Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 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 Dabomb87 23:41, 16 November 2010 [1].

---

Fantasia Barrino discography

Nominator(s): Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after making massive overhaul of the article removing fancruft and adding reliable sources, and then converting to the new discography style, I believe it now meets FL criteria. Candyo32 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • STUDIO ALBUMS:
    • there is US and U.S., it should be 3 US
    • album charts haven't got references, see here for example.
  • SINGLES US should be unlinked
  • REFERENCES: one link with timeout: here

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, but about the ref, something is wrong with the RIAA site today. I was working on another discog and that happened. Candyo32 18:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The link is working for me now. Ucucha 18:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

for me too. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment
  • FEATURED SINGLES: what is that? is it notable to split it off from the singles box?

See featured lists Taylor Swift discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography and more.

• • STUDIO ALBUMS:
    • album charts haven't got references, see here for example.

Oops, done.

• • Infobox: i see there is no caption, what about Winner of season 3 of American Idol, Fantasia Barrino. or the location in the pic.

Done. Candyo32 20:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support: until you add a reference in Featured single US R&B-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Candyo32 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

add an External links section, i.e. allmusic, official website, discogs, musicbrainz...-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Candyo32 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

:*Is she more well-known as 'Fantasia' or 'Fantasia Barrino'? If the former, please indicate this in the first sentence. If the latter, you should refer to her by her surname throughout the lead. "Although only shifting 133,000 discs in its first week of availability" - reference needed "The song was certified Gold in the US and according to Billboard, ranks at number eight on the 2000s decade-end R&B chart." - comma after 'and'. Don't link 'decade-end' to 2000s (decade), instead link '2000s'. The last paragraph is quite short; can you mention Back to Me's sales and "I'm Doin' Me" in it? Why is there a sub-header for studio albums when they are the only type of album she has released? Link: USA Today (published by Gannett Company), Rovi Corporation, Nielsen Business Media, Inc About.com should not be italicised Be consistent with linking - you link Billboard every time, but Allmusic and MTV are only linked on their first occurence. The USA Today ref has a date format inconsistent with the others (there may be other rogue ones, but I can not see any) Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Every concern should be addressed now! Candyo32 04:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Looking much better. Can you unlink Billboard in ref 13, and unitalicise MTV, allmusic and about.com? After that I should be done! Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Done! Candyo32 11:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC) MTV is still italicised (refs 20-24). Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, and Billboard is owned by e5 Global Media now (I think). Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Is there a reason why there's an excessive use of Boldface? Afro (Talk) 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

All changes to this discog and current featured lists are due to the new formats/style per WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Candyo32 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a proposed guideline, until theres a consensus on it, you should follow the format of a recent FL, if the guideline is adopted the changes can always be added in future to update the list. Afro (Talk) 21:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus was established on the talk page to being converting, as several FL's have been converted including Kelly Rowland discography, Kesha discography, Rihanna discography, Hilary Duff discography, and Ashley Tisdale discography, among others. Candyo32 04:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have looked over the talk page and consensus doesn't seem to of been reached as of yet, currently though the proposed guideline does fail MOS:BOLD at the very least which was my original question. Afro (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors may wish to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies/style#Bolding of title. We need to address internal inconsistencies between style guides before they cause too much trouble. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Afro, I do not like this new styling of discographies either (especially the bolding of single titles), but according to WP:ACCESS (specifically here) apparently these changes have been made to optimise readability for less-able readers. MOS:BOLD allows bolding for table headers, which these are. I think we will just have to suck it up and accept these changes. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no significant aesthetic change. It's quite the opposite, this new layout improves readability. Your reaction is normal, because you are used to a certain layout. And changing habits is surely disturbing, and sometimes unpleasant. But once you will have seen this layout several times, you'll get used to it. And later on, you'll get attached to it just as much as you were attached to the previous one. Kind regards, Dodoïste (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

For the third time of asking, why isn't the Music videos section bold in the same way as the singles and albums? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I fixed it at the same time as your reply. Dodoïste (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ref 13, 17 and 19 seem to have coding issues. Ref 17 also has a date inconsistency. Afro (Talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Refs 13 and 19 fixed, but I don't seem to find a problem with 17.Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I believe you meant 7, and its fixed now. Candyo32 17:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, silly me I also seem to have no more problems with the list, Support. Afro (Talk) 17:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose until we are agreed that the new bold row headings is correct and that we need the repetitive (and bold) captions for every table. Detailed discussions on this moved to FLC talk page Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Bold table headers have been allowed by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text_formatting) for years, I did not went back further than 2007. So the row headings are OK. Remains the potential issue with table captions. Yours, Dodoïste (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Support, there are not really any major issues here. Rather than debate too much about the WP:ACCESS part of MOS, everything else is quite good about this article. WP:ACCESS is part of the MOS and DISCOGSTYLE shows one way in which ACCESS can be achieved. Personal preferences on style should not hold back the progress of articles. Though I will be one of the first to agree that how we apply ACCESS to DISCOGS is still being debated etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realise it still contravenes WP:MOS because of the bold table captions, don't you? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The question was raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Table captions. Few people commented, so the question is still open. Dodoïste (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm now challenging the assertion that bold table captions are not a recognised exception at WP:MOSBOLD. It may be worth suspending judgement here until consensus forms. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Has this consensus already taken place? Because someone has already gone ahead and removed every bolded item in the discog. Candyo32 19:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the recent change to mediawiki's common.css, the bolding is now optional, but will still be obvious to screen-readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

oppose per WP:MOSBOLD#Other uses which states that table headers should be in boldface; the use of plainrowheaders directly violates this for the row-headers. Jack Merridew 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC) striking this as the whole thing is still in flux. Jack Merridew 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh gosh, just what the hell is going on when I'm busy at work? FLC candidates are not the place to debate rules. There is WT:FLC for this, and other MOS pages. We're not to annoy editors who are trying to do their best and make the article accessible. It would be awesome if every featured lists would conform to accessibility requirements. But accessibility should not be perceived as a hindrance, and especially not prevent excellent lists to gain the featured status. So please don't do that. There has been enough mess here already. Dodoïste (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on content rather than appearance: For such a slim discog, would expect her videos to be mentioned in the lead as well. Done. Would also link discography. Done "consists of three studio albums, and thirteen singles" I see no need for that comma. Done "peaked at number on in" (and people supported this!) Done "Later that year," what year? I don't know when American Idol season 3 was held. Done "certified Platinum" could use a link to something that allows a non-expert reader to understand what "certified" means in this context. Done "and has sold over 1.8 million copies in the US" - as of when? Done "shifting" is very tabloid, not what I would expect to see in an encyclopedia. Done And "only ... 133,000" needs context, because, where I'm from that's a heck of a lot... Done "The album has also.." and "which has peaked in" - no need for "has" here in my opinion. Done Infobox caption should not have a period. Done Where is "It's All Good" referenced (since it didn't chart anywhere)? Done "Other Artist(s)" -> "artist(s)". Done "Director(s)" - there's only ever one so ditch the (s). Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) "having moderate success" what does this mean and is it your opinion or do you have an RS to back it up? "moderate" was dertermined since the osng did not reach the top ten on the R&B chart, and was used rather than to list all of the acutal chartings of the song, similar to the way "moderate" and "little success" were used on Ciara discography. Not sure it's even needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Candyo32 19:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Caption: "performs as a lead" -> performed.

Why should this be in past tense as they same songs "live" or can be played over and over so she "performs" and has not "performed" as its not a one-time live performance or anything.

Not sure I like this, but I'll leave it out there. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 14 November 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, 16 November 2010 [2].

---

Grammy Award for Best Polka Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Reviewers,
I have no doubt in my mind that you are sick and tired of these Grammy Award lists. Please bear with me, as I have only a few left that I have already completed and believe to be worthy of FL status. (That being said, I recently signed up to participate in the upcoming WikiCup competition, so perhaps a few more Grammy lists will make their way here!) Thanks, as always, to reviewers for taking time to review these lists and for offering suggestions!

Grammy Award for Best Pop Instrumental Album is currently undergoing FLC review, but it has received support from reviewers already so I assume it is acceptable to nominate a second list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: red links should be replaced with italic-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• No more red links. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: I am not a fan of "Indicates a tie for that year" (the legend), myself. I am hoping someone has a better suggestion for a replacement phrase. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Don't use just a blue background to indicate something per WP:ACCESS. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps it's a "joint award" rather than a tie? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) "wins lead to the" -> "led to the"? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks! Let me know if a different column should contain the asterisks (I went with the Year column), or if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Support gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

*Comments The 1986 tie might be interesting to expand on in the lede Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Ref 7, I'll admit I've never seen the Huffington Post considered an RS. Why is it so here? Really? I'd love to see a discussion about the reliability of The Huffington Post. Would it help if the sentence read as "According to The Huffington Post...", or is its use discouraged entirely? If the latter is the case, should the claim be removed if I cannot find an alternative source indicating that Sturr has received the most consecutive awards? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) There are a ton of such discussions on the RSN, though admittedly, many relate to BLP's. This is strange, because it's true, but the source that says it isn't really that high-quality. Courcelles 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Well, Allmusic claims that Sturr holds the record for the "most consecutive nominations in any category"--perhaps this will work? I consider The Huffington Post to be more reliable than Allmusic (which is great for reviews), but I am willing to make the change if needed. Of course, the claim could be removed all together; I just thought it made a nice side note about the artist that dominated the category. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC) Would the Allmusic source and claim be preferred? Would adding "According to The Huffington Post,... be appropriate? I'm indifferent so I was not sure if you had a specific suggestion.(?) --Another Believer (Talk) 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Given the author and that we're nowhere near politics, we can live with Huffington Post here.
• Support: I think this list is worth to be called a FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:01, 10 November 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, 16 November 2010 [3].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to meet all of the criteria. This is list 1 of 21 in a series; the main list will be nominated last and is accessible by following the hatnote at the top of this list. Cheers to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 17:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment:Terry Adams is a dab, it should be Terry Adams (baseball) see here-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. None of the dab tools are working for me right now. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support:i think its k for FL-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean Support, not Suppose? I don't mean to canvas by any means, but I'm confused by the above statement otherwise. — KV5 • Talk • 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – The only thing I see that is even a minor issue for me is one of those sentences that start with a number ("1,500 plate appearances are needed..." from note R). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's a toughie, Giants. I don't know what's worse: the fact that that sentence is in every one of these lists, or that I have no idea how to fix it. I could subsume the two sentences into one by changing the period after "Baseball-Reference" to a semicolon. What do you think? — KV5 • Talk • 23:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you want to make it "A total of 1,500 plate appearances is needed", which is probably wordier than the ideal, the semi-colon seems like the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done: your solution implemented. — KV5 • Talk • 23:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 14:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Confused by the light-blue year in the key, I don't see any of these? And do you mean "current" roster? Needs a ref. Any reason Ashby's image is narrower than all the others? The key is a template used in all 21 tables in case they all need to be changed. The 25-man roster is part of the current roster, so no, I don't necessarily mean "current" roster. Major League Baseball teams have a 25-man and 40-man roster, which are both the current roster. That's why the clarification is needed. I can add a citation easily. Ashby's image isn't fixed narrower; the file is just that narrow at full resolution. I don't want to force a fixed width. I suppose I can do number of games if I must; that just means 1,881 more entries... I don't see it as particularly useful to this list because you can find it at the reference, but that's just my opinion. — KV5 • Talk • 19:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Wow " The 25-man roster is part of the current roster, so no, I don't necessarily mean "current" roster." is really confusing for a non-expert! As for number of games, yes I think it'd be very interesting to have it added. You've cherry-picked facts, but without a number of games, they may be meaningless (like batting average for a player who has made 1 appearance is going to be far less significant than a batting average for a player who's made 100...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC) To clarify: All Major League Baseball teams have 40-man rosters, of which their 25-man roster (the players on the team's available roster for each game) is a part. Those are the "active" players, per se, but the players on the 40-man are still part of the team's current roster. If you prefer, I could say "active (25-man) roster". As to the games played... well, I'll get to it tomorrow, I suppose. — KV5 • Talk • 19:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC) On both counts, it's just my opinion. I would rarely oppose on anything like this. The roster thing is a non-expert issue, so I think it ought to be clarified. The games played is a personal preference to help me put your Notes into some kind of context. But that's personal. It may be that I'm the only one in the world that considers that important. And I understand it's a big job, so probably best to hold off for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think number of games would be a really useful addition to the table, particularly when you have %'s.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Have clarified the roster for non-experts, as I agree with you that it should be accessible to those folks. I'll wait to see others' input on games played. — KV5 • Talk • 23:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from RexxS

  I've marked up the table with row headers to improve accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But now the "plainrowheaders" attribute has gone awry — that is to say, it's there, but it's no longer doing anything. The unnecessary bold text and dark background have returned, and I must say that I hate the way it looks, in addition to the fact that it forces a violation of part of the MOS to be in compliance with another part. If this is going to be the case, I'll be removing these extra attributes and proceeding with the FLC as if this testcase scenario never happened. — KV5 • Talk • 14:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried clearing your cache again? Seems okay to me now I've recleared....The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll try it, but it looked good for me yesterday on this same computer. — KV5 • Talk • 14:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that did it. — KV5 • Talk • 14:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The darker grey background has returned. I don't have a problem with this, as long as there are no complaints about the red overriding the grey when it's used as part of an indicator. Honestly, I think it helps the red stand out more, so if we are dispensing with the extraneous bold and centering and just going with a grey background for row headers, I can easily live with that. — KV5 • Talk • 15:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment and it may just be me, but the caption says "season(s)" while the heading is "tenure(s)" and the caption says "selected statistics" when the heading indicates "notes". Is this not confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that the "notes"/"selected statistics" is confusing; to me, that just explains what the notes column contains. Also, there are a few players in some of these sublists who don't have statistics, as they didn't accumulate any in their brief tenures. I see the "seasons"/"tenures" the same way; the column notes the tenure of the player, and the header explains that those are seasons and not just plain years. As always, though, O director my director, I'll make the change if you think it would be for the better. :-D — KV5 • Talk • 12:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, no, I don't really want you to change it, I was just questioning it from an ACCESS point of view, if the caption describes the columns differently from the headings, and that's what some people are relying on to tell them what's in the table, would it be confusing? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. An interesting question. What do the ACCESS people say? — KV5 • Talk • 12:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the access folks will say, but the caption only needs to give me an idea of what's there at a glance. A JAWS user would get the detail when they have the actual headers read to them, and might only use the caption to identify the table if they wanted to go directly to it. A complex table would have an invisible summary containing instructions on how to use the table, but I really don't want to complicate the issue unnecessarily. Simpler is often better for a caption. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

KV5, if you wish to continue to use scope etc, you should be aware that there's now a move to undo the change to Common.css, which would result in bold row headers, as it did originally. As for complicating things with the caption, feel free to use whatever caption you see fit. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I did happen upon that discussion this morning, with a mixture of horror, shock, confusion, and TLDR. As it stands, I see no reason not to make this list as accessible as possible, but I won't compromise Wikipedia's other standards to do it. So, as I mentioned above, if the bolding and background-changing of row headers return, I'll just remove the changes and continue on my way. Thanks for the heads-up. — KV5 • Talk • 17:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. My only concern is that the Ashby pic doesn't line up with the others due to its size. Personally, I'd prefer a replacement, but if there's no alternative anyway then no harm leaving it in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I'm indifferent on a games played column. It would certainly be interesting info, but it gets at effectively the same idea as the tenure by year column (how long were they a Phillie). Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:28, 13 November 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, 16 November 2010 [4].

---

List of number-one singles from the 1960s (UK)

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've brought the 50s, 70s, 80s to FL and revamped the formatting to match on the 90s and 2000s lists which User:ChrisTheDude brought to FL in early 2009. So I present to you the 1960s list, the missing piece in a featured chronology of number-one singles (as canonized by The Official Charts Company). Thanks in advance for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—dab links to It's Now or Never and On the Rebound; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Not true. They did exist but were fixed hours before your comment. I think the toolserver has been havingtrouble. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry; I struck my comment. Ucucha 00:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support pumpkin support this-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments "achieved 7 number ones; 2 solo and 5 with the Shadows. The Shadows had a total of 10 number ones; 5 solo and 5 with Cliff Richard." would expect all these numbers to be spelled out. Done. Wasn't sure if comparable quantities should apply between table and prose. I agree it probably doesn't in retrospective. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Perhaps worth clarifying that Disc is a magazine? I'm not sure it is. This front cover describes itself as a "pop paper" and looks like a newspaper to me. Dave McAleer's site also calls it a "paper"[5]. I haven't changed Disc (magazine) as I can't find a reliable I think the line between mag/paper was fine back then. For a time it was published by Go Magazine according to the British Library. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) "selling a million copies." "over" a million copies? Done "Million-selling and gold records" section, Year of millionth sale col doesn't sort correctly for me, it'll be the N/A forcing it all to sort as text, so use {{sort}} to fix it. Huh. I checked in the main three browsers and it works fine. By deliberately not using N/A it sorts in 4 ways (not 2) leaving N/A at the bottom ascend and descend and then at the top ascend and descend. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Interesting. So you're happy to have that col sort four ways? Seems a bit counter-intuitive to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Personally, I think it is better to sort ascend/descend with N/A at the bottom for bother, after all it is non-applicable. On the general concept of 4-way sorting I think this other list is greatly advantaged by 4 way sorting. So if your opposition remains can you let me know if it is on 4 way sorting in general or just in this case. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Interesting again. I think I would have noted that odd sorting if I'd been alert enough! I'm not comfortable with four-way sorting in a column, and it may set a precedent that we'd need to all be happy with. I can't recall using any other mainstream software where sorting up and down results in more than exactly two results. But is it a problem if it does? I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't expect it to happen that way... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Is there a real need for the Gold record (Disc) col if they're all Yes? Or is this in keeping with other similar lists where, perhaps, the answer is mixed? It is, it also explains those erroneously awarded a disc. Additionally a 1960s record could have become a million-seller recently and wouldn't of been awarded an award then. Sources on this are very slim. The BBC suggests The Archies may have gone to actually sell over a million anyway (but that might be a mix up due to the awarding of a gold Disc). I discovered List of singles which have sold more than one million copies in the UK recently, it is supposedly based on the BBC show but is sketchly sourced. I can remove the column if you wish. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I think if you can replace the column with relevant prose preceding the table then I'd do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, I've replied to or addressed each of the comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question - May I ask why you don't include the symbol's in the table yet do so in the key? Afro (Talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

  Good spot. I thought I'd already added them. I also corrected some vandalism whilst fixing this. Thanks for that, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support - That was the only issue I had with the list, it all seems good to me. Afro (Talk) 06:49, 7 November 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 17:49, 12 November 2010 [6].

---

List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC) & Courcelles

I am nominating this as I think it's of similar quality (or at least I hope it is) to other early-year Olympics medal winners featured lists like list of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners and list of 1932 Winter Olympics medal winners. I've also reviewed the FLC for the 1932 list and tried to change anything in this article that would have attracted similar comments. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 02:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:Sweden had the second most number of medals with seven, but had one less gold medal than hosts Germany, hosts should be IMHO host nation-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment:Great Britain's surprise win in ice hockey remains their only gold medal in the event to date. surprised won..., remains... or: surprised by winning or: surprisingly won or: won surprisingly-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "Surprise" is used as an adjective here, to describe the nature of the win/gold medal. Maybe I should just remove "surprise" altogether if that's really an issue? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Or maybe a better phrasing would be "Great Britain's unexpected win"? Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 13:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • yes this is better :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Done, rephrased. Thanks. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support:looks good-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Quick Comments - Are you using the Main article template or the See also for above the tables? "Sweden had the second most number of medals with seven, but had one less gold medal than host nation Germany, who placed second in the medal standings with three golds." I think this line can be worded much better to me, I don't understand why you'd bring up the third place before the second place. Afro (Talk) 15:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm using {{seealso}}, based on the 1928 article. The one stray {{main}} has been fixed. As for the other point... the paragraph led off with a mention of Norway winning the most medals, so it seemed right that the next mention should be for the second most number of medals. Of course, Sweden don't actually place second overall based on the IOC's sorting method (G-S-B)... so then again it didn't seem right not to mention that Germany won more golds. Listing them the other way (Germany placed second in the medal standings with three golds, but had one less medal than Sweden with seven) doesn't seem to be any better or worse, really, imo. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support - I see no real problems with the article. Afro (Talk) 01:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

• Two demonstration sports were held—eisschiessen and military patrol, which made its third appearance try to rephrase it

That merited a complete rewrite, to connect military patrol with the known sport of Biathlon- done. Courcelles

• Both men and women participated at these Games, with the women's alpine skiing event being the first medal event women were allowed to participate in at the Winter Olympics outside of figure skating. Women had been allowed to participate in ladies' singles and pairs figure skating since the first Winter Olympics sounds repetitive and awkward. I would rewrite this to something like. "Women had been allowed to participate in ladies' singles and pairs figure skating since the first Winter Olympics. The women's alpine skiing event became only the second medal event where women were allowed to participate in at the Winter Olympics."

Rewritten.Courcelles

• seven of them gold you mean ...of gold?

Reworded, somewhat differently, "them of gold" would be poor English. Courcelles

• but had one less gold medal than host nation Germany, who placed second in the medal standings with three golds. medal standings are not unanimously accepted as having the most golds (as opposed to highest total). I would rephrase with ".., who won three golds but only 6 in total".

Rewritten Courcelles

• Athletes from 11 of the 28 participating NOCs won at least a bronze medal; athletes from eight countries won at least one gold. I would prefer: "Athletes from eight of the 28 participating NOCs won at least one gold medal, and from three other won medals but none of gold"

Not changed, as that phrasing is poor grammar, and the current version is proper grammar. Courcelles

• Why not rename "Medal leaders" to "Multiple medallists"?

Equivalent, changed. Courcelles 21:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no further issues. Nergaal (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding File:Kalle-Jalkanen-1936.jpg also. Nergaal (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Really can't happen- that image actually needs to be nominated for deletion Commons-side, as the source, "Scan of old picture from grandfather's albums" is not conclusive proof the uploader has any actual title to the rights to the image, rather than just acquiring a print of the photo. (To use an analogy, I have boxes full of photos my grandfather took, yet because of the way inheritance laws work, even though I have the only copy of the prints, I own at most one-fourth of the rights to the photos.) I'd normally go talk to the uploader, but since they haven't edited for 15 months, I suspect I'd be wasting my breath. Courcelles 04:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Both men and women..." this sentence goes on and on and on! Consider splitting. Done. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Lahde has an umlaut missing in the caption. Fixed. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) "Ladies' singles" ladies' singles what? Fixed in fixing the first one. Sport needs linking every time since the table is sortable. Done. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Any reason not to use the {{commons}} template? Because there are no other external links, using that template creates quite a bit of white space. Courcelles 16:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Try to avoid repetition like this: "and military patrol. Military patrol...". That's the only thing I saw worth noting. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded. Courcelles 21:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's pretty redundant to say "1936 Winter Olympics" and "were a winter multi-sport event" in the opening sentence. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well... I could explain, but bottom line is that you're right, it does look weird having "winter" three times in one sentence. Removed. Courcelles 06:53, 4 November 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 17:49, 12 November 2010 [7].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a list in the series of National Treasures of Japan lists. It has been modelled after other featured Lists of National Treasures of Japan. I tried to incorporate comments from previous featured list candidacies. bamse (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.narahaku.go.jp/exhibition/2009toku/ningbo/ningbo_index.html is dead. Ucucha 23:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I am aware of the broken link. Unfortunately the page has disappeared and is not present at the internet archive or WebCite either. As far as I understand WP:ROT (quote: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." and "...do not delete a URL solely because the URL does not work any longer"), the url should stay in the article, right? bamse (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, all information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, and no one can verify something that is referenced to a broken link. Can you reference this information to a different source? Ucucha 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I thought so too, but it seems to contradict wikipedia's policy which I quoted above (from WP:ROT): "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link". bamse (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
        • But surely it is better to have a source that can actually be accessed! Ucucha 19:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I removed the reference. The information is already present in (general) reference 4. bamse (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well referenced and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 16:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - Ref 23, 25, 41, 54, 68, 75 language needs stating. Ref 43 returns the Portugese Google Frontpage. Afro (Say Something Funny) ^{- Afkatk} 11:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed all. 25 already had the language stated. Removed ref 54 as it might not be WP:RS. PS: In fact it was the Polish google books frontpage... bamse (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Either way I'm glad that the ref doesn't return the frontpage anymore. Ref 43 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Added and also to ref 59. Hope those were all. bamse (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 05:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport This list is quite well done. I only have quibbles of sorts:
  • I presume that the categorization of treasures is somehow officially determined, but this is not stated here. A sentence after the opening one saying something like "Ancient documents are one of <n> cagetories of treasures recognized by <agency>" would clarify this.
    • Your presumption is correct. I added: "Ancient documents" is one of thirteen cagetories of national treasures recognized by the agency. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • National Treasures of Japan says there are 59 items on this list; what is the reason for the discrepancy?
    • That's because I forgot to update the National Treasures of Japan article with this year's new nomination ("Map of rice fields in Naruto, Imizu District, Etchū Province"). As of this year, there are 60 ancient documents national treasures. Fixed. bamse (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • This is just a suggestion: that the maps vary by size the dots based on the number of items held somewhere. (I'd suggest color variation, but that probably violates WP:ACCESS.)
    • I see what you mean, something like National_Treasures_of_Japan#Geographical distribution. Apart from the WP:ACCESS violation, I think that the numbers are already well covered by the table next to the map. Also I would not know what intervals I would use for coloring ("1", "2-5", ">5"?). Furthermore unlike for immobile national treasures (temples, shrines, residences, castles), the non-uniform distribution of treasures has probably more than one reason (cultural center Kyoto and famous museums in Tokyo...) and just presenting the numbers encoded in colors might be confusing. Also due to a lack of reliable sources I don't want to discuss or stress this issue too much in the article. bamse (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
      • As I said, it was just a suggestion. Since the other issues are addressed, I support. Magic♪piano 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Magic♪piano 00:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another great list. Courcelles 14:11, 11 November 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 November 2010 [8].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Bill

Nominator(s): 5 albert square (talk), HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? , JuneGloom07 Talk? , and Courcelles 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this was archived last month with no outstanding comments, and a single support. It just, well, stagnated. So I'm bringing it back in hopes of more commentary this time. Courcelles 00:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 00:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - looking at the list alone, it is very well referenced. No problems with references that I can see. --5 albert square (talk) 01:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The Bill was the United Kingdom's longest-running police drama" - I was unable to verify this in the cited source (sources uses "one of the longest...", and doesn't restrict to police dramas) Oh, well spotted, sir! Added a second source that confirms the questioned part. Courcelles "was nominated for a total of thirty-seven awards" - this is a bit presumptuous (and general) - does this come straight from a source? More a counting of the awards listed below. However, I was able to copyedit it out to avoid giving such numbers. Courcelles Yea, I was considering not saying anything, but in the infobox it's obvious that its just a count, whereas in the prose it sounds more general. Thanks for the fix. Jujutacular talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC) "losing to EastEnders[3]." - ref location Done. Courcelles The Bill should italicized in the title Done. Courcelles Jujutacular talk 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the commentary. Courcelles 04:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'll take a second look later, ping me if I forget. Jujutacular ^talk 04:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: why you added a total awards in the infobox, but didn't mention all awards which the page including?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I don't understand you. The infobox does contain all awards, the details of which are the body of the list. If you are discussing the lede, it is never possible for a lede to cover every item on a list, otherwise there would be no purpose in having the actual list. The lede is a summary, not a repetition, of the content of the list. Courcelles 11:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry i didn't saw that it was collapsed-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support everything looks very good! My support is easily won :)--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support: i support too-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment How sure are we that File:Thebillnewsequence3-1.jpg is too simple for copyright eligibility? The text itself seems plain enough, but the background is perhaps skirting on that border. Jujutacular ^talk 16:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're seeing something I'm not. All I see is "BILL" with a blue background that fades to black around the edge. There's nothing really approaching the threshold of originality here as I understand the rules. Is there something in this image I'm just not seeing? Courcelles 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that's all I'm seeing, but the standard is pretty low. Examples: File:Lost title card.jpg, File:Grey's Anatomy Logo.svg, File:Body-of-proof.jpg. Jujutacular ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The LOST one, at least needs to be re-licensed, (all of them really do), see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lost (TV series)/archive1 and Elcobbola's quoting of the law, ""names, titles, short phrases, slogans, familiar symbols, mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, coloring, and listings of contents or ingredients are not subject to copyright"" Courcelles 08:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll concede on the Lost and Body of Proof images. At any rate, if no one else seems to think this borders on minimum originality, I'll shut up ;) Jujutacular ^talk 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great work: organized, well written, well sourced. Jujutacular ^talk 19:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Not keen that the NTA table has been squashed because of the image (I modified the caption so the period was inside, not outside, by the way), so perhaps consider removing it. Otherwise, excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Removed. It really did look bad on a smaller screen. Courcelles 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support a good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - everything looks fine. Afro (Talk) 10:59, 4 November 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 November 2010 [9].

---

List of breastwork monitors of the Royal Navy

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

These virtually unknown ships were the direct ancestors of the pre-dreadnought battleship and the dreadnought. I think that it's about time that they got a little love. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 03:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Support per usual disclaimer. I would appreciate a quick check of my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  1. I think the lead should have an explanation of what monitor is.
     • Breastwork monitor is linked already.
       • That is not enough. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
         • Monitor is already linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
           • I mean you should write a single sentence explanation. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
             • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
               • Where? Ruslik_Zero 16:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                 • 2nd and 3rd sentences of the first paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                   • These sentences have not changed since 9 October, when I posted my comments. Ruslik_Zero 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                     • So you want explanations of breastwork monitor and monitor both?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                       • I think the lead should have an explanation of what "monitor" is. I think this is sufficiently clear. Ruslik_Zero 18:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
                         • I disagree, the improvements listed of a breastwork monitor over a regular monitor provide enough context for a reader who can click on the link provided if he wants more info. The focus here is not the monitor type.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  2. The units conversions are not consistent. Gun calibers are sometimes converted to mm from inches, but sometimes not. The same with armour.
     • Only the first use is converted.
       • It is not always the first use. 12-inch shell is mentioned before the first table. In addition 12 kn is converted 3 times. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
         • Good catch, fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. The section about Cyclops-class ships is too short. It should contain something more specific than were slightly modified versions of Cerberus.
     • I'm not sure what else can be added. The stats are very comparable and they didn't lead exciting lives.
       • You can write what those slight modifications were. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
         • Done.
  4. Can years be added to images?
     • Done where it is known.
  5. Pre-dreadnought_battleship article says that HMS Devastation was the first sea going breastwork monitor. I am not an expert in ship classification, but should not it be in this list?

Ruslik_Zero 19:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• 1. • Not in my opinion because Devastation was far larger than these ships and not intended for the same type of roles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments " Sir Edward Reed, Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy during the 1860s" would have a comma after Navy here so it's clear what is "during the 1860s". "then ordered another just like it" not keen on "just like it", sounds a little too colloquial. Is there a link for "draught"? Think non-expert again. I would say that Half Moon Bay is off Australia otherwise it's not clear. "rarely, if ever, left their home port" since there were only two of them, it should be easy to say whether one of them never left home port. Sturm, do you know which? - Dank (push to talk) As far as I can tell the ships only left port for gunnery exercises, but I'm not sure where exactly that was so it could well have been in the outer areas of the port.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Would have thought BritEng to be predominant here, so "maximise" not "maximize", "mobilised" not "mobilized" etc. Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) Done, but I'm not good at catching the differences unless they involve extra letters for BritEng. If you see any others, please speak up.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Especially as I thought USEng spelled manoeuvre as manoeuver? We spell it "maneuver". - Dank (push to talk) Okay, but the Engvar needs to be internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Beeler ref needs an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Done except as noted. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support All criteria met. I checked the photos and all is well in that department. I cannot vouch for the condition of the Commonwealth English as I don't use it myself. Brad (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - see nothing wrong after a full read-through; definitely meets the criteria. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
*Comments Why aren't the ship's articles linked? Some of the ships have articles, but no links to them in this list. That's all that strikes me here. Courcelles 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Most of them are stub or start quality, but it's easy enough to fix.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Another fine list. Had never heard of this particular type of ship before, so it was a nice read. Courcelles 05:27, 7 November 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 November 2010 [10].

---

List of Denver RTD light rail stations

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail stations, List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations, List of UTA TRAX stations) Patriarca12 (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 01:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Presently" - timeframe needed. The title of the list is "RTD light rail" but you continually refer to "RTD Light Rail". Is this inconsistent? "RTD has adopted " is this usually referred to as "The RTD"? Would be useful (I think) to see fare zones discussed in the lead since you list them in the table. Reference->References. Maybe it's a personal thing, but since the under construction stations are all (a) on West Corridor (b) due for completion in 2013 and (c) referenced by [16], I'd remove all three of those columns and write some prose to introduce the remaining part of the table along with that repeated information. Ref 11 could really use a page for that article. Same for ref 15. You have a template called "TheRide Light Rail" but this isn't referred to in any way in the lead. Any reason? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC) All of the above comments have been addressed. Capitalization issues have been corrected, additional prose added, and both the references and template amended. Thanks for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC) You're welcome. I'll re-review tomorrow and cap. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support - looks as good as my rail lists, LOL. Though all the PDF refs need to have format=PDF—Chris!_c/t 01:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! format=PDF added. Patriarca12 (talk) 01:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support can't find any issues with the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is not well written. I fixed some problems but many more still remain. Some examples: As of 2010, there are thirty-six stations on the five lines in the RTD Light Rail system This sentence partially duplicates the second sentence of the same paragraph. I suggest a merge. All of the stations along the RTD light rail network are open-air structures featuring ... It is not necessary to repeat "RTD light rail network" in every sentence. In addition, should not "light rail" be capitalized like in the first paragraph? The RTD has adopted specific design standards that are incorporated into its station design, with a specific emphasis ... Can repetition of "specific" be avoided? Its fare structure incorporates a fare zone system used for calculating the price of tickets for travel What does "its" refer to? Transition plaza from the previous sentence? So we have "fare system of the transition plaza"? Additionally, all stations include works of public art ... Additionally to what? To the fare system? (The previous sentence is about the fare system.) Can a scheme be included into the article? Otherwise it is very difficult to read the third paragraph. From reading the third paragraph is not clear when all five lines were constructed. The word "included" is used to often, in my opinion. The article needs a general copy-edit by someone not familiar with the text. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Worked to address most of your comments that I can. A copy-edit from a 3rd party still needs to be made, and is "scheme" a map? Thanks for the comments. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I copy-edited the first paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, the table(s) in this article do not meet the requirements of WP:MOS. If you look at WP:Wikitable you'll see that tables are required to use ! scope="row"| and ! scope="col"| -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've retracted my own comment. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added column scope to two tables, and row headers+scope only to the main table. I don't think the "under construction" table would find much benefit from row headers as it has only two columns. I've also added summaries to each table for use by screen readers. I believe this candidate is compliant with WP:ACCESS as far as the tables are concerned. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 10:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

*What is "side center style"? Can it be wikilinked or explained in a footnote? Note added to clairfy. To me it is unclear what the " specific design standards" are. Can you explain? In fact the sentence starting: "The RTD has adopted specific design standards..." reads a bit like advertising (unencyclopedic) to me. What does "...at the facility." in the same sentence refer to? Reworded and cleaned-up a bit. How about rewording the sentence: "Each is subject..." to something like: "The RTD has established (certain) criteria for station design with the intention/aim of incorporating each station effectively into its surrounding community."? That sounds much better. Done. What is "multi-modal access"? Wikilinked I think I understand what it means. Just a question about words: neither Intermodal passenger transport nor Mixed-mode commuting has the exact phrase "multi-modal access". Should it be added as alternative name to these articles or changed in this list? Good call. I removed the phrase altogether and linked Intermodal passenger transport by itself. What additional information does the phrase: "for travel from station to station on the network" convey? Could it be removed? Gone Maybe spell out "Golden->Golden, Colorado" as the sentence reads a bit confusing to somebody who does not know that there is a place called "Golden". Done Why is the number of parking spaces relevant to this list? I left them there as they were part of the original list on the RTD Bus & Light Rail page. I have no feelings on leaving them or removing them and am agreeable to whatever consensus is made. In my opinion they could stay if they are part of the stations themselves (operated by RTD). They should be removed if they are just parking spaces in proximity of the rail station (not operated by RTD). All of the spaces associated with the station in this list are owned and operated by the RTD and not private entities. Fine. Could you add a sentence or two explaining the fare zone system, i.e. which fare Done Good. Can you add in the same sentence which zone "Downtown Denver" is ("A" zone or "D" zone?) Noted that downtown is in the A zone. Any chance to have a map? Done Initially I though about a real map, but this schematic plan is perfectly fine. On my screen there is a large empty space to the left of the plan. Could this be fixed? (I know that it is virtually impossible to make it look good for all browsers and screen resolutions, so if you tell me it looks good on your/most screens, that would be fine with me.) Looks good on my screen, but I am not as familiar with specific syntax that may help with this on other monitors. Any suggestions on how to do this would be greatly appreciated. OK. Is it meaningful to have the "Lines" column sortable? You're right. Now unsortable. Are there inofficial transfer stations? Not quite sure what you mean here. Can you elaborate more? There are "Official transfer stations" in the color key... On other lists of metro stations (List of Washington Metro stations & List of Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations for example) only differentiate between the "official" transfer stations as identified by the agency and not list every station where multiple lines run and transfers can be made. I see. The LA list did not have the "official" when I checked. I don't think this point is very important so I leave it up to you whether to have "official" or not or whether to explain in the text what an official transfer station is. bamse (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Comments addressed. Thanks for taking the time to check it out and providing feedback! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) One more thing. After more carefully reading the intro, I think that the second and third paragraph need a copy-edit (you could ask the WP:GOCE for help). Examples of prose that needs to be addressed in addition to the sentence I mentioned above are: "...and passenger services can be found between the platform..." I see what you mean but it reads a bit cumbersome. "In addition to the design standards, all stations are decorated ..." Is this really an addition or a rather something completely different? "...expansion took rail to the southeast..." is this proper wikipedia English? bamse (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular has taken the time to take a second look at the prose and perform a copyedit. I hope this does resolve some of these concerns. Thanks again for the comments! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have the prose issues been resolved, and have Bamse and Ruslik been asked to revisit the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Issues noted by Bamse have been addressed and am waiting for a second response. Issues from Ruslik have been addressed as best I can without a peer review as the rules state "A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time." Patriarca12 (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I examined the prose and did a copyedit, looks good to me. Jujutacular ^talk 00:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jujutacular for the copyedit. It is much appreciated! Patriarca12 (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of my issues have indeed been addressed. There are still three outstanding items though (see above). I don't care too much about the 2nd and 3rd issue (a reply would be appreciated though) but the first, i.e., the sentence: "The transition plaza is the area where tickets are purchased and passenger services can be found between the platform and where intermodal access is available." still reads confusing to me, partially due to the doubled "and". Maybe it could be split in two sentences? bamse (talk) 11:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments. I went back and tweaked all three of prose concerns mentioned above, and I do believe they read much better. Let me know if anything else needs to be amended. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much better now. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see no current issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support After all comments have been addressed. bamse (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks to meet criteria. Afro (Talk) 23:17, 6 November 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 20:52, 4 November 2010 [11].

---

Celine Dion singles discography

Nominator(s): max24 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. max24 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 21:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comment Where are the sources for Canadian peaks for "Live (Live For The One I Love)", "I Want You To Need Me", "Sous Le Vent", "A New Day Has Come", "I'm Alive", "Goodbyes (The Saddest Word)", "I Drove All Night", "One Heart", "Tout Lor des Hommes", "Taking Chances", "The Payer (solo)", "Alone", "My Love" The paragraphing looks a little disorganized, would look better if bunched into a limited amount of paragraphs. For example, "Too Love You More" has its own paragraph. "Keeping with her French roots" - "Keeping to her French roots" You should mention that "I'm Your Angel" became one of only 13-17 songs (I'm not sure) to debut at the #1 position on the Hot 100, that a rare accomplishment. Aside from that, everything looks petty freakin good, and I will gladly support once its addressed :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 00:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Ad 1 - links are already in the article: [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Ad 2 - fixed. Ad 3 - fixed. Ad 4 - fixed. Max24 08:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Six para lead is too long. WP:SUMMARY & WP:LEAD may help. "At age twelve, Celine Dion.." no need to repeat her name. Perhaps just "she". At worst, just "Dion". You mention Gold but don't explain or link it to some article on certifications. Single titles in the opening paragraph are in quotes and not italicised, the Euro song contest entry is without quotes and in italics. Why? "to release Francophone recordings" why not stick to more natural English and say "French language recordings"? Similar for "Anglophone" (which is technically correct but reads horribly). "a rare accomplishment for a French-lanugage song." prove it. Lead seems to discuss as many albums as it does singles. Would prefer to see columns in the tables the same width from section to section. There's an unexplained rowspan for ""My Heart Will Go On"" Same in 2003. I guess this is double-A-Side but it needs a referenced note. Ref 33 - is CRIA really a work? I thought it would be the publisher. There are many of these. Italics usually indicate works (e.g. published magazines) while non-italics in these references are publishers. Please ensure that all foreign-language references have the language= parameter filled in correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Hello. I am filling in for Max during his absence, so if you have concerns, I will answer them. I have fixed all the issues you mentioned Rambling Man. Thanks.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

*fail, since the time of nomination the manual of style for wikipedia has changed and now includes WP:ACCESS. To meet the new standards all discographies must meet the new approved standards at WP:DISCOGSTYLE. And considering that FLs are supposed to examplify the best work on wikipedia this list article fails the new MoS guidelines. I'm point this out on every candidate so please don't feel that I'm singling any thing out in particular. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC) WP:DISCOGSTYLE is marked as a {{proposal}} so no adherence to it is required, nor ought it to be described as "the new approved standards". BencherliteTalk 22:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) And WP:DISCOGSTYLE is a project-based guideline, not a Wikipedia-wide policy. So even if it wasn't just "proposed", it isn't part of WP:WIAFL. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I've strucken my earlier comment. There is some confusion on-going about this. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 22:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks for clearing that up guys :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Afro (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comment - Why are the AUS, GER, UK, US, US AC columns featured in the 1980s table when they're all just ndash's? Afro (Talk) 10:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Hi there :). Its like that so there is a uniform and continuous rowspan and look in the article. The list would look very disorganized if the first decade had only 4 or 5 columns instead on just leaving them blank.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Can I ask why the Certification link is repeated in the other decade tables and not the links to the charts? Afro (Talk) 13:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Good point. I fixed that!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Ref 1, 13, 15 don't have the cite web template. Ref 56, 59 need a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 17:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC) All Fixed!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 21:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Well sourced, allot of info. Good work!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm back after my vacations. I'd like to thank Petergriffin9901 for watching over this nomination while I was gone. Max24 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Oppose for now. "137 singles and five charity records" – MOS:NUM says Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures. Fixed. Is ref 1 this. You should always provide links if you are using a url as a ref. Fixed. It doesn't mention the name "Jacques", the song "Ce n'était qu'un rêve" or a release in Quebec. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. The new ref covers two of those but a "demo recorded by Celine reached Quebec music entrepreneur René Angélil. The demo included "Ce n'était qu'un rêve" (It Was Only A Dream)... René was immediately taken by the beautiful voice he heard on the tape and soon financed the recording of her debut album" is nowhere near the same as a release (music). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) The next sentence on celinedion.com says: The first single off the album was "Ce n'était qu'un rêve". Anyway, I have added a book source. Fixed. What makes Québec Info Musique a reliable source? Fixed. "top-ten". Not sure this should be hyphenated. Same with number-four. It would be a "number-one single" but a record would reach number "number one". Fixed. Still lots of hyphenated positions. IMO peaked at number-four should be "...at number four." Likeways with many "number-one"s and a "number-six" in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. "real international breakthrough" according to who? I'd really like some full perspective on how this is referenced. Fixed. considered a "critical success", again {{By whom}}. Might be best to just let the facts do the talking. Fixed. Personally I'd spell out US on first occurance. Fixed. Her following single, "If You Asked Me To" peaked at number-four on the Billboard Hot 100. missing comma? Fixed. Nope, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Does Charles P. Alexander actually say "signature song" and "until...1990s". Fixed. Also InfoDisc.fr. Same reliable source question as above. InfoDisc is used in WP:CHARTS as a reliable source. "To Love You More" in Japan ... selling over one million copies – not cited. Fixed. "height of her popularity" seems a bit WP:POV. Fixed. Couldn't find "D'amour ou d'amitié"'s French Gold disc in cite. Source says: "In 1983, she became the first Canadian ever to receive a Gold Record in France." Yes, sorry I missed that. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC) CRIA is offline but I'll AGF and re-check when I revisit this. CRIA is offline for about 2 months now. I don't see any other articles removing Canadian cefrtifications beacuse of that. We're waiting for this site to come back. 2 months is a long time. For such a heavily biog'd singer can you not find another source? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Comment It is not fair to hold that against the nomination. All articles are suffering from this problem, and noone is removing them either (Canadian certs), so its unfair to hold it against the nomination. However, I have gotten in touch with the CRIA last month, so I will try to procure an official document from then for Dion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Added a book source. Fixed. "Ne partez pas sans moi"'s Belgian #11 isn't in the ref. Fixed. Stopped reviewing here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC) All fixed. max24 (talk)12:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. max24 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Allmusic seem to have retargeted alot of the site. Unfortunately links such as http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&searchlink=CELINE%DION&sql=11:wifoxqe5ld6e~T51 just redirect to http://allmusic.com/artist/p4099 to the exact source page you wish. I know there are a few here, but can all these be fixed please. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Updated all links. Fixed. All fixed. max24 (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Update the corresponding accesdates for those refs and that should be me done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Fixed. max24 (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support all my problems have been addressed and, although I have not checked every chart placing against its source, those that I have checked and my dealings with the nominator allow me to assume everything is in order. Nice work, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:49, 4 November 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 03:39, 4 November 2010 [17].

---

PDSA Gold Medal

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, like Dickin Medal, it holds a special place in my heart. I have one current FLC which is of a completely different nature (which has some support and in which reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed), and trust that the community believe that I will be capable of maintaing two simultaneous nominations. Of course, if not, then I will graciously withdraw! In any case, as ever, thank you for your interest in this niche list, and for any comments, improvements, support or otherwise. (My other nomination has no outstanding issues and three supports). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you Ucucha. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: The lead should make sure to say that the medal refers to UK only (or if not, in what circumstances can be awarded to other contries). Considering the subject, it might be appropriate to have a column on the race of the dogs. Also, I would prefer listing the entries in order of the incidents (after the award date), unless there is a reason for the current entry order. Nergaal (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC) There's nothing to suggest this is for UK animals only, the official website does not make that distinction. All current recipients are from the UK so a nationality column would be redundant. The current ordering is per date of award, which is logical since this is about the award. Cheers for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Bamse was Norwegian (though that's no reason to introduce a nationality column). Yomanganitalk 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, that's true, my mistake. But as you say, I'm still not convinced a nationality column is useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I was not thinking of a column for nationality. But I think it is worthwhile enough to point in the intro (right after all recipients are dogs) that all are UK except for the Norwegian one. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I was thinking of moving the race of the dogs from notes into a separate column. Would that look bad? Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I think just a note in the end of the lead would suffice. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Why is Bulla the 3rd? He appears to have receiver the medal on the same date as the other two, but his incident was before the others'. Nergaal (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Fair point, what I've done is order them first by award date, then by incident date. I think I got it right. What do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Yep, looks good. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC) Ref #10 is missing the date. Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• • Is there a reason why only one picture is shown? Nergaal (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Couldn't find any others which weren't fair use. Would happily add more if they are available and have valid licensing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Since the picture File:Bamse (St. Bernard).jpg was taken before 1945, when should the copyright expire? Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure, I'm no expert in this. Perhaps someone else could comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
          • The copyright would expire 70 years after the photo was taken at the earliest. If you assume the photo was taken and published in 1939 and the creator is unknown it would be possible to claim the copyright had expired, but this is an unsafe assumption as the date is unlikely and the creator could probably be uncovered with a little research. Yomangani^talk 09:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support very good choice of list, and well written. Nergaal (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "if the animal dies or suffers serious injury whilst carrying out its official duties in the face of armed and violent opposition." "while" is tighter prose-wise than "whilst", or so I've been told.
  • Have -st/+e The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• "an assistance dog whose actions help save the life of his disabled owner." "help" should be "helped", assuming this isn't ongoing (from the list itself that doesn't seem the case).
  • Reworded as "actions helped to save", is that better? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Should the publisher's abbreviation be fully spelled out in the external link? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Good news! It is now! Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Such a lovely list, I couldn't see anything wrong as I read through it. I did have a quick search on Flickr for another free image, but unfortunately there weren't any. I'll keep checking for you though. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments The main thing I'm seeing is that the lede could stand to be longer, if there is anything else to say. There's three paragraphs, of 2, 2, and 3 sentences. Not much more, you're right, but merged to two paras, and talked about most recent award. Anything else you could suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC) The external link and ref 4 seem to be the same. Therefore the entire external link section should be removed as superfluous. Changed EL to the home page of PDSA, the awarding organisation, which I believe is a reasonable replacement. Good spot, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Courcelles 21:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Courcelles 22:04, 31 October 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 03:39, 4 November 2010 [18].

---

Mariah Carey singles discography

Nominator(s): PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all FLC criteria. Thanks to all who participate :)! PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 09:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to I'll Be There; no dead external links. Ucucha 23:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed :)--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 02:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Max24 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support: Remove Danish and Japanese certifications for "All I Want for Christmas Is You" (these countries are not in the chart table). Done Remove Belgian certification for "When You Believe" (this country is not in the chart table). Done "Hero" is Silver in France, not Gold. Done Add "I Know What You Want" certifications. Done "All I Want for Christmas Is You" digital single is certified Gold only in the US (I know it has sold 1,586,000 copies in digital downloads, but it wasn't certified Platinum yet). The 2x Platinum certification is for a ring tone and shouldn't be included here. I went through various disographies and they don't include ring tones certifications, only physical/digital sales certifications. Done "We Belong Together" is Gold in New Zealand, not Platinum. Done The US chart link doesn't lead directly to US chart. Done The US R&B chart link doesn't lead directly to US R&B chart. Done No source for "Against All Odds" peak in Australia. Done "I looked it up under West-life (Mariah Feat Westlife) and it appears the song didn't chart there." No source for the UK pekas for: "The Roof", "I'll Be Lovin' U Long Time", "I Stay in Love" and "Angels Cry". Done If in Canada "Crybaby" charted as a double A-side with "Can't Take That Away", they should be treated as one (not twice #4 - as it is not true). Done No source for "Boy (I Need You)", "I Know What You Want" and "It's Like That" in Canada. Done The source says that "Bye Bye" peaked at #34, and not #23 in Canada. Done The source says that "Obsessed" peaked at #15, and not #10 in Canada. Done Canada: "I Don't Wanna Cry" peakd at #2, not #4. Change it and add RPM source. Done Canada: "Endless Love" peakd at #6, not #14. Change it and add RPM source. Done Since 1997 we have 2 sources for 2 different Canadian charts: RPM and Canadian Singles Chart (Allmusic source). Decide which source you want to use since 1997 (use only one chart). Here are the differances: Honey - #1 (RPM), #2 (allmusic) Butterfly - #22 (RPM), nc (allmusic) My All - #30 (RPM), 12 (allmusic) [currently the peak in the table is #9, which is incorrect for both charts] In RPM, "My ALl" is #28 not #30 "When You Believe" - #20 (RPM), nc (allmusic) "I Still Believe" - #21 (RPM), 9 (allmusic) "Heartbreaker" - #5 (RPM), 1 (allmusic) After that fix/remove RPM charts sources for songs which are taken from Allmusic. Done--Max24 (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Hi again :) In Australia, "Against All Odds" (with Westlife) peaked at #52 and spent 6 weeks in the Top 100. Add this position and use as a source Australian Chart Book 1993–2005 by David Kent. Add this source for "The Roof" position in the UK. It peaked at #96 in April 1998 and stayed for 9 weeks in the Top 200 Singles Chart (add this position). US - according to the source (and Billboard rules), only "Without You" charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (the position for "Never Forget You" should be removed). US - according to the source (and Billboard rules), only "Never Forget You" charted on the Billboard R&B chart (the position for "Without You" should be removed). The source says that "All I Want for Christmas Is You" peaked in the US at #83, not 86. Missing source for "Underneath the Stars" peak on the US R&B. US - according to the source (and Billboard rules), only "My All" charted on the Billboard R&B chart (the position for "Breakdown" should be removed). Missing source for "When You Believe" peak in the US and US R&B. US - according to the source (and Billboard rules), only "Crybaby" charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (the position for "Can't Take That Away (Mariah's Theme)" should be removed). Missing source for "I Know What You Want" peak in the US and US R&B. Missing source for "Endless Love" peak in the US and US R&B. Missing source for "Every Time I Close My Eyes" peak in the US, US R&B and UK. I think this song shouldn't be included here at all. Mariah does only background vocals. On all charts the song is always listed as Babyface. There's no mention of Mariah. She's not even featured artist here. Missing source for "What Would You Do" peak on the US R&B. Missing source for "U Make Me Wanna" peak in the US and US R&B. Missing source for "Lil' L.O.V.E." peak in the US and US R&B. Missing source for "Just Stand Up!" peak in the US and US R&B, and in all other countries. Missing source for "My Love" peak in the US and US R&B. Missing source for "So Lonely" peak in the US and US R&B. Missing source for "Everybody Hurts" peak in Canada, Switzerland and UK. I don't understand REF number 11. There's an Allmusic link and later there are 9 singles listed. Why is that?--Max24 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed! Few comments on talk page :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC) I'm going on 2-week vacations in 2 days, so let's hurry: Australian source for "Against All Odds" is included in REF 13, but in the table which includes this song, there's REF 44, which does not say anything about it. Move the book source to REF 44. Here's the link to "When You Believe" peak in the US and US R&B. Again - US - according to the source (and Billboard rules), only "Crybaby" charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (the position for "Can't Take That Away (Mariah's Theme)" should be removed). Here's the link to "U Make Me Wanna" peak in the US and US R&B. Here's the link to "Lil' L.O.V.E." peak on the US R&B. Here's the link to "My Love" peak in the US and US R&B. Here's the link to "So Lonely" peak on the US R&B. Try to find a source for "What Would You Do" Damizza Presents: Shade Sheist, Nate Dogg & Mariah Carey.--Max24 (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks Max, I looked for "When You Believe" under Whitney, but under her singles, don't know why it was under albums :s. Thanks for the help. For "What You Would Do"I looked under Damizza and Shade Shiest but its nowhere :s. Anyway, everything is finished, thank you :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Hi again Nathan: For the third time: according to the source (and Billboard rules), only "Crybaby" charted on the Billboard Hot 100 (the #28 position for "Can't Take That Away (Mariah's Theme)" should be removed). The Allmusic source does not include Bubbling under Hot 100 for "Lil' L.O.V.E." so remove this source from REF 42. Fix the Billboard to Billboard in all references. Change RPM magazine to RPM in all references. Change Allmusic to Allmusic in all references. In all references only the first one should be linked. For example the word Allmusic or Billboard is linked in all references, and shoud be only in the first one. Check all other references. Change the "Just Stand Up" New Zealand peak position link to this and rename the REF from Swisscharts.com. to charts.org.nz.--Max24 (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC) You are one tough costumer. Complete! The reason Allmusic is like This is because Billboard is the publisher and Allmusic is the work. The work automatically for some reason always comes up italicized.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Ok, I have fixed the US links. I just noticed one last thing. None of the Bubbling Under Hot 100 peaks is sourced. I couldn't find any source in the internet. Do you know any? I'm not saying we should remove the positions because I know all these songs charted there. I won't oppose because of that. Do you know any source?--Max24 (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Hey. So honestly I don't. I can't find them in Billboard, or any other site. If you like I could remove it, they aren't significant. If not the I guess we can just leave them there.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Let's leave them there. I did 2 more fixes in the lead. Support. Max24 (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Ref 3, 17, 19, 47 needs a language parameter. Afro (Talk) 13:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Question, I see in the certification column that the Swiss Music Charts are abbreviated CH which does confuse me slightly as a reader since its abbreviated SW in the top column, why is the abbreviation changed? Afro (Talk) 22:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I changed them all to 3 letter abbreviations where applicable to make things easier :). I think its all fixed.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'm gonna throw in my support I see no problem with it. Afro (Talk) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. See my comments on main article talk page. Plus all that text at the start of the article is unnecessary - we can SEE which singles topped the charts in which territories, which years albums were released in etc. by looking at the information below. Why does that information need to be preceded by a wordy preamble? Nathan86 (talk) 05:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It is necessary. This is the style and format done in all FL articlles. I'm sorry you don't approve, but its how its done.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of its most important aspects.". Afro (Talk) 16:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Afkatk! Your help and support is very much appreciated! :D--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is not just a "summary of its most important aspects" but includes superfluous information that belongs in either the main Mariah Carey article or individual song/album articles (eg "The song was called "one of the most stunning debut releases ever by a pop recording artist," and is credited with inspiring the use of melisma throughout the 1990s."). Plus, at 3 paragraphs for an article of less that 2,000 charatcters it is MUCH longer than the "one or two paragraphs" suggested by WP:LEAD for articles under 15,000 characters.

In addition, i see no one has bothered to fix any of the issues I outlined on the main article talk page. Nathan86 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As explained in WP:LEAD#Elements of the lead "The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies, and be written in a way that makes readers want to know more." in WP:LEAD#Length "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article. As a general guideline, the lead should be no longer than four paragraphs.". in my view there is no problem with the length of the lead. Afro (Talk) 13:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, much of the introduction belongs on either song or album article pages... using the example I gave before, "The song was called "one of the most stunning debut releases ever by a pop recording artist," and is credited with inspiring the use of melisma throughout the 1990s." has nothing to do with her discography as a whole, but rather, the individual song.

Regarding the length; as you very correctly point out, "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." And as stated by WP:LEAD; articles with less than 15,000 characters should have "one or two" paragraph introductions. This article has less than 2,000; and a four-paragraph introduction is only suggested for articles containing more than 30,000 characters. Nathan86 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article is still missing promo releases, has promo singles incorrectly listed as commercial releases, has commercial releases listed as promo singles, has charting album cuts listed as promo releases, has guest appearances listed with Carey as main artist, and has singles listed as being lifted from albums that (in their standard international issue) do not contain those songs. Nathan86 (talk) 02:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Support - Everything looks good. Its well-written and sourced. Good job!--AlastorMoody (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "In 1992, she released an EP titled, MTV Unplugged." no comma after 'titled' I can't see where ref 5 verifies that "All I Want for Christmas Is You" is "one of the best-selling singles by a non–Asian female". What was her second debut at number one on the Hot 100? "making her the artist with the most number one debuts in the charts history." - apostrophe needed in 'charts' Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Support Well done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I forgot: I am assuming that "Never Too Far" and "Don't Stop (Funkin' 4 Jamaica)" were released as a double A-side in some countries. Can you please note this somehow? Thanks, Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Done!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:43, 31 October 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 08:17, 3 November 2010 [19].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Peru

Nominator(s): Grsz¹¹ 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meet all of the featured list criteria. It is modeled after List of World Heritage Sites in Spain, a recently promoted FL. Grsz¹¹ 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comments'
• Should the "Image" column be mentioned in the itemized list before the main table?
• I was told in one of my former FLC, to wikilink publishers in references. Not sure if it is (still) a requirement.

bamse (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• To the first, I don't think. I don't think it would be necessary for the reader. To the second, I've been told it isn't, so I'm not positive. Grsz¹¹ 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Has Bamse been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Now, yes. Grsz¹¹ 22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• For the record, wikilinks are not necessary for the publishers. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Everything fine as far as these two things are concerned. Unfortunately I don't have the time for a full review this time and therefore prefer to stay neutral. bamse (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: There is text overflowing from the location map image. You should either increase the map image or reduce the text size to avoid this; I believe "ratified" is better applied to the official signing of conventions/declarations than just "accepted"; "... at the 7th Session..."; The second paragraph could be turned into a single sentence, for example: «At the 7th Session of the World Heritage Committee, held in Florence, Italy, in 1983, Peru had its first sites inscribed on the list: the "City of Cuzco" and the "Historic Sanctuary of Machu Picchu".» The third paragraph is still related to the previous one, so you might as well join them into a more robust paragraph; "Sites in Peru..." → "Peruvian sites..." (to avoid too many "Peru"s); "In 1997 a wildfire..." — Add comma after the year; Cuzco or Cusco? No need to add "region" to every region in the table, the column header already says it; In Machu Pichu's description: "The site of Machu Picchu sits at 2,340 metres (7,680 ft) above sea level was constructed..." → "At 2,340 metres (7,680 ft) above sea level, the site of Machu Pichu was constructed..."; In Huascaran park description: "... is located at the Cordillera Blanca..."; You have plenty of space to let those two images after the list display their default size (don't specify width). Parutakupiu (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Comment All these are done. Re: Cuzco/Cusco, spelling varies internally in English and Spanish. Since UNESCO spells it with a z, I've used that for all mentions. Grsz11 22:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. After I copy-edited it, I think, it satisfies FL criteria. Ruslik_Zero 14:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak oppose (several minor issues that all add up to a niggling feeling) Image caption, perhaps "Locations of the World Heritage Sites in Peru" (like the title of the list?) Done. "South American state" - learn something new. I thought it was a country within South America... (am I being picky?) I think so, it's a reasonable, common way of saying it. "Peru had its first sites inscribed on the list ..." perhaps a minor rephrase to lead on nicely from the previous para, so something like "The first Peruvian sites were inscribed on the list ..."? Done. Under the UNESCO data explanation, would I be right in assuming that a mixture of "(i) to (vi)" and "(vii) to (x)" is what we're calling "mixed" in the lead? Worth a note? Done, though it's explained previously in the lead. Blank cells (e.g. image of Rio Abiseo) should have a centrally aligned en/em-dash. Done. "1200 people" - 1,200. Done. I'd make the "Tentative list" a level one heading and tabulate it accordingly. Done. Ref 7 is missing the first name of the author (Fabiola). Done. Global Heritage website gets nasty if you don't have a Google Earth plug-in installed. Perhaps alert readers to that. Huh, I didn't realize that (most not have noticed). The page is used just for info, but done. Ref 18 - what's PBS? Public Broadcasting Service, done. And what makes that ref reliable? According to us, "PBS is the most prominent provider of programming to U.S. public television stations". Do you need "World Heritage Sites in the Americas" as a cat if you've got "World Heritage Sites in Peru"? Probably not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Comments made. Grsz11 21:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Ref 10 looks (to me) like there's a c missing. I don't see anything? "Archaeologial Sites."? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Aha, thank you. Grsz11 13:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support:everything is k-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Ref 12 is dead. Ref 27 lists a full date I was wondering why you've chosen to only include the year in the article. Afro (Talk) 20:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: I provided a different link that leads to the same work. Grsz¹¹ 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I see no problem with the list. Afro (Talk) 01:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Not that this detracts from my support, but I find it odd that after mentioning extreme weather conditions in the lead, the somewhat more mundane weather risks to Chan Chan, the only endangered site on the list, are not also called out. (I know, it probably doesn't rain much at Chan Chan.) Magic♪piano 20:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I coudn't find much particularly on Chan Chan. I think the issue is that just rain in general is damaging. Grsz¹¹ 14:35, 2 November 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 08:17, 3 November 2010 [20].

---

List of MBTA Commuter Rail stations

Nominator(s): Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is accurate, complete, and meets all of the FL criteria. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 23:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment All the PDF refs need to have format=PDF; empty cells should have emdash—Chris!_c/t 20:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks quite good. But I will wait until someone reviews the prose before declaring my support.—Chris!_c/t 23:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support—Chris!_c/t 04:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments - quick run No bold links per MOS please. First sentence has one too many "and is.." clauses. "Currently" - perhaps add some context e.g. As of October 2010... Image captions are not complete sentences so don't need periods. Wheelchair symbol should be explained here. On the first sort of Zone in Safari after sorting City/neighbourhood, the 1's and the 1A's mix up. Chelsea (as a random inspection) has a disabled ramp and a mobile lift, amongst other thing, but it doesn't have a wheelchair symbol in this list. What's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) Links: unbolded text First sentence: split into two Currently: reworded to exclude the word Captions: periods removed Wheelchair symbol: now explained in table's column description Sorting: Firefox sorts the 1s and 1As separate, but shows the 1s first. 1A is the cheapest, but I don't know how I would be able to fix the sorting so 1A would appear first. Chelsea: That is the accessibility symbol key you are seeing. If the station is handicap accessible, then the wheelchair symbol will be inline with the title as seen here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments: I would want to know the total length of the railways. Amtrak, which also deals with this problem, suggests that passengers use a taxi to get from North Station to South Station. This is off-topic. Of course, it is possible to travel by taxi from any point to any point. Ruslik_Zero 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC) How would I tie railway length information into the article? It is a list of stations, so I'm not sure where such information would go. It is definitely something that could be added to MBTA Commuter Rail though. As for Amtrak, that was existing when I started to bring the article up to FL standards. I decided to leave it because even though there is a rapid transit connection, the agency outright suggests a specific way to travel between the two termini. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC) I was thinking over what you said. Would you like another table like "Stations per line" that would have columns for line, number of stations, and length of line? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC) No need to provide so many details. I only meant that you can write "There are currently 132 stations on 12 lines having the total length of NNN km ...". As to taxi, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Ruslik_Zero 18:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Done. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Now this article satisfies FL criteria. Ruslik_Zero 15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support - It looks to meet the requirements. Afro (Talk) 17:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

*Comments "but travel can be made possible by transferring" ->but travel is made possible by transferring. Stations, section... why not use a more traditional key, rather than this bolded mash of words? Line column, why are they all purple, instead of usign colours that match the map? If 1A is further in than 1, shouldn't zone 1A sort before zone 1? Lesser known newspapers, (refs 5, 6, 10, and 11) need publisher and location added to citations. Courcelles 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Changed wording to what you suggested. Could you show me an example of a more traditional key? I'd like to use it as a guide. Completely a different subject, but see List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks. Courcelles 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Added in same style/formatting as your example. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) The colors on the map are there to help distinguish the routes. All Commuter Rail lines are purple. As I said above, I have no idea how to force the zone column to sort differently. Use the {{Sort}} template, make zone 1a {{sort|01|1a}}, 1, {{sort|02|1}}, 2 {{sort|03|2}}... It's a hack, but it will work. Courcelles 21:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Fixed. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Added more description to newspaper references. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 22:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. —Designate (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

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