Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [1].

---

Army of the Danube order of battle

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is hard to image that anything to do with the French Revolutionary Wars or the Napoleonic Wars would be under-represented in Wikipedia, but the War of the Second Coalition is. This list is my mite to addressing the omission. It meets the standards (as I understand them), has been through a peer review (archived), and ACR for Military History. There is of course the great debate on names of orders of battles: should they be "order of battle of blah blah" or "blah blah order of battle." The project has not reached any consensus on this, and I decided that blah blah order of battle sounded better for this, because the key point is not that it is an order of battle, but that it is the Army of the Danube (order of battle). There is an article that goes with it, and that article will be nominated for FA soon (next week). This is my first featured list nomination. Thanks for all constructive feedback! auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to do some reviewing in the next few days, but I'll need to become familiar with the guidelines for featured lists first. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi NativeForeigner, all review comments are welcomed. Order of battle at the Battle of San Domingo and Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile may be useful FL-class order of battle lists to compare to this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Those, though, are both about battles- whereas this candidate is for an army- not sure we have a true analogue here. Dabomb's, though, are as close as any I believe exist. (This one is also on my list to review.) Courcelles (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific; as Courcelles said, the scope is a bit different, but the general format is the same. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments This is a very good article, but I have a few questions before I can support the nomination:
  • Is the listing of members of the General Staff complete? It's slightly surprising that all the staff officers are notable
    • It is complete as far as I can determine from Jourdan's memoirs--these are the chief people involved in the staff. There were many others, of course. Many of the articles on the officers are stubs I created rather than make complicated footnotes. Ramsay Phipps considered this army one of the School for Marshals, in his history of the French Revolutionary Armies. I added a bit on that in the lead.
  • Is http://home.wanadoo.nl/g.vanuythoven/French%20OOB%20Danube%2003-1799.htm a reliable source? It certainly looks accurate and cites a suitable source, but my understanding is that wanadoo.nl is a webhost for self-publishers. I note that you cite the English-language version of the website's source (A Memoir of the operations of the army of the Danube under the command of General Jourdan, taken from the manuscripts of that officer) - does this verify the website?

the Kessinger-vanythoven material is very good. It is the electronic version of that which is available in Kessinger's analysis of the battle of Stockach. I cited it rather than the Kessinger's article because of its availability. Roland Kessinger is a well-known (although amateur) historian of the Second Coalition in southwestern Germany, and one of the few who has written about the Battle of Stockach of 1799. Unless otherwise stated, I've used material from his order of battle. auntieruth (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a print copy of the Jourdan memoir. It is available in full text on Googole books.

• • As a note, what appears to be the full text of that book is available on Google Books here Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Questions now answered Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Since I'm about to submit another order of battle for consideration here, I figured I should comment here.

• I realize that images might not be required for this sort of list, but there should room for small images (battle paintings or commander portraits, that sort of thing) next to the text blobs.

Since the tables broke up the text somewhat, I did not see the need for images. These seemed to distract from the basic information of the order of battle. This is not an order of battle about a specific battle, but rather a field army. I didn't want to focus on one battle or another.

Like I said, not a show-stopper, but I wanted to ask the question. Magic♪piano 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• The formatting for the artillery park looks funny. Perhaps the personnel should just be another bullet item after the equipment?

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. auntieruth (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The indentation of the personnel was what bugged me; I've edited to show what I suggested, feel free to revert if you don't like it. Magic♪piano 14:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I like it. :) auntieruth (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other than that, this (without vetting the sources) looks pretty good to me. Magic♪piano 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support assuming resolution of other people's issues. Magic♪piano 21:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks. done. (it was new since the article's nomination)

• Comments:
  • "Field army" could be wikilinked at first mention (in the lead) and in the infobox;
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citations # 40 and 41 appear to be the same and should therefore be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (you've done this with others, e.g. # 37, etc.);
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 3 (Databook) isn't in italics, although Citation # 4 is
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 9, the page range (80-81) should have an endash per WP:DASH;
    • it is an en dash. It shows an as endash on my screen.
      • Dabomb hit it with a script in between my review and your reply. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Citations and notes section, with Citation # 27 the composition title isn't in italics, although similar ones (e.g. # 25 and 26) are;
    • fixed
  • In the Citations and notes section, Citation # 37, the year range (2001-2002) should have an endash;
    • fixed
  • In the Bibliography section the 2000 work by Digby Smith needs an ISBN, while those that are too old for ISBNs should probably have OCLC numbers. These can be found by searching for the title on Google books and clicking on the "Find in a library" link;
    • fixed, OCLC numbers etc. added to the bibliography
  • In the Bibliography section the titles should be capitalised per Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles (a couple of them aren't, for instance Gallagher, Jourdan, Shadwell, Thiers);
    • They are capitalized according to the Wordcat entry. auntieruth (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Worldcat doesn't follow the MOS when it comes to capitalisation. In my opinion we should follow Wikipedia:MOSCAPS#Composition titles and make all the entries consistent. Currently some follow the MOS and some follow Worldcat. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • In the Bibliography section the Blanning work should have the composition title in italics (The French Revolutionary Wars);
    • fixed
  • In the Bibliography some of the ISBNs have hyphens and others don't
    • fixed
  • an image might work in the infobox (this is just a suggestion). AustralianRupert (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I have a fusilier or a map image of the convergence. would that do? thanks for your comments and review. auntieruth (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The fusilier looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The Kessnger, and Vanuythoven internet source in the Bibliography "Order of Battle, Army of the Danube" needs publisher and accessdate information (sorry I missed this one before). AustralianRupert (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support all my concerns have been dealt with. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Jourdan should be linked and his full name used on the first use in the lead. fixed. Black Forest is overlinked in the second paragraph of the lead. fixed. "Jean-Baptiste Jourdan, its commander-in-chief," would reverse this "its commander-in-chief Jean-Baptiste Jourdan" to avoid confusion that you may have a list of six people... fixed. I think consistency with diacritics would be useful, e.g. Zürich instead of Zurich, to be consistent throughout. fixed. "disbanded in November 1799" vs active until "11 December 1799". I'm no expert but if the army was disbanded in November, how could they remain active as a unit until mid-December? This question has come up before. The units were dispersed in November, but it remained on paper (and Tharreau in command) until 11 December. Okay, perhaps a footnote would help this out. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Is it Jean Baptiste or Jean-Baptiste? It is both. I've made it Jean-Baptiste consistently now. Not quite, I still see Jean Baptiste in the Staff section... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) "From October to December, he completed an assessment of its condition, and by 27 February 1799, Jourdan had" would be better to re-assert who "he" is, so "From October to December, Jourdan completed an assessment... 1799, he had..." fixed. "Marquis d'Aultanne [9]" remove space between reference and text. fixed. "crossed at Kehl" crossed the Rhine at Kehl? fixed. "1st (or 2nd)" I don't understand the "or" here? the sources are uncertain which—1st or 2nd. Again, perhaps a footnote to explain that sources are uncertain. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Sure, I can do that. auntieruth (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC) see if this is satisfactory. I've added a note in the original place, and also in the Divisions where the squadrons were originally assigned. auntieruth (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC) "Army of Mayence (Mainz)" vs "Army of Mainz (Mayence)" can we be internally consistent? fixed. "or lieutenant colonel) Jean-Baptiste-Theodore Vialanes was wounded in southwestern Germany in 1800; he eventually was promoted to Brigadier General in 1803 and raised to Baron of the Empire in 1808.[25] Jacques LeBaron was Chef de Brigade of the 6th Dragoons; promoted to colonel" need consistent capitalisation of ranks here. Chef de Brigade is a French rank and is always capitalized. Colonel, also a rank, is capitalized when it is a title (Colonel Vialenes, for example). So you cap "to Brigadier General" but not "to colonel"? Seems inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) When it refers to a specific Brigadier Jacopin, but the rank of brigadier general...same with colonel. auntieruth (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC) "Hüfingen" or "Huffingen"? fixed. Sources are muzzy, and Jourdan wasn't sure how it was spelled. "# Howitzers: 19 [43]" remove space between number and ref. I did, but it makes the number difficult to read. Same below. "Total 1,389 [44]" ditto. Ref 35, is that in German? yes, marked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you very much for such a careful review. Do you know how to fix the large white space that was added when the picture went into the info box (per request of a different reviewer). auntieruth (talk) 23:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I don't see too much whitespace there. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I fiddled with it, and it's gone. Are your concerns addressed? auntieruth (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason why you have the source in the table rather than as a normal {{cite book}} reference in the Sources section?
  • the models I followed in the Military History Project did it this way.
    • Okay, well it's not crucial to me, but I prefer to see normal referencing used. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • that would generate a reference on every line. This seems to be the model most of the MH project uses. auntieruth (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
        • No, that's not true. That's what general references are for. Everything else, however, seems fine, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 June 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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [2].

---

Paramore discography

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has the enough potential to become a FL based on my past nominations. I have spent months working on it and finding reliable references. It has been peer reviewed in the past and I had nominated it for FLC some months ago but it didn't get promoted because of the little amount of comments. All the sources are good in my opinion, as well the lead and image (with alt text included). Decodet (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Support as I did the last time. Mm40 (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: Right now, the lead feels weak to me. Looking at other recently promoted discographies, this one doesn't seem to measure up. For example, the two live albums are not mentioned in the lead at all. For comparison, Spice Girls discography had a lead nearly 3x as long with similar numbers for studio albums and the like. Lean oppose for now, but there's time to improve. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I will try to do my best and expand the lead. It should be finished in some days or even tomorrow. Thanks for leaving your opinion. Decodet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I think I did my best improving the lead, does it look good right now? Decodet (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, looks better. Reading over everything now to see if everything's good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Quite a few of the UK chart sources could be replaced with this for the singles and albums which charted within the Top 75. Mister sparky (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about this site. Removed those physical references of some positions and switched for this one. Thanks! Decodet (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks complete and everything is cited.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Opening sentence doesn't match with infobox (e.g. videos/singles) Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Merge first two paras. Done. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) " from this album" the album would read more elegantly. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Probably worth linking "Gold certification" appropriately. Done. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "The band's breakthrough album, however, became Riot!." nasty sentence. Perhaps, "The band's breakthrough album came in 20xx with Riot!"? Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "Upon its release in June 2007, the album peaked at number fifteen " not true. It didn't peak upon its release, it peaked sometime after its release. You are right. Switched "upon" to "after" "including Platinum certifications in " no need to repeat "certifications" here. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "United States[5], Australia[6] and Canada[7]" please place references after punctuation where possible. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "with the recording of two" why not just "recording two"? Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) " countries.[5][6][7][4]" numerical order please. Done. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) lead "Ignorance and the acoustic -> missing a " here. Fixed. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "AUS: Platinum [6]" remove space. Done. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) If "Live in the UK 2008" didn't chart anywhere, how do I know it really existed? Same for the first three singles? I'm going to find reliable references for them. I found Amazon.uk references, is it reliable enough to be added? Just found out that AllMusic references the singles and the Live album, in the discography part. That reference is in the general references section. Decodet (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "The Final Riot! is considered a DVD in regards to sales thresholds." according to whom? According to RIAA and CRIA. They certified the album as a music DVD releases. Decodet (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Is the EP release referenced anywhere? No, I'm going to find a reliable reference. I found a reference, but I'm not sure if it's reliable. En-dashes in the refs please, instead of spaced hyphens, and avoid CAPITALS there too, e.g. ref 38. Fixed. I didn't understand what you meant with "En-dashes". Check out WP:DASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I read the article but I couldn't find any reference where the "-" is not being used, could you give me an example of a reference, please? Decodet (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, well ref 7, for instance, has a spaced hyphen (-), but WP:DASH says that it should use a spaced en dash (–). Does that make sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC) If I understood correctly, it's done. I hope it's what you wanted. Decodet (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 24 June 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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [3].

---

Pet Shop Boys discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done alot of work to this article recently improving content, sourcing, formatting etc and have had it peer reviewed and actioned any suggestions and I believe it's of a very high standard. Mister sparky (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments. I think the leading section should follow the chronological order. Currently their first album released in 1986 is discussed first, then their first singles beginning from 1984 are discussed. This is not very logical. Ruslik_Zero 16:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

switched around. Mister sparky (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Many incomplete sentences have periods at the end like Music videos from the Very album.. Please, remove them. Ruslik_Zero 08:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

removed from the video albums table. Mister sparky (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I can not find any more problems, so I support. Ruslik_Zero 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: Both number one and number-one are used; be consistent. if its written on its own, ie "reached number one" then no hyphen. if its written as a description, ie "number-one single" then it should be hyphenated. Mister sparky (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) "BPI's most prestigious accolade, the award for outstanding contribution to British music," Is there a specific name for the award or is it just that? Just answer these two issues and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 'Outstanding Contribution to Music' is the name of the award. Mister sparky (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Great job! WereWolf (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose some picky things... "but only managed to chart lowly" no need for this, perhaps "but charted lowly". changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't late 1985 be late-1985? changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) " the Boys recorded" not keen on this at all, I don't recall them ever being referred to as "the Boys"... changed all instannces to Pet Shop Boys. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "was certified 3× Platinum" in the lead, I'd prefer English, so three-times Platinum? changed all instances. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) " Next album Behaviour, came a year later in 1990 " Their next album... and it was two years later, than 1988, wasn't it? haha so it was! Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "The duo do not consider it as a Pet Shop Boys single " do you have a reference for this? it was a charity recording and was released under the artist name 'Absolutely Fabulous' and not promoted as a PSB single. will find a ref. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) No need to link drum. good point! Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "The Boys also received the BPI's most prestigious accolade" do you have a reference for this? added. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) No need to capitalise "Cassette" in the tables. good point. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) If In Depth didn't chart anywhere, how are you referencing its existence? Same for Essential & Party & Disco 4? they charted in countries not featured in the tables. added allmusic ref. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) And Paninaro? was released only in italy, the video is on the PopArt video compilation. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) You've merged two cells in the US Hot 100 ("Se a vida é (That's the way life is)" and "To step aside") why? it was released as a double a-side. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "Londonm " typo. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "Also includes, concert commentary and interview with the duo" unnecessary comma. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) "about the due with" duo? fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Capitalisation differs between article and template. I don't know what the "right" answer is in each case, but at least be consistent. this discussion is about this article, and the article is correct. there is a ref somewhere which has Tennant explaining that song titles should be treated as sentences, with the first word capitalised and then only proper nouns. Mister sparky (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:38, 29 June 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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [4].

---

2009 College Football All-America Team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is among the finest that WP has to offer in terms of All-America Teams. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Some quick points:

• Where is the list itself sourced to? Is there a general reference the lists all the players?
  • I have moved the external refs to inline in the columns of the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• The "Notes" column in the first table can be taken out
  • Before doing so, I wanted feedback on three options of ways to use the column
    1. See 1991 College Baseball All-America Team where it is used for other years in which the player was an All-American, and major professional success
    2. See 2006 high school boys basketball All-Americans where additional columns describe the draft year.
    3. I could also use the column to highlight best player and/or individual awards included at {{College Football Awards}}.
    4. We could delete it.
  • I think whatever we do in this featured list will become standard for future College Football All-America lists going forward so we should figure out what is most encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about uses in other articles (I don't care either way), but if the column is empty, there's no purpose in having it. Either put something in it or remove it. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• TSN, Pro Football Weekly, and Sports Illustrated should be italicized throughout the article
  • I italicized both full spellings and abbreviations of these three throughout (and College Football News).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• emdashes (—) for blank cells are generally centered
  • Is there a global table formatting command to do this or do I have to do it cell by cell?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll do this using AWB. Mm40 (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• The title of reference 3 should be in quotes
  • I am using the same template as ref 2, but it doesn't seem to be working the same way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I put in a query at the help desk.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Those guys pointed me in the right direction and it is now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Need in endash in reference 5
  • fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Copyright symbols in titles (reference 6) are discouraged (see here). Mm40 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Remove the link from the bold at the beginning. I moved the link to outside the bolded term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Can we have links for the varying Division Is? I feel those would be useful to have. They were in the later paragraphs. I have moved DI link to an earlier paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) "Currently, The NCAA recognizes...". Decapitalize "The". Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Spell out NAIA. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) In the table heading, decapitalize Total in "Official Total". O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Why is there a long list of players named All-Americans after the main table? If readers want to see who was honored at a certain position, they can use the table sort functionality to do so. What about players who were honored at multiple positions. It would not be apparent which lists recognized them for which positions. Maybe instead of having checks in the table cells, I should have position. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a good plan to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Only other thing I see is that there is one remaining stray check mark for Brian Price. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Missed that one. Hey do you have any thoughts on the notes column as discussed above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Of the four options, I like the idea of having the awards mentioned in the column the best, as it has a high level of relevance to such a list and there are enough awards to make it worthwhile. My only concern is whether that would make the table too wide; there are many more columns here than in the example lists. You'll have to experiment with it in preview mode to see how it looks. If that is problematic, I prefer option 1 to 2 since that has more to do with the players' college careers. If none of the options work well, the column should be removed since it would only be taking up space needlessly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) How does it look now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC) (undent) Good. A couple of the rows are long, but that can't really be helped. Awards should be cited, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC) refs done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC) As a general comment, a seven-paragraph lead is one of the longest that I've encountered at FLC, and in my opinion is stretching things somewhat (a typical lead size for a list is three or four paragraphs). Could some of this be moved to a short body section? The last three paragraphs appear well-suited for a body section on the 2009 honorees. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – After the resolution of the many comments above, I feel this has now reached FL-quality. A couple of reference formatting issues were left, but I polished them off myself to get this process moving. The one remaining issue I just noticed is that there is a small blank column between the first and second Academic All-America teams, but I have a feeling that is related to the request below, and will be taken care of when a plan is worked out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved issue by nominator, TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

*Help request Can someone help me add first team and second team labels to the table in the Academic All-American section while retaining current sortability.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC) The best way to do it would probably be to superscript the numbers, noting in a key that 1 is for first-team all-american, 2 for second, etc. That should keep everything fine sorting-wise. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting that the second team players and the first team players' names be listed in a second column with a new column for first or second team?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I think I have done as you suggested.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Yup, that's good. I'll finish my review once The Rambling Man notes that his below suggestions have been resolved. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment When the Consensus All-American list is updated on the NCAA page (last years list), how should that be incorporated here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I see two feasible options. The first is to add a column for the Consensus All-Americans, using the NCAA website as the source. However, this might make the table excessively wide; it's pushing towards the right edge of my widescreen monitor as is. With that in mind I would suggest highlighting the Consensus All-Americans with a color and symbol; the NCAA link can be incorporated as a general reference. If this is done, just make sure that the key is updated to show what the color and symbol mean. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think the first two paras can be reversed, it's best to know a general understanding of what this team is before we get into specifics. Reversed, but isn't the bold content suppose to be in the first paragraph. Should I merge the first two.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need to link "athlete" Delinked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC) "players of a specific season for each team position" reads poorly for me. How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC) In fact, I'd move the info in the first para to the third para. O.K. Still unsure about bolding.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC) "that were nationwide in scope" is "in scope" necessary? Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Last para and first para of lead kind of contradict. The first para says that lots of publications vote, the last says only a few do. This page presents 12 All-American lists as encyclopedic content. However, the NCAA only recognizes 5 lists toward determining consensus All-American. The list of recognized selectors has changed over the years. Admittedly, it is a bit arbitrary to include 12 lists here, but that is an artifact of these annual lists. I.E., that is how the lists have been produced for several years. I did not feel I would be improving the page by imposing the NCAA recognition as a mandatory requirement for inclusion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) "Honorees statistics" is that possessive? So should it be "Honorees' statistics"? Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC) "exibited" typo. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC) "2nd team"->second team. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Why the grey vertical separation lines in the key? I copied the key from another football article. I kind of think the grey column looks professional though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Academic AA image is odd, it creates a huge whitespace above the table. This chart may be reformated in a way so that this does not happen. I am awaiting feedback.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC) This should be fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Blanks and incomplete lines in the Academic AA table. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC) There are two columns of "Name" and "School" but this is not explained anywhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC) There is a first and a second team. I think I am going to reformat this table to have them all in on column.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Now reformated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Now concerned over the vast number of red links in the second table... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I could nolink them or we could wait a year or two since some many of these guys are underclassmen who may become notable in the next few years.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well the strategy I would expect is that we link those that are notable now, whether they have an article or not, and nolink the rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
      • My thinking would be that this might be O.K., for the 2nd table, but the redlinks should remain for the first table I think. The two redlinks in the main table are a sophomore and a freshman. These guys are likely surefire notable people. I am going to spend a day or two looking more in depth at who the guys are in table to before agreeing to nolink them.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
        • There are 15 underclassmen on the list of Academic All-Americans. Many of these may be notable in the coming years. Are you sure I should nolink these guys?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
          • If they are non-notable now, I see no reason to link them. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
            • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: Aside from TRM's concerns above, I have one question: What makes the following reliable sources? touchdownclubofcolumbus.com It is the website of Touchdown Club of Columbus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC) sportsnewsandscores.com Content removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
• 'Support. WereWolf (talk) 03:09, 25 June 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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [5].

---

Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway)

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This simple list is inspired by other lists of holders of political offices. Hopefully fairly straight-forward, if not, further improvements will be made. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What's the point of the disambiguating "{Norway)" at the end of the article title? I can't find any other Wikipedia article about a different Minister of Transport and Communications. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I wasn't me who named this article, but I presume idea is to create a consistency among the Norwegian minister articles, and most positions are internationally ambiguous, such as Minister of Health, Minister of Foreign Affairs etc. I have nothing against moving the article, though, I guess I just never though of it that way. Arsenikk ^(talk) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually agree with disambiguating here. There are other titles (some redirects) with similar names. for example Minister of Transportation and Communications. There is also the potential for more similar names (see Ministry of Transport). As such, I believe having a title which lets you know which country for those that aren't familiar with the exact terminology is useful. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about moving the article; I accept the explanations. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Looks good. But I have some questions. Why is the list goes from the oldest officeholder to the most recent. But the timeline is not. Also, are the Norwegian party names relevant? After all, this is English Wikipedia.—Chris!_c/t 21:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I could not find a way to "turn around" the timeline, but I've moved around the table, although it perhaps now runs the "wrong way" now. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That was a mistake. The guideline for this is quite explicit. Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering says Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2009, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003. However I did some reading at mw:Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax#TimeAxis (mandatory) and putting in order:reverse does the trick. You'll need to re-flip that table though. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that trick with the timeline. Makes the article a lot better, now that the table is back to normal. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Oppose concerns resolved Sandman888 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

why timeline when it contains the exact same information?

Could you either not use colours in the list or perhaps use the same colours the timeline employs?

if you remove timeline, gallery cd be on the right, that'll IMO be a much better solution.

tenure: isn't there a template that give the number of days from X date to current date?

Lead cd be longer: why was the ministry created? Did it replace previous ministries?

The colors in the timeline and table can not be the same as the colors from the table are too faint for the timeline, and ones from the timeline are too bright for the table. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The timeline shows visually how long various officeholders held office, and doubles up to show the period the various parties held office. It allows the reader in seconds to deduce information about the officeholders that would take minutes to figure out by reading the table, and then trying to visualize in one's head. Concerning tenure, I cannot find a suitable way to get an output that would give a correctly sorted date (although the output itself is possible). Conserning the reasons for why the ministry was established, in Norway ministries are created and closed regularly. The ministry is unique in that it is, with only perhaps four exceptions, lived the entire post-WWII area without a change. Often there isn't a specific reason for a change, its just that the prime minister feels (s)he needs to rearrange the minister posts to handle things differently. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Couldn't this easily be merged and incorporated within Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications, which shd be named Ministry of Transport and Communications (Norway) ? I.e. a description of the Ministry and list of the ministers.
• If you can make it show the correct date, can't you just use an approx number in the sort-parameter? It will not need updating that often.
  • Sandman888 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• No respond to above consideration for over a week, switched to oppose. Sandman888 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, somehow missed your reply; I havn't been on Wikipedia much the last week. Incorporating this into the ministry article would be undue weight to spend up to a quarter of a full-length article of the ministry on just a list of people who had headed it. The position is clearly notable on its own. As this is doubles as the article on the minister, you would have to argue that the minister position is not notable enough for an article. The ministers are also members of the Council of State, position which in themselves would warrant mention in a list, although this is in practice done by placing them in portfolio lists such as this. Similar lists, such as United States Secretary of Transportation (with fewer ministers) has previously passed FL, and in my experience 27 people is far more than the common "minimum" entries for FL. As for the tenure, I've added the template, but the sort key will need to be manually updated as time passes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I dont see the potential in the Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications article to be much longer than it is now, so a list of ministers wouldn't be given undue weight. The article and list on the transportation department in the US cd IMO easily be merged into one article. Sandman888 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no problem expanding the ministry article to full length. 64 years of history should be included, including policy changes, transfer of responsibilities between the state and lower levels of government, privatizations, regulations and nationalizations. The organizational section should include the structure, current political and administrative top executives; a full description (say a paragraph) of all subsidiaries, a detailed description of the ministries direct activities (such as granting concessions to for instance inter-county coach services), overall policy role and framework conditions regulated by the ministry, funding—both to the ministry itself and subsidiaries, and the financing model of various projects. So there is ample to expand the article with. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • As Arsenikk said, the article on the ministry has potential to be expanded 10-20-fold. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Good job on the tenure thing. Sandman888 (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, though I share the same concern(s) regarding the timeline. The chart is detailed and effective, and I don't really agree on the necessity. Yes, it's simple, but it doesn't offer a lot of information compared to the chart, and the fact that some names are bunched up doesn't help matters. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Another "not keen" on the timeline, moreso because it fails WP:ACCESS, using just colour to denote political party.
• I'm a bit dim, what are "framework conditions"?
• I'd prefer to see the gallery down the side in place of the timeline.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As I seem to be the only one that supports the timeline, I've removed it. I've converted the gallery to 100x100px images down the side, but it doesn't look as good as the gallery, which was why I instated the gallery in the first place. I found the term "framework conditions" in the dictionary, so it is a real term, although it is similar to policy, so I've removed it and kept policy, which strictly speaking covers the point. On a more general note, the color usage is very intuitive to Norwegians, making it easier for people familiar with Norwegian politics to get an overview. And yes, Norwegians use the English Wikipedia just as much as the Norwegian Wikipedia, simply because our project has so much higher quality and the domestic understanding of English is excellent. I therefore have no problems "optimizing" the articles for Norwegians, while of course keeping it fully understandable for people without the same background. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ACCESS is universal, not an anti-Norway thing! Colour usage needs to be "universal" and meet the accessibility guidelines. Galleries are always a bit incongruous for me, so I'm glad you've got rid of it. I didn't say "framework conditions" wasn't real, but as a native English speaker (being English) I have no idea what it means. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Is there any reason why the list says "1 years" instead of "1 year"? I mention it here instead of changing it on the page because I think I could be missing something. Apterygial 00:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No reason, just a typo. Now fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). Very nice article, I'm looking forward to supporting A reference for the Norwegian name would be appreciated Seems a bit like overkill to me, but I've added it. Note that Norwegian grammar is a bit more tricky than English, in that the "the" is stuck at the end of the word, so the source will refer to a minister as samferdselsminister but the the minister as samferdelsministeren. Arsenikk (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Is there any information on why the role was created? Was there a particular event that highlighted the need for one? Except that is was created in the wake of the end of WWII and five years of German occupation of Norway, there was no "particular" reason. The ministry is among the most stable, as Norwegian governments often re-organize the ministries after every election. Arsenikk (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Here's a short history: [6]. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) "was created along with the ministry" The two sentences about longest- and shortest-sitting minister are very similar in structure and wording; could you reword one of those? "only of the officeholders to have later become Prime Minister" → "the only officeholder to later become Prime Minister" Could the List heading be renamed Ministers? According to our article, "Store Norske Leksikon" → "Store norske Leksikon. Mm40 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Unless noted, I've amended the article per your comments. Arsenikk (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything about any "Store norske Leksikon". It's ungrammatical. Geschichte (talk) 14:30, 25 June 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 08:14, 30 June 2010 [7].

---

2010 WWE Draft

Nominator(s): Truco ₅₀₃ 02:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am back, yes that's right Truco is back at FLC with his first list of 2010! And what way to do it then with the 2010 WWE Draft! I've worked on this article on and off for a few weeks, and I feel its now ready for FLC! Any comments of course will be addressed! Thanks again for any help! P.S. There might be one editor who has more edits on the article but that is because during the Draft itself, many users were constantly updating the tables, so I don't feel its necessary to contact them about this nomination when I revamped the entire article and added size to it. Also, stability shouldn't be an issue because this event was last month and all results and aftermath has been finalized.--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

People don't like my list, aw man :( Its that bad? Haha.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "however, due to significance of the event". Missing "the" before "significance". "The 2010 WWE Draft marked the fifth time that the Raw and SmackDown brands were only involved". Should "only" be before "the Raw and SmackDown brands"? Doesn't seem right considering the later-discussed ECW absence. 2010 featured multiple people drafted in one pick." "in" → "with"? Also, should a similar change be made for "Overall, 21 employees from the company's roster were drafted in 19 selections"? No, because the picks were for draftees, because the draftees were selected in one pick not with one pick. To me it sounds better with with if the sentences had like the brands in them, but since its just a general statement, I believe in works better. --Truco 503 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC) "All but one draftee was a wrestler, that being the Great Khali's manager Ranjin Singh, who were both drafted...". Don't think "were" is the proper grammatical tense, since Singh is the only one referred to earlier. Perhaps consider something like "who was drafted along with Khali...". Background: "between April and March 2010". Feels like the months should be reversed. Aftermath: "champions that were drafted would carry their titles with them to the their new brand." Excess word. "in which Kidd and Smith were in unison and Neidhart consisting of a seperate draft pick". "consisting" → "consisted". Double commas around reference 14. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) All other issues resolved.--Truco 503 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "from said brands" not keen, prefer "from these brands" "made at random". - if this is a direct quote, (which it appears to be) it needs a direct reference. "by the brand on which " perhaps "for which"? "that employees were assigned to;" -> "to which employees were assigned;" live television and USA network are overlinked. Well the background section in itself is a new section made to start off the article and instances after here aren't linked, the lead is just the summary so the overlinking shouldn't apply. --Truco 503 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) As is Richmond, Virginia. "Divas;" move that semi-colon. "6 matches" six. Battle Royal -> Battle royal I'd prefer to see the two tables with identically headed columns having the same width for each column from table to table. Is "Aftermath" really appropriate as a heading? I renamed it to "Response and effects", although that could use tweaking if possible.--Truco 503 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Is it SmackDown! or SmackDown? There seems to be inconsistency here unless I'm missing the point. It's SmackDown, in its current state. But in 2002, when the brands were first established, it was SmackDown!--Truco 503 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "Raw is held in various countries which have different channels" a strange phrase, of course various countries will have different channels... And do you mean broadcast, rather than held? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC) All comments resolved, those that need a second thought from you I have addressed above. Thanks! --Truco 503 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: Just a courtesy note for now that I'll review this once TRM's concerns are addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Hope to get those completed ASAP.--Truco 503 01:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) While the draft as a whole confuses me with the way it goes down, since I haven't watched wrestling much since it's implementation I won't worry about details. Anyway, here are the issues I found: "the first day was televised live for three hours on April 26; the second part, the "Supplemental Draft", was held on April 27" I'd replace the semicolon with "April 26, and the second..." "All but one draftee was a wrestler, that being The Great Khali's manager Ranjin Singh, who came to Raw in the Supplemental Draft." I'd reword to "...was a wrestler; The Great Khali's manager, Ranjin Singh, came to Raw..." Just the couple lead tweaks and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) All done. Thanks ! --Truco 503 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk). I've told myself that I would review so this, so here I finally am! Lead It should probably be explicitly stated (to avoid confusion with drafts in other sports, where players without teams are taken) that employees are taken from other brands and are not "rookies", so to speak "was available on the Internet, at WWE's official website" → "was available on WWE's official website"; I think it's clear that their website is on the Internet "in Richmond Coliseum in Richmond, Virginia" – the "in <noun> in <noun>" structure sounds a bit odd. Perhaps change the first "in" to "at" Should "draft" be capitalized here: "During the production of the draft" "authority figure characters" in a bit unclear; how 'bout "guest hosts were portrayed as figures of authority on Raw"? I sort of changed it, but our article has it "authority figures"--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Last sentence of the first paragraph: you don't need both "however" and "actually" Reference needed for the date of ECW's disbandment "2010 featured multiple people drafted in one pick" – you can be specific and say exactly how many picks featured multiple selections "four each by Raw and SmackDown" can be reworded as "four from each brand" "who came to Raw in the Supplemental Draft" – you should include that Singh was drafted with The Great Khali Throughout the article, you use the plural when referring to The Hart Dynasy (see also note F), but I think singular verbs should be used. Our article on them uses singular, and it's the same as "the Smith family"; although it's multiple people, the family is only one thing. The article uses the instances singularly because it is talking about all 3 members as a stable (3 or more people in a group). In this article, however, it is being used to refer to the tag team (the two wrestlers Tyson and DH) because they hold the tag team championships. In professional wrestling they refer to tag teams plurally because they are the "Unified WWE Tag Team Champions" not "Unified WWE Tag Team Champion", because both wrestlers are champions. (Natalya is a Diva and b/c the titles are for two wrestlers she isn't considered a champion).--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Background Because of the semi-colon, you can take out the "with" before "the ECW brand additionally" Wasn't ECW involved between 2006 and 2009? "Since its original inception" – what other inception's have their been? "Since its original inception, annual drafts have followed since" – "since" is used twice "and to refresh the roster" – you already use "to", so it's clear that this is a purpose. Also, shouldn't it be "rosters" because two rosters are involved? Roster selections Why is Divas linked but Superstar isn't? There is no article for it, but I did link it to the List of World Wrestling Entertainment employees since it has an explanation of Superstars there as well.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Picky, but I think the reference should go after "Divas" in the first sentence. Is there a comma missing before "TitanTron"? No because the sentence is reading how the computerized system, which so happened to appear on the titantron, randomly selected the wrestlers.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) "1 Diva–only draft pick" – there should be a hyphen, not an endash In Match number 3, why are only two members of the team listed as winners? This probably warrants a note. In a battle royal, wrestlers are eliminated until the winner(s) are left standing. The link should suffice for that.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Note C: "drafted earlier in the draft" sounds a bit odd In the "Selections" and "Supplemental Draft" tables, the "Employee" column has one quotation mark around it Response and effects I think the header would sound better as "Response and aftermath" "who switched brands on that night" "in combat with new Superstars" – not all of them are male, so would it be "new competitors" or something similar? "to previous drafts, this draft was the" "on the television ratings for WWE's programming" → "on WWE's television ratings" I don't think "Although not having" is grammatically correct; I suggest "Despite not having" "during the week of the draft were consistent" – should "draft" be capitalized? Twice in the second paragraph, I think "SmackDown" should be "SmackDown!, with the exclamation point Nope, SmackDown! was the name of the television program from 1999-2006. Afterwards, it was removed.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) References Reference 1 has a date of publication Reference 2: the title doesn't match and the date written you give is incorrect In reference 3, can you remove the terms to be highlighted from the URL? No because the only way to have found that page was through those highlighted terms, unless you know of a way, I would be more than happy to change it. For real though, the information is still there so I don't see how the highlights take away from it.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) You format the citations to WWE Corporate three different ways (5 vs. 6/7 vs. 9) In reference 9, I think you're missing a quotation mark before "our" I don't quite understand what you mean.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) The title of reference 11 shouldn't be in italics The template does that on its own, I have no control over it.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Reference 15 is formatted differently from all the other WV citations Because that reference is published by Gerweck, but the info is from WrestleView, since WV and Gerweck are partner websites.--Truco 503 17:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Change to curly quotes in ref 16's title to normal quotes (I'm sorry, curly things just really annoy me) Overall, a nice article; all I have are nitpicks. Just another suggestion: I think another image can be added next to the "Selections" table. Anyway, once my OCD is satisfied, I'll gladly support. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 02:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review, I will get to this tomorrow.--Truco 503 02:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Tomorrow, Monday.--Truco 503 03:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Everything addressed, but those where I commented.--Truco 503 17:54, 28 June 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 19:09, 28 June 2010 [8].

---

Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related FL lists I have nominated previously (including the companion to this list, Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance). The list should be up to par as far as disambig. links, alternate text, formatting, sorting, etc. go. Any feedback would be appreciated, and thanks to all reviewers for taking the time to offer their comments! Another Believer _(Talk) 19:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

• According to its article, in 2005 Best Rock Vocal Performance, Solo was renamed to Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance.

  Updated lead to include alternate category title. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not everybody knows that "The Globe Sessions" and "Sheryl Crow and Friends: Live from Central Park" are albums.

  Should a change be made to the lead even though the titles are italics (as albums should be) and anyone could click on either title to confirm they are indeed albums? Personally, I think it is fairly obvious that the two titles are for albums, but I can try to make the lead clearer if needed. Thank you so much for taking time to review the list and offer feedback. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, changes should be made. Ruslik_Zero 16:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  Not a problem. Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I do not see any more problems, so I support. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, after reading through this I'm not seeing any issues with the list. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "...though it has been presented to musicians from Canada" - how about using 'vocalist' instead of 'musician' as it is more specific. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Not that I necessarily want anything changed, but could you explain your wikilinks for the "Milwaukee Journal / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" in the references? The same article is linked twice. No problem--I'd be happy to offer an explanation. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel was formerly known as The Milwaukee Journal. If you click on the link used in the reference, then click on "The Milwaukee Journal - Jan 14, 1982" in the top left-hand corner, you will be taken to the front page to see that the actual source being used is The Milwaukee Journal. However, I wanted to link the source name to the current name of the paper (hence the wikilink). I hope this explanation makes sense. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I just realized two different former names are used (hence the reason both are linked, since they display different newspaper titles). It seems the newspaper has had several names changes in the past. I chose to display the name of the paper as seen on the scan, but wikilinked both instances to the current name of the paper. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Ah! Now I am confused. Please ignore this second comment. First comment stands (the paper is linked to twice; once under its current name, once under a former name). Sorry for making things even more confusing! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Not a problem! I was a bit confused too, hence the question. But the explanation makes sense, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) "A woman in a green shirt, black belt and dark gray skirt behind a microphone stand on a stage." - alt text grammar error. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Introduced a redundancy when fixed, I have removed it. Looks good now. Jujutacular T · C 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 21:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another nice list – my concerns have been addressed. Good work! Jujutacular ^T · C 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments "However, in 1988, 1992, 1994, and since 2005 this category was combined with the Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance and presented in a genderless category known as Best Rock Vocal Performance, Solo (this category was later renamed to Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance beginning in 2005). " -- this sentence is just a bit jumbled and confusing, I recommend splitting it up to make it flow much better or reword it. Plus a comma is needed after "since 2005" Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Very. :)--Truco 503 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Good! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC) "This fusion was sometimes criticized, especially when females were not nominated under the solo category.[3] The Academy cited a lack of eligible recordings in the female rock category as the reason for the mergers." -- has to be more in present tense since it is a present argument isn't it? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) "Crow's "There Goes the Neighborhood" has been nominated twice; a version from the album The Globe Sessions was nominated in 1999 (but lost to Morissette's "Uninvited"), and a live version from the album Sheryl Crow and Friends: Live from Central Park was nominated and won in 2001." -- this needs rewording too, such as in continuation from "Crow's blah blah; blah blah (like in a series)" not "Crow's blah blah; a blah blah ---> Crow's a blah blah (doesn't make sense). In addition, you end up the sentence with a comma "and" not a ";" I'm terribly sorry, but I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify further, or maybe offer a more specific suggestion? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, the wording was bad in my comment anyways. I meant like you start off the sentence like "Bob's apples; an orange" Do you see how, "Bob's an orange" wouldn't make as much sense as "Bob's apples?" Same with the sentence above with the "Crow's (insert work here); a version of (insert work here). See how "Crow's a version of (insert work here) doesn't really make sense? That's what I mean.--Truco 503 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I understand what you mean. I changed the wording a bit--is that any better? I didn't completely reconstruct the sentence, but I think the addition of nouns and other words helps the sentence make a bit more sense. Do let me know if the replacement does not satisfy your concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Instead of "title" in the table, it should be "work" since its more of a variety of the nominated artist's. In addition the lead should have something about how the artists are nominated for specific works (ie. album, singles, etc.)--Truco 503 02:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Changed "title" to "work". Changed lead to "for works containing quality vocal performances". Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) By the way, once all concerns are addressed, I will likely make the same edits over at this male list for consistency. I hope this is acceptable. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved, meets WP:WIAFL. Great work.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Provisional support – Didn't notice any problems with the list myself; this can be considered a full support once Truco's comments are addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Crimes of Passion links to something completely different to what I expected to see... Corrected. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Several Grammy-winning "works" aren't linked at all. What decision drove that? Simply put, I linked the ones I could find that had articles about them. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I would go with WP:N so if these works are truly notable (i.e. they're Grammy Award-winning) then they should be linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) So red links are better than no links? Just making sure I understand. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Yep, if you're convinced that the things you're linking are genuinely worthy of an article (which, in general, would mean they meet WP:N) then good. A few redlinks will not prevent an FLC from becoming an FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Understood. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning that the award can go to both albums and singles? I'd like to think readers could make the assumption (based on the fact that the songs have quotation marks and the albums are italicized), but I know I should not do so. If you prefer, I could add "(songs or albums)" after "works" in the first sentence of the lead. Or, if you have another suggestion, I am open. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Don't like the assumption that our readers get the difference between italics and not. So a sentence in the lead would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I went ahead and clarified in the lead that works can be songs or albums. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 24 June 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 03:22, 23 June 2010 [9].

---

List of Texas Rangers first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Wizardman 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because there aren't enough first-round draft pick lists up right now. In an attempt to get a draft pick list featured topic down the road, I an nominating this because I feel it meets all FL criteria. That and it's draft season so working on the list got me excited to watch it tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• "finished second in the MVP voting"
• Why one "right fielder" and several "outfielders"?
• Force sorting on the "no first-round pick" rows so that they don't sort as "n" in the name column. They should ideally end up at the bottom.
• I assume the blank cells will be filled in by the time this FLC concludes...?

And that's pretty much it. — KV5 • Talk • 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The draft is tonight, so they will be filled in in roughly 6 hours. Doing the other points now. Other points fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Conditional support pending the conclusion of the first round of the 2010 draft. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Players updated. The Canadian threw me for a loop, I didn't know how to template that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe just do it like the others; The {{city-state}} template will handle Langley, British Columbia, the same way as the U.S. states, and I don't think Canada is necessary in the table, as the article on Langley undoubtedly makes clear that it is in Canada. The header row doesn't say "city and state"; it says "Location", so I think that would be fine. — KV5 • Talk • 11:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport Would like to know if there is a script/easy way for capping comments Sandman888 (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• why is this amateur site a respectable source?

• Baseball-Reference has been determined reliable for nearly every piece of featured content in baseball. See this FA nomination for more information. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything about BR in that FAC. Am I missing something? Sandman888 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I just pulled that from Ealdgyth's FAC cheatsheet. The data on Baseball-Reference, however, comes from Retrosheet, another reliable site. Why, may I ask, do you say that the site is an "amateur site"? — KV5 • Talk • 18:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How odd. On this page it's quite clear that it's some guy uploading stuff. If retrosheet has the original info, why not use that then? Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing on either of the links you provided that implies or states that Baseball-Reference is "some guy uploading stuff". Here is the information on the parent company Sports Reference LLC, which establishes credentials in statistics for the website's executives. — KV5 • Talk • 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

See here, where it's clear it's compiled by some guy called Sean Forman. I'm not sure how that's reliable. Anyone can say they have a Ph.D in math on their own homepage. Per WP:RS "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I don't see that's the case here. Sandman888 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And Baseball-Reference is a reliable third-party publication. Its director is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, the site itself is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, its core data is drawn from SABR, its game data is drawn from Retrosheet, and the website has been cited as "a powerhouse in the baseball information world" by Sports Illustrated. — KV5 • Talk • 19:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The sports illustrated link establishes WP:RS nicely. Sandman888 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cd you use another indicator then §? It's mildly confusing. ¤ perhaps.

• This follows the rest of the articles in this series; could you clarify why you think it's confusing? (I do think the § should be superscripted, though.) — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because § has a standardised meaning, especially in the context of numbers. It would make more sense to use a symbol devoid of meaning when you're using it to define something new. E.g. it would be an equally bad idea to use $. Sandman888 (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The symbol you suggest also has a defined meaning (it's the generic symbol for currency). Most symbols we use for indicators have a defined meaning outside of their context; however, that's why we have table keys. — KV5 • Talk • 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm of course talking about a common understanding of the symbols, which is the logic used here. Better use the symbol with a less condensed meaning. Sandman888 (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not following you here. The section symbol wouldn't be used after a number anyway. I truly don't understand your concern. — KV5 • Talk • 19:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other concerns besides the symbol? I don't really see a problem with it either, it helps for those who wouldn't be able to differentiate the colors used. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Notwithstanding the above. Thanks to KV for making the definitive RS argument for baseball-reference, and the symbol thing does seem a bit random. Couple tiny things.

• I would note, as I did on the Padres list, that one of those outfielders (Julio Borbon) was taken in center field for those who might not realize CF is an OF.
• 2 DAB links found by the tool.
• Although no longer required, alt text would be nice.

Good job though! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; issues fixed. As for the symbols, I just use them since they've been commonplace throughout all the baseball lists. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Huh, good call, the source actually lists Borbon as an OF not a CF. Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Little inconsistency in the lead, regarding "Rule 4 draft" and "Rule 4 Draft".
• De-capitalize Location in the table heading.
• External link section is currently empty. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • All three issues fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:06, 17 June 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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [10].

---

Major League Baseball Triple Crown

Nominator(s): KV5 • Talk and Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The final piece in our joint little topic! KV5 • Talk and Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - complete and accurate, references etc., very well written. It's nice to see all this info in one place. Dincher (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - straightforward, succinct to the point...Modernist (talk) 13:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Ref #24 (Rules for Election) I can't seem to get working right. It goes to the baseball HOF, but not to any rules. They re-did their site so I'm sure the right link is somewhere; just fix that and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is done. — KV5 • Talk • 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Next stop is FTC (unless I haven't been following this right)! Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Not many, all examining the references, this is a high-quality list. "Sports Reference" or "Sports Reference LLC" as the publisher? (See ref 21 vs. ref 28, though you've got a good number of both). Pick one or the other. Location for the Post and Courier please- this is far from a well known newspaper. The overarching publisher,Evening Post Publishing Company, wouldn't go amiss either. "The ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia, Fourth Edition (Espn Baseball Encyclopedia)." Is there a reason the second one is "Espn"? Can't say I've ever seen it written like that. Courcelles (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Think I've gotten them all. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well done. Support. Courcelles (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "reached this total" reads a little odd when it's just a total of two. "Tim Kurkjian believes" I know he's linked, but you should introduce his significance for non-experts. "the first to win his third" not keen on this either. I know you're avoiding repeating three, but is there, perhaps, an third alternative? "1965–1966" vs "1997 and 1998" "The next year" I'd prefer "following" rather than "next", but it's a personal choice. [28][5] could you put this (and any others) in numerical order? Just an aside, have you considered merging the three tables and including the league as a column? It may be nice to compare stats across the leagues. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC) All done but the first and last; I couldn't find the quoted spot in the article for the first, and I don't know if the last was considered but it's not a long list, so I think it's ok the way it is, especially since the individual league triple crowns are more in focus that way. — KV5 • Talk • 15:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I meant "reach this total". As for merging, no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Done. — KV5 • Talk • 16:10, 22 June 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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [11].

---

List of FC Barcelona players

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list, I already have one list at FLC with all content-comments adressed, a question of title remains. Given that consensus of proper title is formed at an ad-hoc basis in the FLC proces, I'd like to nominate this list which follows the format of List of Ipswich Town F.C. players especially regarding the inclusion criteria (with some modifications, but the principle is the same). An RfC has begun on the WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists page regarding proper naming. It was recently through peer review, all comments at previous FLC has been adressed. Sandman888 (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted previous version

I support it. --Jordiferrer (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments which will have to be brief, because I have no internet access for a couple of weeks after today so won't be able to address any matters arising. I'll have to leave it to the FL directors to decide whether anything mentioned here is actionable, and if it is, whether it's been actioned acceptably. Their decisions are fine by me.

• Perhaps restrict the hatnote to the players cat and the current squad, and link the legends list when you mention the inclusion criteria. And/or include it in a See also
  • Done. Not included in see also, as it is in template in button.
• Probably better to use the full names of pages in the hatnotes, so the reader knows what they're getting: i.e. for a list ... with a WP article see Category:FC Barcelona footballers, and for the current squad see FC Barcelona#Current squad
  • Done.
• The lead section prose could do with a copyedit
  • Tried CE.
• Thought Alcantara was the all-time top scorer, not "one of its"?
  • Done.
• Not convinced by the extra criteria. Not so much the "legendary" players: if you're only counting La Liga appearances at least it's the club website selecting the extras rather than the nominator. But on what basis are the record holders chosen? the Pedro Rodriguez scoring in six competitions in a season seems a bit trivial, for instance.
  • Criteria now limited to >99 games and legends. Sandman888 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
• There's something wrong with the note M in José Mari Bakero's row
  • Removed, was a leftover.
• Notes. Note G: lose the first "in all competitions"
  • Done
• Note F, H, maybe others: where someone was the first player to do something, you'd say was the first, not is
  • F, H fixed
• Note L: "guided" sounds like management rather than captaincy; perhaps just "captained"
  • captained it is
• Note Q: is there a more reliable source for the fee than goal.com?
  • Removed.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Adressed above. Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This deserves proper scrutiny, although my initial reaction is that it's nearly there.

My only initial gripe is with the inclusion of Rodrigez and Ibrohimovic (and any others who only qualify through a club record that I've missed). From reading the (lengthy) discussion at WT:FOOTY I've come to the conclusion that the legends are acceptable. It's a clearly defined group, and it's possible to include all of them indiscriminately, which is one of my main concerns at FL. On the other hand, it's impossible to say that you have covered every single record. I don't have a problem with listing records as footnotes, but I don't think a record alone should qualify a player to be included. The players in question will still get the recognition they deserve here, and there is the chance that they'll reach 100 appearances or be recognised as legends in future, and qualify that way. I hope to give this a proper review, but given my (lack of a) recent contribution history I can't make any promises. Best of luck either way. WFCforLife (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have now made the inclusion criteria more strict, since this seems to be a trend toward community consensus. Only Legends and >99 games are now included. Sandman888 (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• As pointed above, i feel that any list of the sort should only include players with 100 matches or more; however, the legend part is a little more "fuzzy", a good source for debate. For instance, Pedro Rodríguez, as of June 2010, only has 42 league games (12 goals), but if his career ended TODAY at the club, it would certainly (in my opinion) reach something nearing the legend status, due to his HUGE importance in 2009-10 (for example, i feel Kiko achieved legend status at Cádiz CF in spite of only playing three years at the club - less than 100 league games - as storyline demonstrates). I support it - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have no problem with this and I think it's good stuff. I support it... La Fuzion (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Left most of my commentary before the restart, but do have one thing to add: reference 33 should have the publisher (AFP) spelled out like in the FIFA, UEFA and RSSSF citations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Done Sandman888 (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Abstaining on the sourcing, support everything else. In light of the discrepancies I found in the first nomination, a reasonable sized random sample of statistics need to be checked against the sources, to ensure that they're accurate. Regrettably I don't have the time to do that at the moment. On all other criteria I feel that this is now FL quality. WFCforLife (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Only official lfp stats are now used, so the mix-up from previously is well in the past. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: I checked a couple references and they were fine, and I'll check the statistically-based ones on a second read through. Here are a couple things I found: "Thirteen years after the foundation of Barcelona," Founding of Barcelona might sound better. Founding it is. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not the biggest fan of limiting inclusion to 100 matches; I would prefer it be lower, perhaps 50. That being said, if that's what consensus is I'll accept that and this note can be ignored. Personally I agree with you. A recent relevant discussion can be found here. Although the numerical threshold wasn't central to the discussion, it was part of it. The only real consensus was that inclusion criteria must be clearly defined. WFCforLife (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I don't get why only some ballplayers have references and others don't. Should they all have one, especially to make sure the goals and appearances are right? Originally they all had refs, from bdfutbol.com (a site that takes the stats from LFP and lists it under each player). But that wasnt a respectable source and they were removed. LFP doesn't list stats for ind. players on a single page, so it is explained under general refs how to get them (you have to scroll through each season), so only legend-refs remain. Sandman888 (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

• I still have some irks about this list (in my comments above), but they're personal preferences rather than outstanding issues, so I'll weakly support this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 22 June 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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [12].

---

List of Minnesota Twins first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

B-Ref has finally brought back their draft pick info to the draft pages (they were revamping them, adding WAR as a stat listed for example) so here's a return to one of those lists! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: I've been thinking of doing some draft lists myself. Saw this pop up on my watchlist so I looked through it and found a couple things: "The also drafted one player at second base." This can be combined into the previous sentence. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) You mention that two people didn't sign with the Twins in the lead and mention Varitek in detail, yet skip over Travis Lee. The Boston championships part can be taken out I think, since it's in his caption for anyone who wants to note that and it strays from the subject. Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) In the table, most of the other lists just use one year and one ref for each pick and split it up as so. I think it looks better that way. (If that's confusing I'll explain it better). I know what you mean. But that style had to be abandoned when people asked for sortability (a multiple-row spanning ref column messed up sorting). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) See the Mets, Red Sox, Astros, Padres, Royals, Dodgers, Brewers and Phillies lists. All use this format now that sortability is the standard. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC) In the table, Steven Waldrop is listed, yet on rosters and B-R, he's listed as Kyle Waldrop.[13] I'm not sure which should be used in cases like these. I have no real opinion. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) You state that there are 12 supplemental picks, yet only 11 are highlighted. This was a complex mistake. I didn't mark Aaron Heilman, but didn't notice because I'd written his note (I'd just stuck it in 1999 by accident). Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Wait, in a follow-up I see Travis Lee actually did sign but then as almost immediately "granted free agency" according to his B-Ref page. Sounds complex, lemme fix this up. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see. B-ref lists his "signing" with the D-Backs in the note about his Twins signing. Semi-mistake, but I get it now. Finding a source on that interesting bit of history. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) There, done. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Solid list overall. The only issue I saw was that I felt a comma was missing in one place, but I went and added it myself. Looks great otherwise. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support but I'm a bit annoyed that I couldn't find a problem. I'll be doing some homework...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 21 June 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 23:41, 22 June 2010 [14].

---

List of tallest buildings in Dayton

Nominator(s): Texas141 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Boston and List of tallest buildings in Detroit. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Texas141 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

;Comments: We no longer start lists with "This is a list of..." or similar phrases. Look at the Boston article for an example of a good opening. DONE Why exactly 150 ft as the break-off point? I'm not saying it's wrong, but there needs to be a rationale beyond just some random number. DONE While I appreciate your use of metric measurements, there is a stray, non-converted 100 m in the article. DONE In the lead it says that the history started in 1904..., but the Reibold Building was opened in 1896. DONE Table column headers are not proper nouns, and only the first letter is capitalized ("Street address", not "Street Address"). DONE It is normal to not alphabetize "the". Use {{sort}} to create a wrap around the name to force "The Landing Apartments" to sort as "Landing Apartments". DONE The description of The Landing Apartments is a bit confusing, as it jumps in chronology. DONE "Hub was redeveloped in 2010." sounds awkward. Is it "The hub?" DONE How about a separate, unsortable column for the references. Do you disagree with this? If so, please explain why, and we can come to a common understanding. Arsenikk (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I previewed what the page would look like if the unsortable column for the references were done. I thought it made the page look unorganized and kind of "messy". I disagree with it for that reason. But if you feel you can create a column for the references, while keeping the page looking neat and organized, then feel free to edit accordingly. Thanks! Texas141 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC) The main problem is that the way the table is referenced now, it looks like only the notes are referenced, while in reality the whole row is being referenced. Most featured lists which have separate references for each row, use a separate column at the extreme right labeled "Ref" or "Ref(s)" which contains only the refs, center-aligned. I can't understand how this will make the table more messy, rather to the contrary. This would require the blank "notes" entries to have a center-aligned emdash (—). Arsenikk (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC) DONE (With the exception of the blank "notes" entries having the center-aligned emdash (—), which I don't know how to do.) Texas141 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Take a look at my diff. Add align center | — I forgot to mention to make the ref column unsortable using class=unsortable | I don't see why you need to specify width=50 for each ref entry, but on the other hand it isn't doing any harm. Arsenikk (talk) 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) As far as I can see, all the information is referenced inline and there is nothing using the "general" reference. This should then be moved to the external link and the hyphen converted to an endash. DONE How is the timeline referenced? DONE {{commonscat}} should be under "external links" DONE There is a link that points back to this article, see the disambiguation link in the sidebox. Arsenikk (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: the general reference is missing access date. Also publisher shouldn't be in the title.—Chris!_c/t 21:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• DONE

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment. The article can benefit from more wikilinks. For instance, Stamford, Connecticut, Fifth Third Bank and National Register of Historic Places should be linked. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC) DONE Not done. Stamford, Connecticut is not linked. Ruslik_Zero 14:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC) DONE. Stamford, Connecticut is linked.

• Support. I do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• U.S. is abrivated in the the lead but not used anywhere else in the article. Spell it out.
  • DONE
• The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed. yet in the table it is called "Built"
  • DONE
• Dablinks shows you have one disambiguation link, United Brethren.
  • DONE
• From Often regarded as the first "skyscraper"... to tallest in the United States. is just a jumble of a sentences and doesn't flow very well. Try something like Often regarded as the first "skyscraper" in the city, Centre City Building was completed in 1924. Although the original building opened 1904, when the tower portion was completed two decades later, it was one of the tallest reinforced concrete buildings in the world, and the tallest in the United States.
  • DONE
• ...including the Key Bank Building... removed the link Key Bank wikilink unless you can link to the building itself.
  • DONE
• during which time it... take it out, it's not needed. Replace that string with Dayton
  • DONE
• Add a comma after Virginia Kettering and explain why the building was renamed after her if you're going to have her name in there at all. It's kind of a tease.
  • DONE

NThomas (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - All of the issues I have found have been addressed. NThomas (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comment: Mostly good, just a few irks: "The history of high-rises in the United States city of Dayton, Ohio, began in 1896 with the construction of the Reibold Building. Often regarded as the first "skyscraper" in the city, Centre City Building was completed in 1924" The transition between the two buildings is a bit jarring, and when i read the skyscraper part, i originally thought it was meant for Reibold. Reword it to 'The Centre City Building, often regarded...' DONE (re-worded) "Although the original building opened 1904," Missing a word. DONE "The city experienced a second, much larger building boom that lasted from the early 1970s to late 1980s, Dayton saw the construction of six skyscrapers, including the Kettering Tower and KeyBank Tower." Gramatically awkward, should probably be split into two sentences, or 'in which' should be added before Dayton. DONE (split into two sentences) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "is often regarded as the first "skyscraper"" why, and according to whom? DONE (cited appropriate source) Two consecutive sentences starting with Although makes for repetitive prose. DONE "Kettering Tower was originally Winters Tower, the headquarters of Winters Bank. The building was renamed when Winters merged with BankOne" these can be elegantly merged. DONE "Known as Winters Tower" - no need for bold. DONE Street address, I would expect it to sort numerically, not alphabetically, i.e. 4. S Main St should come after 1. S Main St. (I don't know how to do this. Help would be appreciated) Texas141 (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC) You have one 15= and one 16=... (Not sure what problem is here) Well, if they're equal, then it should be two 15= or two 16=... The Rambling Man DONE (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 1940's->1940s DONE 2300-seat->2,300-seat. DONE Timeline -> Since Wright Stop Plaza was completed in 1901 and is taller than Reibold, why isn't it in the timeline? DONE The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 21 June 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 23:54, 20 June 2010 [15].

---

List of Governors of Utah

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. I have used New Jersey (most recent FL), Colorado and Arizona as guides. There are two exception in which the Utah list is different from the other three. One, Utah has photos to the corresponding Governor in the list. Two, the term column for State Governors is handled differently. The term column is the same as used by the non-FL Maine listing. During Maine's FLC, user Golbez brought up for discussion on how the term column should be handled. Nobody responded to the discussion before the FLC was closed. Personally, in Utah's case, as most governors served full terms, the term column looks cleaner. However, I'd appreciate any discussion on the matter. User Designate did the heavy lifting of creating the tables... I just swooped in for the fame, glory and money. Bgwhite (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Restarted, old version.
• Note I have restarted this nom, as the page was getting really long, and it was not clear what the consensus was. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. After reviewing the previous discussion and answers to my concerns I decided to support. I, however, would remove the colors for lt. governors as they only serve to confuse. Ruslik_Zero 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (as contributor) I've brought this up in the past, but I think the Party column should be moved to the left of the Date columns so it's clear that it applies to the governor, not the lt. governor. But I don't object to the nomination either way. —Designate (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I look at it in terms of data priority. The most important aspect is the name; next is when they were in office. Party is tertiary. Though I can see a possible confusion, but with the footnotes, the lt. governors of different parties are set apart now. --Golbez (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support on the condition that you split the money with me 50-50 ;) In all seriousness, I made a thorough check and could not find any issues with the list. Good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support A fine well-reffed list, most remaining comments seem to be a matter of taste. Nom seems to be off since late may. Concerns from Ucucha not met by other editors, strike support. Sandman888 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I made a few grammatical changes in the lead that slipped through, but beyond that I see no issues with the article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All comments addressed. Ucucha 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: please be consistent in giving or not giving places of publication for newspapers. More importantly, the lead at this moment is poor: it covers only the state governors of Utah, not the territory governors, which are also listed. Ucucha 18:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, as the lead does not cover the article well. Ucucha 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I added a little, is it any better? —Designate (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
      • That's an improvement, but I don't think it's sufficient yet. The lead still doesn't mention the governors of Deseret or the territory beyond that single sentence (indeed, those of Deseret not at all). Perhaps move some of the material on the state governors to the appropriate section in the body, so there's room for some introduction to the other governors. Ucucha 05:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I moved a paragraph in the lead into the governor's section in the body. The territorial governor now has a paragraph in the lead and Deseret is now mentioned. Bgwhite (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Struck my oppose. However, my other (minor) concern remains: for example, current refs 29 and 30 are both to the Salt Lake Telegram, and one gives the place of publication and the other does not. I don't care whether or not the place is there, but please choose one way or the other. Ucucha 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
            • Fixed. Removed the place of publication. Bgwhite (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
              • You still have the place of publication for Deseret News but not the other newspapers, but I suppose that is acceptable because Deseret News is the only one that doesn't make the place of publication clear in its title. Ucucha 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question for my elucidation, is there a reason why the governors from Blood to Rampen have no pictures? are the pictures here are not suitable? and here for Cutler? Are there copyright issues? auntieruth (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The second link says at the bottom, "Copyright © 2010 State of Utah - All rights reserved.", and their terms of use page appears to me, a very lay person when it comes to copyright, to prohibit commercial use and alterations, apart from where fair use applies. The work of state governments, unlike the work of the federal government, are not public domain by default. --Golbez (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • that makes sense. I do agree with Ucucha (above). The led does not summarize the list. Furthermore, it is much more specific than tthat in, for example, the List of Governors of Colorado. auntieruth (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
      • What do you mean, much more specific? --Golbez (talk) 12:31, 17 June 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 23:54, 20 June 2010 [16].

---

List of National Basketball Association season assists leaders

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Another dull NBA list from me. :) —Chris!_c/t 21:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no problems in this list. Ruslik_Zero 17:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The assist title was first recognized in the 1946−47 season when statistics on assists were first compiled by the NBA." They couldn't have recorded stats before then, since it was the first season of the Basketball Association of America, the NBA's predecessor. That could stand a tweak or two.
• 1974–75 season isn't linked. If the rest are going to be linked, this one probably should be as well.
• Three Steve Nash links in the lead is a couple too many. Chris Paul is also overlinked. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed—Chris!_c/t 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Support – After the fixes, everything else looks fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, after a read through I'm not really seeing anything wrong with the list. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, added a few missing notes, other than that everything else is great. — Martin tamb (talk) 07:36, 20 June 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 15:02, 18 June 2010 [17].

---

List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all the criteria, and is ready for scrutiny Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have started to add comments, but I am not the main reviewer. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• It would be better if the photographs were of birds actually in Leicestershire or Rutland. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not realistic. Unless I've made a mistake, all the images are of the subspecies that occur in Leicestershire or Rutland, so there is no inaccuracy in terms of what is shown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• The captions do not indicate where the bird photographs are from, and I think that it makes the article bizarre to have photographs of birds from elsewhere. I feel cheated to find out from the image description on commons that the Mallard is actually in Germany. Have you tried looking for photographs of local birds? I guess that there would be enough local wild bird photographs available. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have just checked flickr and found photographs of Mallards in Rutland within two minutes, so I find it inexcusable to use a photograph taken in Germany of this common bird. The Robin illustration is a photograph in Ireland and so it is not a local Robin, and I find this abysmal also. I think that all of the current images should be removed and then the page can be re-illustrated with local bird photographs only. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

When some relevant photographs are displayed the alt text can be added. Snowman (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that alt text was still a requirement, but no big deal anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not looked at the rules for a while, so I expect you are right about the new rules. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the photographs are of unknown or unclear location. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But the photos of the birds are clear, aren't they? Isn't that the point of these images? To illustrate the subject, i.e. the bird? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I note that bird images from outside Europe have been replaced (one from New York and one from India). Snowman (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although the New York one was OK as to ssp, there was bound to be a european pic, Indian was wrong ssp as detailed below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that the format could be improved. Lines starting with the common name followed by a comma, then the binomial name in italics, then preceding to comments without any punctuation are not easy to scan. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I could put a full stop after the binomials, or did you have something better in mind? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That might be a quick fix. Or a hyphen, as you have already put a hyphen towards the beginning of the lines. Why not see what this looks like? Tables would take a long time to write. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably do a table, a bit of find/replace and it doesn't take too long. Give me a day or two to sort this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completing table Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• What about mentioning birds at Tropical Birdland, Leicestershire and birds in other zoos in this locality? Snowman (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"List of birds of..." articles always deal with apparently wild birds. I suppose bird zoos could be in a "see also", but I don't think they fit there personally Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are talking about a file name "List of wild birds of xyz". On commons people (not me) are starting to add zoo categories as subcategories of birds by country categories. The file name here is "List of birds of xyz", and this intuitively includes captive birds as well. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't commons, and I don't think it is intuitive that parrots and eagles would be expected in a list for a British county. It's inconsistent to object to images of birds found in the county but photographed elsewhere, but to push for the inclusion of zoos. What existing featured list of this type includes zoos? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably enough to list the zoos, rather than all the species in the zoos. There is nothing wrong with starting a new trend of listing zoos. This is not a list of wild birds it is a list of birds, and it would be logical to subdivide the page into wild birds and captive birds. "If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got." Snowman (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But I've specifically excluded escapes and captive birds, as does the official British list Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Snow Goose is a feral or captive released bird. It does not sound to me like this is living in the wild naturally as the introduction would indicate. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct, removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Red Kite - I guess that this bird was native here and then re-introduced somewhere near by. I am aware of Red-Kites being re-introduced in Oxfordshire (and perhaps some other places) and spreading out from there. Saying that it is introduced tends to imply that it never lived here before. Where Red Kites actually introduced here (as the article implies) or did they spread form successful re-introductions elsewhere? Snowman (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarified that they have spread from Northants reintroduction. Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• The list includes birds that no longer live in the locality - what it the time span here? Presumably these are not birds of this locality. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I've added dates of last breeding where it's more than 25 years ago. I follow LROS in treating birds which last bred more recently as occasional breeders rather than ex-breeders Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should a bird be on the list if it has not been seen in the area for 150 years? Why not have a bird that has not been seen in the area for 1000 years? Snowman (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Usually 1500 AD is taken as the cut off date for recent extinction, but obviously you need reliable evidence to get back to that date. It's possible that LROS and Fray et al have missed something, but I don't know of anything. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Was there a very large owl that disappeared in the UK? Snowman (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's often claimed that the Eagle Owl once bred in the UK, but there is no proof, and it's not on the BOU official list (unlike the Great Auk). It may have occurred in the very distant past, but that's way beyond the 1500 AD mark, and regional bird lists don't include prehistoric fossils. Recent occurences have been claimed as natural recolonisation, but are often proved to be escapes (this is a very sedentary species, reluctant to cross water). The Snowy Owl is a rare visitor which has sometimes bred in the far north. Neither is on the Leicestershire and Rutland list. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Where are the references for the introduction and/or re-introduction programs? Snowman (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The main source covers those, added pages as refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• The section headings should be converted to common names for the bird orders. As part of the wiki the format of this list should be consistent with other regional bird lists. Snowman (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do soon, probably when doing table Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Osprey. I recall that the current Rutland birds were specially raised from the Scottish population after being reared from chicks. Would this be an introduction or a re-introduction? I thought that the Osprey was once a bird throughout England and Scotland, then there were no birds in the UK, and then some migrated back to Scotland of their own accord. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a natural recolonisation of Scotland. Fray says there is no evidence that the species that the species ever bred in Leicestershire, so it's an introduction. Although it's possible that the species bred in the distant past, there is no known evidence for this. The first avifauna for the counties gave passage records back to 1840, but no mention of them ever having bred. If you take away the Victorian and later man-made reservoirs, the counties have no sizeable natural lakes to attract the species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is TOC box too long? Snowman (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any guidelines. I'm quite happy for you to add a NOTOC if you think that's better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The TOC box looks too long to me, but it can not be removed without being replaced with something. I have seen long TOC boxes discussed in FAs and shortened. What about using a custom made index section, as can be seen in other bird lists? Snowman (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• The file is still an orphan until it has more than three pages link to here. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments First, a comment on Snowman's image location concern, I see no problem on having images of birds in locations other than Leicestershire or Rutland. To "feel cheated" and find it "abysmal", in my opinion, is really overly dramatic. The bird needs to be illustrated, not the background. I think that the setting of bird photographs is important. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Fine if you are doing a continent, almost impossible for a county unless you have very few images Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) What have they used for illustrations in the book that is used as a reference? Snowman (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I think it's permissable to link Leicestershire and Rutland in the lead, some of our non-UK readers would probably appreciate it. Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "bird recording" I think this needs to be hyphenated. Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "The Great Crested Grebe is the LROS emblem" complete sentence, needs a full stop. Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Is there a reference for that caption, by the way? Done, linked to LROS home page which shows the species, their newsletter is also called The Grebe Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Third para of lead appears to be entirely unreferenced. Done, linked to Fray Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "ten – 100 birds occurring or pairs breeding annually" 10–100 would be fine in this instance (and why spaced en-dash, why not unspaced?) Too many dashes anyway, replaced first with colons and the ranges with unspaced ndashes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Common –1000... space after the en-dash here though! As above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Abundant –more... and here! and here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "is s required" spare s. Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "at a temperature of +3 deg with sun trying to shine, when the reservoir was frozen over" not required in the caption I think that this is an interesting and relevant caption. The caption could be shortened slightly without losing information. Shelducks are seen in the winter in this locality. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Then the caption should state the facts, not head wistfully into poetic imagery ("sun trying to shine"? The sun does shine, always...) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) trimmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Don't think we need to link either egg or fish. Unlinked Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) You have sea-bird in the lead and seabird in the list. all unhyphenated now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "Grey Heron." full stop not required. Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "BBRC [7]" remove space between text and ref. Ditto for "BBRC [10]". Done, together with a third Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) The "Swifts" table is malformed. fixed Snowman (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "Wren at the nest." no full stop here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I think my disappointment of not seeing local birds in local settings here is appropriate. Put your self in the position of a person from the locality or near by. Yes; I feel cheated to find bird images from elsewhere. I think that there is no excuse for using bird photographs from elsewhere. Knowing that local bird photographs are available, to me showing bird photographs from elsewhere seems to be wrong; although, I am sure their addition was well intended, and I apologise for using the word "abysmal" to describe the editors well intended additions of showing the German Mallard and the Irish Robin. I have replaced the German Mallard with a local Shelduck. I think that showing an Irish Robin on this page is inappropriate, and I think it will disappoint a lot of readers. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Well we're all entitled to our opinions, but attributing nationality to animals is an usual thing to (a) do and (b) worry about, as far as I'm concerned. Trying to remove all images based on this bizarre approach really will wreck the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) My point of view is that the images could be replaced with images of local birds that would enhance the list. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Do you think the "local birds" look, well, different somehow? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) No comment. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Why not? I'm really interested in the requirement for so-called "local birds". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I've tried to make sure that I've got the subspecies that breeds in the counties, so there shouldn't be any apparent difference unless I make a mistake. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) So much the better. So there's really no issue then. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I have promoted a discussion on this topic on the WP Bird Talk page. To reiterate, Creative Commons local bird photographs are available on flickr. I think that it is bad science and unnecessary to use non-local images. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Excellent. I'd prefer to see good and reliable images of the bird than "local" images (like the mallard one on Flickr) which was of relatively low quality. I think our readers will be more disappointed by poor images of birds. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ruff image: The caption reads "Displaying male Ruff". According to the table the Ruff does not breed in this locality, so the a bird would never display like this in Leicestershire or Rutland. I think this image from an unspecified location is actively misleading. Snowman (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, spring passage birds are usually in breeding plumage and will display before moving on to breed elsewhere. There are no subspecies of Ruff, so no problem with appearance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having said that, it's a rare occurence, changed for Black-tailed Godwit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Common Tern image: The bird is taking a fish back to the nest for the young in New York, USA. This seems an illogical choice for a photograph on this page, because the bird is a rare breeder at this location and this scene would be exceedingly rare at this location. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• You have misread the table, it's uncommon, not rare. Up to 70 pairs breed annually, and passage flocks of similar size have recorded away from the breeding lakes. I expect to see this plumage in the county in spring. US subspecies is the same as W. Europe, I've nevertheless changed the image for one of an Arctic Tern from Europe.Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• Little Ringed Plover image: The bird is in breeding plumage in India. This seems an illogical choice for a photograph on this page, because this plumage phase would be rarely seen at this location. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's bred in the counties regularly for at least 50 years, up to 30 recorded pairs, not bad for an inland wader, and like Common Tern, it's always possible to see this plumage in spring. However, the Indian bird might be jerdoni, which although identical as far as I can is not correct, so changed for a Lapwing pic. No ssp and an abundant bird. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• "waterbirds" - does this have a strict definition? If wikilinked, it would redirect to "ducks, geese and swans", so can it be replaced with ducks, geese and swans? or is it intended to have a wider meaning that this? Snowman (talk) 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• It would also include, for example, grebes and coots, just birds that use the water Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• And also the Osprey. I have changed it to "aquatic birds". I expect there is a better wording. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Should the "Rose-ringed Parakeet" be on the list? Snowman (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fray et al says all records are probably local escapes, not birds from the established feral populations further south in England, so it's not on the county list.

• Fine. That is a 2009 reference, so it is up-to-date. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• "There are nine introduced species with that maintain themselves without necessary recourse to further introduction." - there are many ways of supporting introduced populations and further introductions is one of them. I presume that this is meant to imply that the populations thrive totally independently. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the wording used in the county list. Although it's more verbose than "self-supporting feral population", it does spell out that a species that relies on further introduction doesn't count. Chukars were frequently released, but died out when that became illegal, so they aren't on the list, unlike Red-legged Partridge which is assumed to be self-sustaining. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• So these nine species need no further introductions and no active supportive measures. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's correct. Pheasant and Red-leg undoubtedly get further introductions, but both are are clearly viable without these. The others, like Little Owl have no support at all, and the Ruddy Duck survives despite active culling. Obviously over longer time scales things might change (it looks as if lady Amherst's Pheasant is virtually extinct in the UK), but no sign of any change at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think that there should be a notice or note to state that not all of the illustrations are photographed within the locality. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  To the end of the introduction I have added; "Photographs of birds illustrating the list are not all taken within the locality." Is that fair enough? Snowman (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Provisional impression. I edit bird pages and I have tried to be objective to reduce any conflict of interest in commenting on this bird article. The list has shaped up, but I think that not mentioning on the page that bird photographs shown on this page are not all from the locality is a major flaw. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think that the list looks good and that it has reached FL standard. Nevertheless, perhaps keen copy editors may have more to say. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

**Any chance you can cap any of your resolved comments please Snowman? This page is becoming far too large and is, not doubt, putting off other reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I have seen much larger lists of comments for FACs. If this page is too large (which it is not), then the FLC can be restarted. I have put a strike though my resolved issues. I hope that other editors will put a strike through their resolved issues to help to keep this page organised. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Well, it was just a polite request. If you don't wish to cap comments, then that's up to you. I'd rather not have to restart nominations but if you insist, that's what'll have to happen. Other editors, as you will see looking at other FLCs, are happy to cap their comments rather than strike them, to help "organise" the page, and to not put others off trying to contribute. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I thought you meant to strike them. I do not know what you mean by cap them. I do not think that this page is too long and I do not think that I am putting anyone off who might want to add comments to this page. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC) As I said, just a polite request to use the {{rc}} template. But never mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly". I have followed the approved style and used strike when an issue I have raised has been resolved." Snowman (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) This is WP:FLC, not FAC. But in any case, perhaps you're not aware that reviews here are not usually as protracted as they are at FAC, so the length of this review is certain to put (especially new) reviewers off. But it was, as ever, a polite request, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: "To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits." Snowman (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC) To User Rambling Man: I would be grateful if you would reformat your comments above after this comment, because I think that your indenting tends to make my comment less visible. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Sandman888 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• A fine list. Must say I havn't read above text thoroughly, if there are any concerns (besides nationality of photos), please notify me.

• I guess that it would be better that you check this review yourself than rely on notifications for feedback. Sometimes it is better to sign after each comment, because sometimes a line can become detached from one signature made after several lines. I think that currently, it is actually quite difficult to trace who to notify. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Cd the TOC be on the left somehow? I'm not that happy with the layout. Perhaps two rows of bird-names under each heading in the traditional TOC format cd do?

• This is the standard TOC for bird FLs (see List of_birds of Thailand). I'm not totally sure what your second sentence means, but if it means a normal default toc with two columns, it would be very long 9one reason the many regional bird lists use this style (I wouldn't know how to code it either) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Nice use of pictures, but isn't there pictures for all birds?

• It's supposed to just illustrate the article, it would be very crowded if all species had images. The available images might not be the correct subspecies of have features that are improbable in L&R, such as open sea, beaches or cliffs, or show nesting birds of species that don't breed in the UK. If there is anywhere specific an image might be good, let me know and I'll add if possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• What about these images from Rutland Water? Snowman (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• File:Podiceps cristatus -Rutland Water, Rutland, England-8.jpg Snowman (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• File:Cygnus olor -Rutland Water, Rutland, England-8.jpg Snowman (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• File:Phasianus colchicus -Rutland Water -female-8.jpg Snowman (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Off-page comments of 15 June 2010 see: User talk:Jimfbleak#Birds of Leics/Rutland (this wikilink will change with user talk page archiving). Snowman (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively see this permalink under the Birds of Leics/Rutland section. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• What's to note from that discussion? Seems to be mainly bickering, why should other editors read that? Sandman888 (talk) 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, but thought it better, if it was to be linked, to add a permalink. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: fine lists, all comments addressed. Ucucha 05:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Comments—

• ""BBRC" means that a full description of national rarities is required by the British Birds Rarities Committee. "LROS" indicates that a description of county rarities is required by the LROS Records Committee"—I think this means that when you see a bird marked with "BBRC", you have to report to the BBRC (and the same for the LROS committee), but it's not as clear as it should be.

• rephrased and expanded to clarify (I hope)

• Why are some of the common names used different from those used in the article?

• The source used names like Cormorant and Coot because they are unambiguous in a L&R setting. I should have either stuck rigidly to the LROS list, or changed all to full versions, but ended up with a mix. All names should now be those of the article except where inappropriate (eg Goosander, since the article uses the US name)

• I am not sure what should be done here; WP:BIRD#Taxonomy and references suggests it may be better to use a regional list, but I have no preference one way or the other. You should probably indicate what list you are using for common names, though. Ucucha 15:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• names attributed to BOURC in lead now, and a few changed to fit including errors Wigeon and Reed Warbler Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• You call Fulica atra the "Coot" in the list and "Common Coot" in the figure caption.

• fixed, Eurasian Coot for both

• "eruption" seems an odd word to use (under "Sandgrouse")

• It's standard for species like this that come flooding out of their normal range in an unpredictable way

• You mean "irruption", right? —innotata 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well spotted. Irruptive growth has a wiki page, and I think that some of the phrases used there can be used here to avoid puzzling jargon, if it has the meaning that was intended. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Update: I have rephrased it, but it may need further enhancement. Snowman (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• An irruption is not well described as a temporary range expansion, nor does it have anything to do with irruptive growth. —innotata 19:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please amend list. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why does only Lagopus lagopus have the subspecies indicated in the table?

• removed

• Does the navigation template belong there when it doesn't link to this article?

• added to template (Cornwall is there)

• Thanks for reviewing again, all fixed now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 18:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• thanks for pointing out the name problems, all fixed, thanks for support

Support nice list, well-illustrated. Good work Jimfbleak! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• thanks for your help and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support meaning not opposing the use of images from outside Leics and Rutland. The list is well illustrated and all the images seem appropriate. Other reviewers probably have noticed any flaws, and this appears to meet the featured list criteria. —innotata 16:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• I am not opposing it for showing birds from outside the locality. My point for discussion is that the page should say that not all of the birds are from the locality. In the absence of a specific reply to this issue, I have added an appropriate short notice to the list at the end of the introduction for clarity and transparency. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that I will be away for six days from tomorrow. There are no opposes or unresolved issues at present, if any arise, I'll deal with them when I get back. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 18 June 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 15:20, 14 June 2010 [18].

---

List of birds of Tasmania

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe its standard is at or near one of the other 18 Featured Lists so far from the birds wikiproject. It is comprehensive, clearly defined and complete (well, until the next unusual bird is found in Tassie anyway), and laid out nice. Have at it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments (haven't checked the main list part carefully):

• There are three links to disambiguation pages.
• Why don't you have more images?

I've been trying to hunt down good ones not currently used on en.wp, so we don't repeat. Amm adding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. Pretty pictures btw. bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Specific references 2 and 3 should probably go into a "Notes" section.

Tweaked so species footnotes are in separate section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Better, but note 1 does not match label "(E)". Or does note 1 mean, that there exists a supspecies which is endemic? Spell out "1" in note 2 and remove one of the three "only" in note 3. Not sure how to understand "Although" in note 4; please clarify. bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I just removed that - as it looks like there are more than four anyway. All it means is that some species with ranges of Tasmanian and somewhere else, the form in Tasmania is only found there Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• There appears to be an excessive apostrophe at Pachyptila belcheri.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sometimes you use "- (E)" and sometimes without the hyphen. Please decide for one or the other.

oops. hyphens removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Intro needs some work:
  • Featured lists are not started like "This is a list..." anymore. Have a look at other current nominations or recently featured lists. Also bold face is not necessary.

okay, tweaked and bold removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Better start, but intro still needs some tweaking. bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some very short paragraphs which should be merged or expanded for instance. bamse (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Have merged into to large paragraphs - first on species and second on geography. The few sentences discussing the acronyms I cannot fit into anywhere really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Better, though I don't fancy the passive voice in several sentences. Could you get rid of it by specifying who designates EBAs and by rewording the sentences with "are defined", "are considered"... (by whom)? Also, what does "which cover much of the island." refer to (rainforests only or eucalyptus forests and rainforests together)? bamse (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• • The sentence: "For subantarctic Macquarie Island, politically part of the Tasmania, see Birds of Macquarie Island.", should go into a Template:For at the top of the article in my opinion.

good idea. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• • There is some inconsistency at several places in the intro regarding extinct species. For instance you write: "all species listed below are considered to occur regularly in Tasmania", which obviously does not include the listed extinct species. Please check for proper tense in this and other sentences.
  • Is an "uncommon vagrant" the same as a "vagrant" for the purpose of this list?

yes. just varied a little for variety of prose Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If it could lead to confusion, I'd suggest removing the "uncommen". bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. I realised that as "uncommon", "rare" and/or "occasional" are automatically implied when one uses the word "vagrant", their presence is thus superfluous and hence I removed all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Not sure how coastlines and offshore islands translate to a "diverse haven". It rather sounds like similar habitats to me.

aha - beaches, cliffs, estuaries, marshes etc. are all coastal. I do appreciate your point and will see what I can add to embellish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Got your point, but it could be spelled out in the text to make it obvious. bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Regarding: "Its diversity has led it being classified as an Endemic Bird Area (EBA), one of 218 worldwide." Please explain in the text shortly what an EBA is. From the name I'd suspect it to be an area of many endemic bird species rather than a "diverse" area.

Added info on EBAs - more on envrionment to come Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward to it. bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Information is present, but could you remove the ugly parantheses somehow (by connecting it to the rest of the text or putting it in a footnote. bamse (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think information is better just following on - handy use of pronoun and removal of parentheses performed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks better, but I am still confused. The Endemism in birds defines an EBA as "a region of the world that contains two or more restricted-range species". To me this is something else than this list article suggests through the use of "diversity". Please clarify. bamse (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, missed that bit in the definition on the source page. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: Misread the other source too, yes it is the 12 endemic species which led to the EBA, so "diversity" was not strictly correct. Corrected now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Why not use another label (like (I/E/V)) in order to denote the endemic birds?

d'oh! I started to and forgot to rejig 'Extinct' tag. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Are there really brids marked with an asterisk? (I was looking for them but did not find any.)

oops. left over from a shoddy cut-and-paste job. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Is there anything special about the Tasmanian birds that could be added to the (shortish) introduction. For instance particularly many aquatic birds; large numbers of specific species or families,...

bamse (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Added about a large number of penguin species, and only two migratory parrots in the world, and the endemics are common bar one species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

some more comments:

• "Their system has been..." might be bad style (because of "their") in this encyclopedia but I am never sure about such things.

ditched it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• How about comparing the number of species to that of some other area to provide some context. If I remember correctly, Europe has about the same amount of species.

Not a bad idea. I need to find a source which compares them directly though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

bamse (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does not need to be Europe. bamse (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Still not seen a source. Part of the reason for this is that there is little literature on the subject of birds of Tasmania as a whole - and alot more on Birds of Australia (which I might tackle at a later date). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. If there are no sources, there is nothing we can do. bamse (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Macquarie Island, technically a (remote) part of Tasmanian territory" - It is part of the state of Tasmania - what is technical about that? I am not sure if the bird counts in the first line of the introduction include the birds of the Macquarie Island - it sounds like it does because it says the birds of the state of Tasmania. Perhaps their should be a better explanation of the birds of this island in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The bird counts are for Tasmania only (excluding macquarie island). Have reworded -what we are talking about is the island of Tasmanian and its surrounds rather than the state (which administers Macquarie Island). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: The rewording does make sense. I should have thought of "nearby" for "adjoining" Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• "with the islands of Bass Strait facilitating crossing."; presumably the relevance here is that migrating birds can rest and feed on the islands in the Bass Straight. Is this true for the entire 10,000 years that Tasmania has been an island? Snowman (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think so - the sea level would have only been lower between the last ice age and now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• The footnote, "Subspecies is endemic to Tasmania"; presumably this applies to every taxa on the page that is not a monomorphic species, because they all endemic on Tasmania. Presumably, this is meant to be an attempt to point to subspecies that are endemic on Tasmania and nowhere else. The notes are from a species name on the page and not an identified subspecies, so this adds to the confusion of this footnote. This raises the question of how to deal with a polymorphic species where one of the subspecies naturally lives in the wild on Tasmania and no where else. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Most subspecies do not have separate pages - yes I do see it as a dilemma when they do - see Tasmanian Masked Owl for one. I will reword the foot note.Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have put a strike through the comment above, because I misunderstood what endemic meant. I had not realised the "endemic" means exclusively to one place. I think that you could explain this better on the page in case it is widely misunderstood. Do you name the subspecies? Snowman (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is tricky in some cases - for instance, the distinctive Tasmanian subspecies of the Grey Currawong is called the Clinking Currawong, but it doesn't have its page and I think the species name trumps it for official status. Maybe the best thing is to put subspecies name and link if applicable in footnote (?) What do you think. Or should I put it on same line in list (if I put it below it will be confusing I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the Galah and the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo both have a subspecies that naturally lives in the wild in Tasmania and nowhere else, and they are both not listed as such in the article. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not the Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo -race xanthonotus is on western vic and sth australia as well as Tas. Will check on galah. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There subspecies of Y-tBC on Tasmania is not widely accepted. Snowman (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that I was looking at the wrong map for the Galah - the subspecies on Tasmania is also on the Australian mainland. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• "^ a b c d e f g h Subspecies is endemic to Tasmania" - this count is of eight subspecies, but the introduction says 12 species and 4 subspecies are endemic to Tasmania. Needs some careful tabulation to make the page internally consistent and accurate. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. the published source is wrong - it notes distinctive subspecies but there are others - grey butcherbird is one, but the distinction between the mainland and Tassie forms minor. I need to go through carefully in the next day or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is too much jargon in the introduction. Snowman (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Working on it. Am puzzling over best way to phrase 'endemic' as first off. Have removed some. Casliber (talk · contribs)

PS: The intro has been changed a bit, I am wondering about whether mentioning "taxonomic arrangement" is necessary. Do you see other examples of jargon still? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a lot better. I had to look at the linked page for "Ramsar sites". Is there anything special about the "taxonomic arrangement" used, and what science is the sequence of the list based on? Snowman (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

christidis and boles 2008 is the latest consensus publication on birds of Australia - it lists the birds in a taxonomic sequence - a 2 dimensional slice through some sort of grand cladogram to make a logical sequence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added some explanation for Ramsar Sites. In the lead "buttongrass" needs a wikilink, but I did not want to link it to the wrong sort of buttongrass. Does this sound correct; "buttongrass grasslands"? Snowman (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ramsar bit looks good. I will find the correct buttongrass to link to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• "The following codes are used to denote certain categories of species:" - used by who? Snowman (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

well, er, me for this article..but removed as redundant Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think a lot of copy-editing work is needed on this page. Some editors have a natural ability with the English language and can quickly list problems, but I find it is hard work and I think that I will opt to move-on to images and page layout elsewhere which I find much easier. I think that you would normally be able to see a lot of the problems, but I guess that you may have become too close to the work. I hope that an army of copy-editors arrive here soon. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that I have been staring at this page for a while and it is late and I am tired now. I will sleep on it. I trimmed some jargon and concede some flow issues make the prose disjointed, so am happy to have fresh eyes on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to hunt down some tasmanian bird images that were not used on articles already for variety. Any help in this area much appreciated. good night. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• (I) (Ex) (V) (E) - are the brackets needed? Snowman (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I followed the example of List of birds of South Carolina for conformity as I believe i trying to make sets of articles look the same. I have no strong opinion otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure either way, but it is probably best for wiki lists to have a consistent format. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree, I haven't checked all other bird lists yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Is it worth giving information on the biggest bird and the smallest bird in TasmaniaSnowman (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen them discussed anywhere but if they are I'd be happy to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant saying what the biggest bird and the smallest bird species are. Snowman (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So did I. It is not recorded in the tas bird book I have, nor on any Tas. lists I have seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can anything go in the empty boxes in the status columns in the tables? Snowman (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! where'd all those tables come from?? I felt it looked better plain white without all the lines like an excel document, but your view may vary. Not sure what could go in, 'R' for resident and maybe noting summer visitors etc., but there'd be alot of 'R's Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was following the format of other bird lists, which seems to be used quite a lot. The third column is used quite a lot here, so I think that the table helps a quick visual scan. If you think the flat list was better, then use the flat list. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In the interests of consistency then, hadn't seen the boxes on recent promotions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

PS: That format was only used in the Thailand and Vieques lists alone (out of 18), so I think we should maybe look at those. Sorry to revert you snowman, I think I got your other non-table changes back in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The other current FLC is "List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland" and that has a tables, so format specifications are rather puzzling for reviewers. Snowman (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised by that and will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thailand and Leicestershire are both mine. I prefer tables because I usually give a status and it looks neater. It's not a rule however. Having said that, the numbers thing is imho irrelevant anyway, many of the older lists would probably struggle with the current criteria Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• To reduce confusion I think it is probably worth mentioning differences between the Australian common names and the IOC names. The "what links here" on a species page will not show this page under a redirected page for birds listed here with different names than the page names. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any differences still? I thought we'd changed them all to IOC by now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Shrike-thrushs are all Shrikethrushs. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I remain puzzled by the number of species names that are redirects, and Rockhopper Penguin is a redirect that leads to a dab page. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which of the three Rockhopper Penguins on the dab live in Tasmania? Snowman (talk) 10:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Should there be fullstops after each letter of HANZAB? Snowman (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Answer, I'm not sure. I have always seen it written without fullstops - not sure what the rule about when acronyms become commonly used do we lose stops etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen it written with fullstops. I think that when an acronym is pronounced as a word rather than spelling it out, then fullstops are redundant. Maias (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• (I) (Ex) (V) (E) - Do these need to be emboldened? This seems to be overuse of emboldened text and may not be in-line with MoS. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just copied what had been done elsewhere in the interests of conformity. I think a case can be argued either way. Do you think they are any less visible not bold? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what lists you look at; see List of birds of Wallis and Futuna and List of birds of French Polynesia. MoS says to avoid excess emboldened text; what is the counter argument? Snowman (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

None. De-bolded by you so you can strike now to make navigating this page easier (I just followed other lists - personally I do think the bold looks slightly better but am not fussed). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would go with emboldened or un-emboldened, but this is FLC, and when in doubt I think it is best to go with MoS. I am quite pleased with the complete lack of distracting emboldened text in the modified version, so MoS application seems beneficial to me here. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• "introduced to Tasmania by the actions of man, either directly or indirectly"; What is an indirect introduction? Can you give examples of indirect introduction to Tasmania? Snowman (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Cattle Egret has spread around the world following suitable habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that this is not explained well enough in the article. I guessed that direct meant intentional, such as the planned introduction of Cassowaries; and indirectly meant accidental or unintentional, such as a birds got on a ship and no one noticed, and they all hopped on land at Hobart. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually that should be struck as we dont' call teh Cattle Egret intriduced. So will delete unnecessary complicating add-on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency of captions to images - some have the common name wikilinked and some without a wikilink. Some have the binomial name as well and some have the trinominal name. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like it needs a infobox or an image in the lead. This is being discussed on the talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support: I edit bird pages and I have tried to be objective to reduce any conflict of interest. I think that only a few minor issues remain and I expect these will be fixed soon. I think that the list has shaped up and looks good and that it has reached FL standard. Snowman (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is high quality list, which I am happy to support. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC))

Question. Why do you sometimes use 'bill' and sometimes 'beak'? Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) no reason = I have always understood the terms are interchangeable. I can stick to one. Have asked at the birds wikiproject. Intriguing question actually.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I'd thought it looked funny describing a bird with a hooked "bill", and I found out why Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) In addition, the article says that 12 species are endemic, but only 11 are marked with (E) in the list? Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) always overlooking the little brown birds....missed scrubtit. now rectified. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Comment2. The lead says there are 96 vagrant species, but only 79 are marked with (V). Ruslik_Zero 15:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC) bother, that comes of using out of date numbers. Funny how more birds turn up. and more vagrants become more 'regular' when folks find them more often - adjusted now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Support looks pretty good (COI - member of bird project) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the Emu be classified as extinct as well as (re)introduced? They were exterminated in Tas by 1865 (ref HANZAB 1, p.49.). Maias (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Tasmanian Emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae diemenensis) has its own page. Presumably a different subspecies was reintroduced. It looks odd that a bird is listed as extinct (it does not say locally extinct) and then reintroduced. More details needs to make the page logical. Snowman (talk) 11:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• According to Christidis and Boles, the status of the Tasmanian Emu is unclear as to whether it is separate subspecies or not. They just include it with the (living) species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• The classification of the Emu is more complicated than I thought. However, it is impossible for an animal to be (Ex) and the be (I). If an animal is extinct, then there are no living specimens for a re-introduction. Was it a re-introduction or an introduction? Snowman (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• There are no Tasmanian emus. period. it was an introduction of mainland birds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have checked what the article says. The following appears on the page; "Emu, Dromaius novaehollandiae (Ex) (I)", and the key at the top of the page says "(Ex)" means an extinct species. This line is confusing. If the Emu was extinct, then there would not have been any Emus anywhere for a reintroduction, and if it is Extinct then there would be no Emus in Australia or anywhere else. The Tasmanian subspecies (if there was one) may have become extinct, but the key specifically says that (Ex) refers to the species. I think the word is extirpated for the disappearance of a species from a locality, and that extirpated would be the correct word to use if the Tasmanian Emus were the same taxa as the mainland Emus. You could add (Ep) to the key to indicate extirpation from Tasmania. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• It does get confusing. I have decided the best thing to do is a footnote and use the (I) as all extant birds are introduced. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Willie Wagtail should be there as a vagrant (ref HANZAB 7, p.228.). Maias (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• White-breasted Woodswallow should be clasified as a vagrant (ref HANZAB 7, p.402.). Maias (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

added/fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• The part about emu extinctions reads like the King Island Emu went extinct much later than the emu on Tasmania, but in fact it was extinct by 1822 and the Tasmanian emu survived more than 40 years longer. Ucucha 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reworded and clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Just noted that HANZAB 2 (1993) mentions feral populations on King Island (mainly) of Turkey Meleagris gallopavo (p.355), Indian Peafowl Pavo cristatus (p.373), and Common Pheasant Phasianus colchius (p.377). Maias (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

thanks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support — Know jack all about birdos; however, this list was quite interesting, if only some of the specific articles were better. Aaroncrick ^TALK 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I am glad that you found it quite interesting. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Support seems a fine list; all comments addressed. Ucucha 06:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments—
• would it make more sense to place the sentence "The common and scientific names and taxonomic arrangement follow the conventions laid out in the 2008 publication Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds." in the third paragraph of the lead, which gives the format for this list, rather than the first, which introduces Tasmanian birds in general?

Yes, good idea and done. It balances the paras better too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• 2nd para: perhaps make clear that the Bass Strait islands are between Tas and mainland Aus

"between the two landmasses" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are you excluding species that became extinct before European settlement? (If there are any.)

No, I have not seen any literature on them at all (much different situation to, say, New Zealand) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then replace the language in the lead about species recorded since European settlement? Ucucha 05:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Aha, looking on google, there is some material from older - hence we have dromornithid tracks from late oligocene and probably some others. So might be better in than out. Alternatively I could just say extant species and remove extinct ones. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, it would make most sense to include everything that occurred there during the Holocene—i.e., approximately the natural modern fauna before we humans started to remove components of it. Oligocene fossils are an entirely different matter. But it's really not important if there are no Holocene, pre-European contact extinctions. Ucucha 07:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Might it be clearer to place the footnote about the Emu in the text about the Casuariidae?

I had placed it there as a direct explanatory note for the letter, but could do that I guess Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• When you say that frogmouths occur in the "Austro-Papuan region" and owlet-nightjars in the "Austronesian region", do you mean something different?

Actually just replaced them with countries. Frogmouths are tricky as range depends on whether there are one family or two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think you assume a bit too much birding vocabulary as known, for example in the paragraph about petrels, where you talk about the septum and a primary.

wikilinked and a couple of extra words to explain Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• In the Scolopacidae, you say there are four vagrants; I count five.

oops. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• You say there are two species of barn owls, but I only count one.

was thinking of barn owl, but it doesn't occur there. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• You say there are five species of acanthizids, but I count six. There are also three instead of two endemics in the list.

oops. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Why don't you tell us anything about pardalotes and acanthizids?

It's classified author fatigue and forgetfulness. Fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Same with the quail-thrushes, which only get some taxonomy and no information about the birds themselves.

oops. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The taxonomy here is evidently problematic, but I don't quite understand it. You say the quail-thrushes are sometimes classified in their own family, but according to the Cinclosomatidae article even the narrowest definition also includes jewel-babblers (Ptilorrhoa). Then you say that they are sometimes included with the mainland family Psophodidae. If that means mainland Australian, it's an odd choice of words since quail-thrushes also occur there. And then Psophodes says it is classified in Cinclosomatidae, which according to the Cinclosomatidae page is impossible because Psophodidae has priority over Cinclosomatidae. Ucucha 05:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this page anyway - removed "mainland" as misleading. Added that jewel-babblers are in same family. Have to make a proper Psophodidae page at some stage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also for the monarchs, which get no introductory text at all.

oops. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You now say the one species is a vagrant, but it's not marked as such. Ucucha 05:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Was writing on auto-pilot. fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some consistency problems in refs: initials before or after name, & or and between names.

oops. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 05:14, 11 June 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 15:35, 14 June 2010 [19].

---

Phil Collins discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have done alot of work to this article recently improving content, sourcing, formatting etc, it had a previous FL nomination by me which failed due to unknown video directors. This issue has now been resolved and a further peer review has since been done. Mister sparky (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Jimknut (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Collins' first solo album, Face Value, was released in the United Kingdom in February 1981, and was a success, peaking at number one on the UK Album Chart". The phrase "and was a success" seems very awkward in this sentence construction. hmm ok will alter. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Why is "Certifications" only linked in a few of the tables? to avoid overlinking. it's linked once at the top of the albums and once at the top of the singles. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) And also for Video albums, I see - once for each section. Thanks. Jujutacular T · C 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure if there is any precedent or ruling on this, but the unreleased album "Going Back" is listed in the table, but is not counted in the infobox. Causes a bit of confusion. Any thoughts? it's not released yet, so doesn't count as one of his releases. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Singles: discrepancy between the infobox and the tables. I count 47 in the tables. there are 43. the featured artist songs don't count towards this total as they are not collins singles. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Music videos: ditto, I count 36. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Why isn't Video albums included in the infobox? added. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Make the infobox go in the same order as the tables (currently soundtrack is out of order). it doesn't matter where you put "soundtracks" in the infobox, it always goes to the bottom. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Use "colwidth=30em" instead of a simple two-column reflist, as it is more versatile. that makes them only in 1 column which makes the page longer, so no. Mister sparky (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) No, it makes the number of columns be exactly how many can fit side by side in any given user's screen with columns 30em wide. If you want to use smaller columns that would create 2 columns for small resolutions, you could try it, but 30em is pretty standard. Jujutacular T · C 17:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) well i tried it in a preview and it just made them in 1 column, and i have a standard resolution and sized laptop screen, so would do the same to most others. Mister sparky (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) You don't have to use 30em; I usually set the colwidth at 20em or 25em. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) working at 30 now. i realised before that i wrote "width=30em" instead of "colwidth=30em"! my mistake lol. Mister sparky (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks! And like Dabomb said, any width around there is fine if you want to try something else. Jujutacular T · C 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 07:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good, nice work. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

thank you guys! :) Mister sparky (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't "Award winning" be hyphenated? changed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) "5× Platinum " seems a little out of place in the prose. Perhaps "five-times Platinum"? changed all instances in the lead. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) ""; the emotionally charged ballad shot to number one " reads like a tabloid to me. removed emotionally charged. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) No reason that Cassette is capitalised. oops forgot about that. fixed. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Going Back is in the table but not mentioned in the lead or the infobox. mentioned at the end of the lead, but not added to the infobox as its not released yet. Mister sparky (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:18, 14 June 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 15:35, 14 June 2010 [20].

---

Timeline of the 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season

Nominator(s): Yueof theNorth and User:Jason Rees 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this article meets the FLC criteria. I wrote this article and I feel that I have dealt with concerns brought up in my previous FLC's. Also, Jason Rees edited the article to make it similar in format to the Timeline of the 2007-08 South Pacific cyclone season. Yueof theNorth 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments: There is a dead external link. fixed The graphic timeline is wider than my screen. changed to 800 px from 1000 px bamse (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC) I fixed the dead link and changed the timeline width to the normal width of 800 px from 1000 px. --Yueof theNorth 22:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Some more comments/questions: Intro is very short and has two extremely short paragraphs. Please expand. Information that a reader unfamiliar with the subject (i.e. me) might want to learn about: Its not that short and i think bar adding damages there isnt anything else to be added.Jason Rees (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) That would be interesting. Also, since it says: "only three", what is a typical number of typhoons per season?bamse (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Ill try to knock something up later. Im sure i had added something about the average numbers to the notes section but it wasnt there when i looked so ive readded it.Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC) added in more info --Yueof theNorth 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) What determines the start/end date. Are these fixed dates or do they change from season to season? See [21] (Page 13) I am adding this to the article now. --Yueof theNorth 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) added I think the sentence (The season officially ran from November 1, 2003 to April 30, 2004 with the dates selected to encompass 9 of the 10 tropical cyclones.) might be misunderstood to mean that the dates were chosen in such a way that 9 out of 10 cyclones are included, while as far as I understand from [22], the dates are fixed and in that season it happened that one cyclone occured outside of the season. I am also confused about the numbers: which are the 9 cylones of that season? bamse (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I changed it, does it seem more clear now. BTW, there were no storms out of the season. --Yueof theNorth 19:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Wikilink and/or explain where the "South Pacific" is. Sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately South Pacific links to a disambiguation page which is rather vague on what is meant by it. bamse (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I added in a footnote stating where it is. (Equator to 40S and 160E to 120W) --Yueof theNorth 19:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Why "East of 160E"? Interesting question - we use 160E because its where RSMC Nadi and the BOM say the Australian region and South Pacific Start/End depending on the way you look at it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I see. Could you add what the other borders (North, East, South) are since the South Pacific disambiguation page does not tell much. bamse (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) See above section. --Yueof theNorth 19:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) What are the meanings of the numbers? The RSMC Nadi numbers are how many TD's they have monitored in a season within the SPAC. Whilst the JTWC ones are how many they think have formed within the whole of the SHEM.Jason Rees (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Could you add something like this to the article? bamse (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I think this is in the second paragraph of the introduction. --Yueof theNorth 20:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Basically yes, but it does not mention that it is the count for this season (or any season for that matter). bamse (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) added in more info --Yueof theNorth 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Name the (three?) cyclones in the first image caption. Sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC) The graphical timeline shows 10F as a tropical depression while later on it says that it was (at some point) a tropical cyclone. Why? Caught it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Did you change anything? bamse (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah i did change something - In one of the images it was being called a TC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I see, I think my question was rather, why it is indicated as TD in the graphical timeline, while on April 8 it was a TC? Also fix the doubling of text in the third item of April 8. fixed doubles--Yueof theNorth 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC) As for the cyclone thing i cant see where it says it was a TC on April 8, if you mean Tropical Storm then my response will be "Different Agencies different assessments of windspeeds".Jason Rees (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Could you specify (in the timeline) or just before/after it, which agencie's data were chosen for it? bamse (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Added note in section header --Yueof theNorth 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) *Use consistently either 10F or 22P in the image captions or "10F (22P)" or some such. Corrected.Jason Rees (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC) In the track maps captions mention the direction which the cyclones took. That would be rather redundant as i think it is obvious what track the cyclone took especially when you look at the image in conjunction with the timeline.Jason Rees (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I don't get it. This track for instance looks symmetric (starting with blue triangles, then yellow circles, red circles, yellow circles, blue triangles). How can I know which way it went? bamse (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Theres white lines in between each blue triangle etc which shows which way it went.Jason Rees (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Sure, but in which direction along the line did it go? From south to north or the other way aorund? bamse (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Well since the article says it formed north of Fiji it went north to south.Jason Rees (talk) 11:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC) The problem is that few people would know what the islands in that map are. Furthermore, it should not be necessary to crossread in the article in order to understand the images. Make it as easy as possible for the reader and just specify the direction in the image caption. Alternatively you could add directional arrows to the image. bamse (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) If it helps, I added in the key to the image file description will add fotenotes about the paths in a moment. --Yueof theNorth 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) added in footnotes --Yueof theNorth 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC) In the "see also" section, 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season is already linked in the intro so does not need to appear again here. removed bamse (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, all comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great list. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
*Comments "This is the period of the year when most tropical cyclones form within the south pacific ocean.[1]" Capitalize south pacific ocean. "The United State's Joint" No, it's United States' Fix those and I'll support. Courcelles (talk) 23:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC) They should be fixed now.Jason Rees (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "whilst the last disturbance dissipating" reads quite oddly to me, maybe "dissipated"? changed I think "whilst" is overused. I think Anhamirak has sorted this. let us know if you still think its overused.Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC) "to 6 different' six. changed "3 people were also killed by Cyclone Het" Three, and is that 3 included in the "at least 15"? changed and yes they are. I made a slight mistake when i originally calculated the casualties which i have now sorted out.Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC) "caused by Cyclones Heta and Ivy the " comma after Ivy, and I don't think you need to repeat the fact they're Cyclones here. In fact, there's quite a lot of repetition of Cyclone in the lead, where it's not really needed after you've introduced each one. changed Category 3 in the timeline appears to have a spare - Should be sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Don't put references on section headings. Ive found a slightly better place for the note.Jason Rees (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC) "RSMC Nadi issues their" vs "RSMC Nadi issues its" consistency needed. "RSMC Nadi issues the final" vs "RSMC Nadi issues its final"... once again, consistency preferred unless these have different meanings. Both comments sorted i think.Jason Rees (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Date format in references must be consistent, i.e. all mdy or ISO or dmy. changed The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 14 June 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 15:35, 14 June 2010 [23].

---

List of M*A*S*H episodes

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because M*A*S*H is generally acknowledged to be an important television series as well as a popular one. It therefore warrants an excellent episode list. I believe that all of the featured list criteria has been met and would now like to see the article moved up to featured list status. Jimknut (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments (wow, you scared them off alright!!) Gee, I didn't mean to! I thought there may have been plenty of M*A*S*H fans out there in Wikiland. "The series was produced by 20th Century Fox Television for the CBS network. It premiered on..." merge these two. Merged. "were retained and eventually became permanent cast members..." eventually? when? The seasons that Klinger and Father Mulcahy became regular cast members have been added. Sorry to be a pain but could you put a timezone on your "Timeslot"? I put in ETZ. Okay? Estimated Audience->Estimated audience. Changed. Does N/A mean that the final episode wasn't released on DVD in region 2? Changed to "not released" Title, you seem to have decided that "The.." shouldn't sort as T. Any reason? Same for "A ...". Maybe it's just my personal preference, but I would prefer these to sort in traditional alphabetical order rather than forcing them. I've left things alone for now. Traditional alphebetical order lists titles such as "The Trail of Henry Blake" and "A Smattering of Intelligence" as, respectively,"Trail of Henry Blake, The" and "Smattering of Intelligence, A". Do you want them that way? If so, then should I change the names of the writer and directors as well? (i.e. "Alan Alda" changed to "Alda, Alan".) I'm presuming that you're not suggesting that "The Trial of Henry Blake" files under "T", as this has never been the proper or traditional way to alphabetize a list. Some notes in parentheses are no italics, while most are, why? Changed — italics removed. "Lt.Col. " should there be a space between Lt. and Col.? Corrected. "David Isaacs (writer)," not sure why there's a pipe there. Fixed. Ref 7, don't like the leading zero in 09 in the date. Fixed. (Its now ref 9) Also, Los Angeles Times is a work, not a publisher. Changed to latimes.com, which seems to be the online publisher What makes www.bestcareanywhere.net a WP:RS? The author of this site derived his information from another site by someone named Doug Krause. I've now changed the ref to Krause's site, which is more accessable. The information I derived from his site are the broadcast dates and production codes (info that is oddly missing from the the books by Kalter and Reiss). Krause's information corresponds with the DVD releases of the series, so he seems to be reliable. Ref 76, spelling of indigenous. Spelling corrected. Is the second book really called "of M*A*S*H..."? No, it isn't. My mistake, now corrected. Trivia quizzes ought not form part of finest works' external links. This was a holdover from the previous incarnation of the episode guide. I left it in and planned to keep it there (mainly out of respect for the previous editor). However, based on your comment, I have now removed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Care to ramble some more? Jimknut (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Currently, my only problem with the list is that all of the dates throughout the list use the 'Month Day, Year' format, but the references at the bottom use the 'Day Month Year' format. Consistency would be nice, preferably in the 'Month Day, Year' format since it is an article about an American program. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

MOS says consistency within the article and consistency within the refs, but not necessarily consistency across both. However, to save someone a dull job, I've script-changed the ref dates to be mdy throughout, hope Jimknut doesn't mind and hope Another Believer can revisit to show support or other comments. Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, Rambling Man, I don't mind at all! Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance, The Rambling Man. While I do not conduct FLC assessments often, my concern has been resolved and the list looks good to me so I'd like to offer my support assuming the concerns of other reviewers have also been addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Mostly a very good list, I just have one irk: You use ETZ for the timeslots when it should probably just be ET. I'd prefer EST but I know that's not technically right; change it and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed ETZ to ET. Jimknut (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:49, 13 June 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 00:45, 13 June 2010 [24].

---

List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this because I believe that it meets all current FL criteria. It follows the structure established for football season FL's and having gone through further improvement after a Peer review, I think its now ready. Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Six paras in the lead is a little too much. Not the first time that has happened! I've got it down to four now. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't see a verb in that caption so it's an incomplete sentence, no full stop required. Fixed. "was considered as secondary to the Southern League." reference? Reference added. "more club's were" don't think you need that apostrophe. Fixed. "Remarkably, the club.." a bit too tabloidly. Remarkably, Ipswich have failed to be promoted having done shedloads of playoffs. I don't consider it remarkable, just depressing. This is just me trying to give you an example of POV...! Heh, fair point. I bet finishing second six years in a row was joyous though, compared to 2009–10; depressing doesn't do it justice. Fixed. One FA Cup links to, well, the FA Cup, another FA Cup links to a specific season. I don't like not knowing where I'm linking to. I've removed the second link to the specific season. "they were relegated" vs "for the first time in its history" now, being BritEng, I'm happy for it all to be plural, but at the least, be consistent. You're correct. Fixed. "as they attained 102 points in the Third Division" this needs context for non experts. When I put it in initially I thought it might be overdoing it a little for the lead, since its included in the table below with citations. Removed it now. Don't like the idea of attendance being hyphenated. Perhaps put a break after Average? Fixed. "scored 10 goals in 10 consecutive matches" 100 goals?! I know what you're saying but this doesn't read correctly for me. I see what you mean. That would've been quite something. Fixed. What makes footballsite.co.uk a WP:RS? I was warned in the peer review that Footballsite might be questioned as a reliable source. I've now added references to Statto which has been accepted as reliable in previous nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review. I'll get to work on it in the morning because its been a long day, I just wanted to get on quickly and see what I have to do. Regarding your first comment; I assume its okay if I merge one or two of them together? Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments in passing... I've already had a go at this one at peer review. The lead section's very blue. Maybe link to the first Football League season article, so readers can see how the link works, and after that, only link to a season if its particularly relevant. Especially as most of the xxxx-yy Football League articles are just garishly-coloured league tables. Thats true. I've removed them all apart from three; the most recent season, the first season as a professional club, and the first season in the Football League. "The club won their first League championship in forty-three years at the end of the 2001–02 season, breaking numerous records in the process" my immediate reaction is "such as...?" I've added three; points tally, goals conceded, and clean sheets. Note W. amalgamation is a dablink, and as a plain English word, doesn't really need linking anyway Fixed. Note AB, AF both have apostrophes that shouldn't be there, there may be others Good spot, I removed a few more on further inspection. Although the nominator goes even further over the top than I do when it comes to "informative" footnotes :-) it is nice to see a sports list taking seriously the part of Criterion 3a that encourages "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". I would like to point out that it has less than the article regarding your club. ;-) It was you who suggested that I have a good go at it and once I got going I kept finding more and more to add. I've added a couple more book references for clarity. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for all of your help in the last couple of weeks. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Satisfies criteria. I do have one general comment on the apparently inconsistent grammar of football clubs which comes up regularly and was raised here by Giants2008, i.e. the application of the British-English discretionary plural. Where "the club" refers to the entity called Plymouth Argyle Football Club, it would normally take a singular verb: so "Plymouth Argyle Football Club is an English association football club..." and "the club was founded in 1886" is grammatically correct in British English. Where it refers to the team or the players, it would normally, and grammatically, take the plural. It comes naturally to the BritEng writer, which is probably why the nominator couldn't see anything wrong when Giants raised the question. (I tend to work round it on Wikipedia by only using the words "the club" when I mean the entity or when the verb takes the same form in singular and plural.) To the British ear, there's no inconsistency, just a WP:ENGVAR difference, and the change to "PAFC are an English association football club" really grates. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are a couple of dead links; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I was hoping the page in question would come back, but its been nearly a month so it doesn't look likely right now. I've removed one dead link in specific references and replaced the one in general references with an archived version which goes up to the 2007–08 season. Cheers. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Is the club singular or plural? In the lead, it varies widely in different spots. Can you point out where please? I can't see where it differs but it wouldn't surprise me if its blatently obvious. It happens sometimes, especially in the morning! I'm not an expert at writing prose but I try my best to make it roll off the tongue easily. The easiest place for me to spot it is in the opening part. We have "Plymouth Argyle Football Club is", "They compete", and "The club was". Quite a variation, especially as the rest of the article sees the club used in a plural sense most of the time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) How does it look now? I've seen variations in other season articles which is why I've been a bit confused. Some use "are" when describing the club, others use "is", etc. "They were also invited to compete in the Western League, a competition which was considered as secondary to the Southern League." Lose "as" since it is an unneeded word in the sentence. Removed "as". "but it was to be Argyle's last as a member...". Last what? I'm assuming last season, but it doesn't say that earlier in the sentence. Added "season". "with Argyle being placed in the latter." Never have been a fan of these "with ... -ing" type sentences. As a replacement, you could try "; Argyle was (or were) placed in the latter." Changed it to "Argyle were placed in the latter." Would you mind splitting this into its own sentence? Read it and you'll see what I mean. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I see, a run-on sentence. Done. "before winning another League title in the 1958–59 season, the re-unified Third Division." Is there supposed to be another "in" after the comma. If not, the last part of the sentence should be moved to what it's intended to expand upon (the title). Added "in" after the comma. All of the colors should have symbols for accessibility, not just the promotion and relegation ones. Added one each for winner and runner-up colours. Bolding is starting to become discouraged in FLs, so the entire season column could stand to lose it. The normal alternative (italics) is already in use, so I have no real issue with using it for highlighting here; however, there should be a note in the key on its use in the position column, to match the other existing notes. Removed the bolded column and champion positions. Note J: Try not to have a sentence start with a number, such as in "21 of the 22 Southern League...". Fixed. Note W: Picky, but I don't think the hyphen in "newly-united" is needed. From my FAC experience, most hyphens after -ly are discouraged by the leading prose reviewers. Fixed. In references 61 and 62, the publisher (The Independent) should be in italics since it is a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for the helpful review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 10:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) One more thing to go with my responses above: in note AD, "clubs" should be switched to "club's". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the comments. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support all looks good. Sandman888 (talk) 13:10, 2 June 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 00:45, 13 June 2010 [25].

---

List of accolades received by The Hurt Locker

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) and JuneGloom07 Talk? ; 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list after quite a bit of work giving this list a through overhaul in sourcing and the prose, as well as bringing the tables into the same format used by similar FL's, List of accolades received by Inglourious Basterds and List of accolades received by Avatar. We look forward to any and all reviews and comments. Courcelles (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Comments British Independent Film Awards: discrepancy between the main list and the infobox. Houston film critics society: results column is one cell. Should be three for consistency. Jujutacular T · C 06:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC) You're right on both points. Fixed them both. Courcelles (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Only a couple things from me. Other than that, a very nice list - meets all criteria. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Infobox has "Awards & Nominations" no need for Nominations to be capitalised. I know (I know) it's not part of this FLC but I suggest it's fixed. Done Not convinced you need to wikilink United States. Done "highest per-screen average " what is this? I hazard a guess it's the number of people watching? It's certainly unclear to a non-expert. Added a note defining the term. Couldn't figure out a way to work it into the prose, though. Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC) "In total, the film has grossed over $40 million..." If it were me, I'd put a date on this, so "As of May 2010..." because already it's up to 48 million... Done "at critics circles" shouldn't that be "critics' circles"? Done "The Hurt Locker received three nominations .... The Hurt Locker received nine nominations.." reads pretty repetitively. Done, I hope. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) "the Best Director category" vs "the best director award" be consistent in your capitalisation. Done "Anthony Mackie]" spare ] Done I may have argued against myself in the past, but I think the award is more important than the date, so I'd put the current second column first. Ref 15, spare period. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I hope you don't mind if I cross these off as I go through them. I have a small problem with the second to last point. If we switch the columns the list will be consistent with List of accolades received by Precious, but not with the lists for Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, Ratatouille and Wall-E. Would the others need to be changed too? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 23:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC) June, it is not considered good wiki-etiquette to strike other editor's comments. Please put indented "done"'s below each resolved comment instead. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Ah, sorry about that, I wasn't sure if it was okay or not. Thanks. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC) I think I agree with June, the order of the date of ceremony and the awards used here is more in line with similar FL's, although if you think it is best, of course it can be changed. Courcelles (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I have no problems switching the columns, I just wanted to know if the other lists would need their columns switching too. I can do Inglourious while I'm there, but I'll leave the others to their respective main contributors. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I would prefer to have the award column first, since that's what the list is sorted by. It might also be worthwhile to put in a key that says that the dates link to the specific ceremony, if applicable, as that's not immediately obvious. A good list, though, so those two points are up to you. --PresN 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've now swapped the first two columns around. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I made a few reference tweaks, namely updating URLs. Only thing iffy that I notice is the date linking in the first column is inconsistent. I presume you're just linking the first ones. In that case February 13, 14, and 27 should be linked, as should January 7. Provisional support hinging on that being fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Those links don't go to articles like December 14, they go to things like African-American Film Critics Association Awards 2009- (The enxt column links to the general African-American Film Critics Association article) where we have individual articles for that year's edition of the award, which we don't have for a good many of those, hence why some dates aren't linked to anywhere. Courcelles (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, didn't see that earlier. Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:44, 10 June 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 09:50, 11 June 2010 [26].

---

List of Record Mirror number-one singles

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I was amazed to find out that the UK Singles Charts and Guinness Book of British Hit Singles that are completely taken as wrote nowadays only tell part of the story. Here is the otherside and a list of those songs that were number-one and are not forgotten about as such. Additionally, I think the list does meets the criteria as well as being interesting.

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments - really nice to find an original list like this, not wishing to be a patronising sod, but well done. Some areas of review: You launch into the rival idea of charts before stating what this article is really about. It may end up being chronologically inverted, but start with what we're about to read. How is this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC) You abbreviated BRMB but never use the abbreviation. Removed "rival chart,NME, was" spaces? Spaced " a phone poll." I think, being an encyclopedia, we should stick with "telephone" Done "the he increased cost" huh? Fixed "On 24 March 1962 the paper stopped" even for just pure aesthetics, comma after 1962. Done "NME 's chart.[6][4]" numerical order please? Check the others. Done, for the tables some are intentionally not in numerical order because they are in chronological order. This was once explicitlly mentioned in the MoS or something. I can't find a link at the moment, but one the other hand cannot find anything that would not permit it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Always been a moan of mine, I've never seen an academic text with references out of numerical order, no matter what, but I'm sure there's no MOS order mandate either. I'd prefer numerical order, just because, if anything else, it looks better... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I have changed the way the whole table is reference, per your point below. This has also sorted this problem. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "as the best selling single of 1958" hyphenate best-selling. Done "and spening 9 weeks" spending nine weeks. Fixed Not sure why the tables are split per year. Maybe you can help with this. Ideally I want to keep the headings for each year, create an year anchor system (a la Premier League Manager of the Month) and allow the table to sort through the repeated headings. I thought this was possible and that I had seen an FL/FLC with this capability (I think it may have been sport related). Do you recall such a thing, or has Wikipedia entered my unconscious!?! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Can't recall right now. With a list this size, I don't see a convincing reason for it to not be a single table... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Okay I did some messing about with syntax and got what I had planned to work. This method isn't currently documented at Help:Sorting and may be helpful there. More importantly, what do you think if this layout? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I think it's okay, but now you have the problem that when resorting the table, the references for each of the subheadings don't go with the sorting, so they don't necessarily reflect the right source... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Okay so shall I take all the sources out and put them as general references? Only I thought people had begun to prefer references on column headers and inline as opposed to the general references where direct facts are more difficult to verify as one is unsure if it is covered generally or not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Right I've put something in place that hopefully covers all bases. Let me know what you think. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Put the refs in numerical order (in the notes) and you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Artist should sort by surname. Done. Also made groups of type "The Band" sort under "Band". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC) References need spaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens or =. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I've one question about the years and I will get round to the surname sorting when I have some more time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I guess just one more thing, the "Dave McAleer" reference, firstly what makes it reliable, secondly, did he really spell it "diferent"? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC) His notability in the chart music field is such that he even has an article, Dave McAleer. He's the main Guinness' Hit Singles guy among other publications he's involved with. Whilst I believe he is one of the best authorities on the subject it does appear that his reputation doesn't extend to quality of spelling! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is the disambiguating "(UK)" necessary in the title? There is no other Record Mirror publication that charts songs, is there? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

True, page moved along with associated candidatures et al. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose. I found the following problems:

1. The Record Mirror is a former weekly pop music newspaper. Not everyone knows that it was a British newspaper.

   Done, good spot. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

2. The NME chart formed the basis of the UK Singles Chart and is used as the source for number-one singles by The Official Charts Company and Guinness' British Hit Singles & Albums until 10 March 1960, when a chart compiled by Record Retailer is used instead. I do not understand why you use the past simple then suddenly switch to the present simple? Is NME chart used now as the basis of the UK Singles Chart? The answer is no. So, please, use a consistent tense.

   Surely the fact that NME chart is not used, means the choice of a past tense is correct: isn't formed past tense? Also, the following sentence "is used" is present because the books still exist and it is still the source (present). My knowledge of when to use which tense is bad and, whilst I appreciate the links I'm still not that confident I've done what you mean so could you please check it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

   I clarified it myself. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

3. However, prior to 15 February 1969, when the British Market Research Bureau chart was established there was no universally accepted chart. There should be a comma after 'established'. And also, why are not you using the past perfect here?

   Um, not 100% I understand what you mean but is it sorted now? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

4. Furthermore, despite not reaching number-one, Pat Boone's "Love Letters in the Sand" was classified by Record Mirror as the best-selling song of 1957 having entered the chart at number eleven on 13 July and spending 9 weeks in the top three. What does 'number-one' refer to here? I also do not understand the last clause: 'having entered the chart at number eleven on 13 July and spending 9 weeks in the top three.'

   The clause explains how the non-number one was the best-selling song. I've seperated the clauses more. Is it better? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

   I still do not understand the last clause. It is incomprehensible. Ruslik_Zero 16:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

   I'm tried again but I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer than that. The phrase "entered the chart" is the correct terminology[27] for the first time a song appears on a chart and, after that, the rest is (hopefully) self-explanatory. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

   Better now. Ruslik_Zero 18:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I've made some amendments and hopefully I understood things correctly and if not I would appreciate it if you would put me right. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The only thing that concerns me about this list is the divisions with the Artist etc. rows being re-added every year. The list is not overly long so I would think the one at the top is the only one that is needed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful. The list has been (loosely) modelled on existing FL List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK). That keeps all years completely seperate (which in my opinion makes sortability fairly useless). I combined them all but kept the headings. That way the contents can be used to link directly to a year externally using the year section headings: For example 1961. I'm just outlining the reasons why I made it this way. If you are still unhappy please let me know. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Since Giants' concerns are also addressed I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Some overlinking is present in the lead. NME and Record Retailer don't need multiple links; one will do for each.
• "Additionally, the Record Mirror and other charts also differed...". The struck word is a redundancy, unneeded due to the presence of the sentence's first word.
• Note 2: I think "the" should be removed before the dates. Doesn't seem to match the rest of the article.
• Many of the references should have Record Mirror italicized as a publisher of a print newspaper. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All done I believe. Thanks for the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - The breaking the table up by year is all well and good, but if you try to use any of the sorts it no longer makes any sense- The divisions are suddenly arbitrary, not in any recognizable fashion. Not sure if there's anything you can do about it. Also, the last sentence of the lead- I don't think that there's any need to repeat the name of the song so close to the first time. In any case, Support. --PresN 15:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Once sorted, the divisions are arbitrary but I don't see this as a problem given the advantage it caused beforehand. As for the repetition, it is not sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Sandman888 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with others that breaking up by year is a bad idea. I don't see the need for externally linking to a specific year either, it's not that a long lists, and it will not get longer over the years. Sandman888 (talk) 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree that others think breaking up is a bad idea. Wizardman seemed happy with my response and PresN accepted there is nothing that can be done about it. My problem I have with your comment is that, had I directly followed List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK) and completely separated the years I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid. In my opinion, this just gives the best of both worlds. I also think you would get some opposition if you tried to put that list into one long table (I'll try it if you like). For transparency, I wish to get a fairly standardised format and will be looking at bringing the 1970s list I have been working on to FLC next. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • IMO standardisation is a not better per se. I'd rather use breaking when appropriate, as on your long the 1970s list than on the short ones. But I shan't make a fuss about it. Have you thought about just marking the line between the years? I don't know if that's possible though. Sandman888 (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
      • It is certainly possible but introduces a new problem. What happens to the lines when you sort the table? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Why is "many national newspapers" in quotations? Jujutacular ^T · C 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Because, saying something like that will always require a reference so I have used a directly referenced quotation to avoid any original research. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course provide a reference. But what makes it different from any other referenced fact that makes it require quotes? Jujutacular ^T · C 18:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it was said by Dave McAleer who is quite an expert in all things charts. That's all I can think of for quoting. If you still feel it is unwarrented let me know and I'll remove them (or you can). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, quotations just mean its someone's opinion instead of a fact. So I think either he is reliable source, and it's a fact, and we'll reference it; or we're presenting it as his opinion. If we did leave quotes, we should include who said it in the sentence, per WP:QUOTE (although that's just an essay, but I agree). Anyway, as long as you're fine with it, I'll remove the quotes. Thanks for bearing with me :) Great work on the list. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Jujutacular ^T · C 19:08, 8 June 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 07:28, 9 June 2010 [28].

---

List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings

Nominator(s): GrapedApe (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...it has gone through a thorough peer review and should be ready to pass the FL criteria. --GrapedApe (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support All my concerns were taken care of at the peer review. Only a couple more things would be nice: a few more images and alt text. Nevertheless, I believe it meets all criteria. Great work! Jujutacular ^T · C 07:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Alt text added. I, too, would like to add more pictures, but I can't find any other freely licensed ones on the internet. Will have to (buy a camera) and take more when I return to campus in January...--GrapedApe (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford is an article, why do you say that this is a list? Bencherlite^Talk 07:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• The Jesus College page seems to include a more cohesive discussion of the broader architecture of the College, while this one focuses on the campus buildings at a granular level.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just a drive-by: I'd say this is definitely a list along the lines of List of Major League Baseball awards; it's more focused on covering the very main points of all of the topics, with daughter articles to cover what doesn't fit in this list. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Q: Why are buildings belonging to Washington & Jefferson College notable? Nvm. :) Sandman888 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NYCRuss ☎ 19:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

*Comments By Lazear Chemistry Hall, The campus hapter. Should this be "chapter?" -done Should "Hays Hall had deteriorated to the point where it no longer able to house students" be "Hays Hall had deteriorated to the point where it was no longer able to house students?"-done By Thompson Hall, should "it steps and green space" be "its steps and green space?"-done By U. Grant Miller Library, should "the collection currently hold 210,000 volumes" be "the collection currently holds 210,000 volumes?"-done By Rossin Campus Center, should "It is named after former trustee Pete C. Rossin and built in 1994" be "It is named after former trustee Pete C. Rossin and was built in 1994?"-done Should "Ross Memorial Park and Alexandre Stadium is combined multi-purpose outdoor athletic facility" be "Ross Memorial Park and Alexandre Stadium is a combined multi-purpose outdoor athletic facility?"-done "It contains with a variety of strength and cardiovascular training equipment, including treadmills, exercise bikes, elliptical running machines, free weight machines, a weight rack, squat racks, and a three-lane indoor track suspended above the main floor" sounds awkward. NYCRuss ☎ 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) -done Yep, all good catches. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. NYCRuss ☎ 19:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great list, very easy to understand and enjoyable to read! WereWolf (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good list, nice layout. Sandman888 (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments a nice read, but a few minor issues... Would prefer to see the image at the top of the lead, rather than after the first paragraph.--done "Washington, Pennsylvania" is overlinked in the first paragraph.--done "the oldest college building west of the Allegheny Mountains." is being west of Allegheny Mountains somehow relevant? In the original 13 colonies, the Allegheny Mountains signaled the beginning of the western frontier.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I'd say for non-US readers, a note would be really useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Should be clarified now.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "originally the home to a female seminary" don't really see a need for "the" here.--done "housing upperclassmen" sorry to be a pain, but what's an "upperclassman"? Certainly a term I'm not familiar with. It means older students--basically any non-freshmen. It's a pretty common word in the US. Still want it to be changed?--GrapedApe (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I'd say for non-US readers, a note would be really useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) fixed.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "freshmen men" reads very peculiarly.. perhaps "male freshmen"?--done "The 60 acres (0.24 km2) campus" this is probably a result of the convert template, but normally that would be "The 60-acre ..." wouldn't it? (same applies to other instances of this further down) I got the first instance. I didn't see any others down further. I miss any?--GrapedApe (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Things like the "50,000 square feet (4,600 m2)" for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Got 2 more. See any more that I missed?--GrapedApe (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Any real need to relink Dod and McMillan in the Campus section, so soon after the lead?--done "a historic" normally I'd expect "an historic" but that may not be USEng.--done "research labs" expand that "labs".--done "fully equipped" hyphenate?--done Spell out SAACS (i.e. American Chemical Society) rather than use an abbreviation that many won't get.--done "new paint, carpet, computers, laser printer, sofas, end tables, and white boards" this is borderline trivia really, can you wrap it up into a more succinct sentence?--done "$18.1 million dollars" no need for "dollars" here.--done "Fraternities, and then sororities after 1970, were the first occupants" well, only one could have been the first..--done "2009–2010" could just be "2009–10"--done "offers 4 single rooms" sounds a bit like a sales pitch, and that 4 should be four.--done "By 2008, 8 of the 10 buildings were occupied by Greek organizations.[1] By 2010, all 10 buildings were occupied by Greek organizations.[83]" repetitive. Can you not merge these statements somehow?--removed redundancy "eighth oldest" hyphenate.--done Victorian appears to be linked several times.--done "of Duncan Glass fame" so famous there's no Wikipedia article? I'm afraid I've never heard of him. I will probably write the article in a few weeks, but the reference to the glass company is removed for now--GrapedApe (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) ping pong->table tennis.--done "5-0" en-dash, not a hyphen please.--done Field Turf doesn't take a space.--done ref 4 date format is inconsistent with the others--done Ref 46 needs an en-dash.--done ref 107 seems to have double quote marks.--done The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good but this confuses me a little "In 1966, it was razed to build a junior high school[125] West College Building was razed 1912 to build a high school." Was West College Building the aforementioned junior high or was that another building in Canonsburg? Also ref 125 should follow punctuation of some sort. --ImGz (t/c) 04:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Punctuation fixed. West College Building was a Jefferson College building in Canonsburg, different from the jr or middle school. That section seems clear to me, especially since the dates (1922/1966) indicate that West College Building wasn't the jr. high school.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• A quick read through without any introduction of what the building was used for resulted in my confusion. It is better with the punctuation though I would suggest you add more info on what the building's purpose was, if you know. support. --ImGz (t/c) 17:45, 8 June 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 07:28, 9 June 2010 [29].

---

List of Major League Baseball batting champions

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The final of the non-lead articles for the Triple Crown topic. I think it's all good, lemme know if you think any more images should be added. Also, TRM, KV and I are going to work up the Triple Crown article as one merged topic as we really feel that's the appropriate style (but that's a discussion for that eventual FLC). Also, do you guys think the 02 and 10 disputed titles should include the 2 players involved in the table (so you at least know who are the candidates for the championship without jumping to the note)? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• My support is given to an article I believe to be quite excellent. The standard nitpicks will be left on the talk page of the article soon. NW (Talk) 19:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• And responded to. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "In Major League Baseball (MLB) it is calculated by dividing a player's hits by his at bats (AB)." - comma after "MLB", and is this calculated differently in some other league? This is an MLB article, so all that matters is the MLB calculation. Who knows, some league could try to account for walks, treat sacrifices as official ABs, etc, etc. Heck, look at the batting average article, if nothing else needs to be separated from the cricket batting average. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) "Under current rules" - comma after "highest batting average" - comma after "they win the title" - he wins the title, agreement of singular/plural "(159 hits in 455 ABs)" - comma after "Barnes hit a .429 batting average" - would be better as Barnes batted .429 "established in 1901" - comma after "second-most titles" - comma after "with the 1910 title" - comma after "holds the most consecutive titles " - should probably be won the most consecutive titles, and comma after "Without the 1910 title" - comma after "from 1911-1915" - per MOS, from... to constructions should not use dashes; this happens five times. "Under the 3.1 PA qualification" - comma after "Since Williams' 1941" - comma after, and might be better as Since Williams in 1941 I don't think a comma is needed here. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Now that you re-worded it, no comma is necessary. — KV5 • Talk • 02:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC) "to ever lead" - ever to lead, rm split infinitive "at .365 in the AL" - commas around Check diacritics throughout; Hanley Ramírez was the first I found comma after Ramírez "by just .00009", "by just .00016 points" - rm "just" in both instances "1902 American League title" - comma after "1882 and 1885" - comma after Have there been ties? If not, remove "(s)" from "Winner(s)" and "Runner(s)-up" in tables and key Good work. — KV5 • Talk • 20:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC) One more comma needed: after "With the modern scarcity of .400 hitters". That's all. — KV5 • Talk • 02:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 18:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "a contentious race" I'm not clear what this means I'm afraid. Shouldn't 162 game season be hyphenated? "[9][4]" can I be awfully rude and ask you to place these in numerical order? Is there a reason why the first and second para treat the batting average to 3 decimal places, while subsequently we move to four? Any reason why Pujols isn't linked in the lead? Terrorists did it. :p "Ross Barnes' season leading average of .429 in the NL's inaugural season set a single-season record that stood for a decade." how many times can you fit the word "season" into a single-sentence caption?! "and won 4 consecutive titles" -> four. Otherwise, typically excellent, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) All done, thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support done deal. I wish all lists arrived here in this condition. Good stuff Stax. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comments Support –
  • Could move the at bat link to the first sentence, though it's not the most vital thing in the world.
  • We still have the four decimal place averages in the second paragraph. Is that intentional?

• Yes. Preciseness is key, particularly when dealing with records of that level or single season marks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Sentence starting with a number: "15 of these seasons...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• All done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:53, 2 June 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 17:04, 8 June 2010 [30].

---

List of international cricket centuries at the Kensington Oval

Nominator(s): Mr.Apples2010 (talk) and Aaroncrick ^TALK 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm satisfied it now meets all requirements in order to become a FL.

This is the first FLC of it's type; however, as many of you will probably be well aware, there have been sucessful candidates on a particular batsman's centuries. Aaroncrick ^TALK 06:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Harrias

* Some explanation of what the numbers in brackets mean would be good in the key. It's clear to me that if they have scored more than one century on the ground, it is identifying if it is their first or second etc, but it would be nice to have that explicitly mentioned. Can you look at the wording please, I'm not sure. Aaroncrick TALK 10:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The issue over how Pakistani (etc) names should sort is still about, I'm pretty sure that some of them shouldn't be sorted by the second name, but as I said before, you'd be best seeking more knowledgable advise than my own! Who should I ask? Aaroncrick TALK 10:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe try over at WP:PAKISTAN or WP:INDIA? I don't really know myself to be honest. SpacemanSpiff may have an idea too? Harrias talk 20:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) In this particular case the last names for Indian cricketers is the actual last name (the last name problems generally show up with South Indian cricketers), so sorts will be ok for them. I'm not entirely sure about the Pakistani cricketers, but they appear to be correct currently, the only question is - should it be Mohammad Yousuf or Yousuf Youhana which was his name at the time of this event? —SpacemanSpiff 07:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC) I have no real issues with the prose (though I'm sure others will), my only slight concern is with the use of 'However' to start the final sentence, I don't really think it's the right word to use. Harrias talk 10:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Removed "however". Aaroncrick TALK 10:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The 'Balls' column doesn't sort completely correctly, on the first two clicks (which is all I did before) it is fine, but on the third and fourth clicks, '95' is out of position. This can be fixed with the sort function, similar to the 'Score' column; for a look at how complex it can get, look at my FL List of Philadelphia Flyers players. This is still an outstanding problem. Harrias talk 11:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Oh sorry, thought that Apples had done it... So basically you want what was done the the runs column? Aaroncrick TALK 11:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Pretty much, yeah. As I said, if you're unsure, I had all kinds of stuff going on in the Flyers list! Harrias talk 21:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Does it only need to be done for the Test table? Is it because of the "NR" values? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Yes and yes! Harrias talk 06:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I think I've fixed it now, not sure I did it in the most efficient way though. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks Apples! Sorry, I've been busy of late. Aaroncrick TALK 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already looked over this article for you a couple of times, and it's looking in pretty good shape. Have picked up on a couple more things though I'm afraid!

Support: all my picky issues have now been resolved, good work chaps! Harrias ^talk 10:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't "15,000 capacity" be hyphenated? Not sure ref 3 backs up the first century. Second para, you finally link hundred to century (cricket), I'm guessing this should be done way beforehand. "Nevertheless, nine" why "nevertheless"? Not sure "balls" should link to the physical object, it should be about "deliveries" not the red leather object. And you go on to link "deliveries" to the same thing... You have "Inn." in the key and "Inns." in the table. Not sure why Centuries is capitalised in the section title. Nor am I sure why Team is capitalised in the headings. I think balls/innings should come after the player. Sure, have the # then the score then I think you need the player, the country he played for, then the stats. Between the 'Team' and 'Opposing team' columns? Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I have arranged it in this way on the ODI table, if it is agreed that it looks the best in this way I will do it to the Test table as well. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I certainly prefer it that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC) In Safari (Mac OS X) score doesn't sort correctly. Does it now? Aaroncrick TALK 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Your key should include what (x/y) means. They're not brackets, they're parentheses...! Parenteses being a type of.. bracket! Not that it matters, as the point was understood, and that is after all, the reason for having language. Harrias talk 18:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Okay... done. Aaroncrick TALK 00:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Forgive my pedantry... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I'm sure you could add more cats, e.g. "Cricket grounds in the West Indies". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I'm really not very good when it comes to cats. I've added the one you suggested, however. Aaroncrick TALK 00:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC) The cricinfo link says capacity is 28,000, and doesn't mention any other sport (you say "Primarily used for cricket") The 28,000 was for the World Cup. I still haven't fixed the name issue; though, I think everything else is done. Aaroncrick TALK 22:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) The Cricinfo page says 28,000... And there's no mention of other sports/events in that ref... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Okay tweaked. And, I'll ad a ref from the WICB that says the capacity is 15,000. After the World Cup I temporary stand on one side of the ground was demolished and was replaced by a semi-beach. Aaroncrick TALK 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – List looks solid overall. The only issue I saw was overlinking in a couple of places. Brian Lara doesn't need two links in the lead, and the second century link should be removed now that it has a link in the first paragraph. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks great! WereWolf (talk) 04:01, 8 June 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 16:46, 8 June 2010 [31].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (archaeological materials)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is another list of National Treasures of Japan. It has been modeled after the featured lists of national treasure paintings, sculptures, temples, shrines, residences and castles. bamse (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Sandman888 (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

: why include the japanese name of each treasure? Because the official names of the treasures are in Japanese. I am not aware of any official English language list of all national treasures of Japan. There are often various English names in the sources for the same treasure. Listing the Japanese name alongside the English name, helps to avoid confusion. In one case (sekidō ) I could not find any accepted English name, so I left the Japanese name. Not an argument, but other featured national treasure lists also have the Japanese names. bamse (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC) It's also consistent with all of the other featured lists in this group. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Have you tried any of these Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name suggestion for finding an English name? As for consistency, I'm afraid that's not an argument :) Sandman888 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) You mean for the (sekidō)? Yes, I checked all kinds of English language sources but could not find it mentioned anywhere. Considering that it is probably one of the lesser known treasures, it is not surprising. Since the "Details" column tells exactly what it is, I don't think it is a problem to stay with the Japanese name only. Also, English language books on Japanese art often only mention Japanese names for artworks so we are in good company. Anyway, I will ask the wikiproject Japan for help. Maybe somebody there is better in using google. bamse (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Oops. Found it mentioned as "stone column" in a book (possibly only recently added to google books). Added a reference and the English name. bamse (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you considering putting the Japanese names in notes? That way they will not take up space in the list. It might be a hassle but I think it'll help attract a wider audience. Sandman888 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. I asked the wikiproject Japan about guidelines in this case and requested here a template which would reduce the hassle of converting to the style you suggested. bamse (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That would certainly be a step forward! Looking forward to the outcome. Btw, I edited a minor flaw in the list. Sandman888 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Considering the list is of Japanese National Treasures, putting the Japanese in notes would be a step backward, IMO. Relegating the actual names of the treasures to the footnotes would be a bad idea. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. However it also depends on whether the typical reader knows enough Japanese to make sense of the parantheses. Since I don't have a preference for either way, I'll wait what other reviewers think about it. bamse (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If they don't know how to read Japanese, then they will ignore the parenthetical part. I do the same with languages I don't know. "People may not understand it or be able to read it" is not a reason to not include it, especially in the case where it would be removing or displacing the actual title of the item. The only case where I'd be fine omitting it is if the individual national treasure had its own article which was linked to. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Japanese would not disappear completely, but moved to a footnote. Anyway, now I tend to leave it in as is, because, after all the national treasures are designated with their Japanese name and the official source also lists them by their Japanese name only. All the English names are due to secondary sources such as museum websites or books on Japanese art. bamse (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see if other editors have the same feelings regarding Japanese names. The average wikipedian almost certainly doesn't understand it, and we do have a policy to use English, WP:UE, which doesn't operate by what's official, but what's common. Sandman888 (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But if the Japanese names provide additional information which is not (and cannot be) expressed easily in English, it is worthwhile to have Japanese alongside English. Please note that most wikipedia articles on Japanese topics start with the Japanese name (in kanji or hiragana or katakana) and its reading. Since this is a list of Japanese items (National Treasures) it should have Japanese names. Also, if this list was a list of Japanese people, it would be very worthwhile to have Japanese names in the table because of the ambiguity in spelling. Similarly, in this case there are often various English names for the treasures found in literature. So, providing the fixed Japanese name helps to avoid ambiguity here. bamse (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've been peripherally involved with these articles as a copyeditor. Currently five have been promoted to FL such as, List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) and List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings). In my view the formatting should be consistent across the series, which I believe is the formatting presented in this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Feel free to expand that lead image up to maybe 300px if the resolution supports it. Expanded with "upright"-parameter. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) You put a comma in 14,000BC but not 8000BC (and other examples) - we normally separate thousands, and consistently so. Fixed (hopefully all) occurrences. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Because of rust few iron objects remain from this time." confusing, this presumably should be part of another sentence? Reworded by Truthkeeper88 in this edit. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Usage - text after a semi-colon doesn't need to start with a capital letter. Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "43.0 cm (16.9 in)" vs "50–53 cm (20–21 in)" yet another boring TRM question over number of decimal places and internal consistency. Same reply as here: That's the accuracy provided by the various sources. I rounded everything to one decimal if the respective source provided this accuracy. I left "50–53 cm", etc where the source did not provide more accuracy. With lengths in this list ranging from millimeters to meters, it is not reasonable to provide the same accuracy for all lengths in my opinion. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "58.9 cm x 5.8 cm x 0.4 cm" there was another x symbol used for "by", be consistent throughout. Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Ref 32 needs en-dashes. Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) What is BRILL? Wikilinked to Brill Publishers. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) "Nishikawa, Kyōtarō" ref needs an en-dash. Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to have a look at the list. I replied above. bamse (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Mostly a good list. I agree that the Japanese text in the tables is fine as is. A few things I noticed:
  • "and have been designated national treasures since the Law for the Protection of Cultural Properties came into force on June 9, 1951." I think 'came into effect' would sound better.
    • Changed as suggested. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph seemed awfully long; I tweaked this to make them more even, let me know if it's wrong.
    • Thank you for tweaking. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the details are good, but a couple, such as Dogu with palms together, have nothing more than the dimensions. I'd imagine there would be a bit more to add for those.
    • I expanded the "Dogu with palms together" and the "Jomon Venus" details. Please let me know if you think that other entries need to be expanded as well. The idea of this table is to summarize only the most important or most interesting information of the treasures. Comprehensive details should eventually go into the (to-be-written) articles of each national treasure. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I replied above. bamse (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments I prefer the use of "colwidth" instead of simply 2 columns for the reflist, as it is more versatile. That would be fine with me. What value do you use for "colwidth"? bamse (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 25em looks like it would work. Jujutacular T · C 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) 30em looked better on my screen so I went with it. Hope it is ok with you. bamse (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Looks good. Jujutacular T · C 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) "Most entries (6) are located in the Tokyo National Museum." 6 of 44 entries are located there, and that's "most"? Confusing. Rewritten by Truthkeeper: "The Tokyo National Museum houses the greatest number of archaeological national treasures, with 6 of the 44." bamse (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 seem to belong apart from the first paragraph. Perhaps put them under a separate heading - "History"? I am reluctant to do this because in my opinion these paragraphs are an important part of the lead section, i.e., they help to establish context and notability among others. Please note that there are many crossreferences from the plain history to specific treasures. For instance the fact that these treasures are typical artefacts (and often the oldest of their kind) of various periods of (pre-)history is expressed in this historical introduction. bamse (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Fair enough, concern withdrawn. Jujutacular T · C 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) "The table's columns (except for Details and Image) are sortable pressing the arrow symbols." Grammar check. Fixed by Truthkeeper. bamse (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) In the "Usage" bullet points, some end in full stops and some do not. Not sure what you mean here. There are full stops after full sentences and no full stops after incomplete sentences or phrases. bamse (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that. I meant that you should reword to either use all complete sentences or all incomplete sentences (for consistency). Jujutacular T · C 20:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I see. Reworded to use incomplete sentences. bamse (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC) "Excavation" column of the list, some end in full stops and some do not. Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC) "Details" column - ditto. Fixed. bamse (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Some of the dates in the list are very specific, how are exact days known? Through inscriptions on the objects themselves. bamse (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I was thinking that might be the case, thank you. Jujutacular T · C 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very nice list, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. I support with just one comment. You should mention historical periods (Asuka, Nara, Heian), when various events described in the fourth paragraph of the lead happened. You do this in the first three paragraphs, but omit in the fourth, which seems strange. For instance, you should say that Buddhism was adopted in Asuka period (first sentence). Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I added Asuka and Nara period as suggested. Other periods were already present. bamse (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Few Points. Alt Text on some of the images need to be checked, Ref 89 doesn't work for me, any reason why the language isn't specified in some of the references? Afro (DontTazeMeBro) ^{- Afkatk} 20:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. As far as I understand, alt-text is not a requirement of featured lists anymore. Fixed ref 89 (which probably changed due to a town merger). The language is only specified for non-English sources (did I forget any?) which is in accordance with the MOS. bamse (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good here. The experience gained from getting the other National Treasure lists through FLC clearly shows through here. The table's good and I like the layout of the lead. Presenting an explanation of the artefacts and National Treasures followed by a brief excursion into Japanese history to put the artefacts into context seems to me like a sensible way to do it. There are a couple of points below I'd like to see addressed, but they're fairly minor copy editing issues and shouldn't stand in the way of promotion. Congratulations on another fine list. Nev1 (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• "such pottery may have had a symbolic meaning or was used as ceremonial objects": "was used" is singular while "objects" is plural. Maybe change to "...meaning or was used ceremonially"?

• Changed as suggested. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• "which were introduced from the mainland": does that mean mainland Asia?

• Yes, mainland Asia, or more specifically, China and Korea. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• "The starting date of the Kofun period ... is defined by the appearance of large-scale keyhole-shaped kofun mound tombs": I'd suggest changing "defined" to "marked".

• I prefer "defined", since here it is really a definition, i.e. the Kofun period starts with keyhole-shaped tombs and there is no other "definition" for the start date. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your comments (and support). I incorporated the first of your suggestions and replied above to the other two. bamse (talk) 06:09, 8 June 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 17:43, 7 June 2010 [32].

---

List of Lincoln City F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a long time since I've done one of these... This one follows the structure established for football season FLs, and I think it complies with the current criteria. There are a few redlinks among the top scorers, but the articles are on their way, and I waited until the number was down to "minimal" before submitting. All constructive comments gratefully received... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments nice work. Is it "the Combination" or "The Combination"? Same with the Football League. (later on you don't link the in "the Conference National", so all I'm saying is you should be consistent with linking and capitalisation). Answering both points here. I'd say it's lower-case "the", because it's just fulfilling its normal grammatical function. It's arguable that the Football League might have a capital T for the most recent couple of years of its existence, since it branded itself explicitly as The Football League®, but any such marketing-driven capitalisation would in general be anachronistic. In the 1920s, The Times referred to Arsenal as The Arsenal, capital T even in mid-sentence, but the Football League had lower-case t, even when specifically discussing them as an organisation re their AGM. As to linking, I've linked whatever the article's called, to avoid messy piping, [[the Combination]] rather than the [[The Combination|Combination]] So the Combination but Football Alliance. If that's wrong, I'll change them. "and joined the Football Alliance, and the following year were " being picky, it's a bit too much of a run-on for me... and and .... and joined the Football Alliance; the following year they were " "or (in 1912) the " wouldn't bother with the parentheses. changed to commas, didn't look right with nothing "In 1921–22 Lincoln were founder member..." never like the idea of being "In" a range of years. It probably originally read "In the 1921-22 season", and I cut it for repetition without reading it back; changed to In 1921 "On regaining Second Division status three years later they remained in the division until the 1960–61 season, then suffering consecutive relegations" suffered? indeed I'd personally like to see the key before the table, for instance I have no idea what the italics mean in 1888-89 until I get much further into the article. moved 1885-86 has an en-dash for top scorer and a blank cell for the number of goals, 39/40 and 45/46 just have blank cells.. Well spotted... Added the info for 45/46 (another redlink player), don't know why I hadn't done it in the first place. For 39/40, expanded the note about the league abandonment to mention apps/goals not being included in player stats, and linked the note from the top scorer column as well as the league position I love the up and down arrows, a great addition to these seasons articles. ta :-) Should Top scorer be Top scorer(s)? yes I find it hard to believe that Lormor doesn't even have a stub! I was disappointed to find he hadn't... ref 18 seems to have a spare full stop. Probably a template issue... fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) thanks for the helpful review, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support nice. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. --Carioca (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Symbols should be provided for the champion and runner-up colors, as they are for the other two.
  • Do you not think the existing use of "1st" for the champions and "2nd" or "RU" for the runners-up is already an adequate alternative to the use of colour?
    • Didn't notice that in the key before. I won't push the point too hard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      • To be fair, I changed the key this morning to put "1st" and "2nd" in the coloured boxes. I started off thinking it wasn't particularly respectful to the readers to tell them that 2nd position meant runner-up, but hadn't considered that many sports have post-season games to determine champions.
• Bolding for the seasons should be removed, as an overuse of bold text is discouraged by MOS:BOLD. As for the other columns, the normal alternative of italics is already in use, so I can't get too worked up about it. If the champion teams are to be bolded, though, it should say so somewhere in the key.
  • The seasons are row headers, so automatically bolded (and presumably the automatic bolding is why table headers are an explicit exception at MOS:BOLD :-), though if you think it's excessive, I have no problem with making them normal cells instead. I've unbolded the champion teams, garish gold should be plenty...
    • Also didn't realize this was automatic (the season lists I've worked on don't have this). Won't push this too hard either, though I thought MOS was referring to the headings at the top. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your reply at WT:FLC#Query on sourcing, you confirmed what I'd already decided to do. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: if you get a chance, would you mind double-checking reference 12 from Statto? It's showing up as a dead link on the link-checker. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It's live if you click it, perhaps it's something to do with how the Statto pages are generated. Thanks for the support, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Support A fine list, with a good intro. Some comments remain. Sandman888 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

* I would wl the info in key to rounds I've linked group stage, but the others are plain English words so shouldn't really need linking "Appearances and goals from those three matches are not normally included in players' career records." Is that OR? No: there's even a book about the 1939/40 non-appearances, nicely entitled The Men Who Never Were, the blurb for which says "Many clubs had newly signed players on duty. With the declaration of war on September 2nd the official League programme came to an end and the records of the three matches were expunged from the records. Therefore, many of the new players do not appear in a club’s official records." why the qualifying normally then, and why not add above as source? Sandman888 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC) As to "normally": some statisticians do include them, so it'd be dishonest to omit the qualification. As to using the blurb as a source: not having access to a copy of the book, I couldn't argue for the publisher's blurb being a reliable reflection of the content (even if it is). However, The Times archive does give scorers' names for the first three matches of the 1939/40 season, so I've added the top scorer to the 1939/40 row on the list, italicised as part of the incomplete season. I've also reworded the note to indicate that Lincoln City don't include appearances and goals from the abandoned season in their official records, with reference to two sources for Walter Ponting's league stats (the LCFC Archive which doesn't include them, and Joyce's book which does) to illustrate the difference. Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) there's room for some images on the right of the table, if possible. Even at 1024px width, a thumbnail image sits above the table with lots of white space to its left. But even if there was enough width, free images of genuine season highlights are few and far between, even for bigger clubs than Lincoln City. I did look on flickr to see if there was anything usable from their many playoff appearances, but couldn't find anything. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) "League results shown in italics for abandoned or wartime competitions." - only one row is in italics, so why not make it clear which it is? Sandman888 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC) There are three rows in italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I only see 1888-89 of league results. Sandman888 (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC) And "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War." and "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the Second World War.". The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) But that's not a result. And the text itself need no further explaining so "League result shown in italics for abandoned competitions." wd do fine. Sandman888 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I think this a little picky to be honest. The result of the league those seasons is that it was abandoned because of war. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC) There are two league rows in italics: 1888/89 and 1939/40. As the various wartime competitions are not included in this list, the words "or wartime" are unnecessary so I've removed them. Struway2 (talk) 08:40, 1 June 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 04:11, 5 June 2010 [33].

---

Hugo Award for Best Novella

Nominator(s): PresN 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Second verse, same as the first. Right on the heels of the novel award, this is its smaller brother the novella. This list is structurally identical to the novel list, and prose-wise very similar. Any comments made in these FLC's are ported across all award pages that I've done, so have at it! --PresN 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I can't find any misspelled words and the grammer is fine. However, as with the FL list of Best Novels, you need to fix the sortability of the novella titles and publishers (i.e. titles should sort alphabetically under the second word in the title if the first world is "A", "An", or "The"). Correct this and I'll support the article for FL status. Jimknut (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Has this concern been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Sort error "The Dreaming Jewels" sorts between "Last Enemy" and "The Man Who Sold the Moon"
• You sort "...And Now You Don't" as an "A" in the Retro Hugo list but "...Where Angels Fear to Tread" as a "." in the main list.
• All the titles such as "A Man of the People" should be sorted as "Man of the People".
• As with above the "The" part should be dropped for sorting.
• Shouldnt the novella is part of a publication by titled for example The Diamond Pit as "The Diamond Pit" instead of italics (similar to songs) and in which case would need to use the {{sort||}} thing as ive used on the Aurealis Award for best fantasy short story?.
• Other then that i cannot see any other issues. Salavat (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting to these sorting issues yet! I was out of the country, so I didn't have time to fix the sorting on the lists other than the novels one. I'll post here when I finish. --PresN 01:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, sorting is all taken care of. What is not taken care of is the italics/quotations thing- I'm not sure what the proper thing to use here is. I went with italics because we are discussing these works by themselves, rather than as part of larger collections (and indeed, some of them were published on their own like novels). I know that for songs it's always quotes- is there an MOS somewhere that says what do do for shorter stories? --PresN 03:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Turns out we have an MOS for everything- MOS:T doesn't have anything explcitly for "novellas", only for books and short stories, but given that it calls for quotations for "short films", which like novellas can be presented on their own rather than as part of a larger work, I think this list should use quotes. I'll change it shortly. --PresN 04:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All italics changed to quotes; the sorting still works. --PresN 04:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As my issues have been adressed i think i should lend my support. Salavat (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great work! WereWolf (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments "more than two times" - more than twice? "the only ones" not keen on this, rephrase? I think you should add a note that (I'm assuming) the 2010 award has yet to be awarded, hence no winner is designated. Year Awarded->Year awarded. Presumably the retro awards need to have "publication" as well in the col heading? What makes scalzi.com a WP:RS? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Fixed, scalzi.com is the personal website/blog of John Scalzi, an author who has won the hugo award. A book composed of ten years of his blog entries won the 2009 Hugo Award for Best Related Work, and was subsequently reprinted with the logo on the cover. It's cited to prove that not only was the logo intended to go on the covers of winners, but that it has in fact been used that way. Although there are hundreds of books that say "hugo winner" or "contains the hugo-winning story blah", almost none have been reprinted since the logo was adopted last fall. --PresN 15:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support my issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 2 June 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 04:11, 5 June 2010 [34].

---

Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year

Nominator(s): Jrcla2 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC) and Remember (talk)

I am re-submitting this for FL consideration because the last time I made it a candidate (a few months ago) there was no consensus due to lack of participation. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I"m finding a peer review for this list, but I'm striking out finding a prior FLC. Was it under a different title then? Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• On second thought, maybe I never did submit it (?). If I did, it happened between March 20–30, 2010, so maybe it's worth looking in the archives during that time period. If I didn't I apologize because I thought I had. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is complete unreferenced. Of primary concern is the first paragraph.

See the peer review for explanation.

I agree with the peer review. You don't need to cite anything that is covered by other citations in the table. Which is why I singled out the opening paragraph. Nowhere in the list does is mention the award goes to the "most outstanding" coach as voted on by the members of that media association. Nor does it say that the 1953-54 season was the first of the ACC. These are examples of content in your lead that is not covered by the list and need to be cited.—NMajdan•talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• As of 2010, the award has been given 57 times in 57 seasons. - Since the award is given out yearly (and you state this), I think this sentence is redundant and pointless. Now, if it had been given out more or less times than the number of seasons, then that may be worth noting, but not this.

Revised. Remember (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• The lead is a little on the short side. I especially don't care for the two-sentence paragraph. Can it be expanded or combined with another paragraph? To expand the lead, it might be worth noting that Bobby Cremins is the only coach to have won the award with a losing season.
• I'd like to see the Nat'l COY column sortable. Just have it where those that won awards are grouped together.

Revised. Remember (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the lack of relation between Gary and Roy Williams needs to be mentioned. At the very least, if it stays, it needs to be cited.

Revised (footnote removed).

• Refs 3 & 8 seem to link back to the Wiki page.

Nothing can really be done about that, it's part of the way the references are (automatically) formatted.

I'm not talking about the formatting. Clicking the link should take you to the source. It does not.—NMajdan•talk 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the links are automatically put on those references via the way the references are set up. To more easily understand what I mean, go to the article and try to edit it yourself. You can't just de-link them because they are referring to the general references. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what its doing. Those are referring to references in the general references. Typically, references are either in general or specific, not both. Using the method you are, why isn't the ACC Coach of the Year references in general as well?—NMajdan•talk 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many other lists utilize it that way. One FL for example (here) uses basketball–reference.com as a general reference and then uses each specific player's page on basketball–reference as a citation. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, the link needs to be fixed on the specific section. The actual reference can stay, but the link should not reload the page, it should be removed or go to the external source.—NMajdan•talk 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I just have no idea how to fix this (I tried and failed). If anyone knows how, please let me know. Remember (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the Harvard referencing templates, so I cannot help either. But it does need to be fixed. If you are not able to get help, I suggest converting to plain text instead of templates. No point in using templates if they are used incorrectly.—NMajdan•talk 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the links; since there are only two general refs they are hardly necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This still seems to be an issue (references 5 & 10 now).»NMajdan·talk

I removed the links so there should not be any more issues. Remember (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Need to either wikilink or describe what a pick-up game is.
  • Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• 1999–00 - This is usually listed as 1999–2000 since the change in century.
  • Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hope that helps.—NMajdan•talk 16:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support.»NMajdan·talk 15:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Content question: would it be a good idea to mention in the lead how many of these award winners won national championships in the same season?
• Spell out NCAA as the publisher in the general reference. Also, I believe "Stating" should be de-capitalized if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Revised. Remember (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

With the second comment, I meant spelling the NCAA out as the publisher of the reference, not changing the initials in the title of the linked page as seems to have been done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to provide an update for the directors' sake, I'm neutral as long as an issue exists regarding the fair-use image. If it is resolved one way or the other, I'd be inclined to support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Is the "most outstanding" thing a quote? if so, it should be in quotes. Revised phrasing. Don't put the ACC in bold, particularly when you reuse the expanded version straight away, put it after the second instance. Revised. Not at all keen on the single-sentence middle "paragraph". Can't you find an elegant way of merging it? Or better still, expanding? Expanded, let me know if it's enough. "ACC Coach of the Year Award" is repeated a few too many times for my delicate eyesight. Fixed (maybe?) "Miami (FL)" - do we really need (FL) here? Rationale: I see where you're coming from, but I strongly say yes it's necessary. The reason is because there is a Miami (OH) men's basketball team. And while this may be the ACC article, that doesn't mean that any normal person would intuitively know that "Miami" is referring to Florida. Much of the country (e.g. the midwest) thinks of Miami (OH) first when they hear of Miami sports. Like other college basketball articles, the (FL) is needed to differentiate an ambiguous school title. Okay, as I'm sure you're aware, the rest of the universe assumes Miami to be in Florida, and I would expect a piped link to be sufficient. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I just feel that since we're building an encyclopedia, we should assume the reader knows as little (e.g. nothing) about the subject at hand and therefore they shouldn't have to find out which Miami it is by clicking on it (they might assume it's for Florida, but you know what they say about assuming...). I think that incorporating "(FL)" gives an immediate and definitive answer to the possibility of an ambiguous title. FYI - it is common in NCAA sports world to say Miami (Fl). Just check out [35] for an example. Remember (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Ah. Well I can change the (FL) to (Fl) if that's what you're getting at. Not sure if you care enough to make me change it or are just pointing it out so I know for the future. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Being blunt (and forgive any rudeness), I couldn't care less what the "NCAA sports world" says. This is English Wikipedia, not "American Collegiate Wikipedia", and we have to remember that we're talking to a universal audience. Why should the world know what (FL) means? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I am confused by your objection. We don't assume that people know what Miami (FL) means, that is why we have a link to explain the term. As for the argument that we shouldn't use Miami (FL) because somehow this is a universial encyclopedia and that is not the way that you would name this thing to a universal audience, I would respectfully disagree. The accepted termonology for referring to the University of Miami when discussing it in the sports world is commonly accepted as "Miami(Fl)" or "Miami(FL)" so as not to confuse it with "Miami(OH)." If you don't like the accepted terminology that people have adopted to talk intelligently about this area, that is fine. But I don't agree that the fact that this encylopedia would use the accepted terminology to help clearly inform the public on an issue about this institution makes it less universal. Remember (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, the bottom line for me is that a wikilink is fine. Adding (FL) is just confusing to non-US readers. I'm sure "terminology that people have adopted to talk intelligently about this area" is fine in the US, but why should FL mean anything to anyone outside of your intelligentsia? Frankly, it's a minor point, I just get tired of US lists being US-centric and not realising that this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Truthfully, this is not a big point for me so if the consensus was to go against my position, so be it. But I object to the notion that this is some US bias. There is a fundamental problem that there are two institutions with very similar names (i.e., University of Miami, and Miami University) and the same abberviation (i.e., Miami) and this similarity causes confusion. To resolve this confusion most people put the term (OH) or (FL) after the name to clarify. I know that probably no one out of the United States would assume that when you say Miami you would be referring to anying but Miami, Florida, but this is just because they don't know about the other institution. If all the Brits, Auzzies, and Kiwis started debating the merits of the University of Miami versus Miami University, they would adopt a similar solution as well. But like I said, whatever consesnus is then I am fine with it. Remember (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Is there a possible compromise by using the full name of the university, wikilinked? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC) How about adding a footnote next to where "Miami (FL)" is in the list, then briefly explain the difference between the University of Miami and Miami University. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a good start on the compromise front. Let's see how that looks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Added footnote. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) The EL you provided uses "(FL)", not (Fl) like you said, so now I'm even more confused at your point. I don't mean to come off as rude because that's not my intention, I am just unclear as to what you're looking for. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC) My only point was to back you up that most people say Miami (FL) or Miami (Fl) to describe the University of Miami Hurricanes. Not that your capitalization was incorrect. Remember (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC) —Oh sorry, I assumed it was Rambling Man who put that. I didn't see it was you, which now clears up the mess haha. Whoops. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "The Wolfpack would finish the season undefeated at 27–0 but were never given the opportunity to compete for the national championship." (1) why not "finished" and (2) is this referenced? Revised. General ref date format different from specific ref dates... Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Sorting conf W-L, (and I've been shot here before so forgive me), I would expect 14-0 to list as "better" than 14-2. This kind of sorting is common in cricket lists... Reply: I do see what you're saying once again, but IMHO the column doesn't read "Win %", it reads "W–L", as in total accumulated wins, not total win percentage. No, you're right, it's not % col, but if a coach had won 37 and lost 169, and another won 37 and lost 0, would you really list it the way it current goes? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I'll see what I can do. I've tried fiddling with it, but I'm kind of at a loss at to how to sort this list the way you want it to be done. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) For a good example, see some recent cricket FLs. They use the SortKey template really nicely to get this kind of intelligent sorting. Have a look at List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram for instance. In cricket, a bowler who gets wickets for fewer runs is considered better, so when sorting by the "wickets" column, the better bowler on tied wickets will have fewer runs against his name. Check out the {{SortKey}} usage here and see how you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Same would be true for the overall W-L - a coach who won 37 and lost 2 should be considered better than one who won 37 and lost 3, surely? See reasoning on point above. Ok. I think I fixed the sorting issue. Let me know if this is not what people wanted. Remember (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I believe all issues have been addressed. Are there any remaining issues?Remember (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support and I very much appreciate you taking the time to (a) understand my sorting issue and (b) fixing my sorting issue. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

I'm not sure the use of non-free content on this article is warranted. I think cropping the legs of of Dean Smith's photo would be as good in the lede as the NFC. Gary Williams photo could then be added to the body... or vice versa.

• Reply: The reason I used the ACC logo rather than a picture of Gary Williams is because the infobox is about the award in general. Yes, it mentions the latest winner, but it's an ACC award and I think that an ACC logo is appropos here. Also, not that it would be a terrible hassle, but changing the photo every single year to match the newest coach would be annoying (besides, it's not guaranteed the latest winner would even have a pic on Wikipedia). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then crop and use Dean Smith's- I truly believe use in this article is against NFCC criteria 8. Courcelles (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note that as of the closure of this FLC, the non-free image has been removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

:"Four coaches have won during the same season that they have also coached a team..." Do we need the also? Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Pedantic, but I think you need citations for Krzyzewski and Williams' induction year into the Hall of Fame. Added HOF entries as citations. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Is it worth mentioning that Greenberg's win was in VT's first year in the Conference? (And has that really been six years ago? I'm getting old.) If this is make or break for you I'll add it w/a ref or two. Otherwise I'm inclined to leave it out. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) No big deal Courcelles (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Pedantic again, but your source doesn't state that South Carolina is now part of the SEC. Added citation. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) The subject is clearly American, so why do you use "Commonwealth" date formatting- date month year- in the referencing instead of the U.S. standard of Month day, Year? Reply:That's just the way I've been citing my references' dates for a little over a year now. I find it to be quicker and easier to type. Just a personal preference really, no further thought goes into it (I'm probably the only American English Wikipedian who uses that date formatting haha). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I tend to use the Commonwealth style, too, despite being resident in the U.S.... and frequently have to correct myself. In this case, I think the MOS needs the dates in American format. Courcelles (talk) I'll do that tomorrow. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Done. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Refs 1 and 8 come from the same website, yet are shown with different publishers. Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Refs 2 and 16 appear to be the same document- consolidate. Courcelles (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Capped everything but the NFCC concern above. Courcelles (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Mostly good, just found a few issues, most of which were the same as Brad's above. I have one extra one though:
  • North Carolina State uses "NC State" in its own article, and that seems to be the common use, so that's how it should be in this article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support - looks good to me.—Chris!_c/t 22:01, 3 June 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 08:02, 2 June 2010 [36].

---

1966 NBA Expansion Draft

Nominator(s): —Chris!_c/t 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) & User:Martin tamb

I am nominating this on behalf of User:Martin tamb because I think it is ready. It will hopefully be a part of a future Chicago Bulls GT.—Chris!_c/t 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, still no comment. My list is that boring that no one wants to read it. :)—Chris!_c/t 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 First! (I guess) KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC) "However, Kerr retired from playing prior to the start of the season.[3] Kerr was later named as the franchise's first head coach.[2]" - this could easily be combined into one sentence; However, Kerr retired from playing prior to the start of the season, and was later named as the franchise's first head coach. "Another expansion draft pick, Al Bianchi" - comma after Bianchi "went on to join the Bulls" - joined the Bulls is less wordy "the first All-Stars from the franchise" - the franchise's first All-Stars is less wordy "third All-Star from the franchise" - the franchise's third All-Star or the team's third All-Star to avoid repetition "before became a coach" - should be before becoming "He later coached" "before fired" - before being fired "He then became the head coach of the Utah Jazz in 1988, the position he has held since." - since most of the info here is about the Bulls, I don't know how relevant this is to the article. Maybe shorten it to something like He later became the coach of the Utah Jazz. Three sentences in a row beginning with "He". Suggest changing one of those to Sloan (preferably the second sentence to avoid repetition). No problems in the table. Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed everything. Get rid of the Jazz sentence. Thanks for reading this.—Chris!c/t 18:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Additional comments (KV5) "18 unprotected players from the nine other NBA teams" - are 18 and nine comparable here? I'm not sure, but I think so. "was later named as the franchise's" "whom the Bulls acquired in exchange for Jim King and Jeff Mullins" - this phrase is parenthetical and might be better set off from the surrounding sentence by parentheses or the appropriate dash (spaced en or unspaced em). Once these are completed, I can support without hesitation. — KV5 • Talk • 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Done—Chris!c/t 19:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 01:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Zagalejo

• I know that the Chicago Bulls Encylopedia has some additional info about this draft. I own a copy, so when I get a chance, I'll add some stuff. One thing I remember is that Dick Klein (the Bulls' GM) planned to use Kerr and Bianchi as coaches before the draft even took place. (So, basically, they were drafted to be coaches; they were still under playing contracts, so they couldn't be signed outright.) I also remember that Klein worked out some deal with Red Auerbach in which Klein promised not to select a certain Celtics player (I forget which one) if Auerbach shared his evaluations of other players throughout the league. Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for helping.—Chris!_c/t 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I added a little bit. Zagalejo^^^ 22:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Do we really need to mention here that Sloan was inducted into the HOF as a coach? He was primarily inducted because of his work with the Jazz. Also, I don't think we should mention Thompson at all, since none of his accomplishments have anything to do with the Bulls. Zagalejo^^^ 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Those excessive detail can be cut down. But some should remain because readers probably would like to know what happen to the players after being drafted.—Chris!_c/t 19:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to say that Sloan is in the HOF, then I think it would be better to restore something about the Jazz, for the sake of clarity. Zagalejo^^^ 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 19:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments I'm mildly confused by "The draft was held on April 30, 1966 before the 1966–67 season, as the league expanded to ten franchises" this could read that the draft was held...as the league expanded. " The Bulls were founded after the city of Chicago, Illinois was granted an NBA franchise on January 16, 1966" not correct grammar here. I think us non-experts need an explanation as to what an "expansion draft" really is. Was the draft held because the Bulls became an NBA franchise? That doesn't seem to be explicitly stated anywhere. The Bulls were a new team, and they didn't have any players, so the expansion draft allowed them to take some players from other teams. Not all players were available in the expansion draft; the other teams were allowed to protect certain players from being drafted. Zagalejo^^^ 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Add it to the article please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I tried to clarify things. When I was rewording things, I also changed the other sentences you mentioned above. Zagalejo^^^ 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "played ten seasons with the Bulls before becoming a coach. He coached the Bulls for three seasons before being fired during the 1981–82 season" Bulls.. Bulls... coach, coached... a little turgid prose-wise. What's NCAA (i.e. expand before abbreviate)? pro->professional. "Career with the franchise" doesn't sort correctly under Safari (Mac OS X) Ref 10 has no accessdate. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed most of them. Can you explain how the Career with the franchise column is sorting incorrectly? I don't use Safari and can't see what's wrong.—Chris!c/t 20:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Difficult. First click, all good and the dashes after all the real years. Second click, no change. Third click, Bowman & Chappell sort at the bottom, then all the dashes, then Kojis->Sloan, fourth click all the dashes at the top, then Sloan first, down all the way to Chappell to end. Not helpful really is it? All I can suggest is a quick review of Help talk:Sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Added sort key. Did it resolve the issue?—Chris!c/t 19:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments – I only have a few issues, but they are significant. Not everything in the table is cited at the moment, and there are a couple of inaccuracies/omissions. Hate to bring this up this late in an FLC, but what is sourcing the Position, Years professional, and Career with the franchise columns in the table? I see nothing in the general references that covers this data. I'm sure it's all available somewhere on basketball-reference, so this doesn't seem like an insurmountable issue. But I do have an observation of my own about that section: "Years professional" should be changed to "Years of NBA experience", or something like that, because some of these players may have participated in the ABL, or Eastern League. (Unless it can be proved that none of them did.) The positions, years and career were all taken from basketball-reference.com, they are all just one click away from the third general reference. I did not cite each player because the previous similar list that I nominate for FLC was passed without any concern that each item need to be cited (see 1984 NBA Draft, where positions also indirectly cited from the second general reference). But if each item need to be cited here, I'll add the proper reference. — Martin tamb (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Add the refs so that everything including the notes are cited.—Chris!c/t 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) In a related issue, the notes also aren't cited by anything. See above—Chris!c/t 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I did some quick research on the draft on Google News and came up with this story, which has some important details that are currently missing or not accurate in the lead. It says that the draft was held over two days, not one as the article says, with one day each devoted to picks from Eastern and Western Division teams. The page also says that the Bulls were to select two players per team, and gives figures on how many players were eligible to have been chosen by Chicago. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I found a couple of Chicago Tribune articles that confirm the two-day timeline, if someone wants to use them as refs: "Bowman, Sloan among 1st players on new Bulls" Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 1, 1966. p. C1 "Bulls pick 8 to complete player draft; Boozer and Kojis are on the list" Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: May 2, 1966. p. C6 Zagalejo^^^ 01:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Zagalejo made some changes. I think this is fixed.—Chris!c/t 00:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Couple more comments after the changes: Back in 1966, the conferences were official called divisions. Therefore, the mentions of the Eastern and Western Conferences in the third paragraph should be switched to Divisions. No need for plural in the Refs heading, since there is only one reference for each row. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Done all! — Martin tamb (talk) 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – After the fixes, the list meets the criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Good list, but there's one thing I'd like to see. For Sloan, I'd like to see a highlight/key either for being in the Hall of Fame as a coach, or for having his jersey retired by the Bulls (or both). Do that and I'll support it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done—Chris!_c/t 23:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the colorings because this isn't a normal draft articles. The colorings could have ambiguous meanings, for example: whether the players has been selected to the All-Star Game before he was drafted by the Bulls or after his whole playing career ended. Non-expansion draft articles wouldn't have this problem because the draftees were never been in the league before being drafted, while in an expansion draft, the draftees are usually already in the league. Also a coloring for Hall of Famer coaches is never being used in any draft articles because it's irrelevant for a list of players drafted. Hall of Famer coaches are usually mentioned in a short paragraph on the lead. Furthermore, the information about the Hall of Famers and the All-Stars was already included in the lead. It even mentions which player was already an All-Star when he was drafted and which player became an All-Star after their Bulls drafted them. I would like another opinion from the others on this issues. — Martin tamb (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. I didn't think about this when I added the color.—Chris!_c/t 23:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about the colors. They're misleading; I think Boozer is the only one who actually earned his "color-worthy accomplishment" as a Bull. Zagalejo^^^ 05:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Color removed.—Chris!_c/t 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments "The Bulls were the third NBA franchise to play in Chicago, after the Chicago Stags, which folded in 1950, and the Chicago Packers–Zephyrs, which moved to Baltimore and became the Baltimore Bullets in 1963." A)It would read better IMO if after was changed to following since it currently reads like the sentence would go into something where you're saying 'after the Chicago stags did something'. B)Unlink Baltimore. "In an NBA expansion draft, new NBA teams can acquire players from the previously established teams in the league. " -- can or are allowed? "Dick Klein had been planning to use Kerr and Bianchi as coaches before the draft even took place, but because they were still under playing contracts with other teams, Klein needed to draft them instead of hiring them outright." - no need to state his first name again. "Guy Rodgers—whom the Bulls acquired in exchange for Jim King and Jeff Mullins—and Jerry Sloan were named to the 1967 All-Star Game, becoming the franchise's first All-Stars" - you should probably link the final All-Stars word of the sentence to like a main article, if there is one. If you mean that the NBA All-Star Game should be linked, it's already linked in "..three-time All-Star Johnny Kerr..". — Martin tamb (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) "Boozer became the team's third All-Star when he was named to the 1968 All-Star Game.[10]" - is this necessary? This article is about 66-67, so why state 68? Unless he still holds that title of being the last All Star, which I doubt. I put Boozer's achievement there to show that he is one of the most successful expansion draftees for the Bulls, compared to the others. I also didn't think the term "third" would imply the last All-Star. But if you insist, I can remove this sentence. — Martin tamb (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) The only reason I brought it up is because I feel that the year 68 has nothing to do with this draft even if he came from the expansion team. Wouldn't the following season be like a whole new type of roster environment? --Truco 503 01:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable, never thought that, so the sentence removed. Thanks for the review! — Martin tamb (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Avoid repetition: "as has fellow draftee John Thompson. Thompson never worked for the Bulls in any capacity, but found success as a coach at Georgetown University"--Truco 503 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) All others fixed. — Martin tamb (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- All issues resolved; meets WP:WIAFL. Good work!--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:14, 1 June 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 02:59, 1 June 2010 [37].

---

List of Honorary Fellows of Keble College, Oxford

Nominator(s): Bencherlite (talk · contribs), Felix Folio Secundus (talk · contribs)

OK, time for another Oxford-related list. I have no connections to Keble College, but fortunately Felix Folio Secundus does and he has been very helpful in providing print references to supplement the resources I could find online. The list is along the lines of List of Honorary Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford and I think that it matches the FL criteria. There are a couple of redlinks, for two people who have or have had prominent positions in the worlds of business/finance, but about whom I couldn't find enough to make an article. The blacklinks are for a few people who, as far as I can tell, only are notable in a college sense rather than a WP sense. Enjoy! Bencherlite^Talk 10:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I can not find anything that could prevent promotion of this list to the featured status. Ruslik_Zero 17:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hooray! Bencherlite^Talk 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment - One caption ends in a full stop, but the rest don't. Jujutacular ^T · C 07:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The punctuation in the captions is correct as per WP:CAPTION. Complete sentences require periods at the end, while sentence fragments do not. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Sandman888 (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• table:
  • wl all Oxford, it's sortable
• refs
  • wl publishers where possible, e.g. keble college

• Thanks for your review and support. I'm not convinced that it's necessary to wikilink Oxford in notes such as "White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford", since the most interesting link is to the position, not the university; but out of deference to your request, all instances of "Oxford" in the table are now linked. I had deliberately not linked Keble College or the University of Oxford in the publishers, on the basis that existing wikilinks to these articles in the list would probably be enough, but again out of deference to your request I have wikilinked the first instance of each as publisher. Bencherlite^Talk 15:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Light blue (boat race-winning) comments "founded in memory of the " really? Seems a little artificial, but if that's what the source says... Yes, there was a public appeal for subscriptions to commemorate John Keble with a new Oxford college. Not the type of thing you can imagine happening today for a deceased Anglican cleric, is it? "They can be called upon, however, to help decide whether to dismiss or discipline members of academic staff..." is that all it's worth? I've added that they can receive "such other privileges as the Governing Body may determine", which is the phrase used in the statutes - which I suspect includes various invitations to college functions etc, though I don't have a source for what perks the HFs receive at Jesus or at Keble Dare I suggest you tell me why two of the inaugural fellows were prominent, rather than me relying on a paper ref? Added fellow vs Fellow. What are the rules? No idea... even the Keble website uses F/f with no apparent pattern. I've now gone for "Fellow" and "Fellowship" as that's the capitalisation used by the statutes "such as Ronald Reagan (President of the United States 1981–89," I would prefer "such as former US President Ron... (elected..)" to remain consistent. OK I don't like =. Okay, call me a tab, whatever, but what's wrong with a lovely spaced en- or em-dash? OK Adonis and Balls at the top. How appropriate...! It was so tempting for the photo of Adonis to add to the existing alt-text "Behind him, two people look to be asleep and a third has his head in his hands..." Davidge and de Breyne appear to be a little out of order initially. Moved Bristol University or University of Bristol? etc etc. Now internally consistent, I hope, under the name of the respective articles (hence University of Birmingham but Boston University) You link the Indie but not the Times, pourquoi? The Times is linked in the lead and in ref 5, so I didn't link it thereafter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I was wondering when you'd show up... Thanks for the nitpicks, and I hope the changes make you even happier. On the subject of watersports, WP:TFAR#May 29 - fingers crossed! BencherliteTalk 11:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support a really nice piece of work, and, dare I say it, an example of what we should be aiming to produce at FLC. Half a dozen minor comments, not months of debate over this and that. Good stuff Bencherlite, please keep up the good work and the impeccable standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work. NYCRuss ☎ 18:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

*Comments' Call me picky, but I'd like to have an image in the lede to break up the "wall of text" effect- either one of the people, or File:Keble College Chapel - Oct 2006.jpg which is a FP. (Maybe I lean more towards the building since you mention their break with tradition) Do Bishops not take the "Sir" title when named Knights of the RVO? Since you mention the longest-serving current fellow, any chance of adding who was the longest-serving overall? Great list, I'm scratching the barrel to find something to say on this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Image added. No, according to Crockford's Clerical Directory "How to address the clergy" Section 10: Titled Clerics "An ordained priest may be appointed to an order of knighthood, but will not normally receive the accolade or title. The appropriate designation will follow the name or ecclesiastical title, e.g. The Right Reverend the Bishop of X, KCVO. If he was knighted before he was ordained, he will retain his title." Longest-serving three added for good measure. BencherliteTalk 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:00, 1 June 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 02:59, 1 June 2010 [38].

---

1991 College Baseball All-America Team

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a complete and encyclopedic list. I am competing in the WP:CUP and may produce several more of these if this is favorably reviewed. I am attempting to obtain a commitment from a WP:MLB member to stub out player redlinks as a co-nominator on future lists, but am moving forward as a solo nominator on this current list. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Oppose. Fails multiple criteria including 1, 2, 4, and 5a.—NMajdan•talk 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC) See detailed reply below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Comments Here is a more detailed review. Lead Each season, various United States intercollegiate sports recognize their top athletes by selecting a team of the best performers that year. & In each sport various organizations select such lists.- This list is about baseball, just focus on that. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) are often called All-American teams - What else are they called? When are they not called All-American Teams? Rewritten.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) NCAA.org - This is a website. No need to explain sources. Just say something like, the NCAA-sanctioned selectors were. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) while David McCarty who the Baseball America player of the year - Typo. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Major League Baseball All-Star: Jones - Since just listing one, just use a comma. I think this has already been corrected with other edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) He had led the league in sacrifice hits allowed and errors committed as a pitcher in the 1995 Major League Baseball season. - Sentence seems awkward. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) The lead seems to be going into a lot of detail that is missing from the actual list. Seems you added fluff just to lengthen the lead. The lead has been resectioned. Are you saying that you don't want the accomplishments section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Per WP:LEAD, the Lead should be a summary of the important parts of the article. So, in this case, the lead needs to provide a summary for the list and, now, a summary for the accomplishments section.—NMajdan•talk 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Table Capitalize the first word in the first column. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) The table needs some sort functionality. Well, the whole table needs to be re-thought out. How about this. Four sortable columns: position, name, school, and selectors. You can even add additional fields/superscripts to indicate players that were All-Stars or won a World Series, etc. I will reorganize this tonight in this format, which is entirely different from the one suggested below. We can look at it and then consider it that is the way to go.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Not to mention that you are still very much active on this page after creating it yesterday, so it definitely lacks stability (it has already changed quite a bit from my review minutes ago). That would be a start.—NMajdan•talk 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC) The term is used in the U.S. team sports - Doesn't sound right; maybe drop the. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC) In 1950, the American Baseball Coaches Association (ABCA) selected its first All-American baseball teams. - teams is plural, but the source makes it sound like only one All-American team was selected in 1950. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC) This list only includes players selected to the post-season All-American first-team for each selector. - This is your first mention of "first-team"; you may want to describe what first-team means and what other "teams" there are. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC) You reference All-Star Game several times. I'd like to see this specified as Major League Baseball All-Star Game. This is a list of college baseball All-Americans so I think some readers could be confused into thinking these are some college all-star teams. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Please explain why some names are red linked and some are not linked at all. The redlinked and bluelinked names played Major League Baseball or in the Olympic Games. Unlinked otherwise to follow general conventions regarding notability and expected articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I think there is some confusion on the differences between references and notes. All of your notes are actually references. At FAC, the convention has been that inline citations are viewed as footnotes (notes for short) and general references used more broadly are designated as references. See current my nominee Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) and all other WP:FAs in that WP:FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC) That's not the convention at FLC; usually, general and specific references in featured lists are grouped under a single "References" level-2 headings, with bolded headers within that section for "General references" and "Specific references"/"Inline citations". — KV5 • Talk • 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC) What you described is the practice at FA does not sound like what is described at WP:REFNOTE. Thanks for making the change.»NMajdan·talk Why is "team" in quotes? Generally, such teams don't actually compete together.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Nevertheless, having quotes around it makes it seem very informal and in the next part, you specify it is an honorary team, not an actual team.»NMajdan·talk I thought I had removed the quotes in the prior editing. I have removed them now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I'll re-evaluate when these items have been addressed.»NMajdan·talk 14:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support pending an access date on ref #1.»NMajdan·talk 15:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I am not sure an accessdate is appropriate. The link does not actually show the relevant text from the print edition. Thus, there is no date where I actually saw the relevant text online.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • If you can't see the text online, then there's no need to link to it. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. — KV5 • Talk • 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Link removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose from KV5 Does not meet the criteria. Cr.1: no writing to speak of That is why this is nominated as a list.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Just because it is a list does not mean that it needs no writing. See also List of Major League Baseball earned run average champions. The additions improve the list, but not to the point where I believe it passes criterion 3b. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Cr.2: no lead to speak of I have added a bit of content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Cr.3b: could reasonably be included as part of a related article, since it's only a table Cr.4: includes neither headings nor sort facilities Headings are here now; sorting is not. Table header row is still incomplete. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Cr.5: has no visual appeal, no images, etc. Only one player has an image in his WP article. I have included it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Suggest withdrawal. Possible quick-fail candidate. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I've withdrawn my recommendation for quick-failing based on the improvements made, but I still think that this list is unnecessarily specific. A larger article on College Baseball All-America Teams could serve the purpose just as well. In fact, that could be made a featured list with a wide table along the lines of the Gold Glove or Silver Slugger Award lists. There really is no reason for this single team to be its own article at this point, however. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting one article with 64 tables like this would be better? Both basketball and football use the convention of one team per year. Keep in mind that season's accomplishments list is rather short compared to other years that have stars and older years where players are in the managerial and coaching phase of their careers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I'm suggesting that one article would be better, not 64 tables. If you look at Rawlings Gold Glove Award, it doesn't have 60+ tables just because the award has been presented for 60+ years. I think that a format like that would work well for this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC) On issue with that, your example has two winners per year. This list would have a dozen or more. How many years has the NCAA recognized All-Americans in college baseball?—NMajdan•talk 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I have reformatted the list. I think the Gold Glove format would be wrong for this. Currently, I have access to the NCAA-sanctioned lists. However, in the future, other lists may be added. See 2009 College Football All-America Team to see how many major selectors there are relative to the NCAA-sanctioned lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC) The current format is much better, but raises additional issues: All occurrences of a position must now be linked due to sortability. Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Abbreviations need a key. added--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Do the checkmarks use alt-text or something else to tell users with screen-readers which players qualified for which team? The alt indicates it is a green tickmark.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Schools still need to be linked on each occurrence, and remove abbreviations like "St.", as they aren't necessary. done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Blank cells should be filled with centered em-dashes. Notes column should be unsortable. I assume you meant don't add em-dashes to notes column.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC) No, I meant what I said. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) I don't know how to do this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC) I can tell that the initial sorting is by the number of the position (1 for pitcher, 2 for catcher, etc.), but the casual reader likely will not know that. It should be explained. Actually this is just coincidence. I think ABCA uses this order in listing its teams on the NCAA site, but BA uses another order. I just went with the order of the first list. I could just as easily have put pitchers last like on the BA lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Well, regardless of the order, unless it's initially sorted alphabetically by name (which would make the most sense), the sorting should be explained. I'm ok with the sorting by position number, though; it just requires an explanation (a footnote is easiest). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Added above the table.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC) What is referencing the rows in the table? Footnote 1 is the primary source for the table. Do you want it included in the table in another location?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily, but if it's verifying the table, it should also be a general reference. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Added as a reference.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Rather than using the gold medal icon, just write out that Neill won a gold medal. It's much simpler. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Sweeney's career pinch hit RBI record is in what? NCAA? MLB? MiLB? Clarify. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC) What makes certain players redlinked and others blacklinked? The vast majority of blacklinked names are for players who neither played in the Olympics nor played in Major League Baseball and thus fail WP:N (in particular WP:ATHLETE). I think there are one or two cases were a player is named with a bluelink in a position and then later as a blacklink at a second position.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Keep in mind that players that appear in multiple rows should be linked each time, as sortable table rows are a named exception to WP:OVERLINK. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC) It turns out that the only players at two positions are blacklinked twice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC) There are additional items, but this is a start. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC) More comments (KV5) Perhaps you should talk about unanimous selections in the lead. In college athletics the only two sports where the group of All-American lists are considered collectively are basketball and football where there are designation as consensus and unanimous. Other sports do not make such designations. In a sense, these list are not that much more official than any others that might exist such as Sporting News, Associated Press, ESPN, College Baseball Writers, etc. They just happen to be the ones the NCAA lists on their website. If these are the only sanctioned selectors, and the player is picked by all three, it is by definition unanimous. I didn't mean that you should define it as a term, just note which players were selected by all three organizations. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Shortstop's position number is 6; move it after third baseman (5). Fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The key under the table should be a subhead (actually, it should ideally come before the table). Moved to top.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I've also copyedited the lead to fix some grammar and formatting errors. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This list is much improved since its nomination. I will give an additional check within a few days before supporting. — KV5 • Talk • 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments First off, let's talk about exactly what an "All-America Team" is, because we're addressing the world, not just US baseball readers. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Then tell us how it's selected, and be clear about those involved, i.e. what is "Collegiate Basketball"? O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The list clearly says this is for Division I college baseball with clarifying links. It names the specific publications. The publications do not seem to release information on how they assemble their respective lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) " All-American Selection" any reason selection is Selection? thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The lead just seems a little weak on the subject matter, i.e. the All-America team. I'd expect to read more about the achievements of those selected, and I wonder if the Accomplishments really needs to be in a separate section? If you wish I can merge the accomplishments and the WP:LEAD. I am not sure how things are done for lists.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Nothing overly complex, we try to comply with WP:LEAD and cover everything in a summary format. I'd prefer to not see foreshortened leads for the sake of small paragraphs of interest following. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "(i.e., 1-pitcher, 2-catcher, etc.)." please check the punctuation here, not sure you need a comma after i.e. and not sure if you need two periods at the end... i.e. is always followed by a comma (I believe). Also, I believe the two periods are correct, but could be convinced otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "They are arranged in" initially, it's a sortable list. Not sure what the exact concern is, but I have reworded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Notes col way too wide, make the ABCA, BA, CB columns the same width, expand the Position column so it doesn't spill onto two lines. Width reformatted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Name should sort by surname, not first name, using the {{sortname}} template. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) What's ACBA? Did you miss the key above the table?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Nope. Did you miss that the key says ABCA?! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Once again, I seem to see ABCA and ACBA. Are these the same thing? Perhaps I'm missing something.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I see. Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nmajdan (talk · contribs) has stated that he is out of town on business and wont be able to reconsider his comments until Monday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "Although the honorees generally don't compete together as a unit". Contractions like "don't" should be avoided. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC) "National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I, Division II & Division III". Ampersands should also be avoided in prose. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Don't need two NCAA links in the lead. O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Italics should be used for Collegiate Baseball in the fourth paragraph, to match the rest of the lead. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC) References sections should be re-named References. What do you want me to name that section?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed that. — KV5 • Talk • 16:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, it was originally called Reference and I typed it wrong. Having it plural was what I was intending to ask for. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Usually, general references go before specific. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC) O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC) One more: NAIA is a disambiguation link. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:18, 29 May 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 02:59, 1 June 2010 [39].

---

Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles the FL status lists (which also happen to be Grammy-related) Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album and MusiCares Person of the Year. Note: I also nominated Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance recently (see nomination page), which are similar, so reviewer's concerns might apply to both lists. This list should be up to par as far as disambig. links, alternate text, formatting, sorting, etc. go. Thank you for your time and feedback. Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments top stuff... "Years reflect the year in which the Grammy Awards were handed out, for music released in the previous year." I believe this is the most awkward sentence I have read for some time! I know what you're saying, but I really would advocate a re-phrase. Hmm. This is the same wording used on many of the other Grammy-related lists, including some that have reached FL status. Is there a particular part of the sentence that bothers you, or do you have any suggestions? Also, does the sentence need to then be changed for all other articles (assuming a change is made)? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Only other thing I could query would be a couple of the captions, such as "Wilco". Not particularly informative. I added the year the groups won to Beastie Boys, Wilco, and Phoenix. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support my issues resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments I don't know, but "for quality performances" makes it seem like its just for artist's work on stage. Isn't it about their albums? Would "for quality albums in the alternative music genre" or "for quality alternative music albums" be better? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Either one would work fine.--Truco 503 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC) "Years reflect the year in which the Grammy Awards were handed out, for music released in the previous year." - this would serve better above the table versus the lead as a key/note, or not at all Okay, but would this need to be changed in all of the other Grammy Award lists as well? I think consistency is important. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Then it should probably be discussed with the respective project because it seems out of place in the lead, in addition having a note at the bottom of the table already there.--Truco 503 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Will remove the sentence from the other Grammy-related FLs as well (because, as you mentioned, a note already exists at the bottom of the table). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC) The lead, IMO, should have something regarding the nationality, since it seems vital to the table. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Just notify me when that is done.--Truco 503 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Hopefully the wording is acceptable. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Does the definition still fall under "While the definition of "alternative" has been debated, the award was first presented in 1991 to recognize non-mainstream rock albums "heavily played on college radio stations"." or is it different now? Its hard to tell from this. What about this?--Truco 503 23:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Bingo! I found the most recent description of the category, and inserted the description into the list as requested. Should the description in the award template be updated to be this detailed? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Everything else checks out, good work.--Truco 503 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, as always! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- meets WP:WIAFL (all comments addressed). Well that should probably be discussed with the respective project about the definition in the template since that definition is only from Grammys point of view and not in general.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: My only irk is with the first sentence. I think it could be split into two, such as "The Grammy Award for Best Alternative Music Album is an award given to recording artists for quality albums in the alternative music genre at the Grammy Awards. The ceremony was established in 1958 and originally called the Gramophone Awards." Problem is if we do that I'm not sure if that sentence really fits. Is that one needed? I'll provisionally support this and will fully if the reply is fine. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Doing... --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, I feel the current sentence stands on its own. By splitting one sentence into two, emphasis is placed more on the ceremony itself in the second sentence than the actual award. However, if you feel strongly that a change is needed, I am open to making edits. No additional reviewers commented on your suggestion, so I am not sure if some sort of consensus needs to be reached. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm late to the party, but it looks like everything is in order. Nice job. NYCRuss ☎ 17:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm also late, but this article looks fantastic, and it meets all FL criteria. Great work! WereWolf (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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