go to the specific page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC) done

• Can someone please provide further guidance as what needs to be done to the article. All previous suggestions have been completed with little feedback.--Scpmarlins (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the delay in getting back to you; I'll look at what's been done later on (after work). Bencherlite^Talk 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry from me to. I'll try to revisit tomorrow or the day after. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

More resolved issues from Bencherlite

;Further comments from Bencherlite The alt-text still doesn't meet standards, despite your attempts. I think the clearest way is to go through each one, since I don't think you get the concept. done "The main building of the FAIRWINDS Alumni Center at UCF against the backdrop of a bright blue sky." Describe the building, don't tell us what it is or where it is. done "The UCF Library in the background with the Reflection Pond, with its fountains at full stride, in the foreground." The same. A non-expert doesn't know what the Reflection Pond is, either. done "A building, and the Reflection Pond, with its fountain at full sprint, lit up at night." Same points as before. done "A NASA astronaut posing for her official picture in full regalia." Describe her, describe the uniform. You cannot tell from the image that it's an official picture, so don't mention that. done "Official Florida Senate Picture of Lee Constantine." Again, describe him, and don't tell us it's an official Florida Senate photo. done "Miss America 2004 posing in a white gown outside." Describe her; at least you've made a partial attempt to describe what she's wearing. Don't tell us she's Miss America 2004, since you can't tell that from the image. done "An actress poses for a photograph." Describe her. done "A football player stretching his legs on field." At least this is on the right lines, but describe him, describe what he's wearing. Remember that football has different meanings in your country and mine. done "A football players looking towards his sideline." As above (and correct the typo). done "Football player signing autographs." Well, I have the benefit of sight and cannot see any autograph signing going on, nor can I tell from looking at the image that he's a football player. done "A pitcher getting ready to deliver a pitch during a baseball game." Probably the best yet, but perhaps a bit more description. done "NASCAR Driver posing besides his race car." Describe him, describe the car. done The two images in {{University of Central Florida Athletics}} need alt text. done Hopefully done in the right manner this time around. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "numerous officers in the armed forces through a unique partnership with the United States Military". This source doesn't seem to support the claim: it refers to a building opening in 2010, making it difficult to have "numerous alumni" through this route already; I can't see that it mentions a unique partnership. done The original source was better and has been replaced. Also added a reference to UCF ROTC's programs being amongest the top 15% nationally. Students who graduate ROTC are commissioned officers. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Why mention James Best in the lead if he was not an alumnus? done That was an oversight on my part. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I think that it would look better if the class years were centered, not just the dashes. done Agreed. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) There are still several uses of fanbase.com - is it a reliable source? done Found to be un-reliable, all sources subsequently replaced. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This previous version of the page had more names on it that have now been removed. I won't quibble with some of them, and for other (e.g. the business section) I can't tell at a quick glance how notable they are, but shouldn't more of the names in the sports sections have been kept, with articles written about them? To give some examples that would all appear to pass WP:ATHLETE, given the list's description of them: Amy Allmann "Goalkeeper for the 1991 Women's World Cup champion" done Kenny Clark "Former NFL wide receiver for the Minnesota Vikings" done Elgin Davis "Former NFL running back for the New England Patriots" done Bernard Ford "Former NFL wide receiver for the Houston Oilers and Dallas Cowboys" done Karen Richter "Former National Goalkeeper of the Year and W-League player." Really unable to find much material about. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Bennie Shaw "Former NBA shooting guard for the Milwaukee Bucks. First NBA draft pick in UCF history when he was selected in the ninth round by the Milwaukee Bucks in 1976." He never played a regular season game so I believe that this negates his notability. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Bob Spitulski "Former NFL linebacker for the Seattle Seahawks" done Kim Wyant "Former U.S. National Team Goalkeeper and W-League player." Really unable to find much material about. --Scpmarlins (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This issue goes to the comprehensiveness of the list. I'm not saying that you should prove the negative of showing that no notable person has been omitted, but that these eight names could be removed from the list causes me some concern. That's all for now. BencherliteTalk 11:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I'll get working on this right away.--Scpmarlins (talk) 11:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support I think this is good enough now, after a lot of hard work from Scpmarlins. I admit that I was sceptical whether this list could be got up to speed in time, but I'm pleased to have been proved wrong. Bencherlite^Talk 15:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments I'm still concerned at the number of entries that do not have a date of graduation. There are really no sources anywhere that say when a former NASA Flight Center Director graduated? A few additional comments:

One of the problems I encountered when trying to attain graduation dates was that many of those for which I could not find dates for either attended graduate school at UCF which makes it much harder to get or assume the year, or I could not find a date of birth which also makes it harder to approximate or search for the year as UCF does not offer a general Alumni directory. I was able to find class years for seven more alumni. --Scpmarlins (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have sources for those new dates? Bencherlite^Talk 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Overlooked information that was already in the original references were the sources. Also Alan Gooch was moved from the 'civic' section to the 'business' section, an overlooked misplacement. Also in the place of Kenny Clark, Travis Fisher, and Elton Petterson it is stated that they were drafted senior year, which means their class year corresponds to their year of draft. --Scpmarlins (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • The presence of NASA scientists might suggest a renaming would be necessary for the first section. Maybe 'Civic, Education, and Science'? done

Agreed. --Scpmarlins (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • You mention in the lead that military officers have graduated from UCF, yet there are no military officers in the list itself. Surely there have been some notable military officers that graduated from UCF?

UCF's ROTC program began in 1987 and has only blossomed this decade. There are over 230,000 officers in the U.S. Military and I don't believe that being just an officer makes them notable for inclusion. --Scpmarlins (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • As a research university that has made significant contributions in science, there must be notable scientists who have attended central florida. Your list has none, except the NASA people. A list of this sort is by nature incomplete, but there are some srious gaps here that concern me.

Addressed. --Scpmarlins (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How? I don't see any more scientists on the list. Bencherlite^Talk 19:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the blurb temporarily from the introduction until I can find more people that fit the parameter so that it is not misleading. Not to mention, with the same point as above, that just because the university has made "notable research contributions" does not mean that it has a wide array of notable alumni. Contributions, though significant in perspective and deed, are not always significant enough to become widely known nor is the scientist.--Scpmarlins (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, for a university of its size, there are glaringly few non-athletic alumni. It looks to me like athletes make up about half of this list, which is a marked contrast with current FL alumni lists like List of Brigham Young University alumni and List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni. Of course those schools are a little older, so their lists will naturally be longer, but the proportions seem off. Even alumni referenced in the main article on the University seem to be missing from the list. Where are the people who held leadership positions in the Department of Defense, the Army Corps of Engineers, Bright House Networks, and Raymond James Financial? I understand that the presence of research does not guarantee many notable graduates, but none at all? None of these guys are notable? What about the members of Sawyer Brown referenced in the famous alumni tab here? As I said, while alumni lists are by nature incomplete, I'm still concerned that the list needs more broad research to identify alumni in a couple of fields. Geraldk (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Those lists had already been considered when producing the original list. The members of Sawyer Brown, along with others in the corporate realm were included in previous revisions of the list (view history), but were removed because of red links. As for the science alumni, none of them meet the guidelines set out in WP:Notability, and would you like every Ph.D. student who did something science related to be included? "for a university of its size, there are glaringly few non-athletic alumni," more than two-thirds of the university's degrees have been awarded since 1995, and as recently as the turn of the millennium enrollment was less than 1/2 of the 52,000 it is today. For a 40 year old university (first classes held in 1968) that was not widely known for anything in particular until the 1990's the school has many notable alumni. --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If an alumnus is notable, he/she should not be excluded from this list just because there is not an article about him/her. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not only the fact that they have no article, one can be created, but some of them are just not notable. I have added about 10 names to the list, none of them are athletic in nature, all to corporate and sciences. As far as the list being disproportionately athletic that just isn't true. There are 49 athletic alumni listed, and 46 in all other categories. --Scpmarlins (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Respect for the speed with which you are trying to address concerns. I'm not going to oppose based on the discussion above, because after some digging I think you've gotten the majority of obviously notable alumni. But I hope the UCF wikiproject will continue to research and add non-athletic alumni to the list as much as possible. Geraldk (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely.--Scpmarlins (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Share some concerns about length and sport/other ratio (49 athletic vs 46 all others is still disproportionate unless half of all graduates are in athletics). The tone of the lead reads like a prospectus. Is there anything negative to say, or even neutral :-)? The count of 167,000 alumni should really be an "As of 2009" rather than "Since founding" (which is redundant) because it will date quickly. However, there's an "as of" earlier in the lead so this might require some rearrangement/rewording. See WP:DATED for advice. The last lead paragraph is pure puff and doesn't really belong in an article about alumni--it should go IMO. The ucf.edu external link doesn't meet our WP:EL policy for this list and the Commons link isn't relevant to this list either. The Alumni external link needs fixed up to the new site (or a suitable page within). The three photos of buildings aren't relevant to this list and should be replaced by one good person photo. Colin°^Talk 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It occurred to me overnight that a high ratio of athletes to non-athletes in this list is probably not surprising in a university if 2/3rds of the degrees have been awarded in the last 15 or so years. An athlete/sportsman can become "notable" relatively quickly through playing in professional sports, an area dominated by young people; his/her contemporary who goes into science, the arts, education, business etc will probably take longer to achieve the necessary prominence. Bencherlite^Talk 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support I noticed the changes made following Colin's comments, which have improved it, although it's still a bit showy. Although this type of list isn't my cup of tea, it appears to tick all the boxes at WP:FL?. My only concern is wording such as "Current NFL cornerback". That can date easily and the list may not be maintained to reflect any changes, hence only my weak support. Nice work otherwise Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Late to the party comments Not sure we need three images of UCF itself when this list is ostensibly about the alumni, particularly images like that of the FAIRWIND center which are not discussed in any way at all in the article. done I quite like the subtle introduction to the foundation year (initial enrollment etc) but I do think it would be more useful to be ultra-specific as to when it was founded. done "best known for her role" says who? done Stott needs her NASA linking, for consistency. done "soccer star" bit journalistic for me. Star is inherently Pov. done Reference should be Reference(s) since many have more than one. done Be consistent throughout - the tables are sortable so overlinking is fine. Just make sure you do it (a) all the time or (b) never. done Blair Witch - in the lead you mention only Myrick, but in the table you credit both Myrick and Sanchez equally. done "Champion woman's soccer player" - what does that mean? done "for soccer's" this is not needed, just "for" is fine. done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Class year sorting (in Safari) results in four different results (when it should be just two).

How do I fix this? --Scpmarlins (talk) 21:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps use the {{sort}} template or give Dabomb87 a shout as he's a master of tabular sortability magic. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorting fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Prose looks fine. I made a few minor tweaks to the lead. I wonder why the pics can't be lined up horizontally instead of vertically between the tables? This is a major point that might be generally applicable to FLs. It's great not to have to worry about squeezing pics in to the right of the tables, but I don't like the huge white gaps. Tony (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 20:08, 21 October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [26].

---

List of emperors of the Song Dynasty

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you guys liked List of emperors of the Han Dynasty (a Featured List), you should find no faults or problems with this one. Enjoy.Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support I see no problems with this list. One tiny detail, though, there is a part in the article where it says "it planted the seed for authoritorianism in later dynasties". I find that claim quite interesting, as the Mongol and Manchu dynasties did not inherit Song institutions, and it would be extremely hard to call the Ming "authoritorian".Teeninvestor (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder what protocols about treating the emperor with deference (i.e. not sitting together at same meeting but standing erect or only sending messages, never seeing emperor, etc.) were inherited by the Yuan, Ming, or Qing, but I'll give Mote the benefit of the doubt until I find something completely contradictory.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - should the page be at List of emperors of the Song Dynasty? rst20xx (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support though I agree w/ Rst20xx that the page name should be List of emperors of the Song Dynasty—Chris!_c/t 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, guys! I'll talk to someone who manages the FLCs and see if this can't be done.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I can help you move the article.—Chris!_c/t 23:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 23:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick! Excellent.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The images need alt text per WP:ALT. You probably have not done this before, so you might want to consult Eubulides (talk · contribs) on how to write it. What exactly does "too tedious" mean in "too tedious; thus, not used when referring to this sovereign"? Ref 7 refers to Rossabi 1988, but I could not find such a ref in the bibliography. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Ah! I just added the full Rossabi reference, forgot to do that. I'll add Alt Text as well; I've done it before for Ancient Egyptian literature; once again, just forgot to add it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC) I have added alt text to the four images found in the article. I hope you find the text sufficient. I believe Wilkinson (1998) touches on why the posthumous names are too tedious to use in regards to Song rulers; let me pull that up and see what I can find.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I believe I have fully answered that question about posthumous titles being tedious by expanding the titles and names section of the article using Wilkinson's Chinese History: A Manual (1998).--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I think the tables could be made sortable without too much trouble if you use a hidden sortkey with {{sort}}. In the Han emperor list, you italicize "r", but you don't here. Can we make that consistent? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Sure! I can do that. I believe r is italicized because it is for Latin regnum, not the English "reign". A nice throwback to the Romans there. Heh.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC) The sort thing sounds spiffy, but could you provide me with an example of another article that does this? The template explains a little but I want to see an actual example of this in a table already found in a Wiki article. That would make things a lot easier to figure out! Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC) See IWGP Tag Team Championship as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why isn't the last sentence in the last paragraph of Background referenced?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
2. There is an image of each of the Emperors. Could u add another column and add for each Emperor an image?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
3. The lead should be three paragraphs because of the length of the list. Or have paragraph expanded.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • 1) Done! Thanks for pointing that out; I simply forgot to add a Morris Rossabi (1988) citation there while writing that section. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • 2) I'm afraid I can't do that, as it would jeopardize this candidacy over the issue of non-sourced material. I selectively cherry-picked the images of emperors out of many which to this day lack an essential source. And to anyone who might point out that some do have a quote-un-quote "source," I would simply say no, "Chinese Wikipedia" or "Russian Wikipedia" is not a reliable source! Lol. I hope you understand. Maybe one day when every single last image is sourced properly, then the images can be added to the table as such. But right now that is simply out of the question and we'll have to make do with what we have (—what we have that is sourced, that is).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • 2D representations of over 100 year old images are in the public domain. No one can hold copyright on it. So you can upload any image you find on the web of the Emperors and add {{PD-ART}} as simple as that. All the images in http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Portraits_of_Emperors_of_the_Song_Dynasty are in the public domain if the date is given. If you have a book that contains images of the emperors with the date of the painting given then you can upload that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but them being in the public domain is not the issue; the issue is the source of where they came from when the person uploaded the pictures. I hate to be a stiffler here, but there is no proof that these images are in the public domain until a source is provided proving that this is so. It's not that I doubt that these paintings are genuine; it's just a basic requirement that an image should be sourced.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. There are many sources of such images like http://www.chinapage.com/emperor.html . In any case it's not a requirement that you provide an image of each Emperor. Just add a commons category link ( {{commonscat}} ) to the portraits. The list is of great quality and I support its nomination.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure! I'll at least add the link. If I can find a proper source for each image on the web, then I'll be glad to add the images to the table and change the lead image to something else. Cheers and thanks for your support!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • 3) Really? I thought that the length of the lead should match the amount of material covered in the body paragraphs, i.e. the prose. But since you insist, I have reorganized things and added three new sentences so that three paragraphs are now in place as you request. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. I found no problems in this list. Ruslik_Zero 12:31, 27 September 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [27].

---

List of districts of Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I withdrew the first nomination of this list in July because of a major error in the statistics given (the area column). I finally found a ref from the government's statistics department, and the information is now accurate. All the other concerns raised at the previous nom have been fixed, so I think it's time for another try. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've renominated this because there wasn't a lot wrong with the first nomination and I see that you've now got rid of the "notable attributes" column which I think is a good move. I do have a few comments however

• In the table the three area columns aren't sorting correctly. For example on the land area column, Colombo and Jaffna districts are appearing at the bottom when they should be at the top. My guess is that it is sorting on the actual text rather than the numerical values.
• There are a few minor prose problems in the last paragraph of the lead.

By 1955, the district had become the main administrative unit. It is not clear to me why 1955 is significant here. Were provinces abolished then, or was there some other significant administrative change?

I think the bit about the creation of Mullaitivu and Gampaha districts should go as part of the description of the provisions of the constitution of 1978 as otherwise the chronology reads rather oddly.

...and the current constitution states... when I read this I thought that there must be a later constitution than 1978 but this is not the case. I would remove the word "current" here.

These districts may be subdivided or amalgamated by the resolution of... I would remove the word "the" before "resolution" or possibly replace it by "a".

I hope these comments are helpful. Boissière (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on the sorting. Yes, districts replaced provinces as the main administrative unit in 1955. I thought that was clear, and the following line says provinces became the main unit later on again. Would you suggest a rewording for this? The others are fixed I think. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done: Sorting problem fixed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest putting In 1955 provinces were abolished and districts became the main administrative unit. Its the use of the worb "By" (and to a lesser extent "had") in the original sentence which, to me, implies something had happened before 1955 rather than in that year. Boissière (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see what you mean. How is it now? I didn't actually use "abolished", since I can't find any sources on what happened to the provinces, but it is clear that the district became the main admin unit. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I have just realised that I have not formally said Support. Boissière (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The list is up to FL standards. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Why do u reference to a book while you could reference the official census found on Department of Census and Statistics website ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Which reference do you mean? I have used books for the history part; these are not covered by the Census and Statistics Department. I meant here the Population note and reference. You can say Population (2001 Census).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh right. The book is talking about the census (includes information about the estimates and reasons, and also mentions that the 2001 census is the latest) and is a reliable third party ref, so I thought it would be alright there. I didn't include the official census itself because it's being used as a general reference. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The list isn't comprehensive. When were the Provinces established? What is the population increase? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Provinces are not the focus of this list. I didn't think this was necessary. Ok, provinces aren't necessary. How about the increase of population from 1991 to 2001? It's a bit interesting...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) How would you suggest including this? I've checked a few other lists, and didn't see this sort of thing. I'd appreciate it if you could provide an example or tell me how you think it should be included. Also, I have a doubt about how this would look and if it really is necessary; wouldn't the reader wonder why it includes population increase only for a certain period of time? On the other hand, if we are going to include every statistic regarding that, the article will focus unduly on population increase, which would make it look like a demographic history article. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Don't give a note in Population Density, just add per square km and also add the miles conversion.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Done: Conversion templates added. I have left a note in place saying that land area is used for calculations. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Give the reference to the Population and not a note. Add a sign for estimates indicating that the figures are estimates.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Done: Symbol added to indicate the estimates. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I'd like to suggest merging Provinces of Sri Lanka with this list like the featured list List of districts of West Bengal--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Merging would be entirely inappropriate IMO. Provinces are the country's main administrative unit, and Districts are secondary. The scope of each topic is wide and both should have its own article to cover them. This article is about the administrative divisions of a country, whereas the list you mention is about a single state. Note that the administrative divisions of India and Sri Lanka are different, and it is not possible to compare them that simply. Your suggestion would be similar to merging States and territories of India with the lists of divisions and districts of each state. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 08:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I see your point.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support The list has been improved and is of FL quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Much improved from the time of the first FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 5 October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [28].

---

List of Project Runway contestants

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous FL nomination was closed before one particular issue could be addressed. Several reviewers have already offered support for this list, so I am re-nominating it now hoping that all concerns have been addressed. Be sure to take a look at the first review, if needed. Thanks so much! Another Believer _(Talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Alt text is acceptable - but "Picture of" could be removed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• "In addition to winner, competed in final round", not clear. just "competed in final round" would be imo more clear. This gives the a hint that this contested won.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

However, might it confuse some people to see that one color represents those that competed in the final round, while another color signifies the winner (without pointing out that yellow coloring includes final competitors in addition to the winner)? Personally, I prefer the current wording, though I would not be opposed to changing it if another reviewer raised issue. I believer it was Killervogel5 (a reviewer from the first nomination) who added the current wording. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "In addition to the winner? Since it's only one winner...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest changing from Dashes in Season six to "TBD" since it will be determined.-Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The lead should be expanded. It's not clear how exactly the contestants get eliminated. "Progressively" should be more defined. Is it weekly or what exactly? "few contestants" how many is the minimum for the final round? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Contestants are eliminated in a fairly subjective process, which varies depending on the purpose of the assignment. There is no set point system or guideline the judges follow, at least not one that is apparent/obvious to viewers. The number of contestants that compete in the final round is typically three, although it has been four as well in the past. Also, sometimes a fourth competitor showcases a collection at Fashion Week, but it is not televised as part of the finale. It is a bit confusing, which is why I think it is best left out. I think most television viewers are familiar with the typical reality competition show format... a single competitor is eliminated each week until a final winner is named. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the day of elimination relevant to this list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No. The competition does not run on a "day" basis in that viewers do not know how much passes between each round. It is not like Big Brother or The Real World, where contestants enter the house for a specific number of days. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why is "Wendy Pepper" 3rd and "Kara Saun" 2nd even though both lost in the final round. Or do they also rank the looser? Please explain this in the lead if it is so.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wendy Pepper was eliminated before Kara Saun. Judges always eliminate a contestant to come in 3rd place, leaving two competitors on stage at the end of the finale, of which one will be named the winner of the season. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Feel free to reply if you have any concerns that still need to be addressed, otherwise your support would be very much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could u add more images from commons ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the images that could be used are already in use, as some of the others ones pictured there are duplicate (of the same contestant), of poor quality (blurry), or do not meet fair use requirements. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, assuming the above issues are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Small thing, shouldn't the key mark the blue background as "Appeared in more than one season"? As it's currently used it marks BOTH appearances, so the current text of "Contestant appeared on the show for a second time" doesn't really capture it properly. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Originally, I only highlighted Danny Franco's cell the second time it appeared, but since both cells are colored I think the wording in the key should be corrected. Thanks for noticing! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, this sort of list doesn't particularly appeal to me, but it's written well, it's complete, and it ticks all the right boxes at WP:FL?. Support Matthewedwards :  Chat  03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems that all of the outstanding issues both here and from the first review have been addressed, so I'll support as well. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:39, 8 October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [29].

---

George Michael discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because i have done alot of work to improve the content, quality and sourcing etc of this article in the past few weeks and feel that it is a good, well referenced reflection of the artists work. It has also been peer reviewed and the suggestions acted upon. Mister sparky (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Where's the reference for "Careless Whisper"'s director?

having problems finding a reliable source for the careless whisper and i want your sex videos :( Mister sparky (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The first general reference just goes to the home page of his official website? Where's the link to the page with the relevant information? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

you cannot actually link to the discography page of the website, but have changed the link so all you have to do is click on the discography tab. Mister sparky (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

sorted now. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

It says under Music videos "This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." ??? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) dont know why it said that, just need to find 2 directors. removed now. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The title column width of al tables should be consistent. Singles and Albums aren't fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Why can't you give George Michael Official Website Discography as a link in General References?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) What's "Studio: (#)" in DVD and VHS ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC) dont know why that was there, gone now. Mister sparky (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Change "DVD and VHS" to "Video albums"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Have a column in "Video albums" for the certificiations.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done, but need to add the uk ones. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Who is the distributor of those videos? Please add that to the second column. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Change "DVD" column to Video details--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Move video albums before Music videos --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) See if you can find chart information for the Video releases--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) any ideas where from? as far as i'm aware i dont know of any country that archives dvd charts? Mister sparky (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) There seems to be two releases of "Twenty Five" one in the UK and one in the US.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) as with most artists there is always different versions for different countries but they are still classed as the same release. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Merge the two "Andy Morahan & George Michael" cells in Music videos and find references for the two new directors.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) wikilink "English" in the lead to the appropriate article--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) have been told in previous flc's not to do that as its very self explanatory what english means? Mister sparky (talk) 11:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Expand the Infobox to include Video Albums, other appearances (As featured artist)--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Wikilink various Music video directors.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC) This is a great list, some comments though: Aren't the music video directors notable enough to have red links? i thought redlinks weren't allowed in featured lists? or am i wrong with that? Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Redlinks are very much allowed on FLs, unless of un-notable subjects.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC) okay cool, thanks for clearing that up :) added now. Mister sparky (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) The notes column in Video Albums is a bit weird. I think certifications might be better before the notes columns and the two last video albums could have a bit longer notes to fill the row... --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) swapped the columns round. what other info do you suggest then? Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Careless Whisper" music video director doesn't have a ref.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) i know, as i said above i cant find a reliable enough source :( Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "and was certified diamond." for people who don't know anything about discographies and music certifications it might be good to explain what certifications are and what diamond means. Maybe a wikilink or some short explaination.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Wikilink British Phonographic Industry in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Five Live EP" Maybe separate EP from the wikilink cause it doesn't include EP in the name.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC) done. Mister sparky (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "and was certified 4× platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)" is repeated twice in the second paragraph.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC) haha oops! fixed now. Mister sparky (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "which peaked at number two in the US[3] and number one in the UK[1] and was certified 4× platinum." maybe a comma instead of the first "and"? fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) You linked in "Peak chart positions" under Singles to "UK Albums Chart" and "Austria". Please differentiate between album charts and singles charts. There are also many MegaCharts which one is here? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Not yet. Why is Austria wikilinked in the Albums chart? Billboard 200 is for albums, and Billboard 100 is for singles; which one do u have under singles? Make sure you don't have the same charts. There is a differentiation between singles and albums.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) forgot about those. according to their website "o3 Austria Top 40" is the name of both the album and singles charts, but the wiki article only mentions the singles charts... Mister sparky (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) The publishers in the references are incorrect. Ie. The publisher for the this is Hung Medien and not australian-charts.com, which might be put under |work=. Please fix all refs accordingly.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC) have formatted the hung medien sites how i was advised to in other flc's Mister sparky (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) looks good.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "The album is Michael's most successful in the UK, having reached number one, and was certified 7× platinum." maybe instead having reached, "reaching"?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "included new interpretations of popular songs" don't understand new interpretations. New music, melody, lyrics?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) altered phrasing. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "celebrating the 25th anniversary of his music career and debuted at number one in the UK" I think "and debuting"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) changed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Please specify MegaCharts for Albums section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) the Mega Album Top 100 doesnt have its own wiki page, its just got its own section on the MegaCharts page. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) You didn't mention him as featured artist, video albums released by him or music videos. These are sections that should be handled in the lead. Try to reduce some portions and increase this part in the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) his 2 most successful collaborations are mentioned in the lead, the music videos and video albums are mentioned in the infobox and first sentence of the lead. i have never seen a discography where they have any other mention in the lead? Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "UK Gold" should be "UK: Gold"--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) In extended plays the UK: Gold doesn't have a bulletin--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) "Songs from the Last Century" received a silver and not a 2X Platinum in the UK.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) according to the bpi website it is 2x platinum, you have to click on more info Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) 10 x Platinum = Diamond. Why don't u have that in the Certifications? There are also differences between the country specific certifications. US has diamond for 10 million wile Canada has it for 1 million (be careful). I suggest putting in brackets the actual numbers.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC) in other flc's it has been discouraged to include numbers bcos it clutters up the column and it states what different countries limits are in the sales thresholds wikilink at the top of the column. Mister sparky (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) ""—" denotes releases that did not chart" should be consistent in all tables. replace the two other tables that have ""—" denotes releases that did not chart or was not released." with this.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) ive made all the tables have the 2nd one, cuz somebody else would probly ask "well how did u know that x was released in this particular country?" 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The year column and title column should have consistent width in all tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC) they are all the same width as far as i can see? Mister sparky (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I think that covers all that I could think of. Tell me what you think about the two points and I'll support.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support after about 35 resolved comments the list is undoubtedly of featured quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see a discography for an artist that has produced a body of work long enough to be worth listing stand-alone. None of the external links meet our WP:EL policy for this list, and that includes the Commons link. Colin°^Talk 19:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well written, well researched and referenced. I checked quite a few, but not all, references to verify chart positions and all corresponded correctly. I have no problem with the musicbrainz and discog ELs in a discography list. As with Colin, it's nice to see a discog of this standard for an artist with 20+ years of records behind them, rather than a five-year old boy band with 3 albums and a handful of singles. Well done, Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Fundamental question - do we have other discogs from other solo artists where we don't include their collaborations? Just a question... In fact, the opening sentence appears (to me) to be slightly self-contradictory : "The discography of solo releases of..." vs "a number of other appearances with other artists." yea i see your point. removed solo. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Platinum in the lead tends to be non-capitalised while it's always capitalised in the tables. Consistency? sorted. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "...with Queen and Lisa Stansfield and it debuted at number one in the UK and was certified gold..." and x 3 here, not great prose. altered sentence. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It may be my ignorance but I've never seen a double A-side noted in lower case ("...double a-sides...") - but once more it could be just me...! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) "details to be confirmed" - you've capitalise the other notes, why not this one? Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Promo - use full word please. Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Link South Bank Show. Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) You link Wham! in the videos but not in the Singles. Any reason? removed the link from the video albums. the band is linked at the top of the article. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Several directors are redlinked, not itself a problem, but why is Vaughan & Anthea not linked at all? Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Also, Waltz Away Dreaming is redlinked in the template but not the list. I'd be consistent and redlink both. done. Mister sparky (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 9 October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [30].

---

List of Outer Hebrides

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is now complete and I hope ready to join its peers in the pantheon of Scottish island FLs. Ben MacDui 18:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"This is a list of..." Featured lists no longer begin in this way. See recently promoted FLs for suggestions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to keep up with the ever-changing style guidelines, and easy enough to make this change, which I will be happy to do. Co-incidentally I recently raised an issue at WP:BOLDTITLE on a related theme after an editor started removing the bold in the opening sentence of various FAs. This guideline still says: "In lists (including outlines, indexes, and glossaries), the subject is generally preceded by the article type (such as "List of")." It's a confusing world. Ben MacDui 08:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Intro is way too long. A large chunk of it should go into a lower section. As a corollary, I don't think we need the geology, settlement history, economy, etc.; that's better dealt with in the main article, rather than a list article.

Done.

• • This may be just me, but I prefer to see references and footnotes separated.

I have not been asked to do this in previous FLCs, but I agree it is a neat method and I will have a go.

Done.

• • The table of Gaelic appears to be there randomly and doesn't really add anything to this list. Perhaps that belongs better on a page of Scottish island terminology.

Done - although not sure where else it would go - might need to create something.

• • Is there a source for the minor island list?

Done - its a trawl through the Ordnance Survey maps. Ben MacDui 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Why are some in the list double-indented and not bold?

The double indentation indicates that it is a sub-set of the emboldened section. I could bold the double indented sub-section name, although that style has not been used elsewhere. Ben MacDui 09:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Why is St Kilda not linked in the small archipelagos section? And why isn't it in the table?

In the end I decided to include St K in the outlying islands and not here (it could have gone either way), but I will look at this and make this more explicit.

Hopefully now completed. To be explicit, it's not in the table as its not in the list, whereas the others are. Ben MacDui 12:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• • That's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments - all now done, I hope. Ben MacDui 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk · contribs) is the expert on it, so you might seek him for advice on writing it. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I fear that if we have got to the stage where we need experts to write image captions we are in a pretty pickle , but I will certainly look into it. Ben MacDui 07:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite an intriguing task. I have had a go and will ask the good Eubulides for assistance. ( I have noticed that a fair number of lists don't have many images....).Ben MacDui 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The alt text that was added is excellent, except for the maps. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more on that; briefly, a map's alt text should focus on the gist of what it says to the sighted reader rather than accidental visual details (for example, it shouldn't mention map colors, and should say "north of" rather than "above"). Also, several images still are missing useful alt text; please see the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - the latter is fixed - stray parameters - and I will look at the maps later today. Ben MacDui 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Map fixes now also attempted. Ben MacDui 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good, except I'd replace "A red dot lies at the northern tip of this island indicating the location of the Butt of Lewis." with "The Butt of Lewis lies at the northern tip of this island." as per WP:ALT#Brevity and WP:ALT#Maps. Eubulides (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Done - and thanks again. Ben MacDui 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for fixing it up. Eubulides (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Ben MacDui 15:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I've made a few minor changes, and I find everything to be great. Reywas92^Talk 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - foolishly, I had not thought to use "Note" singular before. Ben MacDui 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Although one change is necessary - there's a stray sentence after the table in the uninhabited islands list which could probably be placed either in that section's lead or in a note. Also, when you get tired of doing this for Scottish islands, we've got plenty of islands over here in the Americas that need better lists... Geraldk (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - and fixed. Three lists down and four to go - so many islands and so little time. I see from List of islands of Canada that there are "34377 other minor islands", which must have taken a while to count... My favourite is Landsat Island. Ben MacDui 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. "Smaller islets and skerries" section doesn't have a table that conforms with the rest of the list. It is missing the area, height and other information. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is very little such information available mostly due to the small size and large number of islets involved. There are two main sources of area information; one only includes inhabited islands, the other very few that are smaller than 40 ha. Another complication is that for smaller islands, area estimates have to take the tides into consideration. See for example this OS map - at lower stages of the tide, some islands merge with one another. Height data is available on Ordnance Survey maps for some of the more elevated of these islets, but where they are relatively flat (as per grid reference HY445262) there is no detailed information. Next to none of them will have highest points that are individually named. For larger islands there are usually Gaelic and English or anglicised names, but few of the smaller islands have the latter. It might be possible to offer "translations" into English, but a lot of the names are ambiguous and this would probably involve OR in many cases. The existing FLs of List of Orkney islands and List of Shetland islands use the same technique. In my view the alternatives are either to include them for completeness or exclude them altogether. There simply isn't enough information to tabulate them I'm afraid. Ben MacDui 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A solution could be having another column for the two previous table with "Islands in the vicinity" listing those island. My main problem is that the style switches badly in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section. You are repeating the main island's names and saying in their vicinity is xx so why not have this in the first columns?

The solution would work well enough if each larger island had few islets. However, consider the "Lewis and Harris" section of List of Outer Hebrides#Smaller islets and skerries. At a quick guess there are about a hundred, which would create havoc with the tabulation. Ben MacDui 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess there is no real solution in this case. I support the list it's of FL quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - many thanks. Ben MacDui 20:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. "Various Gaelic names are used repeatedly. The suffix ay or aigh or aidh is generally from the Norse øy meaning "island". Eilean (plural: eileanan) also means "island". Beag and mòr (also bheag and mhòr) mean "little" and "big" and are often found together. Sgeir is "skerry" and often refers to a rock or rocks that lie submerged at high tide. Dubh is "black", dearg is "red" and glas means "grey" or "green". Orasaigh is from the Norse Örfirirsey meaning "tidal" or "ebb island"." shouldn't this be referenced? Isn't it considered OR? Or is this from the general references?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OR - goodness no. Even monoglot English speakers who live in the Hebrides would know most of these words, so often do they appear in a topographical context. However, you are quite right, they deserve a reference and I have added a standard one. Note that in order to access the individual pdfs you have to click through from the web page specified. Incidentally, I noticed your interest in Abid al-Bukhari. There are, even today, Hebridean men nick-named "gillie-dubh", literally meaning "black man" - although they are not Scots of African descent, but those with dark hair, whose supposed ancestors were ship-wrecked mariners from the Spanish Armada. Ben MacDui 20:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good level of support so far, just fix his last, last moment oppose and job done. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Oppose

• The area column on both tables doesn't sort correctly. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • As well as IE, I've tried Firefox so I don't understand the nominators comments below but I shall bite my tongue about making personal remarks. Anyway sortability is in the criteria (note to the supporters) so until the area/population columns get fixed I'm opposing. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Jpeeling, I'm working on the sorting right as we speak. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
      • And I've already promoted the list per WP:BADTIMING which probably doesn't exist but is a scenario when someone identifies an issue at the same time that I'm promoting lists.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, I believe that the sorting issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Excellent list. Could you make the approx area (e.g., "c. 30") sort alongside their nearest exact areas. I think this is also Jpeeling comment. Colin°^Talk 22:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll take care of this right now. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets all criteria, interesting list. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• One question though: where the highest point cell is blank, does that mean the info is not available or there is no highest point? If the the info is unavailable, leave the cell blank, but if there is no highest point put a centered em dash in the cell (code: {{center|&mdash;}}) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the sort fix. To be absolutely explicit, every island has an eminence that the Ordnance Survey almost always mark as a spot height. In the cases of some of the smaller and flatter islands, this eminence does not have a recorded name. When the island was inhabited the residents probably did give this eminence a name, but it has not been recorded. I therefore think the "info is unavailable" and the blanks are fine, but you could argue the other way. Ben MacDui 07:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you are right, blanks are correct here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lead image suggests we look at the orange islands for the Outer Hebrides. This is a challenge for those who are colour-blind and must contravene WP:ACCESS. "This is a list of inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides,..." not good prose. Although this isn't the lead sentence, isn't there a way you can express this without "This is a list..."? Table doesn't sort correctly for me for Area or Population. I would guess it's because those columns have non-numeric text in them. You use commas in the prose for separating thousands but not in the tables. Be consistent. "grid reference NF785186" is this really required? In-line links like this aren't good. Last inhabited column of the table - 18th Century should be about 100 years before 1890 when sorted chronologically, it isn't for me. Post 16th century is in an odd place too. Plus Area sorts incorrectly for me. What do blanks mean in the "Highest point" column? Forgive my ignorance but what is a " continuing list"? "The location of the Butt of Lewis" caption is really small text for me, smaller than all the other captions. Is it my setting or is it something else? Small archipelagos - why sort by location? Ref 23, spare ). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Wrt colour. The text "(Outer Hebrides in orange)" is not the only way that colour blind readers can identify the Outer Hebrides. There is a colour key in the map image, with sufficient shade variation. A better map with legible text would help further. Colin°Talk 17:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Re comments by The Rambling Man Lead image suggests we look at the orange islands for the Outer Hebrides. This is a challenge for those who are colour-blind and must contravene WP:ACCESS. User:Colin's comments notwithstanding I have attempted a fix by amending the text. "This is a list of inhabited islands in the Outer Hebrides,..." not good prose. Although this isn't the lead sentence, isn't there a way you can express this without "This is a list..."? Done Table doesn't sort correctly for me for Area or Population. I would guess it's because those columns have non-numeric text in them. It seems to sort OK for me - please see above comments ending in statement by Dabomb87 at 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC). I'm not sure what else I can do. I wonder if this is a Safari vs Internet Explorer issue... If you can sort it okay, then I guess around 87% of our readership will be able to as well. Shame I can't! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC) If you are using Safari I definitely had problems with sortable tables. Firefox seems to do the trick. Ben MacDui 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC) You use commas in the prose for separating thousands but not in the tables. Be consistent. I thought using commas in tables caused problems for some browsers, but I have added them. They work OK for me. "grid reference NF785186" is this really required? In-line links like this aren't good. I have moved the link to a note. Last inhabited column of the table - 18th Century should be about 100 years before 1890 when sorted chronologically, it isn't for me. Post 16th century is in an odd place too. Plus Area sorts incorrectly for me. For areas see above. The last inhabited one is tricky. I am trying to find a way that will allow the tables to sort the items with text. It seems to work if you put "19 th century" rather than "19th century" but it looks silly. "19 th century (mid)" also seem to work better than "mid 19th century" but suffers from the same problem. I will keep trying. Certainly working better now - it all looks in place to me except Gighay , which is still two places out of order in my browser. I have undertaken a fix that seems to work, although it feels more like a bodge. Ben MacDui 18:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC) What do blanks mean in the "Highest point" column? I've added an explanatory comment to the reference that "Blanks indicate that no name is recorded for this eminence". See also above thread ending in comment by Dabomb87 at 22:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC). Forgive my ignorance but what is a "continuing list"? It by no means a technical expression! I wonder if this is Scottish English - it just means, well that the list is continuing - perhaps like a continuing drama. (Not that I have ever seen one you understand). "The location of the Butt of Lewis" caption is really small text for me, smaller than all the other captions. Is it my setting or is it something else? It was nicked from another article and the text was made deliberately small for no reason that I am aware of. Fixed. Small archipelagos - why sort by location? Why sort at all in such a small list? In the interests of transparency I should say that the sort function was introduced by an FLC reviewer. I have switched the sorting off, but I have no strong views on this subject - please feel free to amend as you see fit. Ref 23, spare ). Thanks - fixed.Ben MacDui 19:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC) OK - mostly done I think - I will check the table sorting issue again tomorrow. Ben MacDui 20:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) General comment: there are a number of templates which assist sortablility in tables, such as {{nts}}, {{sort}} etc. It may be worth checking these out. As far as I know they're browser-independent... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks! Ben MacDui 20:08, 9 October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [31].

---

List of Popotan soundtracks

Nominator(s): 陣内_Jinnai 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the item meets the criteria listed as far as I can tell. The article has been overhauled, peer-reviewed and re-assessed. 陣内_Jinnai 21:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment "This is a list of soundtracks attributed to the" Please recast to a more engaging start. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. Also added all necessary refs to the re-edited intro.陣内_Jinnai 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, there's also a dab link (see the toolbox on the right-hand side of this page) that needs to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed.陣内_Jinnai 06:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Popotan is a 2002 Japanese visual novel by Petit Ferret that was adapted into an" What do you mean by "2002 ... visual novel"; was it released in 2002? "produced theme song, "Gemstone" both bands" Missing word? "The opening theme song for Poporaji was also performed placed on the CD." Doesn't make sense. ""Popotan Maxi Single (ぽぽたん Maxi Single?)" is, as its title suggests, a maxi single." link for "maxi single"? "The opening theme, "Popotan Hatake de Tsukamae te" (ぽぽたん畑でつかまえて?) performed by Umder17, the closing theme, "Suki", by Funta and a collaborative theme song, "Gem Stone"." That's not a complete sentence. "Oricon albums chart" Link? "In addition the opening and closing theme songs for the live radio broadcast Poporaji, which is based on the anime." Not a complete sentence. "The disc also continues to story after the original six tracks from the first disc." "continues to" doesn't make sense. ""Popotan", "Catching the Popotan Field" and "Popotan Kiss" were later sung during their live world tour" Whose live tour? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "Oricon albums chart" Link? - not sure which one you're talking about here. Is there an article about "Oricon's album chart" that you can link to (I was asking to a link to be added)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Oricon#Charts is the only thing we have for an article or there is the website. I added a link to Oricon in the prose.陣内Jinnai 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I think I have fixed the other items.陣内Jinnai 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. I did not evaluate the foreign-language sources for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Link titles should not be in all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The ones like that are listed as such on the website itself because they are in Japanese.陣内_Jinnai 00:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Even if they are listed like that they need to be changed to title case. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Done.陣内_Jinnai 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from G.A.S (talk · contribs))

Comments from G.A.S (talk · contribs) Per WP:MOSTITLE, works of art titles' (e.g. musical albums' titles and songs' titles) should be italicized (refer to List of Final Fantasy compilation albums for an example). Did I miss some? If so, let me know. The only ones that isn't should be the maxi single, which isn't an album. It's closer to a single.陣内Jinnai 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) I was referring to the H4 section headings. G.A.Stalk 05:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Done.陣内Jinnai 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Consider adding infoboxes to the albums' sections. Those were dropped per some discussions as other anime soundtrack lists which this was modeled on removed them because of such discussions about being superfluous since the relevant info was right across from it.陣内Jinnai 05:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Accepted. I have not been following those discussions myself :). G.A.Stalk 05:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Did you consider converting the table in List_of_Popotan_soundtracks#Release_details to a 6×7 sortable table by converting the bullet lists in the first column to new columns? G.A.Stalk 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know how and for a list that small I doubt it would do much. There isn't much to sort.陣内Jinnai 20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) See article talk page for code. G.A.Stalk 07:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Please use {{Nihongo2}} and {{Nihongo}} to format all remaining Romaji and Kanji properly per MOS:JAPAN. E.g. (1) {{Nihongo||ぽぽらじのうた|Poporaji No Uta}} (Alternatively: {{Nihongo2|ぽぽらじのうた}} ''Poporaji No Uta'') or (2) {{Nihongo2|ぽぽらじの歌}}. G.A.Stalk 07:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Done and the table is sortable now using the template you created with somewhat better spacing.陣内Jinnai 22:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Good, though {{nihongo}} has not yet been applied. G.A.Stalk 13:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Please note where it or {{nihongo2}} hasn't been applied. As I remember adding them to all the kanji/kana on the page not in refs.陣内Jinnai 23:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC) It has not yet been added in any of the tables' |notex= fields. G.A.Stalk 04:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Alright. They all have the nihongo2 template.陣内Jinnai 06:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I have gone through the list and Italicized all Romaji. G.A.Stalk 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support G.A.S^talk 07:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support It looks like all issues raised were addressed.--Remurmur (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there any particular reason why the tracks are inconsistent with giving romaji transliterations and English translations. Like the track "Answer" is missing Kotae and "Minna de Odekake" is missing its translation. AngelFire3423 (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I did actually wonder about that myself: many of the tracks do not seem to have translated titles ("Answer" missing Kotae was due to a syntax error, though). G.A.S^talk 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oops. Looks like missed one. I added a translated title.陣内_Jinnai 19:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Alot of tracks in Popo Music are untranslated still. AngelFire3423 (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Done. I think some of them I wasn't sure on, like 22, at the time since I didn't have my CD on me, but don't know about others.陣内_Jinnai 19:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It does not look like this has been addressed (correct me if I'm wrong), but is there any reason why the tracks are not hidden like at List of Aria soundtracks? A few of the track lists on this page are inordinately long which extend the page unnecessarily. If there was a past discussion on showing the tracks by default, I would like to see it. Also, why do the album titles in the Release details section not include proper {{Nihongo}} templates? At the very least just write them in their English forms; its not right to just put it in Japanese.--十八 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I uncollapsed them because they violate Wikipedia's accessibility guidelines. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please tell me why the template has the option to hide the tracks if so desired? Why should any template on Wikipedia have options to hide text if it was violating accessibility?--十八 02:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why. Perhaps the creators of the template were not aware of the problems posed when they put in that capability. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont no if this will help, but i think i recall User:SandyGeorgia saying once on a featured article candadate that a collasped template doesnt mirror and therefore shouldnt be used. I think it was on one of Fuchs' FAs dont no exactly which one though. Salavat (talk) 14:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mirror? Don't quite get that. Anyway, Juhachi does bring up a legtimate point. Some of these lists are rather long, especially as they must include Japanese, English and romaji translations. On the other hand, a couple notations are inside the lists. The reason I had them collapsed is because it does make the page unnessasarily long, especially the Poporaji and Popo Music soundteacks.陣内_Jinnai 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MIRROR. For more details on the accessibility problems, see MOS:SCROLL. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't violate anything on MOS:SCROLL. It does say they shouldn't be used in the article's body, but that's unclear what it means because the examples given do not really note lists of this type nor whether those would be considered the "body". IMO it wouldn't as i see prose as that, but I can understand someone disagreeing with my opinion.陣内_Jinnai 02:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well by name this may be a list, but in technical terms the collapsed list is still within a body section of the article, so I think that's a moot point. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comment The reference dates are inconsistent you have sometimes 2009-08-28 and other times August 17, 2009. Please standarize.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Where are the references for Release details? and shouldn't this be before all the sections since it serves as an overview of the list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Look in the prose. Tables don't need them if its in the prose. The only one that doesn't is "Popotan Maxi Single" which has conflicting dates none of which seem more or less reliable since some sites claim it came with the visual novel and others claim it was released soon after the visual novel. The website doesn't go back that far. Edit: The only sites that even list release dates are fansites, blogs from non-experts and the like. Even shops don't list the release date.陣内Jinnai 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Is there a general reference? Where did u get the title, Lyrics, Music, Arrangement and length info?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) No general references. All are gotten from the item itself or a website or in the case of some infomration on "Popotan Maxi Single", the visual novel.陣内Jinnai 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Why doesn't "Poporaji no Uta" have a lyrics column? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Because its not clear who wrote "Poporaji" theme song.陣内Jinnai 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A few last minute comments that seem, to me, important enough to be resolved to fix up before I promote. I'm watching this nom so please fix up and I'll get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The release details table is still horribly formatted. The titles needs translating into English. Lantis and CD should only be linked once. The Oricon peak positions need in-line references, and the sales figures do as well. And why doesn't the first one, the Popotan Maxi single have a release date?--十八 22:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oricon peak positions have in-line references, the sales information (which i assume you mean the units produced as that's the only info I have) is also referenced with in-line citations in the prose. The tables don't need them if the pose have it. As for the names in the table, I can translate them if you'd prefer English, but I see no reason the tables need to have both English and Japanese versions. The prose is good enough for that. And I already explained Popotan Maxi Single - see info in Diaa's hidden comments...essentially no reliable source cites a specific date. Reliable soruces just note its exitstance. Unreliable sources cite dates, but those dates vary.陣内_Jinnai 03:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need a specific date, a month/year or even just a year will suffice. The names in the tables should at least be written in English; it's useless to anyone who can't read Japanese. And why exclude the cite from the table if it's in the prose? I don't know about you, but wading through prose to find a cite when it could be easily accessible in the table is making the reader do more work than is required.--十八 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem is the CD was released around (or when) the visaul novel was, which was just before Christmas so some sites say 12/02 and some 1/03 and again none of them I've found give even a relative date, just that it was released as a promotional item for the visual novel. I can put down 12/02 based on its release, but that might be considered synthesis. As for excluding cite from the table, its the same reason we exclusde it for other tables. If it's already cited in the prose its unlikely to be challenged by anyone who reads the article if we assume good faith. The average reader isn't likely to wade through the prose for such information anyway for almost any reference, table or not.

EDIT: The table is now all in English.陣内_Jinnai 04:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. Lantis and CD still need to only be linked once.--十八 05:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean in the table?陣内_Jinnai 06:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and I'd even go as far to suggest removing all the links in the table anyway, since its all been linked in the article before.--十八 06:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.陣内_Jinnai 07:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support All things dealt with that could be dealt with.--十八 07:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The prose in the lede section is extremely weak.

• There are indefinite articles and punctuation missing, as in this sentence: "was adapted into an anime by Shaft and radio drama broadcast on Osaka Radio."
• Tense is also incorrect. The past participle, "Three soundtracks based on the visual novel have been released" sounds better than the simple past that is currently used.
• "The first was a maxi single" -- "was" indicates it used to be a maxi single but isn't any more. The release still exists, so "is" should be used. Same "was"/"were" vs. "is"/"are" issue appears further in the paragraph:
  • "It was a limited print", "All three songs were sung by Under17."
• Other sentences or part-sentences just don't make sense:
  • "Three soundtracks based on the anime." -- what??
  • "The single contained vocal and instrumental songs of the opening theme," -- can an instrumental be considered a song? "recordings" works better here
    • Edited the first, the second I don't agree with because it implies the songs are still being sung by Under17, which isn't true; just the recordings of the songs are being sung.陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • song can be used even when its not acompanied by the vocals.
      • Not according to that article. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "...of the opening theme, "Popotan", the closing theme "Answer", and "Magical Girl Mii"'s theme, "Magical Girl Mii's Pong"." -- inconsistent use of the serial comma here. Semi colons would actually work better: "...of the opening theme, "Popotan"; the closing theme, "Answer"; and "Magical Girl Mii"'s theme, "Magical Girl Mii's Pong"."
• "The vocals were later re-released as part of their "Best" complications. The songs "Answer" and "Popotan" were also sung during their live tour." -- This isn't necessary information, but shouldn't "Best" be italicized?
• "A promotional DVD for the anime came with a CD" -- poor language use. "Accompanied", "was released with" etc etc
• "PopoTime, an anime soundtrack, was released with music by Osamu Tezuka with a TV cut opening and closing by Under17 and Funta, respectively." -- What's a TV cut? "containing" works better for the first "with", but the second part of the sentence is hard to read
  • Added a note for TV cut (note this is how they are noted on the liner notes)陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, got it. Still the sentence is poorly written, though. It needs plurals: "containing TV cuts of the opening and closing themes by Under17 and Funta, respectively." Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • In the lead, 3rd paragraph, 1st sentance "A song is a piece of music for accompanied or unaccompanied voice or voices or, 'the act or art of singing,'"陣内_Jinnai 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Past tense issue appears again with words such as "contained"
• "It's a PopoTime! was also produced" -- Was it released? It isn't clear

I didn't read the rest of the prose thoroughly, but I did take a glance and noticed some of the same issues regarding tense, punctuation and odd phrasing. Matthewedwards :  Chat  01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• copyedited the article. The remaining issues of past-tense are time-related. I also edited similar instances throughout the article. I have commented on the 2 items above.陣内_Jinnai 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've stricken resolved issues. The tense thing does need correcting. Even though you're describing something from the past, the releases still exist, and should be discussed in present tense. Matthewedwards :  Chat  14:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited the items above except where I have made specific contentions to them and why.陣内_Jinnai 19:27, 9 October 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 The Rambling Man 20:21, 10 October 2009 [32].

---

List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates

Nominator(s): DJ 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is on par with other similar featured lists such as List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests and List of American Idol finalists. DJ 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Done

Comments

• The actions of the participants are recorded 24 hours a day, seven days a week by multiple microphones and cameras situated in each room. - Change "24 hours a day, seven days a week" to simply "constantly". Done
• On regular occasions, the housemates nominate two other members of the group each - Nominate for what? Done
• 527 viewers complained to Ofcom during the 2009 series - Per the MOS, numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out. Done
• Images need alt text. Done
• Newspapers in the sources need to be italicized. Done
• 2-column reflist? Done

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Gran2, support

*Comment - This is a nice list, and I will support it. However, the "Claim to fame" column title doesn't seem very NPOV to me. To me it implies that their notability is only a "claim" and not certain. While this is obviously true for the majority of the people here it isn't very neutral. I think "Occupation" would be better. Gran2 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Is "Mother of Jade Goody", "Big Brother 2002 housemate", "Non-celebrity", "Mother of Sylvester Stallone" etc an occupation? Could you suggest another alternative wording? DJ 10:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see a problem with "Occupation". The examples you've cited are all true, those four people have made careers based on those things ie. Jackiey Budden is not notable whatsoever save for being Jade Goody's mother and has for some reason made a career out of that. But anyway, if you don't like that, how about "Reason for notability"? Gran2 10:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Done Is there some reason why the page is called "List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates"? Because there isn't a page called "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates" so why the need to specify "UK" in the pagename? There doesn't appear to be any similar list, and indeed wasn't the UK the first "Celebrity" Big Brother series? So I'm not sure that's needed. Gran2 11:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It's WikiProject precedent. The fact that there isn't a similar list is irrelevant, it is titled this way to avoid confusion with the Croatian, Australian and Pinoy editions of the programme. DJ 12:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It's hardly irelevant. "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates" doesn't exist so why the added specification in this page name? If other articles are created in a similar ilk (which seems unlikely), then they should specify the country in the title. This is currently the only one, so it isn't needed here. I'm sure there are numerous people in the world called David Beckham who are not notable enough for pages, but "David Beckham" is called "David Beckham", not "David Beckham (footballer)". It seems illogical to me. Anyone who sees the page will see instantly if it's what they were looking for. And if they were looking for this, I doubt they would be seraching "List of Celebrity Big Brother (UK) housemates" so at the very least "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates" should redirect to it. Gran2 12:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC) It is also to keep with the title formatting where the seasons are labeled Celebrity Big Brother 2006 (UK), etc. Also if a list for the Pinoy edition was developed it would create conflict. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Right, how exactly would it "create conflict"? Even in the unlikely event it ever got an article it would then be called "List of Pinoy Big Brother: Celebrity Edition housemates". Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) says "the disambiguator should be added only if multiple articles would normally have the same name". As said, there is no article called "List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates". As for the main series articles having it: "Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles." This is not a life-threatening issue, it just doesn't to me make any sense to disambiguate a pagename on the off chance a similar list might be created in the future. Gran2 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I've redirected List of Celebrity Big Brother housemates and Celebrity Big Brother housemates to this article. Can we consider the issue resolved? DJ 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Not really resolved no, because I still think this is illogical. But it's only a minor grumble, as now that the redirect is in effect I suppose there's no problem and I really don't care that much. I'm not going to strike this because hopefully someone else will contribute to the discussion. But I will, now, Support. Gran2 22:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC) I agree in principle with Gran2, but if this is a WikiProject standard, then a discussion should be carried out first before name changes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk),

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "in which a group of famous people" Why don't you just call them celebrities? "it was made from gorilla and" Fur, I assume? Don't make readers guess. "it was later discovered that the coat was made from Colobus monkeys" Same as above. There's serious overlinking of commonly known terms in the list. Singer? Actor/Actress? Film director? Journalist? Please delink these dictionary-definition-type terms per WP:OVERLINK. Alt text is pretty good, but not sure what ".right" is doing in some of them. Also, remove phrases that are not verifiable by looking only at the images, such as "A curly haired blonde woman poses for photographs" (unverifiable part italicized). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC) All concerns addressed. Dale 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) OK, but please do not strike reviewers' comments; they decide when an issue is resolved. I'll come back either later tonight (North American time) or tomorrow to make sure that there are no other issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry for the delay; will definitely look in soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out RTE in the publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

On the table, the names should be sorted by last name (you can use Template:sortname), and the notes should be unsortable (put class=unsortable| in front of the notes). I don't think this should be done as, within Big Brother, housemates are never reffered to by their surname but simply as Chantelle, George, Rula etc. In a similar way that we wouldn't sort book characters this way, I don't think we should sort these people this way in this context. (It's also a bit like how they are reffered to as "celebrities" within the programme when some of them aren't) Dale 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I also watch Big Brother too (well, the American version), so I totally understand what you are saying. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) On the guest table, why is it fixed to 75% width? Why not just let it be 100%? I tried that and it looked a mess - there was too much blank space. Could it stay as it is? Dale 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Ehhh...how about the sortable function? Could that be used on the table? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) No, because some of the rows span over a few lines. And its such a small table, it doesn't need to be sortable really. Dale 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC) On the houseguests table, one column says "Reason for notability", while on the guests table, it's "Claim to fame". Choose either or to be in both. Done Would be nice if the notes are aligned center. How is this done? Dale 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Did it myself instead, just so that we won't waste time. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Yay, second Big Brother list nomination! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• One more comment, would you be able to format the tables like List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests, by just removing the rankings, and not including the hometown? If this is too bothersome, just remove the rankings, since its practically the same as the finishes. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Where the Celebs live is disputed - some sources list Pete Burns as Liverpool, others as Italy. Germaine Greer lives in both Britian and Australia, Coolio lives in both LA and Britain etc and it also borders onto WP:TRIVIA. I don't think the rankings should be removed either - they are important. Dale 15:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the readers have no idea what the rankings are for. Some will probably guess that it is by eviction, but others may not. Best way to fix this is to name the column, or create a key. Also, carefully read what I said. I didn't say include the hometown, since hometowns are usually disputed, and doesn't really matter for Celebrity Big Brother. Is it possible to point out which day that they were evicted, third place, walked, etc.? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think the day of their exit should be included like "Evicted: Day xx" like in List of Big Brother (U.S.) HouseGuests other than that I support this list for FL-Class. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jpeeling (talk · contribs)

Comments On my computer the middle images (and captions) are partly hidden by the table, this doesn't appear to have affected anybody else but is there any chance the table could be made shorter in width? Making the largely repetitive series column just a year could be an option. --Jpeeling (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I would have appreciated it if you had given a reason for not doing this rather than simply ignoring me. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I don't know where DJ went but I proceeded with the change.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Grazie. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Ref 49 needs fixing. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Alt text needs fixing. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Alt text fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments few nitpicky issues:

• Why is TV presenter linked all other mentions in tables but not for Richard Madeley and Judy Finnigan?
• For Alice Barry and Rebecca Ryan's "Reason for Notability", either separate the two or make "Actress" plural.
• Category:Big Brother (UK TV series) is redundant because Category:Big Brother UK contestants is its subcategory. Mm40 (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why is it called "Reason for notability " and not just "Profession" ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2. What's the purpose of the Year column?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
3. The day of eviction should be stated.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
4. I don't see what the first column is for. You already said in the lead 57 celebrities, no need to count them again.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
5. A finish column would be useful to compare the various winners.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Just a couple. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Diaa above that something should be done to further expand on when someone was evicted. Perhaps "Evicted first/second/third/etc"?
• In addition, could the winners at least be marked by a background color? It would make reading the table far easier, IMO.

Not much to do now, so please fix up remaining issues and then I'll happily promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The gorilla-fur text consumes a chunk of the lead but has nothing to do with the celebrity contestants; it should be moved to the CBB article. There is already plenty intro on the series in the first paragraph so the remaining lead paragraphs should concentrate on the contestants. None of the external links meet our WP:EL policy for this list and should all be removed. Some may be relevant for a CBB article but not a list of housemates article. The twitter link has no place on Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree fully with what Colin has said, though I do not support. Regarding the first paragraph, the link to Big Brother (UK)#Celebrity Big Brother is included, so there is no need to describe what it is in as much detail. It's about the celebrities/housemates, so let's get to the point and read about them. There was one sentence in that paragraph that struck me as odd, too: "...in which a group of celebrities, called housemates,..." I would remove the "called housemates" and stick that here: "The actions of the participants, called housemates, are recorded..." As for ELs, I could accept the official site, IMDB and TV.com at a push, although they're not exactly housemate related, and that is what this page is about. Twitter and Youtube are totally unnecessary. Will be happy to support if these points are addressed either through a decent argument as to why they are here, or action is made to actually fix. Best, Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:46, 8 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [33].

---

List of Kansas City Royals managers

Nominator(s): LAAFan^sign _review 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list with the standard from List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers and List of Seattle Mariners managers, both of which are Featured Lists. Thanks for comments in advance. LAAFan^sign _review 16:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The old managers list format didn't include sortability, but it's nearly always demanded at FLC these days, and I will request it now. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers, List of Minnesota Twins managers, and List of Baltimore Orioles managers for format. Per a request on my talk page, I am clarifying: This table needs to be sortable. To accomplish that, the format needs to be changed; the bi-level header format has to be discarded. The above articles give examples of what the correct sorted format looks like, including some information that is missing from this article. See also Help:Sorting. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)done "They are members of the American League Central division of the American League (AL) in Major League Baseball (MLB)." - two things here: You don't use the abbreviations at all, so remove.done You repeat American League twice in quick succession. Suggest re-word to They are members of the Central Division of Major League Baseball's American League (AL). You can probably also remove Major League Baseball from the first sentence. The link looks strange squished up against the team name, and if you say it in the first paragraph, it should be soon enough. done "The Royals franchise was formed in 1969 as a member of the American League." - another "American League", remove.done "first manager of the Texas Rangers" - relevant? Or just a typo?done The chronology (third paragraph) is very repetitive; List of San Francisco Giants managers may provide ideas for more appropriate wording. Too much focus on one thing right now, seems like WP:UNDUE considering that there is more content than that.done Talk more about statistics in the lead once you cut down on the redundancy in the chronology. Who has the most wins (and how many)? Who lost the most games (and how many again)? Best playoff record? Biggest shoes? Highest uniform number? (You know what I mean, I think...)done There is a symbol for HoF in the key, but it's not used in the table. Per a request on my talk page, I am clarifying: The asterisk in the key for Hall of Fame managers needs to appear in the table along with the color per WP:ACCESS and WP:COLOR. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)done Be careful when referring to "coach" and "manager", since these are two completely separate things in baseball (of course you know that!). There are a couple references to "coach" in the lead and the key.done In the table, all year ranges must use en dashes. All blank cells should have em dashes. This includes the "Awards" column.done Could use another image or two; I know Tony Peña has one. For that matter, Tony Peña has an "ñ" in his name, and there's no reason to use a redirect here.done No leading zeroes on winning percentage. Per a request on my talk page, I am clarifying: Winning percentages should be listed as ".500", not "0.500". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)done Check your footnote; this is about the Royals, right?done References are inconsistent. "Baseball-Reference.com" is a work, and should be either "Baseball-Reference" (linked) all the time, or "baseball-reference.com" (unlinked, cap or not is up to you) all the time. The publisher should always be "Sports Reference LLC".done Changed publisher to Sports Reference LLC. Hope these comments help (and made you laugh a little). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – all of my comments have been satisfactorily resolved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – The second sentence is structurally unchanged, despite the done tag. I was about to suggest a wording change similar to KV5's proposal before seeing that he had covered it already.done No need for two Dick Howser links so close together in the lead. Anyone interested will already have clicked on the first link.done I also fail to see the need to repeat managers' first names in the lead.done "In 1970, Gordon was replaced with Charlie Metro. Metro was replaced midseason by Bob Lemon." Don't like having Metro's name come as two straight words. Also, it reads like this all occured in the same season. The season Lemon was replaced should be mentioned.done The sentences you mentioned were all in the same season (1970), but I added that Metro was replaced while still in 1970. There are many uses of "replace" and "replaced" to begin the third paragraph, giving the prose a repetitive feel. Please change a couple of these if possible.done "Howser left with only 74 games left in the season". That's almost half the season. Inappropriate use of "only".done Removed Link Manager of the Year Award.done "who was led the team since 2008." "was" → "has".done Images now require alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)done Couple of quick things I noticed in the table sorting: Joe Gordon is sorting first in the PA column despite having no playoff appearances, and clicking the WS column takes me to the top of the page, without any sorting. Tony Pena image still needs alt text as well. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed the Joe Gordon and alt text issues, but both List of Minnesota Twins managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies managers cannot sort the WS heading, and both are FLs, so I don't think that should be a huge issue. I tried to fix it, but I could not.--LAAFansign review 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) It's a browser bug. Can't be helped. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed this with a workaround. I think it looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Is that really all it needs? I'll go change the others that I've worked on, though I think those bottom cells could be "total managers" and "total seasons" instead of blanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Took a while for this one to meet FL standards, but it does now and that's what matters. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The names of the columns in the key should be bolded.done No links to World Series, playoffs, or the Hall of Fame in the key?done Change "Years" to "Seasons" in the table.done The key is inconsistent in referring to the manager; sometimes it uses "the manager" and sometimes it uses "this manager". This is something that plagues all the manager lists, but I confess I never noticed it until now.done What references the playoffs stats for the managers? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Baseball-Reference sources are formatted inconsistently. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)done

Weak Support - The only things I would like to happen is to have the lead expanded and referenced more, since the lead is barely 1300 characters long, and with only two references. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the lead doesn't need a reference, since it is a summary of the referenced table. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossed that part out. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)done

Fully support now. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Royals franchise was formed in 1969." next line "Joe Gordon became the first manager of the Kansas City Royals in 1961". Clarify?done
• "Dick Howser has managed more games and seasons than any other Royals manager" Tony Muser appears to have also managed for six seasons.done
  • I should have been clearer, Muser only shares the most seasons record with Howser and Howser does hold the most games record. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 14:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• "Howser led the Royals to their only pennant" The main source has Frey winning an AL pennant, if we're talking about different pennants (I don't know baseball) can this be clarified.done Pennant part was a mistake.

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Another great managerial list. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:53, 5 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [34].

---

Order of battle in the Atlantic campaign of 1806

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Napoleonic order of battle in the same vein as Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. This order of battle is for a very complex campaign and I've done my best to simplify it, but let me know if it istill not clear. There are also some gaps in the sources that have resulted in gaps in the list, but they are not significant to understanding the information. All comments welcome. Regards Jackyd101 (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria as far as I can make out. A great list, excellent work. Woody (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Woody's resolved issues

A few comments from me: Can we reword the second sentence in the lead a bit? To me it currently reads that Napoleon had a crushing victory at Trafalgar. Could it be reworded to something like. I don't know, I have tried to reword it in my head and I can't see any way to reword it. If you can't no bother, it is probably just the way I am reading it. I see what you mean, and have simplified the sentance. I am not a fan of empty cells in tables. In Leissègues' squadron, do we not know those two commanders? If not, perhaps add "Not known" into the table or a dash? The same goes for the other Commander cells in other sections. Do we have more specifics regarding "Keats' squadron also included two other ships of the line." Apart from that, this looks very good to me. It meets the criteria in my opinion. It is well presented, the summaries are well written and informative. Good work, regards, Woody (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC) All the rest of these points are to do with a lack of information in the tables. The problems here are that the sources I have available do not contain the required information and I have been unable to locate it despite extensive searches. However it is possible that this information can be discovered in sources not easily accessible to me (i.e. French sources). Thus I'm not keen to make a definitive statement that this information is "Not Known" in the table, and a dash is not very helpful (I've always seen it as a sort of "N/A" which also doesn't really apply here.) Thus in the absence of another solution I would prefer to keep them blank, although if you/others insist I am happy to reconsider. Thanks for your comments, --Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that a dash is used to to signify that there is no information at all about a particular issue, as opposed to a blank cell for unknown info. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments The totally empty Notes Columns should be removed, like Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Cochrane.27s_squadron.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I believe that this time {{Harvnb}} would help a lot for things like "Source: James, p. 262" So I wouldn't have to scroll down the whole page check for what book this came from.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I think this list is really hard to comprehend, since it's a campaign and not a battle. Why not just split the list into the different battles or arrange the list into the different battles with a section for every battle? This would make this imho a lot easier.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I think your other points are sensible and I will address them in due course, but your final point is not possible - read Atlantic campaign of 1806 and you will see that there was only one battle and that is already presented in Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo. The rest of the campaign was, as described, a confusing series of manoeuveres without clearly defined engagements or sections and I genuinely can't think of a better way to illustrate this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I've tried the Harvard thing in the article on the citations in the first table, but all it did was make the citations blue - can you explain what I'm doing wrong?--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC) It's just not working I guess...Probably because you have a multitude of volumes in your list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Casualities (Killed, wounded, total) is needed for each table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) As explained above, this is for a campaign rather than a battle, so there were few ships with casualties outside the Battle of San Domingo which is covered elsewhere.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) The rate of each Ship should be in the tables.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I can do this, but why do you think it is important in this context as long as you have the number of guns? Wikilink the squadrons to their sections. For example: "On 6 February, Leissègues was surprised at anchor by a squadron under Vice-Admiral Sir John Thomas Duckworth" wikilink "squadron" to Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Duckworth.27s_squadron Do you mean in the lead?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) There are conflicts between Order_of_battle_at_the_Battle_of_San_Domingo#French_squadron and Order_of_battle_in_the_Atlantic_campaign_of_1806#Admiral_Leiss.C3.A8gues.27_squadron. It says there that the fleet left on "15 December" while here it says "13 December". And while you're at it fix the links of "Cornète" and "Diligente" Done Create an overview table at the top of the list (In a new section maybe), listing the various squadrons names, ship numbers, engadges and to which Country they belonged to. With links to their relative sections. This could replace the TOC or you could have both. I think this would really improve this list...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I'm a bit unsure how this would assist/improve the TOC - surely if people want this information all they have to do is read the tables? After reading a bit in this list I really admire Admiral Duckworth.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments, I have replied above.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Could u please add some images to the various sections, such as Images of the ships in battle or the admirals..--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Two images added - is this enough? You wikilinked London Gazette in the references three times. Its part of a template, so I can't delink it. Could u remove the notes column in "Admiral Warren's second squadron", "Admiral Strachan's first squadron" and Admiral Cochrane's squadron, or fill them with information. I've added some notes, but to be honest I prefer the tables are uniform in format rather than simply cutting notes sections because some happen to be empty. (Besides, it is possible that additional notes may come to light in the future). Replies above -regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support issues resolved, meets FL criterias.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Mostly beautifully written; I just have a couple of pointers. Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences should not have sentence-ending punctuation. "blocking the passage that Willaumez must take to attack the valuable Jamaica convoy" "must take" is in present tense, and is inconsistent with the article. "These forces served the dual purpose of containing the French warships still at anchor in the ports and restricting the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." Can excise redundancy and reduce wordiness? "These forces served the dual purpose of containing contained the French warships still at anchor in the ports and restricting restricted the return of French warships from service at sea during the campaign." If you really want emphasis, add "both" before "contained". There are two Gardiner books used, but the inline citations do not specify which is used. Same for the James books. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the comments - I've done all of the above except the first one - can you possibly provide some examples of what you consider "Single-fragment notes that are not complete sentences" so I can differentiate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed these myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - on par with previous order of battle lists. I would, however, suggest that the addition of more images would improve the list. Geraldk (talk) 22:21, 4 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [35].

---

List of US Open Men's Singles champions

Nominator(s): Bluedogtn (talk)

Note:All TW-RF on this page is bluedogtn_BLuE^DOgTn 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list per the discussion on WT:FLC. Cheetah (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I read the opening intro and all is correct to my inspection of this list, and it has illustrated the diffrences in the start till 1911 in the way the tournament was won and played.TW-RF (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support (but too many exclamation points ;) Mm40 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Mm40 (talk)

Comments It does not appear that you have made any edits to the page. I would notify the three main contributers. I did not, but I worked with Don Lope in order to create these pages! I am busy trying to get other articles up to par in tennis! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) There is one disambiguation link, Richard Sears. What, Please, Explain? TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Someone has fixed this! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC) "…championships opened to international competition." I think "competitors" would be more exact. I agree with this! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Changed This! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) In the tables and key, symbols should be subscripted (<sup> </sup>). Actually go look at this navbox of featured content to see why this is not the case and is not done on these! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I know the info will be added soon, but why is a question mark linked for 2009? I assume people know what question marks are. It is about to be determined tomorrow, which means we do this a little bit in advance, but I will take it out if you want me to! I see no reason to do this because in 28 hours plus or minus a couple hours it will be filled in! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) They can click on the 2009, which would explain this to the user! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC) References are needed in the table. They can be put in the top of the table as long as they prove everything in that column. They are actually at the bottom of the page, but what do you mean about the table? TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I will go ahead and do this but it will duplicate it! TW-RF In ref 5, alphabetize the authors by last name. I will do this tommorrow! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Addressed! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Add Category:Lists of tennis players. Done! TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC) After these issues and any others that are brought up are resolved, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  Someone did it already. Mm40 (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural comment - If TW-RF is addressing these changes (even if it's from IP) he should be put as nominator and his support should be struck (as nominators support is presumed). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I took away my support and left my comment, which is legit. Thanks for pointing that out. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• Please read by capped comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1 about how this scoring presentation for tie-breaks is ambiguous. Don Lope and TRM both agreed that we should neglect the "commonly used" format in favour of a unambigous one.

I went in addressed the tie-breaks issues in it to match Wimbledon. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll come back an re-review this after tomorrows final has been played and everything's been updated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

*Not that it matters but MoS seems to prefer U.S. to US, which would affect a few things, might be worth double checking at least. Wrong, it is not called the U.S. Open it is the US Open with out periods, so it is justified. Go look here US OpenTW-RF (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I wrote the comment then found this out, and thought I'd removed it before saving. Obviously not, and you are quite correct. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC) "The men's singles was the first event contested in 1881." very stubby sentence. Considering you mention the year in the previous sentence I feel this can be better integrated. I agree this needs to be addressed.TW-RF (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I took this out, and left the reference since it goes with the opening sentence...Corrected:Took-out.TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "reserved to United States National Lawn Tennis Association (USNLTA) clubs members", I'm not really sure (might be a language diff.) but this sounds wrong to me. Isn't is reserved for ... club members Go look at the source it will explain for the long usage.TW-RF (talk) 21:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I meant shouldn't it be "for..." instead of "to..." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I corrected it. "played at the best-of-three sets" - played as the best-of-three...? Correct also, you are right. Corrected TW-RF "Best-of-three sets matches" - I think it is just set, because you have a three set match. Corrected. Should be best two out of three sets.TW-RF (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC) "five games – all took" is this the way to write it? The spaced ndash to me indicates separation. I don't get that either.TW-RF (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed this and the dash is not imperative here, and I removed the dash and left a space! FIXED...TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Reading this BBC article on tennis scoring it seems it is "five-games-all". I have changed it and struck this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) "which were won with six games and a two games advantage" - this isn't very clear, say something like carried on until a two-game advantage was reached or something. Will doTW-RF (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) This should be "a two or more game (not games) advantage", because the advantage is singular. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Corrected this...TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I copyedited this bit further. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Neither of the anchors to sudden and lingering death work. Lingering death did work when I checked it, but I correct the sudden death link.TW-RF (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) What I mean is link to the term, put "#lingering death" instaed of "#L" and "#sudden death" instead of "#S". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC) That's a virtual impossibility it must be the heading of a section in order to do this, but that would be out of protocol for this article. Have your try at it! TW-RF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed IT.TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Even though the source says it is I struggle to see a reason why File:Rod Laver 001.jpg would be PD. It does not meet it, will be removed immediately.TW-RF (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Ref 2 has a messed up accessdate Fixed.TW-RF (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC) For ref 15, see this "Using archived version" instructions to handle refs from archive.org I don't have enough experience to do this, but I will try tomorrow!TW-RF (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I tried unsuccessfully to do this someone else needs to try!TW-RF (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Don't worry, I've sorted this. Anything with a url always needs an accessdate. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support. All issues resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues,BLuEDOgTN 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Oppose. There seem to be new changes to the list, that have been implemented undiscussed and affect this candidacy. The opening line now reads "The U.S. National Championships–US Open" which I think is an awful start and alot worse than before. You already have the note explaining what it used to be called. Also I don't like that the table has been split in two. That reduces the usefulness of the sortability as sorting won't group players who have won in the Amateur and Open eras. Also I gather from my talk page you are looking to change the list's title. This should be discussed here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I can explain the need for this change, go look at the grand slam sites on wikipedia, and see the way they split the records. Go look at the doubles lists on wikipedia to see the spliting up of pre and post open era. This has not alway been the same tournament like the golfing articles with the exception of the PGA. I looked at the PGA and took the ideal from matchplay to strokeplay. How come their is two navboxes for each, and is this evidence enough to split them up. I would prefer a different title to this article and to split this into two articles if we have to go down that route because it is the U.S. National Championships Pre-1968 and Post-1967 it is the US Open and one signifies Amateurs only and the other Professionals are allowed to compete. Plus, the records cannot be lumped together like Don Lope tried to do to be like golf, but tennis has eras and it matters, and I made this reflective in the last two paragraphs. So my questions are why split navboxes and the stuff on the slam pages, as well as, the doubles pages, and not have the wikitables on these to be split to signify a departure from the previous version of the tournament. Either, we combine everything which would be unjust or leave it separate! I don't care about sortability over historical significance. I think the opening can be redone since it is bulky US.NAT-US Open because of the tag. My preference would be to have two separate articles, but if not this is my second choice over how to do this. I did this for all pages that Don Lope did not go and research and see the difference of eras and the way navboxes are split up on wikipedia, and their is a reason for this. Your can't call someone who won pre an Open Champion nor post a National Champion either. Thanks.BLuEDOgTn 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Opening Sentence: Fixed.98.240.44.215 BLuEDOgTn 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Breaking of wikitable: No.98.240.44.215 BLuEDOgTn 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Separating Records, Opening: Yes, cannot compare eras another source another source 2, Open Era BLuEDOgTn 22:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The US Open is played during two weeks in late August, early September, and has...". For one less comma, try "is played during two weeks in late August and early September". Fixed TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) "was reserved for United States National Lawn Tennis Association clubs members, before the championships opened to international competitors." First, "clubs" is faulty; it should be either "club" or "club's". Second, what year was the tournament opened to international players? Corrected TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Remove comma after "which were won by the player". Did That TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning that the US Open was the first Grand Slam to have tie-breakers? No. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I will say that it is worth mentioning this slam is the only one to have a fifth set tie-breaker. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) If this is mentioned, make clear that a fifth-set tie-breaker has not occured yet in a final. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Did this...Fixed. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Can the lead be updated with 2009 prize money? Already has... TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The licensing tag for the Richard Norris Williams photo is incorrect. A look at the photo it was cropped from shows that it is from the Bain collection, and the tag should state as much. The uploader himself didn't release it into the public domain. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Fix this Giants2008, Please, I don't know how. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I'll go on Commons and take a look when I get a chance, although I'm not that knowledgeable about their formatting. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Any progress on these points? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, I believe this one is about done. TW-RF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedogtn (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes, though I will admit to being confused over the multiple accounts thing. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think once all the other points are addressed this will be of the required standard. Spiderone 08:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I assume all the things mentioned above are fixed. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

*Note The nominator of this FLC has seemingly retired – can someone take over this FLC? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Where is that mentioned? I know the nominator has previously retired from another account. I assume 98.240.44.215 might be someone previously involved with the project. 98.240.44.215 is Bluedogtn. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The editor has since indicated that he/she will continue to keep track of the FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "which were won by the player who had at least six games and at least two games more than his opponent" What does it mean to "have" a game? There is not any significance to this at all.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) You should probably clarify in the alt text that the people are tennis players. Where is this because it needs to be corrected if it is in fact in there, but Rambo's Revenge might have done this already?.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The header "Statistical information" – could this be just "Statistics"? Changed, it could be both by title sections demand that it by Statistics. Good JOB.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think there should be a space between the symbol and the words. When the symbols are right next to the words, they are more visible. It would king of crowd the name, which is why I am guessing Don Lope left it this way.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC) "Photographers shooting 2007 champion Roger Federer with the US Open trophy" Sounds violent. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, you are in fact correct, and it has been change to less violent terms.BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues,BLuEDOgTN 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments Temporary Oppose: I am doing this because the scoring of tie-breaks, and the authority and governing body on tennis and the tour say it must be (2) not (7-2) to score a tie-break, period! They are the authority on scores for all tournaments and they run the slams (ITF) tour events (ATP). These are the sources here ATP Federerhere ITF Federerhere ITF Nadal and here ATP Nadal.BLuEDOgTn 01:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The WTA has opposing scoring for a set with respect to winners and loser than the governing body, but they do score the tiebreaks the same way. I believe Tennis governing body go look, should be the ultimate and definative source for scoring on wikipedia to avoid debate over newspapers and magazines. They did have one typo for Federer at the US Open, go catch it if you can.BLuEDOgTn 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Support again, because we are going to deal with the tiebreaker issues later with the whole tennis project, which will include this.BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I struck my support for now because the splitting of the pre and post-Open Era champions caused me to spot something important: the list makes no mention of the multiple championships held in 1968 and 1969 (Open and Amateur). This is at least worthy of a note, and a good explanation as to why the amateur winners aren't included in the appropriate table. I'd encourage the nominator to consider fixing the tie-break issue himself; in any event, it is unusual for a nominator to oppose a list they nominated. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC) The only list that counts for this article is the champion on the US Open site because the other is not considered apart of this at all. The reason it was split is to show when the names changed and to show the significants of it from am to pro. Further, it was to get in line with the navboxes and the way it is listed on the wikitables for those who won before and after the switch go look at Rod Laver career statistics or Margaret Court career statistics, or Billie Jean King.BLuEDOgTN 04:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know what you are talking about show me some research because I have never heard that before.BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) For what it's worth, the ESPN Sports Almanac and Sports Illustrated Almanac do mention the 1968 and 1969 amateur champions (Arthur Ashe and Stan Smith, respectively). Do any other reviewers have an opinion on this? Giants2008 (17–14) 21:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC) I got this fixed in the Other tournaments section, but I put disclaimers to go with it.BLuEDOgTN 23:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Should be good enough, especially if the US Open people themselves don't consider the amateur events part of the chronology. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Actually I think the nominator is right to hold off with the tie-break issue. There seemed to be a precedent for the current format set at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions/archive1 (in my capped comments) and I think the current format is much less ambiguous. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I will hold off on the tiebreaks for now with respect to this list article, but I think and go look at WP:Tennis on the talk pages, and see the conversation going on right now!BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I nominated this because the Wimbledon ones, but I don't think the Wimbledon one is justified in being the lone slam list to get to FL. I did not create these articles, which is why I have problems with the way User:Don Lope set the up. I think he neglected to see all-time only matters in the eras. I just am trying to help right now!BLuEDOgTn 16:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be following this about every other day, which I will still keep up this but not daily about three times a week._BLuE^DOgTN 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support The list underwent massive and great fixes, definitely FL quality now. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

*Comment In the ALTs some times you mention the image is black and white and other times you don't. Could u either mention this every time or indicate it in some way...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Per WP:ALT, phrases about the provenance of the image (such as "black and white picture of") should be omitted. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed, support good list, meets FL criteria.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:22, 6 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [36].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it is a valuable contribution to wikipedia. bamse (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comments --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The lead needs to have references for every fact. This is not the case here.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I added references to the lead now. Please let me know if I forgot to reference a fact. bamse (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) There should be images for the listed sculptures.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) I'd love to put pictures, however I am concerned about the following: (i) Loading time of the page on slow internet connections. Please consider that there are 126 list entries where some of the entries cover more than one statue and could require more than one picture to illustrate. Loading time wouldn't be that bad it's mostly 140px or 200px image thumbs which wouldn't take that long to load. 126 is a big number but instead of describing the statues under "Image" I'd prefer having an image per statue (look at List of tallest buildings in New York City to see an example of a list which incorporates images. With one image per statue, I'd end up with much more than 126 pictures. How about one (characteristic) picture per one list entry (total of 126)? To avoid misunderstandings, "image" here is meant as in "image of a god" rather than in the photographic sense. I think the "image" column contains information which can not be replaced by pictures, so I will add a picture column. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) (ii) Availability of pictures and license problems. Except for the large Buddhas in Kamakura and Nara and the Usuki Buddhas, I suspect that there are not many pictures of these statues on wikipedia. Most of the statues are located inside temples or museums. From my understanding it is not legally allowed to upload pictures of art objects inside such buildings to wikipedia (please correct me if I am mistaken). In fact many temples don't allow photography of these statues. bamse (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Statues inside temples or museums aren't copyrighted. If u took a photo you can upload it. They can tell you not to shoot photos though... Look on Flickr for photos too. If not then just add the ones that are there.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) That's promising. I will see what I can find. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) I added a picture column with all the pictures I found on commons and uploaded some of my own. Will start having a look at the lead secion now.bamse (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The Material, Size and every column should be referenced.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Not sure if I understand correctly. Do you mean that I should put references in each field of the table (7 x 126 = 882 references)? I referenced by line. A reference in the first (name) column is meant to reference the whole line, i.e., the reference is for one (group) of statue(s). Is it really necessary to repeat the same reference in each field of the line? bamse (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC) It's not necessary and not beneficial actually. But since I don't understand Japanese I didn't know that the info is referenced at the first column.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) The lead still needs considerable expansion since the list is pretty long. Compare to List of tallest buildings in New York City. The lead should be at least that big. One sentence (line) paragraphs should be expanded like the fourth paragraph in the lead. The first paragraph should also have another line. In any case, please expand the lead.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Remove "Lists of other National Treasures of Japan can be found in List of National Treasures of Japan." If you want a link to List of National Treasures of Japan then either incorporate it into the lead or add a "See also" section with this link.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Agreed. bamse (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Moved it to the "See also" section. bamse (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Remove the image column but add the pictures on the side of the the table with the appropriate caption like on National Film Registry. Over time more images would be available, I hope you make more images, and they can be added along the side of the table.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Very good idea. Will move the pictures out of the table. I've been looking all over the place but did not find many pictures which could be used without violating copyright; just a couple of old pictures and some of my own. In any case, the present pictures cover a good variety of different statues (different Buddhist images, different materials). bamse (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Is this how you imagined it? Truthkeeper88 is currently copy-editing the lead section. bamse (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Yes much better now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Image column shouldn't be sortable Why not? It took me quite some time to make sorting work. It sorts differently to the name column, because some of the names don't reflect the name of the Buddhist image, e.g., "Great Buddha" versus "Amida Nyorai". Sorting of the Image column then collects all the Amida Nyorai together which the Name column cannot.bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) It's ok...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) The sorting of the age column has bugs. When sorting 711, 733 etc. are after 8th Century while 8th century is after 7th century. This is because 711 is seen as larger then 8. You need to add sorting keys.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) There are lots of sorting keys in this table. As far as I can see, sorting works as described in the "Usage" section: "sorts by year. If only a period is known, sorts by the start year of that period." So "8th century Nara period" sorts as "0710" (710 was the start year of the Nara period), "8th century Asuka period" sorts as "0700", (Asuka period was until 710). Of course I could have "8th century" always sort as "0700" independent of the period, but why not be a tiny bit more precise? There might be more such occurences where I made the sorting year more precise based on the birth date of the sculptor for instance. Let me know if you think that this way of sorting is not good. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) WOW, I didn't expect the table to be so good sortable. Really good work on that.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) To make the Present location column correctly sortable you should have first the prefecture, then the city, then the place. There are sorting keys present which make just that. Let me know if you noticed any inconsistencies. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) In Image you sometimes use seated and sometimes sitting wouldn't it be better if this was standarized? "seated Chishō Daishi" why isn't "seated" capital?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Add Alt text to the images, so people with screen readers could know what the image contains.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I'll do that. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I suggest instead of "Age" - "Date", since it gives the date of the creation of the Statue.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Since "Size" is mainly about the "Height" could u change the header to that?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I really don't like "Image", it's confusing because I expect to see an image of the sculpture but only the position of the Sculpture and its pose is mention. Could it be changed to "Sculpture" or "Pose" or something saying what this column is about?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to "Pose". bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "Together, with the 37 entries located in Kyoto Prefecture, they make up the bulk of this list." Please don't refer to the list, reword.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   Reworded to read: "...they make up the bulk of sculptural National Treasures". bamse (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

2. References that you use extensively like ""仏教索引" could be made as general references in the References section. See List_of_tallest_buildings_in_San_Diego#References as an example of splitting general from specific references.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
3. "Kouzou Ogawa; Nobuko Seki," needs to be verifiable please add the page used for every reference. For example Ogawa 2006, p. 10. Yes use {{Harvnb}}.Then create a sources section with books used.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   I am not aware of a consensus for using one reference style over another, but ok. I won't have access to the book before October though. bamse (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   It's not about the style. Use whatever style u want. However you need to give the referenced pages so that one doesn't have to keep searching in a book to find the info.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   I see. It'll take a month or two before I can do much about it. bamse (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

   I guess till then the current reference would suffice. Please specify the references as soon as you can. Till then though I think this List still meets the Featured list criteria and should therefore be featured. Support --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment "The List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) contains all the sculptures (彫刻, chōkoku?) designated as National Treasures by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of the government of Japan. " This seems like a horribly forced beginning to the lead along the lines "This is a list of X". We don't start FLs like this anymore; see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC) There's also quite a bit of formatting work to be done. I know it's tedious, but I don't know of any scripted way to do it. First, the main table needs conversions for all its measurements. Then, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Finally, you need centered em dashes in blank cells. I've done a sample edit to part of the table at User:Dabomb87/Drafts. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'll go ahead and do this tedious work. At least it'll give me a break from adding alt-texts to images... I'll also think of a new thrilling start for the lead. BTW, I copied a new lead section from Truthkeeper88's sandbox and thereby killed some of your edits. Sorry for that. I tried to fix it. bamse (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I noticed that some of the recently promoted lists start like (for "List of X"): "X is ...", not much better than saying "in the list of X there are..." in my opinion. Anyway I will probably just start the lead with the history section (presently third paragraph) and move the first two paragraphs after the history. bamse (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC) I added centered em dashes in blank cells and conversions for all measurements. Only thing left is to remove the periods. bamse (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks, I should be able to support soon after that is fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Removed periods. I hope I caught all of them. bamse (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The lead still needs to be tweaked, though. One more thing; can you spell out JAANUS in the publisher of the reference? Also, I went through and unitalicized the names of what I believed to be names of websites and organizations, which are not italicized. If any of them were in fact newspapers, magazines, or books, please accept my apologies and feel free to re-italicized them. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks. The lead is still being worked on here. It should be ready soon. bamse (talk) 08:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC) The new lead is there now. Also spelled out JAANUS. bamse (talk) 16:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your patience, just a couple more details: the alt text is very good (I tweaked the map's alt text); the only issue is that information about how the image was made, such as "black and white photograph", is unnecessary. One other thing—image captions that are not complete sentences should have periods at the end, such as "Nine-faced Kannon from Hōryū-ji with eight faces on her head." Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "List" - Perhaps there is a better name for the section, like "Treasures" or "Sculptures"?

    Changed to "Treasures". bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • In the "Remarks" column, some of the notes begin with a capital letter, while others begin with a small case letter. You should be consistant.

    Fixed. bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Are there any more images than the ones in the article? If so, would it be possible to embed them in the table?

    Unfortunately there are no more images available that I am aware of. Following a comment by Diaa abdelmoneim (see above under "resolved comments"), I spend quite some time looking for more images on flickr, in my own images and old books. Unlike 2D art (paintings), for which the PD-Art tag makes basically all images of old (2dimensional) art available, it is not easy to find usable pictures for 3D sculptures. There is an old version ([37]) with pictures embedded in the table. Because there are rather few images, the present version with pictures out of the table looks better in my opinion. (Also see the discussion above) bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • The name column makes for some difficult reading. Could you put line breaks in between the English names and the Japanese text?

    I could, however the table will turn out even longer and long names will still be split over several lines. Not sure if it is important: I currently used the Template:Nihongo, which associates the strings with English/Kanji/Romaji. If I removed the nihongo templates and put line breaks, all text (Japanese Kanji and Romaji included) would appear the same. Shall I still put those line breaks? bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I can understand why the names have Japanese translations, but is it really necessary for there to be Japanese text in the other columns? It makes the list rather cluttered.

    In the "Present location" column, I used the Japanese reading for place names that don't have a wikipedia article yet in order to clearly identify the place and to avoid misunderstandings. In some cases both the English name and the Japanese reading (text in italics) are used in English language. In the "Material" column I used the Japanese names for some techniques because a specific Japanese technique is meant here: "Gold leaf over lacquer" might be a technique used in other countries, while "shippaku" is a specific Japanese version of this technique. I could remove the Kanji from the Material column if you think they are confusing but would like to keep them in the Location column for the reason above, unless you insist. Eventually there will be articles on all the places and the Kanji can be removed. bamse (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I'm satisfied with all of your answers. Great job. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Extraordinary list, accompanied well by their images. My only suggestion for improvement would be to move the last paragraph of the lead to the beginning of the lead. Since it is a list of national treasures, I think it makes more sense to define the criteria of the list before discussing the historical development of Japanese sculpture. Geraldk (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  Glad you like it. Indeed the criteria definition used to be at the start of the article ([38]). However I moved it to the end of the lead following a suggestion by Dabomb87 (see "Resolved issues, Dabomb87" above). Other featured lists use a similar structure for the lead, so I would not want to change it back. bamse (talk) 21:15, 5 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [39].

---

List of Asu no Yoichi! episodes

Nominator(s): Extremepro (talk), Kaguya-chan (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it has met the criterion for featured list. Extremepro (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's far to premature to attempt a FL run for this article. There is still a lot of information missing that should be present in the article.
  1. There is no information about DVD releases. If you look at every FL at WP:ANIME#Featured lists, you will notice that about every list contains information about the DVD releases.
     • A list has been added about the release dates. Kaguya-chan (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  2. If you can find information about the episode directors and screenwriters, then they should be included into the list.
     • Directors and screenwriters added. Extremepro (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
       • I think you misunderstood Farix's comment. He meant directors and screenwriters for individual episodes. You can add this into the table by including the DirectedBy and WrittenBy parameters. The information is readily available at episode pages such as this, where 脚本 indicates the screenwriter and 演出 indicates the director. Arsonal (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
         • Added director and screenwriters to the list with references. Extremepro (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  3. Almost all sources are primary in nature. A Feature List should contain a good mix of primary and third-party sources. At present, there is only one third-party reference.
  4. If there is a list of characters, then the characters' names in the summaries should be linked to their entries on the list when first mentioned.
     • There is no list of characters. All the main characters are listed on the parent page. Extremepro (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  5. Yū Minamoto and Rion Kujo are red links. You almost never see red links in Featured Lists.
     • Removed the red links. Extremepro (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
       • I won't tell you to revert this, but there is nothing wrong with red links, especially if the subject is notable. See WP:RED. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  6. Many of the summaries are simply too long. Episode 7, "Sukumizu Shirosuku Sebareeto", comes in at 240 words and episode 10, "Hitō de Shitō!", at a whopping 284 words. This compared to episode 2, "Yōkoso Yokkō", which is a scant 113 words. Episode summaries should fall in between 100 to 200 words, with 150 being a good medium. But most importantly, they should be consistent in their length with few exceptions. (ex. recap episodes)
     • Reduced the episode summaries to around 180 words. Extremepro (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'll leave the grammar checks to others since that is not my strong suit. —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Grammar checked/ Copyedited by User:Arsonal. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:I'll withdraw this nomination then. Reducing episode summary length will take a while. Extremepro (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comments: The picture needs alt text. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Added alt text for the picture. Extremepro (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Arsonal (talk)

Comments I will take a look at the individual summaries later. For now, here are some issues: Each ref that has Japanese characters in the title needs to use the trans_title parameter. Added trans_title to other refs. Extremepro (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Echoing Farix, the list should have information on the DVD releases as well as this has been the standard in more recent FL anime episode lists. See the recently promoted List of Last Exile episodes for an example. Even if the some DVDs have yet to be released, a schedule should be included such as in List of Shangri-La episodes. Each ref should either use ISO or human readable dates, not a mix of both. Converted all dates to ISO format. Extremepro (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC) On a quick check, the references mentioning premiere dates do not list the airing dates of the other episodes. Each episode airdate must cite a source. Arsonal (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Fixed with that. Side comment, air dates are either very easy or extremely hard to fix depending of the broadcaster & anime producer. Older animes are clear disadvantaged. Things are improving thought, i guess smart persons in Japan noticed our featured episodes lists and get the point that air dates need to be sourced. --KrebMarkt 08:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC) More comments I have finished copyediting the episode summaries as much as I can, but there are a few issues that need to be resolved. Please edit my changes if they rendered the parts of the summary inaccurate. Arsonal (talk) 22:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 3: The first mention of Angela Takatsukasa's presence is a bit awkward as it does not introduce her background as Tsubasa's subordinate. Does she transfer in with Tsubasa? Introduced Angela as Tsubasa's subordinate. She does not go to school. Episode 5: Is the name "Hinagata Yui" written in the correct order of writing family name second? Hinagata is her last name so it would be Yui Hinagata using Hepburn romanisation. Episode 6: Is Toriyaka supposed to be Torigaya? If so, use the full name as it is the first mention of his name. Mentioned Torigaya's full name. Episode 7: This one has many issues. The main article lists the clan's name as "Sakinomiya"; which is it? I feel like this summary lost some stuff when it was trimmed. I don't see the connection in the sentence "One brother releases a trained bird to attack the gang, which causes Yoichi to embarrass everyone." Why did "Yoichi dives into the water to save him" when they are in the forest? The summary goes back from the forest into the beach without any explanation. The 200 word limit is a bit limiting yeah. Correct spelling is "Saginomiya". "One brother releases a trained bird to attack the gang, which causes Yoichi to embarrass everyone." - Well the two brothers released a trained bird which aims for the girls. Yoichi crash-tackles the girls to avoid the attack. But the girls misinterpret his actions and causes them to be embarassed. The word limit is really limiting. Tweaked article to reflect that the cliff/ledge is about the sea. I usually put myself in the line of thought that clarity should be prioritized over length. In this case, I think it's fine it lengthen the summary a bit to further clarify what happens to Yoichi in the first attack and what becomes of Masashi. Arsonal (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Clarified the attack. And mentioned that Masashi regrouped with the others. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 8: Who does Yoichi beat up the gang with? Washizu or Ayame? With Washizu Episode 9: Washizu is in two groups? Who is Ukyou? Torigaya is meant to be in one of the groups. Ukyou is the head of the Saginomiya clan. Perhaps it would be good to mention Ukyō's position so that he doesn't appear to be introduced without context. Arsonal (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Mentioned and expanded summary to mention Ukyō's crush on Ibuki. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 10: Standardize the spellings of Ukyou and Ukyo. Is it supposed to be Ukyō? Done. Episode 11: I don't understand this sentence: "Ukyou and Sakon arrive at the dojo with the proposal and trial of the Ikarugas to live like a "first-class celebrity" in exchange for Ibuki." Tweaked. Episode 12: I am assuming that Yoichi's group survive the fall, but that should be mentioned. Mentioned. General: Does Masashi not appear again with the other Saginomiyas for the rest of the series? Is Ukyō the other brother in episode 7? If his name is mentioned then, it should be included. Ukyō does not appear until episode 9. The 2 brothers in episode 7 are not named. They are introduced as students of the Saginomiya clan. Who is Masashi then? I was under the impression that he was one of the two brothers since he was introduced out of context and doesn't have a full name. Arsonal (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Clarified that Masashi is one of Ibuki's students. Masashi's last name is never mentioned in the anime. The other students aren't even given a first name. Go figure. Extremepro (talk) 09:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC) There is an extra empty column in the DVD releases table. Removed empty column

Support as quality of episode summaries has improved. However, other reviewers may point out that the lead paragraphs stands at just over 1300 characters. I believe general guidelines state that list leads should be 1500 characters or more. This is used in promoting lists in DYK as well. Arsonal (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded lead with directors and screenwriter info. Currently has over 1500 characters in the lead. Extremepro (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• The lead does look a little better, but I have never heard of a character-count guideline for leads. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe it was my imagination… I'm pretty sure someone has mentioned it to me before during a nomination process, but I can't remember when or where. I can't even remember what kind of nomination it was. Arsonal (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was to add User:Kaguya-chan as co-nominator because she has significantly edited and copy edited this article. Extremepro (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support The lead looks good, and spot-checks of the episode summaries reveal no problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose from Goodraise (talk · contribs) Could the statement that "Limited editions of all six complilations, each of which contains a bonus CD, were also released." be cited? Cited. Extremepro (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) In the episode titles, the capitalization style is inconsistent. If you capitalize Is, you should also capitalize be. Fixed. Extremepro (talk) What is that portal link doing in the references section? Where should the portal link be? Extremepro (talk) Personally, I'd remove it completely. However, I'm not objecting to the link being in the article, only to its placement. It's neither a reference, nor is it reference-related. Goodraise 02:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Portal link removed. On a side note, most of the "List of Bleach episodes" have the portal link in the reference section with general references and specific ones. Extremepro (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The tenses in the lead seem a bit messed up. Is past tense better? Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC) The lead states that "The episodes were directed by Rion Kujo", yet the table gives various names as directors. Rion Kujo directed the whole series. The directors listed in the table are the animation directors and they often vary between episodes. Clarified in the article. Extremepro (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I question the reliability of Jones, Tim. "Asu no Yoichi!". THEM Anime Reviews. Retrieved 2009-09-16. I'd suggest simply removing it. Removed. Extremepro (talk) The fair-use rational of the article's only image is not convincing. Better now? (And if not, could you please be more specific? What about the fair-use rationale is not convincing?) Kaguya-chan (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Better, but not yet good. You may want to look at this as an example of a good FUR. Goodraise 15:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the example. :) I added the non-free image data. Kaguya-chan (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Better, but still not there. See here. Goodraise 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Use and purpose of image added. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets criteria 2 through 6. (No comment on prose quality.) Sources look good and the FUR of the article's only image is adequate. Goodraise 22:20, 30 September 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [40].

---

List of Tour de France general classification winners

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that after a peer review it meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list. NapHit (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose/Comments from KV5 "the tour is the most well known" - well-known "three "Grand Tours"; the others being" - I'm really not sure about the punctuation here. I don't think the semicolon is correct, but I am totally at a loss for what to suggest. "in more recent years" - more recently "The rider with the lowest aggregate time at the end of each day wears the maillot jaune (yellow jersey).[3] The yellow jersey represents the leader of the general classification," - combine into one sentence. The rider with the lowest aggregate time at the end of each day wears the maillot jaune (yellow jersey),[3] representing the leader of the general classification. "there are others jerseys" - other, plus this should begin a new sentence "King of the Mountains classification" - since the article linked here says that it's officially called the mountains classification, that's what I would change this to, instead of WP:JARGON like King of the Mountains. "The race was won by Frenchmen" - Frenchman "He won again the next year," - de-link year, it's a stretch to link this, plus it's easily accessible from the table. Also, end with semicolon. "however he was disqualified" - however, "that had ridden in or been pulled by cars, and used the railways" - awkward wording. Consider that he had been transported by car or rail. This covers everything generally. "Henri Cornet after the dispute was settled, he is the youngest person to win the tour." - eh? Sentence fragment. "with the cyclist who had the least points" - change "who had" to having "1912" - comma after, plus why is this one un-linked? "French cyclists were successful in the early tours," - comma to semicolon "Belgian riders became more successful," - remove comma "which suspended from 1915 to 1918" - which suspended the Tour from 1915 to 1918 "trade teams came to dominate" - what is a trade team? I have a vague idea, but the casual reader may not. In general, I am starting to see an overuse of the word "dominate" and its forms. Consider replacing some. "However when Alcyon cyclist" - comma after However "tour in 1929, while sick," - no comma after 1929, and consider ill instead of "sick" or replacing with the actual disease he had if a source can be found "to stop team tactics undermining the race" - I believe this should be from undermining, though this could be a Britishism. "After the Second World War, no one dominated the Tour. Louison Bobet changed that when he won three successive tours from 1953 to 1955, the first person to achieve this feat." - Consider linking these sentences differently. Perhaps After the Second World War, no one dominated the Tour until Louison Bobet; he won three successive tours from 1953 to 1955, the first person to achieve this feat. "Anquetil, was the first person to win five tours, his success in 1957, pre-dating his four successive triumphs." - re-word; consider Anquetil, who had previously won in 1957, became the first to win five Tours. "Anquetil's achievements were matched" - you need to make it clearer what achievement. Merckx didn't win five tours, and this is currently vague. "Merckx looked to be heading for a record sixth tour victory in 1975," - needs a ref "Thévenet won again in 1977, however he was eclipsed" - semicolon after 1977, and comma after however "fellow Frenchmen Bernard Hinault" - Frenchman "who won two consecutive tours" - two is extraneous, remove "only eleven cyclists (including Fausto Coppi, Anquetil, Hugo Koblet and Merckx)" - would put unlinked names before linked "In 1980, Hinault was going for a third consecutive win, but had to pull out due to tendinitis," - needs ref "Hinault returned in 1981 and won as he did the following year." - comma after won, and linking "year" is a stretch again "another Frenchmen Laurent Fignon achieved victory" - another Frenchman—Laurent Fignon—achieved victory. "beating Hinault, however Hinault recovered" - semicolon after first Hinault, comma after however "Greg LeMond became the first non-European" - where was he from? This is very notable since it took so long, so the country name should be in there somewhere. Something like American Greg LeMond or Greg LeMond, an American, became "becoming the first person to win five tours in a row." - you've used "in a row" twice in quick succession, change to five consecutive tours "1997 and 1998 respectively, however Pantani's victory" - comma after 1998, semicolon after respectively, comma after however "1999 saw the return of Lance Armstrong to cycling, after he had overcome testicular cancer." - 1999 saw the return of Lance Armstrong to cycling after overcoming testicular cancer. "Armstrong won the tour that year." - no space before ref "Armstrong won the tour that year. [18] Armstrong won a further six tours taking his total to seven, all of which were consecutively won. Armstrong retired after his 2005 triumph.[19]" - very wordy. Consider combining three wordy sentences thus: Armstrong won the tour that year,[18] followed by six more, for a total of seven consecutive victories, after which he retired. "The following year" - comma after year "Alberto Contador won the 2007 tour, which was also marred by doping scandals. He won in 2009." - very abrupt, and no mention of the 2008 winner. I appreciate the use of the colors in the key that represent the jersey colors; however, white will not fly against MediaWiki's background colors. Consider yellow or something similar. All "also"s in the key are extraneous. "king of the Mountains classification" - either King of the Mountains or king of the mountains I see at least one instance of slanted minute and second markers in the table; do a check. Country names in the table need to be written out, not abbreviated. I'm not sure about this I think there fine as they are personally, most people can distinguish what countries they are from the three letters. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) The Manual of Style disagrees. Abbreviations should be written out in full at their first occurrence, and you can't just expect that any reader (a fourth grader, for example) will know what "LUX", etc., means. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Changed to full names now NapHit (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC) The "#" symbol should also be superscripted in the table. "Margin" needs to be explained in the key. It needs to be delineated in the key that the "Year" links to the corresponding Tour de France, rather than "just a year". In the footnotes, "performance enhancing drugs" - performance-enhancing drugs There are extra brackets in Ref. #3. I'm not sure how to fix this, it looks fine when I go to edit it. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I'll check it out. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I fixed it; PDFs need to be "cite book", not "cite web". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Turned out all it was the fact, that in the format parameter I didn't capitalise pdf, it's fixed now anyway. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Neither of the navboxes currently have a direct link to this article. Either link to them in a proper place or remove the navboxes. Team names featuring more than one company name should use en-dashes to show disambiguation rather than hyphens. Ex: Peugeot-Wolber, Peugeot-BP-Michelin, Gitane-Campagnolo, Renault-Elf-Gitane, etc. I understand that this had a peer review, but due to the amount of copyediting that is needed, please consider asking for a second opinion from the WikiProject as well before the next nom. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Ok I think I've dealt with most of the stuf you brought I left a few comments as well, cheers. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Additional comments (KV5) The table says that Alberto Contador won in 2007 with Discovery Channel, but the lead says he won with Astana. Which is correct? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC) The lead mentions is 2009 win which was with Astana. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, but the history section only mentions him with Astana in 2008 and 2009. Even though he is mentioned in 2007, there's no reference of him with his team, so it's ambiguous without reading the table. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Hopefully cleared it up now NapHit (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) "as his Astana team were banned" - team is singular, changed to was banned. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Done NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) "who later admitted to using EPO" - what is EPO? I have an idea, but the casual reader may not. See MOS:ABBR. Write out the full name. The abbreviation is actually unneeded, because you don't mention EPO again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Done NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments have been satisfactorily resolved. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments – "The course changes every year, but has always finished in Paris, more recently along the Champs-Elysees." How recent, in terms of the year when the finish began being held there? "Belgian cyclists are second with 18 victories, and Spanish are third with 11 wins." A word is needed after Spanish. To avoid repetitive phrasing, try "riders". History: Change comma after "became the winner after the dispute was settled" to a semi-colon. Similar change after "trade teams came to dominate the tour". Comma after "Indurain would come to dominate the tour". Try not to have a sentence start with a year, like "1999 saw the return of Lance Armstrong". Space after "testicular cancer". Footnote A: Change to "admitted to doping" for a cleaner sentence. Footnote B: Delink date. Title isn't rendering properly in reference 3. Bic is a disambiguation link. Lance Armstrong image requires alt text. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Done all requests. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – After the improvements suggested by everyone were made, this list has turned out well. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Lance Armstrong has the most Tour victories, winning seven in a record sequence between 1999 and 2005." It's not clear what exactly the "record" is here. Can you elaborate on the points system? How are points gained? "Belgian riders became more successful before and after the First World War (which suspended the tour from 1915 to 1918)." This doesn't make any sense; if they were successful on both sides of WWI, then when did they become successful? "Hinault won the tour at his first attempt in 1978; only 11 cyclists " 11 cyclists including Hinault, or 11 other cyclists. Philippe Thys should sort after Bernard Thévenet. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Done your requests NapHit (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• What source are you using for the data in the main table? --Jpeeling (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The main source is given below "general" in the reference section. (Jacques Augendre, Tour de France Guide Historique) All information of the table is there, maybe except the number of stage wins.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case then I'm concerned as I checked race distances from that source and there's a lot (about half) of differences. --Jpeeling (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the race distances, thanks for pointing that out NapHit (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Still discrepancies between race distances for 1908, 1909 and 2002. --Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• There's some other discrepancies: time - 1903, 1904, 1929, 1932, 1935, 1948, 1950, 1962, 1968, 1978, 1989 and 2006. Margins - 1903, 1914, 1919, 1932, 1979.
• There's nothing on the PDF about the points system, what source is used for that data?
• Is there a source for the number of stage wins?

--Jpeeling (talk | contribs) 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• About the discrepancies: The table in the reference apparently has some mistakes. There is also an official Tour archive. I checked the values with this table, and the status is now:

• 1903: Corrected value in article.
• 1904: The general reference table differs by one second. A description on the letour-archive[41] gives the winning time as 96 h 5' 55" 3/5, so this probably has something to do with rounding.
• 1914: The general reference table is off by 10 seconds, probably a typo.
• 1919: The general reference table is off by 10 minutes, also for the number three. I find no other source that agrees to the general reference table.
• 1929: The general reference table is off (by one second).
• 1932: The general reference table is off, both with time and margin.
• 1935: Corrected value in article.
• 1948: Corrected value in article.
• 1950: The general reference table is wrong. Off by 10 seconds, probably a typo.
• 1962: The general reference table is wrong. They typed 45 where they meant 54.
• 1968: The general reference table is wrong. Don't know why. See also this newspaper article from 1968 that gives the results.
• 1978: Corrected value in article.
• 1979: The general reference table is wrong: The time for the winner is 103h 6' 50", and probably this confused them to make the margin 6' 50".
• 1989: Corrected value in article.
• 2006: The general reference table has the wrong value for total time: it shows the time of Floyd Landis, the original winner who was disqualified.

For all values from 1929 I can give multiple independent sources that show that the current article has the right values. They all agree to the official Tour archive. Unfortunately, they were not really good in condensing this into one table, so Wikipedia can do better. All sources (except the general reference table) for the values from before 1929 agree to the current article, but I am not sure if these sources are independent sources.

• The official Tour archive does not give the point system results (1905–1912). This is where memoire du cyclisme does better. I checked the values there, they all agree to the ones currently in the article.
• The number of stage wins of the winner in that Tour could be compiled from the sources above. But I don't know why this information should be included in this article, maybe the nominator can tell. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the detailed response, I would request that if other sources are used for verification of the data then those sites are added to the references section. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Of course. I just did it, is this format acceptable? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fine by me. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Armstrong also has the fastest Tour victory, completing the 2005 Tour de France with an average speed of 41.654 kilometres per hour (25.883 mph)." Source? I calculate, using data from the table, that the 1999 victory was faster.

The 1999 tour had an average speed of 40.315 km/h, which is slower.[42] See also page 115 of the general reference. Are you sure your calculation is correct? --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The calculation is correct: 3870/91.58 = 42.26, 3593/86.25 = 41.66. However the data looks wrong, the source above has a distance of 3686.8 km. That distance is on the memoire site but the TDF archive like the PDF has 3870. Could you take a look at this please. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By adding up the stage distances, I end up around 3690 km. I checked a newspaper announcing the 1999 Tour, and that also says 3690 km (a rounded number). I am sure the 3870 value is wrong, but I don't see how they made that mistake of 180 km. In their communications in 1999, the Tour de France gave the 3690 number, but somewhere between 1999 and now they changed this to 3870 and the error stuck.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• "Spanish riders are third with 11 wins" according to the nationality table it's 12.

• The source was written down before the 2009 Tour de France was over, so back then it was 11. I updated it to 12, but now it is unsourced does no longer completely agree to the source given.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The 1999 tour saw the return of Lance Armstrong to cycling after overcoming testicular cancer." Needs tweaking, Armstrong's return to cycling was in 1998.

• You are right, but I think it is even too trivial for this article, so I removed it. Together with the fact that Armstrong retired after his seventh victory. For other cyclists, this career information is also not given.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• The 'dated' Italian flag is used in the multiple winners table but Italian pre-1946 victories in the main table use a modern flag. Consistency one way or the other would be better.

• Corrected it. The pre-1946 victories were supposed to have the old flag, but the coding was wrong.

• Should Bartali's 1938 victory also have the old flag? Also I believe Spain had a slightly different flag when Bahamontes and Ocaña won. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• You are correct. The information was in the article source, but coded wrong. I missed it. Thanks. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• AutoMoto for 1923 and 1924, Automoto for 1925 and 1926. Should these be consistent?

--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and I corrected it to Automoto, the way the general reference gives it. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all comments resolved. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, I've fixed the footnotes link to the table, it's now working. Anyway it's a nice list, great job! — Martin tamb (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the list is missing media files. Why not add images of some of the winning cyclists to the side of the tables?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:40, 6 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [43].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 10)

Nominator(s): Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list as part of the feature topic Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Bleach which is needing season 10 and season 11 to be FL. The list has been copyedited and its issues have addressed in the peer review. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment why is it called "list of bleach episodes" and not just "Bleach (season 10)" ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP: Anime uses "list of" for episodes list per Template:Japanese episode list#Sublists.Tintor2 (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the theme songs be in Nihongo3 template with the term "lit." in it somewhere? DragonZero (talk) 19:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 19:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The singer does not need Nihongo I'm pretty sure. Hitohira no Hanabira needs Nihongo. DragonZero (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment 2. DragonZero (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The nineteen-episode season is based on Tite Kubo's Bleach manga series, and adaptation from the 32nd through 36th volumes", I'm not sure what other editors would say but this could be called original research.

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 191, "Tesla threatens to destroy the source of her power". Maybe something to explain her power?

Done (though it is never specified what would Orihime do in such situation).Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Episode 205. "The soccer game officially kicks off," sounds kind of funny to me.

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything seems great to me and I support this, though I'm just a newbie editor. DragonZero (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Arsonal (talk)

Comment A few things. Use the trans_title parameter for references whose titles don't use Roman characters. Done (though there are some terms I'm pretty sure). I'm pretty sure "Sky Chord" is included in the Kanji title of the song. Done. Is there a need to romanize the Kanji for "Arrancar vs. Shinigami arc"? Done. Lead: "…from Season 9 centered…" Lower case "s". Done. Arsonal (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Spot checks on episode summaries did not reveal any errors. Arsonal (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Episodes 204 and 205 bring back the Kasumiōji Soul Reapers from season 9 centered on soccer." This sentence is unclear. What is centered on soccer? "When Ichigo asks why he knows Nel" Why does he know, or how does he know? The second sounds more logical, but I'm not the expert. Overall, I think the summaries could use a little more copy-editing, which I'm working on. More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) "after learning about the ability from bacteria he implanted in Uryū" Which ability? The ability to destroy his organs, or the ability to replace them with dummies? "piercing through his hand and heart for what he discerns as centuries before he dies" Not sure what "centuries" means here? Did he think that he was pierced for a time period of a century? "This leads to an outburst between Lurichiyo and Kenryu, and the latter intends to end his life to make Lurichiyo "happy"." Does he actually say he will end his life or is he just thinking about this? "The action culminates in Ikkaku Madarame's joining in the game, while actually sparring with Ichigo instead" This phrase doesn't make sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC) "he made a scene when he was trying to load his things into his new room" "he ... he ... his", very ambiguous. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "Karakura Town during the previous arc" Link for "previous arc"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Could you tell me where is that? I don't find it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Episode 213. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Done.Tintor2 (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good, though I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanuage ones for reliability. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Issues raised by others were addressed; list is consistent with previous seasons' list.--Remurmur (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs) The romaji titles need to be title-cased. Found and fixed the only one I found.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Most of them still need to be title-cased. As an example: The first title should be "Weko Mundo Hen, Saikai!" Goodraise 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) So everything needs to be with capitals?Tintor2 (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC) The fair-use rational of the article's only image is not convincing. Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC) No, not fixed. Here is an example of an acceptable FUR. Goodraise 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Done (I'm not pretty sure if the romaji no has to use capitals).Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Goodraise 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets criteria 2 through 6. (No comment on prose quality.) Sources look good and the FUR of the article's only image is adequate. Goodraise 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Diaa

Comment Shouldn't there be production and reception sections? It just seems that this is unfair to other FLCs that had to find more info like Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Desperate Housewives (season 1)/archive1 and so on...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC) That should be something to discuss at WT:Anime (although I think that was already discussed).Tintor2 (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Comment where did u get the Romaji and Kanji titles?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The kanji is from the TV Tokyo sites shown in the article. The romaji is derivative.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "The season first aired from October 14, 2008 though April 7, 2009 on TV Tokyo in Japan." though?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "The first DVD compilation was released on May 27, 2009, and as of August 26, 2009, four DVDs have been published." you mean four DVD compilations or four compilations. Cause there have been probably more than four DVDs published.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "known as the Arrancar vs. Shinigami arc" known by who?? You mean released on DVD as .... Cause that's what the ref gives.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The lead is very misleading cause as I understand it there are no seasons in Japanese Anime...or are there?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The previews say it is another season.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "Aniplex is selling the season in four-episode DVD compilations" What will happen to the last 3 episodes?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The release date of every DVD should be mentioned and if there will be a 5th DVD.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) That is mentioned in the main list List of Bleach episodes.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This info should also be in this list since it is relevant to this season. You should also explain in the lead the change to the title "The Past" in the upcoming Volume sets. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The English translation should be referenced or it would be OR.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC) There is no official English translation for the episodes' names (and it seems Viz doesn't publishes the names from the episodes). Leaving only the kanji and the romaji would make this article confusing. The translation shown is the most exact derivation that could be made from the kanji.Tintor2 (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) You could use TV.com eventhough this is seen as Season 9. I though that TV.com wasn't reliable since it is user-edited.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) TV.com has a totally different Seasons division. Is this because it's based on the US release or what exactly?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This season has yet to be released in North America. Still, the English division seems to be identical to the Japanese ones as you can see in the first seasons lists.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC) "The 19-episode " aren't they 25?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Isn't there any info regarding the screen writers?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't that be overdetailed?Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I don't think so. The anime is different from the manga and the various screen writers should be indicated.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Do you mean all the script, storyboard staff seen here?Tintor2 (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC) If you have info about which episodes are written by which member of the staff then this should be in the article.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The TV Tokyo site does not show that.Tintor2 (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Are there any new characters introduced?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Not that I remember.Tintor2 (talk) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Please add the DVD section as explained...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Although it's incomplete it is shown in List of Bleach episodes, should it be repeated?Tintor2 (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Yes either repeat it or remove it from the other list and add it here. This is directly related to this list. I don't see why it's more related to the other one.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Done.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Please look for the following info about the seasons to expand the list:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Awards received for episodes in this season Reviews of episodes DVD sales production notes Viewers numbers, dominant age... All that information is cover in Bleach and it should be discussed in WT:Anime not here in order to change the manual of style for anime episode lists so I don't think I should do that now.Tintor2 (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC) None of that information is required for an anime episode season list, and most is not even remotely available. Nor is it called for by the relevant MoS. Anime episode lists are not the same as television episode lists, only vaguely similar. The DVD section recommended above is also unnecessary and should be removed. The releases can and should be covered in prose in the lead rather than the small tables, which it already is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I concur, the information is not readily available, and lacking it is not a failure of the article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Any information related to the season should be covered in a season list. If you don't like the DVD table then add the info in the lead. Try to find out why the change of title happened or why they restarted the Volume numbers. If the info isn't available then this wouldn't result in the failure of the list, as it is comprehensive as far as it can be. Now please comprehensively cover the DVD releases in the lead. The absense of it is a failure of comprehensiveness.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC) The DVD is already covered in the lead in the second paragraph. Excessive detail is not necessary nor is it a failure of comprehensiveness. The title didn't "change" - Bleach, like many long running anime series has story arcs that the set of episodes covers. In Bleach's case, they released the DVDs with the subtitles and the restart volume numbers, versus having them be volumes 52-56 (which makes total marketing sense). All of the available information that is available is there. Again, please do not compare an anime episode list to a television episode list. These lists are split purely because of size reasons (250+ episodes just can not be covered in one list) and not because there are tons of seasonal information available for any season. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Support good list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, my only question is which source confirms that these are the episodes of season 10? There seems to be some question about the seasonal divisions being brought up on the main episode list talk page about possible confusion on this? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's something that recently appeared; It seems the past episodes will have to be divided in another season, but it will be better to wait since it is still unknown what will happen to the last two episodes from this list since they are not from The Past.Tintor2 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about this on and off since replying to that discussion this morning. My view, is that we've been lucky with publishers recently, they've made it easy for us by breaking their releases into handy arcs. Being official arcs, we were able to use them to determine the seasons - especially as they correspond with changes to the theme songs. Which leads to my next point, IIRC the "past" episodes use the same theme song as te rest of the arc correct? And as Tintor2 says, the final two eps of the season as it stands now, are canonically placed after the eps before the "past" eps. Or in other words, the "past" eps (I'm assuming something has been lost in the translation for the name here) aired partway through a story arc. The "traditional" way to determine seasons with anime was from theme song - we still do this now before the dvd releases are announced.

Therefore, my suggestion is that as the relevant dvds won't be out before this FLC closes, we aren't in a position to have reliable sources contradicting the current list. If the list passes, and we find the episodes need moving, we can simply move them - the list won't degrade in quality, and if they are moved to another season, then that part of the list won't need copyediting etc. Given that the list is "Season 10" and not "Arrancar vs Shinigami", theres no reason to exclude the "past" eps based on what we know now. If the theme songs are indeed the same for example, we can still list two arcs in the same article as they are technically the same season - we just note that 6-8eps were released as a different title. Does this make sense? Essentially we keep the list as it is until the episodes in question are released - it won't affect the article quality and shouldn't affect the pass criteria as I understand them. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I'm seeing though is that nothing in any source seems to refer to any of the arcs/theme changes as seasons? Or are the English releases using "season" for its sets? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Viz releases (that are licensed and released by Manga Ent in the uk) follow the japanese pattern, but labelled as "season 1" etc. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is, in my opinion, how do you determine where a season starts and where it ends? Do you divide by theme song or do you follow the DVD releases? Because if you use the first method then the list should remain as it is, but if you follow the DVDs then the "Past Arc" should be a season on its own and the next season should start at Episode 213.--Geodefender (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Read above. We can't split it yet since it is unknown what will happend with the two last episodes from the list. By the way, this has to be discussed in Talk:List of Bleach episodes, not here.Tintor2 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since Collectonian asked "how can we confirm that these are the episodes of season 10?" it seemed appropriate to bring it up here. The issue seems to revolve around episodes 213 and 214, but the question is: why were they placed in the 10th season in the first place? Isn't the list supposed to follow the DVDs divisions like for every previous split? -- Geodefender (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion originally started at Talk:List of Bleach episodes, so please comment there.Tintor2 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [44].

---

List of Minnesota North Stars head coaches

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much to count how many head coach articles I've nominated for FL. Grammar, copy-edits, etc. can go directly to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – Cleveland Barons is a disambiguation link. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I think the first paragraph doesn't flow very well because it doesn't quite follow chronological order. You should talk about the North Stars joining NHL before talking about the relocation and championships.—Chris! _ct 20:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed paragraph. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One problem still remains: the sentence "but lost in both Finals; the franchise did win a Stanley Cup after the relocation" comes before you mention the Stars' relocation. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

1980-81 and 1990-91 are before 1993 though... If it still bothers you, just be bold and move it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I ended up deleting the phrase; I could not think of a way to rearrange it without disrupting the flow or confusing the reader. It's not vital information anyway; after all, this is an article about the coaches of the Stars team of Minnesota. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 23:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Meets the criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Made one quick pass through the lead already, but have found a few more things I want to bring up before this is promoted. "Minneapolis – St. Paul – Bloomington, Minnesota–Wisconsin." Weird to have different dash styles in the same sentence like this. Per WP:DASHES, it has to be like this, because St. Paul is one city, but has two words. If the dashes aren't spaced, it will look like Minneapolis–St., then Paul–Bloomington. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "as part of the Prince of Wales Conference championship in the 1980–81 season, and in the 1990–91 season after receiving the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl after winning the Western Conference playoffs." First part of this reads poorly; do you mean "as the Prince of Wales Conference champions"? Also repetition with the two "after -ings". Human error. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I would also drop "part of" from this sentence. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC) The head coach link looks like it has more to do with football than hockey. There is a Coach (ice hockey) article; it's a terrible page at the moment, but maybe someone reading one of these lists will see it and want to improve it. Where do you want me to link that? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I was trying to say that you could replace the head coach link with it. Up to personal preference, though. I decided not to add the link into the article, since I couldn't put it anywhere besides replacing it with the head coach link. The head coach link IMO is better off staying there. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC) "were also the general manager of the North Stars during their tenure as head coach." Make "tenure" plural. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "Glen Sonmor has served three terms as North Stars head coach." Drop "has". The North Stars aren't coming back to Minnesota, so this should be past tense. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "'Miracle on Ice' coach Herb Brooks". While all American sports fans know what the Miracle on Ice is, this will come off as jargon to a non-sports fan. Try starting the sentence with "1980 U.S. Olympic", and pipe the Miracle link. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) "Sonmor and Gainey are the only head coaches to have been to the Stanley Cup Finals with the North Stars, in the 1981 and 1991 Stanley Cup Finals respectively." Instead of a somewhat awkward to read "to have been to", try shortening it with "to reach the". Also, there is needless repetition with "Stanley Cup Finals". Thought I changed this one, but it's still here. At least shorten the second one to just Finals. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17–14) 14:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Thanks for giving the only review. :D Just a small minor detail, but could you replace the "–" with "–" on your username? Thanks in advance! NFL season already started. o.O -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Support – Good one. Nice to see a couple of coach/manager lists at FLC again. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, meets the criteria. Goodraise 18:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppport Clearly a great list, one comment. Why is the key formatted that way, broken apart into three tables? Yes it makes it shorter vertically, but it's far more distracting to me. Also, are there really no other applicable images? Perhaps at least a better shot of Herb Brooks, perhaps from his time with the 02 Olympic team under governmental PD? It's worth hunting for, that table can be slimmed down to allow for images. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The key is broken into three tables since the key will be too long if it only has one table. I tried searching Herb Brooks on usa.gov, but found two images of what I think is him that are just too small. It would be nice if you could take some time to do so! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The list is a bit confusing:

1. Wren Blair and Charlie Burns are listed both as head coaches of the 1969–70 NHL season

Because Blair resigned as head coach during mid-season, and was replaced with Burns. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why don't you merge the em dashes with coach numbers? Ie. Wren Blair should have Games coached as 84 + 63 = 147.

Wahh...? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Everything seems fine. support--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:32, 6 October 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 The Rambling Man 15:50, 6 October 2009 [45].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero 5

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Guitar Hero game, another song list. This one reasonably should have its own article as there's a large # of songs and downloadable content which will continue to fill in the last table. All the usual aspects of previous GH lists have been kept consistent here. MASEM (t) 15:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know much about this whole FLC business, but are constantly updated lists in line with 1e? That list of downloadable content will probably be updated very regularly. If this has been discussed and decided already, I apologize for bringing it up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't know there was a 1e for FL, but assuming you meant the stability, I have had other GH lists pass before FL with the noted fact that the downloadable content will continue to expand, but assumed that they were judged on the basis that the setup for the DLC was in a format that would be able to meet the continued expansion. So in this case, I'm presenting how the first month of DLC has been given (following the same formats from other GH lists), with the anticipation it will grow. Also, this is not like speculative content: Activision announces what this is usually at the start of the month, and its added and it stays (give or take an odd delay on a song). It's stable in the sense there's no guesswork once the announcement is given - and nothing is added until that announcement. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay. If that's how it works, then sorry for bothering you. Guess I should stay out of FLC until I fully understand it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Never a stupid question. And someone else may see it as an issue so it's completely fair to consider. --MASEM (t) 02:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I performed moderately intensive copy-editing in places; hope I didn't screw anything up. "the project director of the game" Do you mean the director in charge of development? It wasn't clear. "Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers"-->Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers "Make It Wit Chu"-->"Make It wit Chu" "Plug in Baby"-->"Plug In Baby" "Gamespot"--GameSpot Since the downloadable content table is sortable, the song pack refs need to be added to every song. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I think there was one small style html element syntax that was removed but I caught and fixed that. All the above have been taken care of (Bright is the game's director). --MASEM (t) 16:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 23:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, fails criterion 2. The lead cannot "stand alone as a concise overview of the article." It states details about the game's gameplay, which are neither mentioned in the rest of the article, nor necessary to understand it. On the other hand, it says essentially nothing about the article's actual topic, the songs in Guitar Hero 5. Goodraise 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC) In previous noms of GH lists for FLC, I have been asked to include a brief snippet about what the game is about before going actually into the songs. I agree that technically, no gameplay info is needed to understand the article, but as been pointed out in previous reviews, helps to establish enough context to allow this to be standalone. However, I will edit the lede a bit to summarize a bit more of the actual songlist details. --MASEM (t) 12:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that the lead could summarize the list more, but generally, FL leads are given a bit of leeway in having content not mentioned in the body of the article to provide context for the reader. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC) Yes. I didn't mean to say it should all be removed. However, even after recent edits, I find the lead puts too much weight on the gameplay and too little on the article's actual topic. I'll strike my opposition, but I am not yet willing to support. Goodraise 18:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I've tried to add a bit more to summarize the other parts of the list (about the songs, and critics reaction to the songs) in the lede to balance more. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Some reference have repeated wikilinks of publishers, which should be restricted to the first mention of the publisher in the reference.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
2. Why is the year column given for the main setlist but not downloadable content. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
3. What does Band Gig mean?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I've added a year column for the songs that are out. I will note in the past that the only way to have gotten the true year (not just by guessing based on song name) was to actually buy the song to see the details in the game, but in GH5, they are presented in the store, so this can be added easily. The first table final column shold be "Career Venue" which I've fixed. On repeating wikilinks to publishers in the sources, my understanding is that these should actually be kept if there is rearrangement of the sources within the article as to avoid the issue of a latter ref from a repeat publisher appearing first yet not being wikilinked. (Much as the same reason each line in the table needs to standalone with both respect to references and to wikilinks). --MASEM (t) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Why aren't the Year of the downloadable content added?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Presently (early Oct) we know what songs will be added through the month, but these announcements do not tell us what year the song was recorded; that information is learned when the song is added to the download list within the game. While 90% of the time we can guess right based on knowing the original release date of the song, if they throw live versions or remasters, that will be a different date. Thus, the songs missing years are those not yet released and that we cannot confirm what version they will be using. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Expand the Downloadable content lead a bit. How many songs in total are new to GH5 download and give an explanation Sentence regarding what the downloadable content list contains.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Well, we have no idea how many songs will be downloadable content - this list continues to grow each month, likely until the next major title is released next year. So there's really no way to expand this without speculation. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Aren't the downloaded songs hosted in Venues? How do they work?

   No; only the on-disc songs are arranged in career mode in venues, but in all other gameplay modes, any song can be played in any venue. The use of the venues in the on-disk list is to provide an idea of the difficulty of the game (earlier venues are easier than latter ones). --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Why not create an Album column? --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   The album source for the songs is not listed in-game or not. Thus, there's no way to associate the songs with an album. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

5. When was Guitar Hero 5 released?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   This year, but I'll add that. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

6. The 152 of the 158 songs, where they all initially released online or where they made available over time?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   Those were the songs released over the last year for World Tour, but all were immediately available at launch for GH5. I'll clear that up. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

7. I don't get section importable content. Isn't this the same as downloadable content? These are downloadable songs or packs right? Or does the user have to buy the world tour CD to download the songs from the internet?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

   You would have to buy the original games to be able to access the content, which does need to be downloaded but is not treated as regular downloaded content that any player of GH5 can access. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

8. "As of the date of the game's release" maybe "On the game's release day" ?
9. The empty Year cells should have either em-dashes, TBD or TBA ...-Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
10. Reference "Downloaded songs can be used in all game modes, provided all players have the song, including in the game's Career mode when players are given the option to select any song to play." --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • First two are fixed. I'm having a hard time coming with a ref for the statement asked, but I may find that in the manual. It is stated as one plays the game (it warns you right there all players must have the DLC songs, so it's not really a controversal fact). --MASEM (t) 00:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was wondering why some DLC didn't have years attached, but you explained that fine above. Couple comments though. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The note about the DLC inaccessible in PAL regions for Wii needs a source.
• How the heck does Woman from Tokyo not have an article?

• • Having trouble sourcing the Wii DLC in PAL regions; no good source that say that's the case nor am I in a position to check. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 7 October 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 Shoemaker's Holiday 00:37, 9 October 2009 [46].

---

Rumford Prize

Nominator(s): ResMar 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because all of the issues from the last FLC have been adressed (most notably, all of the citations have been changed so they do not violate any copyrights) and it seems ready for another nomination. ResMar 14:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will be the first to support. I can't see any problem.—Chris! _ct 05:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• My only quibble is that in the lead you refer to Thompson as "also known as "Count Rumford"", which to me reads as if it was a mere nickname. From his own article I think it was actually an aristocractic title, although the article isn't very clear. If that's the case then maybe change to "....Thompson, who held the title Count Rumford" or similar -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 19:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case I will be the second to support :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• "who held the title "count rumford" in.." might be wise to change it to "Count Rumford in the peerage of the X (replace with Ireland, Scotland, United Kingdom, whatever), since 1) Americans don't have titles and 2) it currently reads as "he held that title in 1796. Not 1796, not 1797, 1796." Might just be me being quibbly, but.. Ironholds (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I won't let alt text hold up the nomination, but please try to folllow up with Eubulides. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) All in all, much better. The images need alt text. Doing that, but its real annoying because A) I understand alt text only vaugely and B) This article has a bunch of potraits arranged at the side, and I see not how to make each description "unique." ResMar 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I see you contacted Eubulides; he should be able to help you out. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) "and the Academy was allowed to award the prize as it saw fit" So when was the Academy allowed to award the prize before the rules changed? Clarified (annually). ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC) "has won both the Rumford Prize and the related Rumford Medal, both in 1886." If possible, can you briefly explain the difference between the Rumford Prize and the Rumford Name? Done. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC) "Because the prize is awarded by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, all of the recipients are American," I still don't like that first phrase, which is based on conjecture. Why not just state the facts and let readers draw conclusions? No can do. This was changed from what you are suggesting in the first FLC when it was not seen as "clear enough" why. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC) But this could be considered original research. We don't know that the Academy specifically looks for American candidates. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) One of the papers you sent me mentioned that the original cluase was as an award for American candidates. ResMar 20:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I'm glad the rationales are briefer and paraphrased, but now some are brief to the point where I don't know what they mean. For example, "Light and heat" doesn't tell me anything about Henry Augustus or his achievements.Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC) No response on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Done. Still waiting on Eub for help with the alts though, he's real overloaded with people like me right now so give it some time. ResMar 23:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC) No rush; I intend to support after that is resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Foonote D ("This is an affiliation.") is a bit obscure. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Done. ResMar 02:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• For ref 4, use {{cite press release}}. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. ResMar 03:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support

• I commented on this in the past and I'm pleased to be able to support it this time.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  16:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks great! Reywas92^Talk 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This list shouldn't be featured before there is alt text for every image. Try to do the alt text yourself then the other user can check it and improve it. Till then though the absence of alt texts violates 5b.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Support the alt text was added.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Conditional Support pending alt text. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please have a go at the alt text. It may seem difficult but there are plenty of people who can help, and it is part of the criteria. The list is so close that it'd be a shame for to fail on this criterion alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the alt text, it's not that good but it's better than nothing.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Great now! Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The 1971 prize members should be listed in the article (in a footnote) rather than via an external link in body text. (Wikipedia should be self-sufficient for information). Colin°^Talk 19:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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