Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2010

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 14:00, 3 February 2010 [1].

---

Black Eyed Peas discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because in the last FLC discussion there were alot of problems with the article that have now been addressed and more time has passed so there is now more information and article is longer. Mister sparky (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Quick drive-by comment - in the "other appearances" section, is it really necessary to have a notes column stating that the song was from the soundtrack of film X when the column immediately to the left lists the album the song's on as being the soundtrack to film X......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Any plans to respond to this point I raised nearly two weeks ago, even if only to tell me to get lost? :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

hey, oops! sorry i missed that one! its just how ive seen the table set out in other articles and sometimes the column is necessary. i agree that it probably isnt this time. oh and i'd never tell you to get lost :p Mister sparky (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on a single-sentence opening paragraph. merged Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Here's a thing. Is it "the Black Eyed Peas" or just "Black Eyed Peas"? the bands name is "black eyed peas", but the sentence flows better and sounds more grammatically correct saying "the black eyed peas" i thought... Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "Although the album got a four-star review.." - "got" - not nice. Perhaps, received? changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "to chart lowly in " - lowly? subjective, I'd be more precise. altered Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) sixty-seven, eighteen -> 67, 18 numbers are written in words in the rest of the lead, so keeping as words for consistency. Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "the band released their third album" - is band singular or plural? "its third album"? changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "two in Canada" - "number two in Canada" changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "It quickly became their most successful album in the US by reaching number one." - define "quickly"? removed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "it the bands first" - I may be wrong but I would have thought that should be "band's" changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "It held onto the top spot for twelve weeks and was knocked off the top spot by the album's second single" - top spot is reused to quickly, and we've possibly lost track of what "It" is from the previous sentence. altered Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "This also replaced "Boom Boom Pow" at the top of the charts in Canada and Australia, as well as also peaking at number one all over the world." - also reused too much. changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) "Third single "Meet Me Halfway", has peaked at number one in Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom and has reached the top ten in several other countries, including the US." - unreferenced, and not grammatically correct to start the sentence that way. changed Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Three of the EPs are unreferenced. added Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) How did "Shut Up" not chart in the US and still make Gold certification? it didn't chart on the hot 100, but the riaa says its certified gold. Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Video albums unreferenced. added Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) As is other appearances. added Mister sparky (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you for your comments! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed the IRE cell in the Singles section looks different than the others. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

no idea how just that 1 cell ended up a different font size... fixed now tho Mister sparky (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• Two more comments - there is a single listed as charting in 2010, when we are still only in 2009, and the second video album is mistitled, it should be Live from Sydney to Vegas (no "Las") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

fixed :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 14:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk · contribs). Ugh, not another discography! =p General No disambiguation links and ALT text is ok, but reference 35 is a dead link Lead "it only managed to chart lowly in" you should only use "only managed" with exact chart positions; I suggest "it charted lowly in" changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "its highest peak position in New Zealand" I think "peak" is redundant and can be removed changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "released it's third album" should have "its" not "it's"; the incorrect word means "it is" missed that one, changed 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Link "certified" to List of music recording sales certifications? added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) You don't use the abbreviation "RIAA" elsewhere, so remove it from the lead good point, removed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Numerically order the references after the sentence ending "and number three in the United Kingdom." changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Need a comma after "the band's first US number-one hit" the next word is "and", you can't have a comma before "and" Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "and was knocked off the number-one position by the album's second single, "I Gotta Feeling"" can be reworded "until being replaced by the album's second single, "I Gotta Feeling"" changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) "has peaked at number one in Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom and has reached the" repeats "has" twice; take out the second one changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Numerically order the references at the end of the lead changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Tables The link on "Certifications" redirects to the link for "sales threshold". Do with it what you want corrected link Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The last certification for The E.N.D. uses a different "x" changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The titles of the last three items in Extended plays link to specific sections which don't exist in the linked article the sub-sections of the linked articles changed. fixed now Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I would add a non-breaking space for I Gotta Feeling's release date so the year doesn't go to the next line i know what you mean, but don't know how to do it... Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Under Singles, why is there a large gray line between the two 2000 releases? Under Singles, why is there a large gray line between the NZ and SWI charts? Under Singles, why is there a large gray line between "Shut Up" and "Hey Mama"? don't understand what you mean by these 3... unless you mean the grey lines that have to be there that separates the releases rows and columns? Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I think Universal Island and Universal Music should be linked to something changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Should "DVD" be linked? changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) What do all the large gray lines in the Music videos table mean same as above Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Both directors boxes with Syndrome and Nabil Elderkin should read "Nabil Elderkin/Syndrome" for consistency changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Sergio Mendes needs the accent added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) References All three general references should have YYYY-MM-DD access dates forgot about those, changed now Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) References 1, 51, 52 and need periods between Allmusic and Macrovision added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Why doesn't reference 22 have Macrovision listed after Allmusic? forgot that one Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Remove the extra spaces before the periods in refs 43–48 changed Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Ref 42 needs a period between MTV and Viacom added Mister sparky (talk) 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the article; averaging over 1,000 hits per day, it's probably one of the most viewed discographies. I'll be happy to support once there issues are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

fixed :) Mister sparky (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment Looks really good. My only comment is that ref 35 needs to be formatted (it's just a bare URL right now). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

has now been formatted like the rest, but isn't showing up as formatted. which i don't understand... Mister sparky (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In the URL, there is a space between "Mas" and "Que", and between "Que" and "Nada". I think you need to either delete the spaces or make them underscores (_). Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, refs that are not in English need to be denote as such, using the |language= parameter. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks for that. fixed now :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you! Mister sparky (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ref #25 is in a different language and needs to be specified, other than that it looks fine to me. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 05:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

that ref is itunes and is in english? the refs that are in french, dutch or german say so. Mister sparky (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

At the time of my comment it wasn't specified, but since has been, so my comment is outdated. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 17:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)

• In the video albums section, why aren't the labels of the albums given?

fixed Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are pipe-linking "Universal Island" (which I suppose you read on the physical album) to Island Def Jam Music Group. How do you know that "Universal Island" is Island Def Jam Music Group?

fixed Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reference 39 could use a date of publication.

added Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the director field empty for the music video "Union"?

could not find via a reliable source. Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thus far, all attempts at convincing me that Chart Stats holds up to our standards for sources have failed. I suggest you look for another source.

chartstats was included because so far every other reviewer has accepted validity. however, have added everyhit.com Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyhit.com apparently doesn't cover titles that didn't reach Top 40. This leaves several entries sourced only to Chart Stats, the presence of which among the references is, by the way, not acceptable. Goodraise 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

removed the positions that couldnt be sourced by everyhit, used chartsplus for the others. removed chartstats completely. Mister sparky (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Have you considered adding rankings in the Japanese charts? The E.N.D. for example peaked there at number two.[2]

the e.n.d charted highly in a number of countries around the world. but only choosing the countries where the band charted highly would not give a fair representation of chart performance. Mister sparky (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested doing that. I was merely giving a sourced example. Let me put it differently: Right now all countries covered are either European or primarily English-speaking. Adding (just for example) Japan wouldn't make the representation less fair, but more balanced. Goodraise 17:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given this nomination a thorough review and fixed various issues myself and would support if it weren't for the issues listed above. For now, I will have to oppose, mainly because of the usage of Chart Stats. Goodraise 07:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I can now weakly support this nomination. What's keeping me from fully supporting is the imbalance of covered national charts with all nations being either European or primarily English-speaking. Goodraise 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to oppose again. After reading everyHit.com's two about pages, about.html and about2.html. I fail to see how the page meets the criteria. My apologies for accepting the source initially, I should have acted more carefully. Goodraise 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

the BBC regularly uses everyhit.com as a source for its music articles one eg here, the BBC would not use a source which is unreliable. Mister sparky (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

also, everyhit.com has been cited by British MPs during policy discussions: [3]. Mister sparky (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

also by Reuters and even in Norway. Mister sparky (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the reliable sources noticeboard thread on everyHit.com did not produce a lot of feedback. Looking at the provided examples of everyHit.com being cited by other sources myself, I have to admit that it's a start, but it's not enough for me to accept the source, especially since better sources do exist. Then there is the newly introduced source Video Static that looks to me like a random blog. What makes it reliable? Finally, there's the fact that the list limits itself to charts of primarily English-speaking and European nations, which is a balance problem at best, a lack of comprehensiveness at worst. -- "A featured list exemplifies our very best work." I'm sorry, but this list does not. Remaining opposed. Goodraise 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the newly added reference 28 seems to be broken. It brings me to Allmusic's start page. Goodraise 03:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

well nothing else i can do about your chart opinion, each position can be individually cited by using chartsplus but that would be an unnecessary last resort. out of a list of 10 counties, only 5 are english-speaking and only 6 are european. the only other country you could be meaning to add would be japan. then that demonstrates an unfair bias towards japan on your part because of your insistance of its addition. and fixed ref 28. Mister sparky (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I was merely giving a sourced example. You said yourself that "the e.n.d charted highly in a number of countries around the world". I may assume that is the case for other of the band's albums and singles too? Those charts are published somewhere, aren't they? If they are, then not including them becomes an issue of comprehensiveness. Goodraise 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

well have had a good search through the net using various translators to find BEP charting info in japan. but so far, have only found that 1 album that charted there, the example you provided. which other country that has a reliable chart archive that isn't already included would you recommend? Mister sparky (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Here the database entries for BEP albums that charted in Japan with online translation links for your convenience: [4] trans. [5] trans. [6] trans. [7] trans. [8] trans. [9] trans. [10] trans. [11] trans. BTW, the website can be searched conveniently from here. As for your question: You don't seem willing to understand that the existence of a convenient online archive is not a prerequisite for inclusion. Any reliable source will do, even ones printed on paper. Goodraise 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

also removed the videostatic ref until a more reliable source becomes available and added footnote. Mister sparky (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments General Alt text, dabs and external links all check out fine. Did you consult with User:Garden about this nomination? Since he originally nominated the article the first time around? Mister sparky is the primary contributor, but perhaps we should add Garden as a co-nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC) didn't consult User:Garden because he only contributed to the article from 5th-21st Feb 2009 during the FLC discussions and hasn't been back since. Mister sparky (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC) It's only fair since he did make the initial nomination.--Truco 503 03:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Lead The main problem I see is that you state phrases like ..charted number two in France or ..charted in Canada. But there are so many charts in each country, which one could you possibly be speaking of? I would make it clear by stating which chart, as you did with the US Billboard. added. but most redirect to the recording industry. Mister sparky (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) The Billboard Hot 100 should have the link when it is first mentioned not on the second instance. fixed Mister sparky (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Studio albums Why does the NZ pipe to the recording industry versus to a chart article? rianz is the provider of the new zealand charts. and there isn't an article for the new zealand album chart. Mister sparky (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Goodraise above that why not mention all the charts? Not just English based ones. main reason was that this is the english wikipedia and english is the most widely spoken language in the world. and only 5 out of the 10 countries are english speaking. 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) also, even with google translate, trying to understand the japanese website was proving very difficult. so if you know of an enlgish one? Mister sparky (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Singles The first couple of singles need to be verified somehow since they did not chart, they have no legit or direct source. added Mister sparky (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Directors Why does Union not have a director? could not find via a reliable source. Mister sparky (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Then state that in a footnote.--Truco 503 03:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC) added Mister sparky (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC) --Truco 503 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Comments resolved; meets WP:WIAFL.Truco ₅₀₃ 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Quick Comment - Is there a reason why Shot is in Caps in Ref #50? Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 20:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

having a quick look, the section of the article where the information is located has it as the heading. Mister sparky (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I would think per WP:ALLCAPS it shouldn't be All caps. Plus #37 ^ a b ""Blackl Eyed Peas: Discography: DVDs & Videos". " typo. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 00:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

good point! thanks, fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Now that those minor things are fixed I have no problems with the list. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 11:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I cannot find any issues with this article. It is well written, properly charted and well sourced. It meets all the FLC criteria and does demonstrate the best WP has to offer. GroundZ3R0 002 22:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Can you fix the reference that Goodraise has noted above? It does, indeed, just lead to the Allmusic homepage. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

when i click on ref 28 it goes to the correct page? Mister sparky (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. The link in the article is correct. The link posted above by Goodraise does link to the homepage. No problem then. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

silly goodraise. Mister sparky (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I pointed it out. You fixed it. Why am I silly? Goodraise 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment While I agree that everyhit.com is not of the highest quality, I think the links provided ensure that it's at least acceptable, and as it used sparingly, I don't think it's a big enough issue to deny this list FL status. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Though the About section of the site is makes it kind of questionable, I think it can be used in this case and as it was said at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard BBC Radio One does recommend it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 00:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks guys :) Mister sparky (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comments – The writing itself seems fine, but why is "I Gotta Feeling" linked twice so close together? That has to be the closest repeated linking I've ever seen in an article. I also noticed the missing director in the video listing; this may have been tried already, but is the name given in the video itself? If so, you could just cite the video. Not a big deal if it isn't there, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

fixed the overlink, no idea why it was linked twice so close together lol. but the director for Union has only been found via blogs and fansites so far :( Mister sparky (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [12].

---

United States Secretary of Transportation

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry there aren't a ton a references, but the two with the list and department information were pretty good. I've tried to include all relevant information, but I'm happy to research something further without going into too much detail. Reywas92^Talk 23:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And, to clarify, I'm in the Wikicup. Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comment - Should acting secretar(ies) be included? I am asking because based on my research on this list, Maria Cino was the acting Secretary of Transportation briefly and she isn't on the list.—Chris!_c/t 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer not to because most did so with limited duties for only a few days or weeks as an interim until the newly-appointed Secretary took office, when they returned to the usual Deputy. They are rightly not included in most other lists, and they disrupt the table. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose you are right.—Chris!_c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments.

1. Should not the article be renamed to List if United States Secretaries of Transportation?

No. As Chris said, this is also still the top article for the position, and a split is a 3b violation. The other secretary lists are also this way.

1. The salary of the Secretary of Transportation is $199,700. This sentence is out of places and should be moved to the end of the second paragraph.

Done. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be renamed since this article is about the position as well. And per criteria 3b, both United States Secretaries of Transportation and List of United States Secretaries of Transportation should not be split and should be combined as one article.—Chris!_c/t 22:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the answers, so I am supporting. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments Nice list, but two things strike me: 1) It would be natural to include the party of the minister 2) Would it not be better to link to the article about the cabinet (or the US equivalent term) instead of just the article on the president? See for instance how this is done at Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway). Arsenikk (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Parties aren't quite as relevant for a somewhat non-partisan office, but I'll take a look. It does link to the Cabinet, but you might have missed it because it's right next to the link about the President. Reywas92Talk 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC) What I was thinking was that instead of linking to 'George W. Bush', instead link to 'George W. Bush Cabinet' (and likewise for the other presidents/cabinets). I also notice in the mentioned cabinet article that Norman Mineta was a Democrat, despite serving under Bush. Since there seems to not be a 1:1 relation between the president and minister parties, this makes it even more important to state the person's party, since I would otherwise have been under the impression that Mineta was a Republican. Arsenikk (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with Arsenikk, party seems to be quite relevant here.—Chris!c/t 19:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC) We do not have an article just about his Cabinet or any president's cabinet. I will work on the parties. Reywas92Talk 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Parties have been added, though the table is vrey wide now. Reywas92Talk 18:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) What about linking to Presidency of Bill Clinton instead of Bill Clinton? (And, of course, doing the same thing for all other presidents who have such articles). The Ministry (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC) That was sort of what I was thinking of. The point is that a person who is interested in a series of ministers is going to be more interested in an article about the cabinet/presidency than of just a general biograph of the president. Arsenikk (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Too inconsistent. Other than the fact that some of the presidents don't have those articles, it's easy enough to click through. The president is relevant, not just the presidency. Reywas92Talk 01:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry for the late reply. I honestly cannot see what is inconsistent with this. It would be natural for a reader to seek the context of the appointment, such as the term, co-secretaries, cabinet policy etc, which is covered in the presidency article. It is less likely that a reader will want a general biography article about a president. Navigating from an article about a president to that of his presidency (and understanding that this is about his cabinet) is a rather difficult affair; conversely, navigating from a presidency article to that of the president is easy, should someone want a general biography of him. Arsenikk (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Btw, I'm also in the Wikicup, but I am not trying to be difficult because of that. There is nothing I would rather see than coming in last place in the cup because everyone else made super-duper articles and lists. Arsenikk (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but I'm big on consistency and I hope you understand that I do not want some pages linking to the President and some to the Presidency. In other secretary lists with people from longer ago, a vast majority of the preisdents do not have a separate subarticle; in this aricle it's about half-and-half, and the styles should not be split. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (unindent) Given recent edits to related lists, I disagree that this has to follow other styles. Nonetheless, Reywas is saying that half of these articles do not exist. The options are therefore: To link to the biographies. To link to the presidencies where available, and the biographies the rest of the time. To link to the presidencies, and have redlinks where these articles do not exist. Add a column to allow both. I'm against the third option. Although I am a fan of good redlinks, removing the direct links to the presidents means that they will not be linked at all. That does not strike me as an improvement. The fourth would solve this, but would also look silly. The second option means that this list will be more useful for some presidencies than others. I think Arsenikk makes a valid point, but I question whether there is a better way of doing it. WFCforLife (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Done #2. Discussing this may be more of a problem than it itself. Reywas92Talk

Support excellent list which deserves a star. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Alt text is weak for me. e.g. the infobox image doesn't mention he's wearing a blue tie and is in front of a US flag. I've worked on it. I don't see where ref [1] says this position is 14th in line to the presidency. Added " and he would subsequently be" why not "subsequently becoming"? Changed "serving Secretary, serving for over five and a half years" why not add some variety and say "holding the post for over..."? Changed. Not sure President of the US needs linking in the heading of the table, it is, after all, already linked in the lead. Removed Publication dates should be same format as accessdates. Changed In such a US-centric article, perhaps the ref dates should be mdy not dmy? Changed, but that's the way WikEd automatically adds it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Reywas92Talk 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Succession in the infobox is linked to a generic article about succession. It should link to the presidential one. That's automatically there from the Template:Infobox Political post. If it's always referring to the presidential line then it should link more accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC) It's not. The template can be used for any country. Reywas92Talk 11:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Aha, I see. I'm someone clever could modify the template so that if it said "country=US" (say), then the link leads to the presidential line. I understand it may be out of the scope of this particular FLC but it certainly seems to be something we could improve. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Good idea, but I don't know how to do that. Reywas92Talk 02:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps leave a note on the template's talkpage? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Message left. Reywas92Talk 18:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Someone has changed that and fixed all the links.

• Comment: The party thing seems off to me. It's a non-partisan office, and candidates who are registered with another party are occasionally chosen. But the main thing is, it's unreferenced. The only general ref doesn't mention party affiliation at all. --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't really care. While it is still partisan, it's not really political. The point is to show those cross-overs. I doubt I could find a reference other than individual irrelevant mentions. Any other opinions? Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Ref #6 contains 2 References, I'm just wondering as to why these aren't 2 separate references. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The two work together. One indicates that the Secretary is Class 1 of the executive schedule, and the other gives its salary. Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I was just wondering, since it looked kind of odd, it was no big problem anyway. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) ^{- Afkatk} 09:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I support it, though the date on Ref #5 should be formatted more like the others. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments from WFCforLife

• Was Mineta 69 at the start or the end of his tenure?
  • Start. I think it's inferred from the first part of the sentence.
    • That's the way I read it. I just thought it would make more sense to give his age at the end. This is a bit of a Brit-orientated example, but in a list of the oldest footballers, we would say that Stanley Matthews played professionally until he was 50, not that he joined Stoke at 46. WFCforLife (talk) 04:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed to retiring age. Reywas92^Talk 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• Not being from the US, I don't understand the relevance of "State of Residence". I understand what it means, but not the significance. What if one of them moved house?
  • No significance, really, but often it's nice to have where they're from listed. Politicians are normally associated with a certain state, which doesn't change very often; they're referenced in the general ref.
• Agree with Afkatk on the date
  • Fixed.

Otherwise it looks pretty good. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Disclosure: Not certain about Reywas because I can't load the page, but I'm in the wikicup. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks! (And I am.) Reywas92^Talk 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. I have no real preference between the solutions I have given above. WFCforLife (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [13].

---

List of IIHF World Under-20 Championship players for Canada

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy, my first nomination since August. For those of you who may have forgotten me, I'm that guy that used to hang around here and occasionally nominate lists. This list is largely modeled after the List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada and List of Men's World Ice Hockey Championship players for Canada (1977–present) (though it's more similar to the former, because it does not use the medal tally system used in the latter). This page might just be the most work I've ever done for a list, so enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - bit too long buddy, scared off even our regulars! I'll need to do this review a bit at a time if that's okay... Lead first. Ping me when you're ready to move on! "Under 20" or "Under-20" - be consistent. Done. I'd prefer to see NHL expanded before you use it. Done. "Canada has gone on to win more gold medals than any other nation. Canada has had two five year gold medal winning streaks, 1993–1997 and 2005–2009.[5] Canada's team is usually..." Three consecutive sentences starting with "Canada..." is a bit dry for me. Fixed. Not sure whether the "infamous brawl" is relevant in a list of U-20 players. My rationale for it is that it had a huge effect on 20 of the players there because it meant that they did not get a medal and that the stats for a game they played were not counted. I felt it needed to be explained, and to do it properly takes a bit longer than I thought. "The IIHF voted to suspend all players involved from competing in international events for 18 months, and all coaches for three years.[7] The player suspensions were later cut to six months, which allowed eligible players such as Fleury to participate in the 1988 tournament.[8] The brawl helped raise the profile of the tournament.." - sorry but this may sound picky - if we keep all this info on the brawl, then I'd prefer not to see three consecutive sentences starting "The..." Fixed. "12 goals, 19 assists and a total 31 points" - is a "point" a goal or an assist? If so this should be something like, "12 goals, 19 assists for a total of 31..." shouldn't it? Yes, you are right. My mistake. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 02:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Okay, so onto the table... Not sure why when sorting by, say, GAA, I get a mixture of 0.00 and en-dashes... before I get positive results. I'm not sure what is going on with that. I tried using {{sort|0.01|-}} but then the dashes were coming in after the 0s but before the poisitive numbers. I'm not sure what's going on, it might be something with the tables. Sorting by medal - I may have mentioned this before in Olympic style sorting, but isn't one gold worth more than a billion silvers, one silver worth more than a billion bronze? I guess it depends how you look at things, but I'd expect one gold (plus other types) to rank above two silvers... You have MIN in the key, Min in the table. Fixed. And no Min (or MIN) for skaters. Can you explain this? Minutes for skaters is not a regularily tracked statistic, partially because goalies usually play the entire game (as opposed to skaters, who usually averge 20-30 minutes and switch shifts dozens of times during gameplay), and minutes are used to calculate the Goals Against Average. I don't think this needs to be explained in the article. Is it worth explaining that players who actually play in zero games still get medals? Possibly. The only players who played zero games are goalies, and they still dressed for games, they just didn't log any ice time. Note 1 has a spaced hyphen - naughty per WP:DASH. Like I have said many times, I have given up trying to figure out that policy. Fixed. And an unspaced hyphen too. Double naughty per WP:DASH. Are you referring to "bench-clearing brawl" or "4-2"? 4-2... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed. -- Scorpion0422 03:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC) "stats" (in note 1) should be statistics. Done. Refs 3, 4 and 8 need en-dashes. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 04:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Comma after "The brawl helped raise the profile of the tournament in Canada." Done. "19 assists for a total 31 points over three tournaments." Add "of" after "total". Done. First general reference could use an access date, as does inline 12. Done. Reference 2 needs a publisher, and references 6 and 10 should have the publisher spelled out to match the other links to that site. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I have added a publisher to ref #2. As for the first general ref, I added an accessdate during my initial efforts to address your concerns, but it didn't show because it's a cite book template. -- Scorpion0422 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Still a lot of images without alt text. I'll leave it to others to decide if the list should be promoted as-is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – All looks good to go now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Ah, a sports list, something I feel like I can talk about. I feel as though the very first sentence of the lead is out of place. Shouldn't the background info on the tourny in general come before noting how many Canada has played in? Say... Insert it right after where ref 1 is now? It's debatable, but my rationale was that the article is about Canada's involvement in the tournament, so it makes sense to start out with something that reflects that. I suppose. Just reads oddly to me, saying Canada has done X a whole bunch of times before you know what X is. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "With National Hockey League (NHL) players participating in the tournament, IIHF officials began to fear that true amateurs and young players were losing their places." Needs a ref, even if it's a repeat of a ref for another sentence. The ref is the next sentence over. Ok. It's worth repeating refs to be clear, tho. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Well, it depends on who you talk to. Half of all reviewers will tell you not to use two of the same citations in a row (unless it's either a quote or very contentious information), while the other half will say every statement needs an individual citation. I tend to lean more towards the former. -- Scorpion0422 04:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC) I've never ever heard of a reviewer calling for less referncing. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC) It's not less referencing, it's just using less of the same citation in a row. My point was that some reviewers will tell you not to use the same citation 2 or 3 times in a row and that one at the end will suffice. -- Scorpion0422 05:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC) "As a result, full world championship status was given to the World Under-20 Championship." Also needs a ref. Next sentence over. Above. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) "During the first years of the tournament, Canada did not have a national team, instead choosing to send a club team, typically the Memorial Cup winner." That sounds like enough of a statement of fact to need a ref, particularly with the words "instead choosing" and not just summarizing data from the table. Next sentence over. The first two paragraphs of the lead are all dependant on citations, none of the statements rely on any of the general references. Above. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Do Joyce or Podnieks cite the second paragraph? I ask because basically the first half, which includes a lot of specific details not in the online refs, remains uncited. Also, more information is always great, but what do the details of this brawl tell you about Canadian IIHF under-20 players? Like I mentioned to TRM, the brawl is very important to note, because it meant the complete disqualification of a team and as a result 20 of the listed players did not win medals. As this list is basically about Canada's involvement in the tourament, I felt the brawl needed to be fully explained. Fair enough, but what about citations? Large parts of those facts aren't in the online sources I can access. I WP:AGF that they're in the offline sources, if you say so. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I realize that, and it is one of the negatives about using print sources, but it does check out. -- Scorpion0422 04:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC) "47.1%, have won at least one gold member." Typo, I assume. Fixed. Not specific to this list, but having the #s on the medal icons is very confusing. I definitely thought those were counts of those medals for a minute. :p They come with the template used. You include memberships in Halls of Fame, understandably. I get that this tourny isn't directly tied to a league (like the NHL or the Russian league), but might big NHL events (MVPs, Stanley Cups) be worthy of inclusion in the notes section? This is a real question, dunno how impractical that would be. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) I have considered including first overall NHL draft picks, as play in the tournament does help raise the profile of top draftees, but I haven't yet. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion0422 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That actually makes more sense, given the age group here, things like Rookie of the Year (does the NHL have that?), draft pick, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) There is an NHL rookie of the year award (Calder Memorial Trophy), but I'm against adding it. My reasoning is that the player's performance in the tournament has no impact at all on whether they win any NHL awards, so to note it would just be trivia. In theory, a player's performance could affect their being voted into a Hall of Fame (though let's be honest, very very few Canadian Hockey Hall of Famers were inducted for their international careers) and their status as a potential draft pick. I would be willing to add first overall draft picks, but NHL awards crosses the line. -- Scorpion0422 04:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I would ref the lead a bit differently, but it's a style choice. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments - "In 1978, an all-star team was sent,[3] The first national junior team participated in the 1982 tournament, and became the first Canadian team to win a gold medal.[4]" Doesn't scan right, and 'The' shouldn't be capitalised. Fixed. "and had two five year gold medal winning streaks" for clarity sake, can we change to "two five-year" Done. "leading to both benches clearing". I know what you mean, but I don't think my girlfriend would. Is there any way to make it clear what you mean by this for someone that doesn't know too much about hockey? Switched to "eventually leading to most of the players from both teams joining the brawl" Does that work better? Mins and GA don't sort properly for me in the goaltender list. I get the 0, 1, 10, 11, 2 problem. The tables are screwy, because the first time you click sort, it works perfectly (well, for me anyway), clicking again leads to problems. I'll try to fix it.

• None of the images have alt text, which is a requirement per WP:ALT.
  • I'm going to say right now that I will not be adding alt text. It will be a waste of my time, and it will add thousands of bytes to an already huge page. I've always found that guideline horrible, and I don't see how it helps out in a list like this. Each one would be along the lines of "an ice hockey player wearing a red jersey and holding a stick while on ice", and how does that help people who are unable to see the image, given that there are dozens of them? Of course there's going to be pictures of players, what else would there be?
    • I will try to take care of the alt text when I get the time. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No, please don't waste your time doing it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
        • You can't just pick and choose the guidelines you follow. Featured content requires images to have alt text, and besides that, it's common courtesy to those accessing wikipedia with a screen readers; would you want to hear "Link image colon Theodore zero one two seven zero nine dot jee pee gee"? Harrias (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Too late, already done. It didn't take that long. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
            • This is the first, and hopefully last, time I am ever going to point to this guideline, but we are allowed to ignore all rules. In this case, I feel that the alt text adds a lot of unnecessary bytes to the article and gives very little in return, which is why I am against it. If we were talking about one or two images, then okay (I would still find it pointless, but whatever), but we're talking about dozens of images in an already very large list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

All in all, it looks a very good list, and while there seem to be a fair few issues listed here, considering the size of the list, that's to be expected. Definitely worthy of FL in my opinion, once these issues have been cleared up. Harrias (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, nice list, good work! Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support I figured after adding alt text to all the images and looking at the list several times there was no way I could remain neutral. This is good stuff, and the list meets the FL criteria. Also, I made a few copy-edits to the lead for redundancy, flow, grammar and MOS compliance, so you may want to check over them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 14:00, 3 February 2010 [14].

---

List of Governors of New Jersey

Nominator(s): A Stop at Willoughby (talk), Golbez (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because after considerable work, I am confident that this list is comprehensive and meets the featured list criteria. It was peer-reviewed here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• "duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either" No comma needed.
• "and Richard Codey, and also affected" No comma needed.
• "original thirteen colonies, and was admitted" No comma needed.
• The red coloring for Kim Guadagno is unnecessary. Since the Lt. Gov. runs on the same ticket, he/she will always be the same party as the Gov.

Great job overall! Reywas92^Talk 23:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

All changes made, though I would prefer to keep the coloring there. --Golbez (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed "and Richard Codey and also affected Jim McGreevey's numbering" to "and Richard Codey, affecting Jim McGreevey's numbering," which is a better wording in my opinion. I've no preference either way regarding the coloring. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

But what's the point of it? On many of your lists there should be colors because they may be different parties, but for NJ that's impossible, so the color is always redundant. Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily impossible; unity tickets do happen, even in the presidency. --Golbez (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, it can be readded if/when that happens. Anyway, Support and good work! Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support, co-nominating. --Golbez (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Request - Since we have a new governor, can someone please review the alt text for the new lead image? Also, did I pick the right author for the new book reference, the Manual of the Legislature? Fitzgerald is credited as 'Publisher' but her name is the only one on the book's cover, so I figured that was safer than going with the 'Compiler', Dullard. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
  • And also, when citing it, should I say "Manual p. ###" or "Fitzgerald p. ###"? --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
    • In fact, in case anyone has already looked at the article, here's the recent batch of edits that *finally* bring it to full quality, I think: [15] Just full disclosure since these are rather major things being added after the FLC started. --Golbez (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Support: Comments: Leaning toward support. In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I peer reviewed this list and discussed aspects of it on its talk page. The article has steadily improved since my review and is generally excellent. I have a few remaining quibbles.

• I think the fractions in the "Term" column of the tables should all appear in the same type size; i.e., 1⁄2, 1⁄5. I would recommend the {{frac}} template for them all.
  • Frac is ugly. :P I'd like to avoid that, but if others agree, then I'll do it.
    • Actually, frac should be used for accessibility reasons. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • All right then. I changed the entire column to {{frac}} for uniformity and per the suggestions here. It doesn't look as good in my opinion, but I suppose accessibility takes precedence. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• "Under this Constitution, the governor was president... " - Lower-case "constitution" for consistency?
  • Fixed.
• "Under the 1776 constitution, the Vice-President of the Legislative Council would act as governor should that office be vacant." The verbs seem a little odd to me since we are talking about the past. Perhaps "The 1776 constitution specified that the vice-president of the legislative council would act as governor should that office be vacant."
  • Done.
• Alt text of Chris Christie looks fine to me.
  • Agreed. I made a couple of minor modifications, but I think it's in good shape now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• The Google Books summary page for Fitzgerald's Legislative Manual, 1921 lists several authors under "More book information", starting with F.L. Lundy. If the Google information is correct, this could be entered as "Lundy, F.L. et al. Usually citations take the form "Author, p. X" rather than "Title, p X". In the case of two or more books by the same author, the date is added; i.e., Author (date), p X. If the citations were organized by "Author, p. X", it would be easier for a reader to find the corresponding author in the "General" list. As it is, a reader is forced to figure out the match between say, "1921 Manual" in citation 27 and "Fitzgerald, Josephine A" in the General list. It appears that the 1905 manual has the identical multiple authors so you would need to use Lundy et al. (1905) and Lundy et al. (1921) to distinguish them.
  • OK, I'll switch to this.
• The General subsection of the Reference section should be arranged alphabetically to make it easier to find any particular item.
  • I've set the book refs apart from the major general refs and alphabetized them, is that okay?

Looks good to me. Finetooth (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• George W.F. Gaunt should not be redlinked more than once. He's redlinked in notes 30 and 31. Finetooth (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)<
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the first table should be sortable—Chris!_c/t 19:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Not possible, unless you want me to get rid of the rowspan and make 76 "None"s appear. Also, what is the point? If you want an alphabetical list of governors, we have a category for that; it's already sorted by date; I suppose you could sort by party but those are already counted and easily visible; and number of terms, but that wouldn't help too many people, not many people want to know how many times a governor was elected. --Golbez (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO, the category can't replace the list in terms of usefulness, so I still think sorting is important here. But I will wait and see what others think.—Chris!_c/t 20:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Having 76 cells all saying "none" before you hit the first lt. gov. is simply unnecessary. Like Golbez, I don't think sortability would be particularly valuable in this particular list. Why don't you think the category is a sufficient replacement for an alphabetical sort? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
        • If you insist, then my comment could be ignored. Sortability is a part of the FL criteria and it should be implemented unless there is a valid reason not to. In this case, I think you can argue that a valid reason exists because of the rowspan. But I still disagree with the notion that a category can replace a list. List provides far more information than a category.—Chris!_c/t 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, lists offer more than categories, but again, let's think about what sorting gains you. You would only reasonably gain three sort abilities by making this list sortable: Name, party, and # of terms. # of terms is useful for finding out who was elected the most times, but that's about it. It doesn't tell you how long the person was in office. Party is somewhat useful, but since we already tell the reader how many people were in a specific party, it won't help for counting, it will only help to make finding people of a certain party slightly easier to find. And name isn't useful because it's duplicated by a category. My point is, if there were a table whose only sorting utility were to alphabetize it, would you still say that the category couldn't do just as good a job? This isn't like a list of countries where being able to sort by population, area, HDI, GDP, etc. gives you more insight into the list, without requiring multiple, pre-sorted lists, or a list of, say, marathon winners, where you could sort by time they took to run the race as well as name and year (assuming it would be sorted by default on year). My point is, sorting is extremely useful, but let's recognize that there are some tables where it is far more useful than others. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
            • I concur with Golbez, and I note that the FL criteria do not require sortability except where helpful. My opinion is that sortability in this table would be of negligible helpfulness and come with the negative side effect mentioned above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• As a side issue, one note lack references. I can see why some (like "Resigned to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency") don't need any because one can refer to the biography of the governor. But others such as note 39 do need one.—Chris!_c/t 21:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Although all of my concerns above have been satisfied (and I have switched to "support"), I agree with Chris that the claims in note 39 should be supported with a citation to an RS. Finetooth (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually omit specific references when they are easily verified on the NGA list, but when there are complex ones that aren't extremely easy to verify, they need a specific citation, and you are right, that one needs a specific citation. I will fix it. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference (a 2002 NY Times article) added. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Sortable or not, this is still a great list. So, I am comfortable supporting.—Chris!_c/t 03:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think everything looks in order. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 17:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be expanded potentially, if the resolution supports it.
  • Done. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• NJ Legislature is overlinked.
  • Fixed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• "of the Senate.[6] which was continued" I'm guessing you mean a comma here rather than a period?
  • Indeed. I rewrote the entire sentence; I think it reads much better now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk)
• "have officially been 55 governors" why not, "have been 55 official governors"?
  • Fixed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• I would have thought images exist freely for all of these governors. Why not include them in the table?
  • For many (possibly most) free images do exist, but I'm reluctant to include the images in the table like that. My personal preference is to have images of a few governors off to the side, as with this list, Governor of New York, List of Governors of Delaware, etc. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • To clarify: If we had images for every entry, we'd include them, but FLC in the past, as I recall, has told me that if we shouldn't use placeholders, and if not every cell has an image then some are randomly narrower and it becomes, well, ugly. And we don't have pictures of everyone. --Golbez (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Italic numbers don't appear to be explained.
  • Fixed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk)
• "Other offices held" table is sortable, the main table isn't. Seems a bit odd (but I understand that your row spanning Lt Governor col wrecks it) - perhaps think again?
  • ... Think what? We can't make the main table sortable, are you suggesting making the lower table unsortable? --Golbez (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• What does H & S mean in the second table?
  • "House of Representatives" and "Senate." Do you think it's confusing? The titles of the columns make the "H" and "S" self-explanatory. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to try including congressmen and senators in text rather than using H/S, but that would lead to a lot of repeated mentions. --Golbez (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [16].

---

List of UTA TRAX stations

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FL on similar lists of stations. Patriarca12 (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: A nice list that has all the basics, but a few picky details remain before the star can be added. The map needs alt text. Alt text added. The article fails to mention that this system is in the United States. Added Instead of "Presently, the 19.6-mile (31.5 km) network serves over 45,200 passengers a day...", cut out 'presently' and add the year for the daily ridership. Corrected Could a comma or two be added in the first sentence of the second paragraph to ease the flow and help the reader find a suitable point to take a breath. Broke the sentence into two sentences. "initially" should be moved further forward in the sentence about the art program. Moved The last sentence in the second paragraph needs at least one comma. Done Perhaps I am wrong or this is a subjective matter, but the use of 'would' to describe past tense seems a bit "sticky" and hinders the flow of the prose. Consider "saw" instead of "would see" etc. Done "three station" should be hyphenated (three-station). Re-worded In the second-last sentence of the lead, it should be X miles of track. Done "Jurisdiction" should be left-aligned, not center-aligned (internal consistency). Similarly "jurisdiction" and "projected completion" in the second table. Done I take it you have checked thoroughly to make sure that the ridership figures for each station have not been published? Not all authorities do this, but if they do, then those numbers should be added. I have been unable to find statistics for boardings at individual stations from an official UTA source. If one becomes available, I will add those numbers at that time. I always like to see either distance or travel time to the "hub" so the reader has a better understanding of distance in the network. I have left this out of this list because I personally feel that that type of information is more appropriate for the individual line pages. However, I am more then happy to include it here if there is a consensus on the issue. "Light rail" is overlinked in the future section. Delinked The second sentence needs a comma or two. Done The length of the additional track to be added is mentioned three times, and seems to have two separate values. Corrected There seems to have been established consensus at AfD that at least commuter/transit stations that are under planning should in general not have an article until at least construction has started or opening is imminent. This is especially the case for light-rail stations, so I would have though all the planned stations would fail AfD as of 2010. I would therefore propose de-linking the stations, under the understanding that they become re-linked at a future date when sufficient information exist that the stations could have their own article. Thanks for commenting on this as I was not sure as to whether or not to show all of the station redlinks. All have been removed and will be re-added when appropriate. There should not be a space after the endashes in the "projected completion" column of the planned stations section. 'Gardner Village' and 'Redwood Road' both should have endashes instead of hyphens. Done Is there any map available of the future expansions (geographic or schematic)? I have not seen a properly licensed and available copy of a map of the future expansions, and I also do not have the personal capabilities to create one. In several of the references (notably 1, 6 and 14–18) use an endash instead of a hyphen for punctuation. Done Arsenikk (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to look and comment on this. It is appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 This is a really nice-looking list. Here are my thoughts and suggestions: "Twenty-three more stations" - I think additional instead of "more" would be more encyclopedic tone Done "and increase the overall length" - and would increase, since this is still speculative and subject to change Done "All of the stations along the UTA TRAX network are open-air structures featuring passenger canopies for protection from adverse weather conditions designed to resemble the canopy at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building.[5]" - a little awkward, this could currently be read that the weather conditions are designed to resemble the canopy, etc., etc. I suggest All of the stations along the UTA TRAX network are open-air structures designed to resemble the canopy at the Joseph Smith Memorial Building, and feature passenger canopies for protection from adverse weather conditions.[5] Reworded "The line would see the construction of a pair of infill stations with the opening of 900 South in 2005 and Sandy Expo in 2006 as a result of demand for the new service." - change "would see" to saw; also "the" is superfluous in "the new service" Done "The University Line would commence service on December 15, 2001" - change "would commence" to commenced Done "It would then see a three station expansion open" - besides the "would" structure, this is awkward. What saw anything? There's no proper subject. If you are referring to the University Line, perhaps The line would be better to replace "It". Suggest: The line expanded in April 2008, when three new stations opened between... etc. Done Remove spaces between indicators in the tables and their entries (no space before asterisk and dagger) and superscript the dagger to avoid crowding, since it's at cap height. Done The Airport Line color and the University Line color appear almost identical; can anything be done to correct this? Are these the official colors? If not, why use two reds and two greens? If so, perhaps it might be more helpful to make them more distinguishable, as WP:ACCESS isn't going to like the red and green combo anyway. At this point no "official" color has been assigned to the Airport Line. The red is being used as it will connect into the existing University Line which does use red as its official color, so it was defaulted as red. The colorbox could be removed altogether for the Airport Line at this time since there is not an official color, but it may look weird since all of the other lines in the list have a colorbox. I am fine with any sort of consensus that is reached regarding this issue. Since there is no official assignment per se, I think that it would be better to remove the colors for all incomplete or pending lines until a reliable source established them. If they do use red and green later, they may be subsumed into another line and that makes this easier, or if they are not, we can deal with it at that time. That is, after all, why we have talk pages. Cheers KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Works for me. I have removed the colorboxes for the proposed and UC stations and will add them as the do become official in the future. Thanks again or the insight!Patriarca12 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to look and comment on this. It is appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support pending resolution of Eubulides' comments on alt text. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. Not quite sure what you mean by "full stop." Can you please elaborate? A full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC) I can't believe I have never in my life heard a period called a full stop! Learn something new everyday! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC) It's more of a British English thing. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC) "designed to resemble the canopy" any reason why? Added reference to its historic nature in Downtown SLC. Not convinced the lines need to be in smaller font. For this I will have to get some help from more experienced editors familiar with the syntax of these types of templates. However, in this case I feel the slightly smaller font does work as all completed stations are on at least two lines making the table easier to follow horizontally across the table. However, I am agreeable to any consensus made about this. Initial sort (if by name) is incorrect as Central Pointe should come in front of Central Station. Corrected. Planned stations, sort per station, I'd expect 500 West before 1100 West. I could not get the syntax to properly work, therefore I made the column unsortable. I'm not even sure how Projected completion currently sorts... I also made this column unsortable since there is such a broad range of dates. This can be changed as more specific completion dates are established in the future. Ref 1 should use an en-dash, not a hyphen, in its title. Corrected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks again for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. I was asked to look at the alt text. The alt text for the first image doesn't convey the gist of the map, namely that the routes form a rough T shape with the University line across the top, the Sandy/Salt Lake line on the left arm and going to the bottom, and the Murry/Midvale/University line on the right arm and going to the bottom, with the free fare zone on the left arm, etc. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more guidance here. Two of the alt text entries contain details that can't be verified just from the image, and which need to be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Proper names and WP:ALT#Verifiability; these are "Salt Lake City" and "Siemens Light Rail Vehicle". The phrase "large, white piece of public art" is pretty vague: it could describe a snowman, for example; see WP:ALT#Essence. The image File:UTA TRAX and FrontRunner at Night 1.JPG appears to be purely decorative, and I suggest marking it with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT#Purely decorative images. Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• • The alt texts have been changed to best fit the guidelines linked here. I hope they will be satisfactory! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that looks good. Wow, I didn't see the elephant until the alt text mentioned it: that's funny! Eubulides (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks great, nice job. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 19:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - looks good—Chris!_c/t 03:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [17].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This list of National Treasure shrine structures is modeled after the featured paintings‎ and sculptures lists. As a novelty there are extensive architectural notes explaining technical terms. I tried to implement comments from previous featured national treasure list candidacies. bamse (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• there is one dead link

  Fixed.

• should there be the little box at the top of the article saying that the article contains Japanese characters?

  Don't know if it is required but I put it there just in case.

• all images have alt text, which is great

  agreed :-)

• the references seem all to be in the correct format
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 60cm, use 60 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 60 cm.

  Fixed two occurences (in a footnote). Hope those are all.

I'll keep it in my watch-list. Mephiston999 (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I addressed all of them. bamse (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• The red link I think should go.

• The term Shinto should be used with care, because the existence of Shinto and the meaning of the term itself before the Meiji era are hotly disputed subjects. Many do not believe Shinto as an organized religion existed before the modern era, and think the word itself in the past meant something like "religion". The situation is described here. The term many prefer for Shinto before the modern era is "local religious beliefs". I would therefore replace the first sentence with "The practice of marking sacred areas began in Japan as early as the Yayoi period (from about 500 BC to 300 AD) originating from primal religious beliefs".

• The illustration has numbers but no legend. Would it be possible to add one?

Urashima Tarō (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I created Ōsaki Hachiman-gū, so the read link is gone; changed the first sentence as you suggested and added a legend to the image caption.bamse (talk) 12:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Support I am satisfied with Bamse's alterations made after I made some suggestions, and I think this is an excellent article. I was invited to comment, but since I am also one of the article's editors and I often collaborate with Bamse, I don't know if I can or should vote for the article's promotion to Featured List. If I can, I vote Support Urashima Tarō (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments (another staggering list, well done!) The list is huge, the lead is correspondingly large, but isn't there a main article where a lot of this could be discussed? Just a thought. Not sure what you mean. There are Shinto, Shinto shrine and Shinto architecture which discuss these issues. The lead is however focused on the national treasure shrines. To make sense of the list, I think it is essential to have some historical background. That's why I wrote a somewhat extended intro. You link "shrines" to "Shinto shrines" - I'd use the full title in this case. I am reluctant to do this because of the issue mentioned by Urashimataro above: the usage of the term "Shinto" for these early times is hotly debated. The Shinto shrine article discusses also old shrines, which might or might not be referred to as Shinto shrines. " taisha-zukuri[ex 1], shinmei-zukuri[ex 2] and sumiyoshi-zukuri[ex 3][3][5]" - comma should go before [ex 1] and there should be a full stop between zukuri and [ex 3]. Fixed. "and, indeed, today's " don't see a need for ", indeed," Removed. "stones[nb 2]," nb after comma please. Plenty of these in the table, please check. Fixed, also those in the table. Hope I caught all of them. "This list presents 37" then "In fact the number of structures presented is more than 37" reads a little odd to me. Indeed, there was "national treasure" missing. Now it reads: "This list presents 37 entries of national treasure shrine structures..." Have you linked "oratory" anywhere? Linked now. Shrines map covers the right-hand side of the right-hand table in my my browser (IE7). After 100 attempts my IE shows proper formatting. Hope yours does as well. What significance does bold have in the table? No meaning and therefore removed. There's a separate symbol for x (which I can't remember how to find)... Replaced x with ×. Done. Minor point but would prefer to see "Images" rather than "Pictures" as a heading. Done. "with richly colored " richly - POV. Removed two occurences of "richly" in the table. Consistency in use of full stops in the architecture notes please. Added full stops to make it consistent. Same for general notes (compare 10 with 11) Done. Ref 53 has a typo. Fixed. Ref 48 could use a space before the (. Fixed. Do refs 81 and 82 really have identical titles? No. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. I started to fix some of it. Will continue later today.bamse (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Addressed all of the issues above. bamse (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Second image etc, bright blue rectangle - what's that about?

  The picture shows three national treasures: the fence (Tōzai Sukibei), the gate (karamon) and the building in the back. The blue rectangle is indicating which of the three is meant here. Unfortunately there is no better viewpoint to get a decent picture of the building in the back. The gate and fence could be isolated in a picture. I used the same picture in order to show how the structures are located relative to each other (the fence is surrounding the building and there is the gate in the fence).

  The blue rectangles need explanation, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

  Added: If the image shows more than one structure, the respective structure is indicated by a blue rectangle. to "Images" in the "Usage" section. bamse (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a well-written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 20:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support by Nev1 (talk · contribs)

• " Over time the temporary structures evolved into permanent structures that were dedicated to the gods": slightly repetitious with "structures", could do with a little change.

• Reworded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what the following means: "The honden is 2×2". Are we talking 2 by 2 metres (6 ft 7 in × 6 ft 7 in)? This applies to notes two, three, and four, and the remarks in the main table.

• This is explained in the "Usage" section under "Remarks": "m×n" denotes the length (m) and width (n) of the structure, each measured in ken. So a 2×2 structure is one which has three pillars on each side: one at each corner and one in-between these two.

• Sorry I missed that. I would suggest though that for the notes it be made clearer, as they come before the usage section Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Forked finials act as ornamentation" sounds a little bit clumsy, how about something like "They are decorated with forked finials"?

• Changed as suggested.

• "date to before 552 AD": surely "date from before 552 AD"? I'm genuinely not sure about which to use or whether one is incorrect, but I've seen "date from before xyz" more often than "date to before xyz".

  Changed: "to"->"from".

• Dates suffixed by BC or AD need a non-breaking space in between. It means that if there's a line break on some screens, you won't get a BC/AD marooned on its own.

  Done.

• " The concept of temples as a place of assembly was applied to shrines": I know what this is trying to say, but at the moment it sounds like shrines were made into temples. How about something along the lines of "Borrowing the idea from temples, shrines became places of assembly"?

  To me it does not sound as if shrines were made into temples since specifically: "concept...as a place of assembly" is mentioned.

  Ok, I'll leave this. I think the meaning is clear, although it could perhaps be better phrased. It's a minor issue though. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• " At the end of the Heian period two-storied gates and grand colonnades, replacing torii and fences, were copied on a large scale from temple architecture": in this case does large scale mean making the gates and colonnades bigger (in which case the phrasing is fine), or that they were widely copied?

• Reword to clariy, (I hope!). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• "gongen-zukuri was introduced as a method of building shrines": the article linked indicates that gongen-zukuri is an architectural style, or a different kind of plan, rather than a new method of construction, which surely relates to what kind of materials were used and how they were put together?

  Indeed. Replaced "method"->"new plan'.

• "The main hall was joined with the oratory via a connecting structure known as ai-no-ma as is also found in the hachiman-zukuri style": is the second "as" meant to be "and"?

  Reworded. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• It might be worth considering moving the last paragraph of the lead to the start, so the reader knows immediately about shrines as National Treasures and then goes on to read more about shrines in general, but this is not a deal breaker and I'm happy to leave this to the author's discretion.

  Moved it.

• Similar to my comment on the paintings list, it would be useful to know what National Treasure status does for a shrine; for example in the UK scheduled monuments are protected from unauthorised change.

  Added: As such they are eligible for government grants for repairs, maintenance and the installation of fire-prevention facilities and other disaster prevention systems. Owners are required to announce any changes to the National Treasures such as damage or loss and need to obtain a permit for transfer of ownership or intended repairs. and a reference.

• Might it be useful to have the tables in the statistics section sortable? The layout out for the first might make it impractical.

  The second table is small enough to be sorted by the reader (It is currently sorted by age.) Removing the rowspans in the first table, I could make it sortable. Unless you think it is essential, I'd prefer the present version.

  I made the small table sortable.bamse (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

  It's not at all essential to make the first sortable, and as you say it's short enough for the reader to be able to "sort" it mentally. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a good explanation of the origin of shrines, the history is good although could do with a little copyediting, and the lead image is useful to get an idea of a typical layout, which can be difficult to explain well in prose. It's interesting to see that the shrines are more spread out than the paintings (presumably because you don't get shrine collectors) but from the discussion in the last FLC I presume there's little that could be said about the distribution without venturing into WP:OR. Otherwise, the descriptions seem detailed enough, and the main table looks good. I can't think of anything else to add. A nice article. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied to all of your comments, which were not done by Truthkeeper88 already. Please let me know if you require any further changes. (I cannot see any system in the geographic distribution, so I don't dare to discuss it.) bamse (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long, I've now switched to support. Well done for producing a fine list. Nev1 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Ref #81 is a dead link. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 20:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

  • • Support - It all looks in order. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) ^{- Afkatk} 15:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [18].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

After working and getting List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons to FL I'm starting to understand what it takes to get to FL status. I couldn't find a FL basketball season list so I combined elements from the football season FLs and List of Akron Zips men's basketball seasons to make it in my opinion FL worthy. NThomas (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Quick Comments Unfortunately, I see the number of red links in this article as being a big hurdle in passing FLC. Prior FLCs have shown that at least 75% of the links should not be red. What about changing the red links to text until those articles are created or those articles redirect to an article like Penn State Nittany Lions football under Joe Paterno (as an Independent) combining them by coach? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) The purpose of redlinks is to encourage article creation. Delinking those redlinks or redirecting them to one article defeats the purpose of the redlink criterion (especially since these potential articles would definitely be notable). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Makes sense. Every championship season will have its own article soon but others like the 1989-90 season, Tech went 5-22 overall. That would be one of the last articles started so some like that would be red links for a long time to come. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Here's the thing. Think of lists as directories. This is a list of TT basketball seasons, however, nearly all of the entries go nowhere. I know a lot of athletics articles will group individual season articles into more broad articles such as by decade (Texas Tech Red Raiders basketball, 2000-2009) or by coach (Texas Tech Red Raiders basketball under Bob Knight). I just don't see this passing FL with that amount of red links. I face the same problem with List of Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball seasons.—NMajdan•talk 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I'm pretty sure the Big 12 is not separated into divisions in basketball, just football. They aren't divided into divisions like football but for scheduling, B12 South teams play each other twice a season but only play B12 North teams once a year. I thought about adding something like that into the lead but this is about the entire history of the program. If it was just about Big 12 basketball then I'd think it would be a necessity. What do you think? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) I've noticed this too but unfortunately we can't make the assumpution that there is a "division" unless a reliable third-party source confirms this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC) What about adding a referenced footnote after Division in the lead? NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Added reference from the Big 12's website. NThomas (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Texas Tech won two more consecutive conference championships the two following seasons. Seems redundant. I'm thinking this might work: The following two seasons, the Matadors won as many conference championships. I replaced Texas Tech with Matadors to flow into the next sentence about the moniker change from Matadors to Red Raiders. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• No need for the 2009-10 season row yet.

• Because the article isn't "List of completed Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons", I feel as long as the parameters aren't constantly being changed after every time a game is played and having In Progress solves that problem instead of empty parameters. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is actually fairly consistently applied across sports season FLs that play more often than once a week (the NFL, with one game a week, usually doesn't create a problem, but basketball and baseball teams, which play more often, tend to be kept at a stable point). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• As KV said, leaving the current season's row off is general practice. Go through the current FLs that would have a similar row and you will see that they do not. It needs to be removed. Good job on the creation of the season articles.—NMajdan•talk 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I really believe the current season belongs on the list. When I read KV5's comment, I took that as it was common on non-football FL season lists. I'm not wanting to get into WP:WAX but, three of the four NBA FLs have the current season in the table. Since this will be the first NCAA basketball seasons list, we're breaking new ground here and the most similar FLs are the NBA FLs. The current season is still a season right? If the current season is not to be included on this list then I propose all season lists be moved to List of completed <team name and sport> seasons. Thanks about creating the seasons. That was really the hardest part but, only one more section to go! NThomas (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Having the current season in the list removes a component of stability, inviting vandalism, edit wars, edit conflicts, and other unpleasant things. I know that the general practice for baseball lists, since they play pretty much every day is to either wait until the season is completed, as per my current practice at the List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, or use stable points in the season for updates, meaning ends of months (not preferred) or the All-Star Break. I would recommend applying the same standard here. But that's just me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Having the all of the parameters covered by In progress would solve any problems for constant updates and though. I even included an editors tag about not updating the stats until the season was completed.

• I suppose we can probably live with that for now, though I would consider leaving the list at a stable point once the end of the current season is reached. That's generally the progression that I follow with lists of this type that are nominated in-season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• I feel this individual comment is finished right? Or is there still opposition to the In progress column for the current season? After all, it is stable and will be until the end of the season when the two final polls are released. NThomas (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I assumed that it was resolved per my last comment, but didn't mark it because it's not mine originally. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I figured it was but just wanted to make sure. I left a message on NMajdan's talk page to close this comment if everyone, including Nmajdan, was satisfied with the outcome. NThomas (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I still don't agree with it being there, but it is not a big enough issue to keep me from Supporting.—NMajdan•talk 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

—NMajdan•talk 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for a quick response and comments. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Not a big fan of the redlinks either. I suppose we do have to consider WP:SAL, which says "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." I would be more comfortable passing this list if, during the course of this FLC, some of those redlinks turn blue and it's obvious that progress is being made. See my reply to Nmajdan's same comment in his first sentence. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) It's a thought, though stand-alone lists are supposed to bring together related articles, and all of those redlinks should necessarily become articles at some point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "the most held by a Border Conference member." - links to a football article? That shouldn't be in there. Excuse: lack of sleep. It's been removed. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "the Red Raiders had not receive a bid" - should be did not receive Corrected. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) "received bids five postseason bids six years to four NCAA tournaments" - wha? It should have been received five postseason bids in six years to four NCAA tournaments. I fixed it but that still doesn't sound great. Any ideas? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) How about During Knight's six-year tenure, Texas Tech received five postseason bids, participating in four NCAA tournaments and one National Invitation Tournament (NIT)"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Much better! Thanks. That sounds really good. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) "then ever previously" - then should be than, but "than ever previously" is really bad grammar. Consider a re-word. Reworked the entire sentence to The Red Raiders won the third place playoff in the 2003 NIT Tournament, the farthest a Red Raiders men's basketball team has advanced in postseason play. I think that sounds much better. What do you think? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Great! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC) It's really difficult to distinguish what on earth the "Conference Tournament Champions" designator is supposed to be. I would suggest using an asterisk, since none is used in this article. I'd rather not change it but if that becomes the difference in yay or nay, for support, I'll change it. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) NIT and NAIA are used without explicit definition. In the lead, i added a the NIT abbreviation to National Invitation Tournament and National Collegiate Athletic Association's NCAA abbreviation is in the first sentence. Both are abbreviated in parenthesis the first time both organizations are mentioned. I have a feeling that's not going to cut it thought, right? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC) NIT and NCAA are just fine being abbreviated in the lead; it's just NAIA that I'm concerned about now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I added this to the second paragraph Texas Tech received their first postseason bid in 1942 to the National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB) tournament. The NAIA was called the NAIB before 1950 so the existing abbreviations were changed also. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. All the help I can get is appreciated. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments I'm no expert but the ALT text is a little weak. You haven't described that they're seated, that there are folks in the background or what the main guys are wearing. This is what's there now: A middle-aged man is turned talking to a man in his thirties who holds a pen and paper in his hands. How about this instead? In the background, two men are seated in front of a crowd, one with a headset, the other with a fist in front of his mouth, _________________. In the foreground, two men are seated, a middle-aged man who is turned talking to a man in his thirties who holds a pen and paper in his hands. I just don't know what to put in the blank spot for the first sentence maybe: ...looking off into the distance.? NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) "were known as the "Matadors"" no reference. Corrected. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Nor the replacement of the name. Corrected. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) "where it experienced similar success as it had in the" very awkward English. How about replacing it with they? NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) "began an annual conference tournament known as the SWC Classic" no reference. Added ref & corrected tournament name. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) "until the conference ceased operations in 1996 " no reference. Added ref. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Big 12 Conference is overlinked. Corrected. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Notes are unreferenced. Corrected. Thanks again. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) You have refs for the results in the 70s, 90s and 00s. What about all the other decades in this table? Those are only for the NIT tournaments. They really don't even need to be there as the first reference encompasses all the team's postseason results. I just added it as an additional reference. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) The months and days need leading zeros in the accessdate fields. Corrected. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC) There are four people in the image, the caption says (left) and (right) - not what you mean.. I originally played around with cropping the picture but it didn't look as good. The only other thing I can think of is "Center right" and "far right." Any suggestions? NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Fixed! NThomas (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC) "received their first postseason bid" what does this mean? do you mean they made it to postseason? Yes. It's a bid because not every team that is given a bid accepts it. There's a few articles here about automatic bid and the NCAA tournament's selection process involving bids but since the bid in question is about the NAIB bid and not the NCAA, a link to that article isn't appropriate. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC) Just not that clear to a non-expert.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I added bid to help clarify. I'm by no means an expert, just a jargon expert. NThomas (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "competes in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I". Should be "Association's", I believe. Good catch. Fixed. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) "Texas Tech won two more consecutive conference championships the two following seasons." Feels like there is redundant phrasing here, but I'm having a tough time fingering it. Perhaps "more" should be dropped? I trimmed and combined two of the sentences to get the same information across in a more efficient style. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) "the Southwest Conference held began...". One of the last two words needs to go. Deleted held. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Comma needed after "the Red Raiders did not receive a bid to postseason play until 2002". Also, Coach should be de-capitalized. Thanks. I would have never realized the comma belonged there. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Reference 5 should have the publisher in italics, since it is a printed work. Corrected. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Table: In the Preseason / Postseason heading, de-capitalize Postseason since it isn't a proper noun. Also, I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the MoS to avoid using slashes in text. Maybe try a dash of some kind instead. Found it: MOS:SLASH. Replaced it with: and. In most seasons list FLs, the postseason column shows the team's actual results in playoff or bowl games and series. Why shouldn't a prospective college basketball seasons FL do the same? I'd at least expect to see who Texas Tech lost to or beat in the final round of each event. This will take some work, but it strikes me as worth doing. There has got to be a better way then what you're talking about. The NBA FLs list every game in the playoffs but with college teams, there's preseason, postseason and conference tournaments.

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

:I really think a link to the season and the tournament is enough and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the list. I know the other season by season lists include the results to the playoffs, but there's a potential for three tournaments in every season and it overwhelms the rest of the information. Including only the last game won't solve the problem either, it just adds information more appropriate for the individual season and tournament articles when the name of the tournament and wikilinked result convey the the information just as well. I propose this list and future college basketball FLs only include the final result similar to how playoffs are handled in NCAA football (see:List of Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons). NThomas (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC) In the list you linked to, the bowl games and championship-winning playoff games are spelled out, but the regular playoff appearances aren't. Are you saying that you would show the championship game result if Texas Tech ever wins an NCAA or NIT title, or is that style the one you want to use throughout regardless? I'd be interested to see if anyone has further comment on this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Good point. In my opinion, I would just continue the same style used in the conference tournament. Look at the 1995–96 season's conference tournament, Texas Tech made it to the finals and won against the Texas Longhorns so it is just labeled as "Champions." If Tech were to win a NIT, NCAA, etc. tournament, I would have it labeled with "NCAA Champion^" in the Preseason and postseason category and the season would be colored with a new symbol. NThomas (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC) Also, what about adding a separate section with subsections with the results with conference, preseason and postseason results similar to the playoff results in the North Carolina seasons list? NThomas (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC) That's a great idea. My only concern is that full conference tournament results, in addition to the others, could make the page overly long as you fear, but it's hard to say without seeing the size of a table. If it becomes too much for one page, you could always split the results into their own list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC) I started the conference list offline and "show previewed" it... It doesn't look good either. I estimated the conference results alone are the same size of as the season list. The only other thing I could think of is creating conference championship articles (my preferred choice) or, according to naming conventions, what would a separate list of tournament results be titled? List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball tournament results? NThomas (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I was going to tell you to test it and see how it worked. With that in mind, I think the title you gave is fine. At the very least, I can't think of a better one at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Anything else you can think of for this list? I had no idea I was breaking new ground here with this one. I'm kinda hoping things here in the FLC will wrap up soon and then I'll tackle the tournament results list. NThomas (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC) Also, when I get around to the tournament results list, I was thinking this version of the Template:Details: Further information on tournament results: List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball tournament results NThomas (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Support – Seems to meet FL standards now. I'm not that fussed about the tournament results, knowing now how many of them there are; in fact, I'll be interested to see what that list is like. While I'm here, can the table be capped? I haven't been able to do it properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Capped? You mean like a totals at the end of the list? I'm confused. NThomas (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think he was referring to this FLC page (the table doesn't fit in the {{hidden/FC}} template properly); I moved it to the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Links, contributors, alt text, and dab links all check out fine. Lead Texas Tech has played its home games at United Spirit Arena in Lubbock, Texas since its opened in 1999 -- you mean since it opened in 1999.? or since its opening in 1999.? Fixed. Good catch! NThomas (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The team's first season of conference play, Texas Tech went undefeated, winning the first of three consecutive Border Conference championships. -- In my opinion, it would sound better as in the team's first season... Fixed. Sounds better now. NThomas (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Before withdrawing from the Border Conference in 1956, the Red Raiders won five conference championships and one co-championship. -- what is a co-championship? Its a shared title. Two teams have the same results regardless of head-to-head match ups. I had the same question come up during the last list I had in FLC. The university remained in the SWC until the conference ceased operations in 1996 when the Red Raiders ended the 1995–96 season ranked #8 in both the AP (Associated Press) Poll and Coaches' Poll. - comma after 1996 Fixed. Thanks. NThomas (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) List The only thing I see that catches my eye is why do some of the columns have no columns, and later on they have columns with dashes. Does this mean that the award of whatever did not exist until the dashes columns? That's exactly right. I feel that is the best way to convey the message that there was no possible entry for that category where the dash means it was possible but not achieved. Can you note that somewhere? I just feel the reader should know this beforehand.--Truco 503 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I've added notes in the header of the table explaining the conference wins, losses, & final standings, and the dates the polls began being published. NThomas (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC) References I don't know if its possible for you to have the link of the university appear in all the refs, such as in ref # 2? In addition to the link to the Big 12 in ref #1? Done. The refs all have been wikilinked. NThomas (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC) --Truco 503 03:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; now meets WP:WIAFL.Truco ₅₀₃ 01:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 2 February 2010 [19].

---

List of Copenhagen Metro stations

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This list of the stations of the Copenhagen Metro fits into a growing number of metro station lists. I feel the article now meets the FL criteria, but if there are any comments or feedback, I am more than happy to look into it and amend the article as needed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You probably need to change the Line column from using images to using text. Accessibility and all that. Also, at least in the future stations table, you list two stations as being termini... which they are, but you don't specify for which line. --Golbez (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback. Concerning the termini, it says in the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Line M3 will operate the full circle, while M4 will only operate the eastern half." This should imply that M3 does not have any termini, and that any termini of the City Circle Line would belong to M4. In my opinion this is sufficient, especially since there is a map to the right that shows the circle. I am also a little unsure how to incorporate the more detailed information and where you want it. Concerning the icons, they will either show up as an image or they will show up with the alt-text (M1, M2, M3 and M4). Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Images used in Line column do not need alt text per this guideline because they are purely decorative; also, what does S in the first table stands for? I assume that is for the S-train.—Chris!_c/t 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The info in the Line column is not otherwise available, so those images' alt text ("M1", "M2") should be fine as-is; without the alt text, the visually impaired reader of a table row won't know the row's line. Eubulides (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The 'S' was just a stray letter that must have been put in by mistake—it is now removed. The icons are not purely decorative, so they still need alt texts. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought they are purely decorative.—Chris!_c/t 20:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris!_c/t 22:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I have found no problems, except that you may want to move 'min' to the caption of the fifth column of the first table. Ruslik_Zero 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. I have removed 'min' from the list and added a two-word specification of the time scale in the key. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments Whoa, first thought was you're "underlinking"! I'd say you could legitimately link Denmark here....! "Each line takes 23 minutes to travel." odd fact, but okay. Can you just make it clear you mean it takes 23 minutes from one end of M1/M2 to the other end of M1/M2? Christianhavn or Christianshavn? " Christianshavn offers transfer between the two metro lines" - What do the big circles on the map mean then? It's not clear, and it's not on the key... Why would 1,3 sort before 1,2 in your table (under Zone)? Proposed map caption should state that it is the "proposed" map - who knows, it may never happen.. "All the stations on lines M3 and M4 will be underground" this is a poor caption for an image of a bunch of escalators. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Done. However, to comments: I haven't even noticed the big circles before, but they seem to mean transfer stations either to other lines or to the S-train, regional trains or the airport. I'll have to take a look at modifying the map later if a key is to be added for it. The official maps do not operate with any indication of line change stations, simply relying on the intuition that transfer is available at the nearest intersecting station. As for the zoning sort, it seems that they sort as an equal part of 1 (if you for instance sort first by travel time and then by zone, (1, 2) will appear before (1, 3). I've tried a number of tricks, but cannot manage to get them to sort between 1 and 2. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I have now modified the map so the transfer station circle is in the legend. As I am writing this, the image seems to not have updated on Wikipedia, although it is showing fine on Commons. Arsenikk (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Check the toolbox; there is one dead link (soft 404). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Amazing how linkrot has reached the level that links become dead during the FL review. I took the opportunity to instead instate the 2009 ridership figures. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any way the text on the map of future stations can be enlarged? At the moment, it is useful only for the shape of the routes, as the text in illegible from the article. Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've tried playing around with the map, but this seems to be rather difficult. Although possible, the whole map is scaled to the current dimensions. Making the text by itself larger will make the map look rather ugly in full size. Instead, I can force the image size to 400px, which should make the text readable (since the map is the same width as the current map at the top). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "south-east" - southeast, remove hyphen "the branch to the airport completed M2 in 2007" - this reads awkwardly to me. Did you mean to say the M2 branch to the airport completed in 2007? "The two lines are 21 kilometers (13 mi) long" - does this mean that the two lines combined are that length, or that each line is that length? The wording is ambiguous at the moment. "Since 2007, there have been 22 stations" - this sounds a bit awkward to me as well. Not really sure what to suggest, though. Link "Ørestad" in lead. "The system is owned by Metroselskabet, that is owned by the municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, and the Government of Denmark." - this is a run-on sentence, and I'm not sure what it's trying to say. Does it mean that "Metroselskabet" is owned by the municipalities and the government, or that the system proper is owned by the municipalities and the government? Once I know, I can suggest better wording. Suggest superscripting the indicators in the table (pound sign and dagger) since they are at cap height. Blank cells in "Transfer" column should have centered em-dashes to show that they are intentionally left blank. Overall, this list is well-constructed, well-referenced, and aesthetically pleasing. I would gladly support following the resolution of the above comments. Cheers! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. I have fixed everything, and come up with suggestions for the points were the prose was awkward. To answer your questions: The lines are 21 km long combined (not each). Metroselskabet is owned by the municipalities/government. I converted the no. of stations sentence to "The system has 22 stations, of which 9 are underground and 12 are elevated." Arsenikk (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC) All of the changes look great; I just have one more question: what exactly is the Metroselskabet? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Metroselskabet is a limited company which owns the metro (but doesn't operate it, that is subcontracted). Translated, the name means "The Metro Company". Arsenikk (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC) OK, good to know. Then I suggest a minor change to The system is owned by Metroselskabet, a company owned jointly by the municipalities of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg, and the government of Denmark. - this makes clear that the Metroselskabet is a company for those who don't know and also de-capitalizes "government", which isn't a proper noun in this case. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Arsenikk (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Gladly add my support to this nomination. Great work! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Alt text, contributors, dab links, and external links all check out fine. Lead The City Circle Line will have 17 stations, of which 2 are existing stations that will become transfer stations, Christianshavn and Kongens Nytorv. -- the ending reads awkwardly, it may just be me but why not state it as 'which 2 (names of cities) are existing stations..' or 'become transfer stations: name of cities.' or 'of which 2, name of cities, are existing...' The new lines will also have a stop at Copenhagen Central Station (København H). -- I had to find out by going to the article that this station is the largest in Denmark, but it would help the reader to state that. The metro and its 34 trains are operated by the private company Metro Service. -- I'm confused, Metro Service is a different company correct? I would add a note about the zones and what they are, because they just randomly appear in the table and the reader knows nothing about them. Key I would add a {{-}} template at the end of this section because on my browser the image runs off to the list section. Table Would it look better with the transfer column being centered? Not just the dashes? (same w/ future stations)--Truco 503 04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. Nice to get some feedback from someone who isn't too indoctrinated in rail transport and has some tricky questions. I have changed the 17 stations... sentence to The City Circle Line will have 17 stations, with transfer to between the current and new lines at Christianshavn and Kongens Nytorv. I added ..., the largest train station in Denmark. Metroselskabet (a municipal/government-owned company) owns the track and plans the expansions; Metro Service (a private company) runs the trains. This is a consequence of the Danish love of New Public Management, not necessarily logic. It is fairly common way of doing things in Europe. An elaboration about this is covered in the Copenhagen Metro article, which I would suppose the reader would look at if they wanted to know more about the system than simply the stations. Zone info added. The image runs onwards to the list section on my browser too, and I honestly don't see the problem with that. Adding {{-}} just makes a whole lot of unnecessary white space under key. Is there somewhere further down this is causing other problems? With the other columns left-aligned, I would say that center-aligning the transfer columns will make the article look messier. I will admit that the current solution looks a bit bad too. Arsenikk (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC) How about centering the text of the entire table? Btw, one of the rows is missing a dash. For the image problem, why not just replace the image with one of the ones that appear later and put the one that is there now where the new one was located?--Truco 503 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Moved around some of the images and added a dash. As for the alignment, I find center-aligned table a lot more difficult to read; this is mostly because we are accustomed to reading from left to right with a right-aligned border, and the center-alignment also increases the complexity of the text layout, increasing the strain on reading. Center-aligned lists also appear messy. Arsenikk (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- All issues fixed, the center aligning is a minor bug but its okay. Meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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