Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2006

List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes

Well illustrated, all images contain fair use rationales, contains boxes for easy navigation between seasons, references its episode list sources by seasons and is simply a very complete list. Michaelas10 (T|C) 12:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object Every episode description is a one sentence paragraph, and many poorly written. For Chosen, "Buffy decides on a bold plan in this series finale." all I found out was the episode was the last one. The mentions of Angel and Spike in the lead are unnecessary as they have no bearing on this list. The fair use rationales are too "cookie cutter"; They justify use generically, rather than the specific use of that image, and the images do not include a description other than that they are screenshots from Buffy. Jay32183 18:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I pointed out to you before here, short summaries of this type are not supposed to summaries the entire episode but only to aid in navigation and identification. I understand that you personally don't like this style, but it is one that was accepted for two previous featured lists, List of South Park episodes and List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. -- Ned Scott 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I must object to bad writing, regardless of the accepted standard. One sentence paragraphs are bad writing. Jay32183 18:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a list style article, you know. -- Ned Scott 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
        • But when prose is included, the prose needs to be high quality. It's either no prose or good prose, because we can't feature bad prose. Jay32183 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
          • High quality in this context would mean a short summary that is able to identify the episode it comments about. This is no different than identification by color or title. If one is able to identify an episode from only two sentences then it's rather unnecessary to include more detail when the list is just acting for navigation. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
            • If they were summaries I would agree with you, but these are teasers. Summaries do not identify, they describe. Jay32183 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I don't think anything with "hooks", as most teasers have, are good. Summaries describe and identify. I fail to see how they can do one and not the other. I'm not even commenting on these summaries, really, more your assertion that for a summary to be good it must talk about everything that happens and must be of a certain length. -- Ned Scott 18:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
                • There's a general consensus that one sentence paragraphs are bad. Since the paragraphs cannot be combined they must be expanded. Jay32183 01:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • You're taking that out of context. This is a list, not a normal article. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • That is not a sound argument. The same standards of writing apply. Changing the format does not entitle us to be lazy about our writing. All featured articles, lists, images, and portals must reflect Wikipedia's best work. Arguing that it is a list rather than an article does not mean it doesn't have to be the best. Good writing is good writing, bad writing is bad writing, calling it a list doesn't change that. Jay32183 02:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • Fully written paragraphs for each entry on a list is not always appropriate for a list format. If we were to discuss every element on a list in paragraph form then it would be... an ARTICLE. A short descriptive text is completely appropriate for a list type article. You are comparing apples to oranges. This has nothing to do with the standards of writing. A description is not too short if it describes accurately and can easily identify an episode from other episodes. This is a list, an overview of episodes viewable on a single page. A collection of entries with short descriptions and simply stated facts (like "air date" and "title"). The formating for a list style article is not the same. That does not make it bad writing, it makes it a different (and appropriate) format for the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                        • I agree with the claim that fully written paragraphs are not appropriate for all lists. Many lists have no prose and that is acceptable. But lists with prose need good prose and that means no single sentence paragraphs. As some one who has watched every episode of Buffy, I can tell you these descriptions are bad, not just in writing style. If I had my dvds I would fix it myself, I need them to maintain accuracy. But you still maintain that same faulty argument that will never be true; that formatting justifies quality of writing. If you want prose make it good, I don't care how you format it, make it good. This list has bad prose. You won't change my mind, especially not by syaing this is a list, that does not contradict my claim that the list is bad. Saying this list is bad does contrdict the claim that the list should be featured. Jay32183 04:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • I disagree with complaint about "one-sentence paragraphs" within the list. In the lead section and any section introductions (of which this list has none) then such writing is unacceptable and must be improved. However, I'm not aware of any style-guide that says a bullet-point list must contain a full paragraph in each point - and this is a such a list, albeit formatted into a table. Indeed, in certain circumstances, it may be acceptable for list entries to be less than a full sentence (but not here). Have a look at List of vegetable oils, for example. Colin°^Talk 10:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed the mention of Angle in the lead, but I kept the mention of Spike, as movies should be mentioned on episode lists, like done in List of South Park episodes. I am in process of changing all the image descriptions to "A screenshot taken from an episode of the American cult television series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer", like done in List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • • • • • • • • • I agreed that there doesn't need to be prose within the list, other than the lead of course. My concern is that this list uses prose that I feel does not reflect Wikipedia's best work. I've given a suggestion on how it can be improved, so the objection is actionable. If you deal with the objection I will drop it. You could ignore my objection and see what happens, but you won't be talking me out of objecting. Jay32183 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have done changing all the image descriptions of early seasons, the image descriptions of seasons 4 and beyond don't really need to be fixed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't find any rule that indicates that fair use rationals have to be targeted seperatly on each image. Besides, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes also provides the same rationale for all its episode pictures. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • When I checked the Stargate images the very first one spells out the exact plot moment it is illustrating, not just says it is illustrating something from the episode. Jay32183 05:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But that's only the first one, I've done exactly the same. Michaelas10 (T|C) 09:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well then, the first one on Stargate is the only one done correctly. Jay32183 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The summaries aren't good enough. Some are teasers, and most aren't long enough. They should say (spoil) as much as they can without making the box bigger. Also, because the width of the columns is specified in the table headers, a bunch of the dates are forced to require two lines when there's plenty of room in the title column. - Peregrinefisher 19:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the specified width of all colums from all season boxes, but I don't think it depends on it, but instead on the "Production code" column, are you purposing I should remove it? Also, is there any agreemnt over the description length issue? Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe if we change Proction Code to Code, that will fix it. - Peregrinefisher 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid not, besides, things like that depend on the the text size in the browser and on the screen resolution. Michaelas10 (T|C) 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The formatting looks pretty good to me, now. 800x600 and 1024x768 are the two most commonly used resolutions, and all the dates fit at 1024x768 (roughly 60% of all monitors) using Internet Explorer (roughly 80% of the browsers). Now, I think the summaries should be expanded to spoil the main elements of the plot, while not expanding their boxes. It doesn't have to fill the whole box, but it shouldn't be a teaser. Ex. The Angel episode says "Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and she finds out who he really is." It should at least say "Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and she finds out that he is a vampire." Or, better yet, something like "Buffy and Angel share their first kiss, and she finds that he is a non-evil vampire who has had his soul restored by a Gypsy curse. Darla attempts to kill buffy and is staked by Angel." - Peregrinefisher 21:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I will try to expand all the episode descriptions in the next few days. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll tackle season 1 if you want to start on season 2. - Peregrinefisher 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Personally I agree with short summaries that do not spoil the plot, but do identify the episodes to those that have seen them, more detailed summaries are avilable on the episode article pages. A high quality list that continues to improve. -- Paxomen 23:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the lead is horribly choppy with many one or two-sentence paragraphs. The summaries are too short. References are not formated properly (use {{cite web}}). Repeating "Mini-contents" box is annoying. Image fair use rationales are half-baked and should be improved, especially as there is a whole discussion whether fair use images can be used on lists at all. Renata 03:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty much expanded.
  • Expanding is on process.
  • Done.
  • Removed.
  • How should I fix it? Add more fair use arguments? Change the existing ones? Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • After reading a whole more on fair use in the last couple days, I have decided to strongly oppose lists with fair use images. Renata 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • No non-fair use episode screenshots. Remove all? Michaelas10 (T|C) 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't remove the images. Most or all of the successful featured lists had images. There's a huge debate here and here, the upshot being there is no consensus to disallow these images. If Renata doesn't like the images, he can reopen the debate at those places, but removing the images from this list is not the answer. - Peregrinefisher 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • If you don't want to push the issue, then removing the images would be a solution, since images aren't required. Although I don't personally object to the fair use images here, removing them is definitely the safe path, and I will be forced to strike the comment in my objection about the fair use rationales not being specific enough. So basically your options are remove the images or ignore Renata's object. I don't know what will happen if you ignore the objection though. Jay32183 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
          • All images removed. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I support Renata in erring on the side of legal safety whilst the jury is out on this. I'm coming to similar conclusions. And Michaelas10, I'm unlikely to support this list for several reasons, but I appreciate your various efforts to improve the list as a result of feedback. Colin°^Talk 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
            • What are the reasons? I would like to improve this as much as I'll can. Michaelas10 (T|C) 21:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Sorry Michaelas10, I'm just not inclined to spend the effort/grief at the moment. Some minor suggestions: Move your Sources into the References where they belong and format them correctly. The Amazon search is lazy/inaccurate. Link to the appropriate DVD pages (preferrably not at a shop - is there a cite DVD template?). Drop all the external links, which almost never belong in a List. I'm sure they are repeated on the Buffy articles elsewhere. The last paragraph in the lead doesn't belong in a list of episodes and is speculation. Colin°^Talk 22:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done and added 3 more list/guide sources by seasons.
• Currently pending answer from Paxomen on the DVD release date sources.

• Added references for regions one and two DVD release dates, pending answer for region four DVD release date.

• Done
• Removed from both lead and season summary section.

Additional comments:

• Ratings graph added to the end of season 6, I have a ratings graph of season 4 as well, but I do not know where to add it. Spoiler-free episode list?
• Expanding of all episode descriptions nearly complete, with a little over 2 seasons left. I'm going to do a half of the sixth season today.

Michaelas10 (T|C) 11:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cover arts for all DVDs added.

Michaelas10 (T|C) 15:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The quality of the small summaries is inconsistent, and even moreso once one gets to the later seasons. I have no clue why the Neilson ratings graph is relevant to a list of Buffy episodes. many, many typos and odd sentences throughout. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said above, this will be completed very soon. I am sorry for the delay.
  • Such ratings graph is very relevant, it shows the declining of ratings after the move of the series to the UPN network. It is being used on List of Stargate SG-1 episodes as well.
  • All spelling mistakes fixed.
  • I do not see what do you mean by odd sentences, I've read everything I wrote very closely; unless you mean the non-expanded episode descriptions, which, as I said, will all be fixed very soon.
  • Michaelas10 (T|C) 16:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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 00:26, 26 March 2008.

---

Liverpool F.C. seasons

previous FLC

The list has gone through a peer review which was very productive and cleared up many issues, I feel the lit meets the criteria, and is very similar to other featured lists such as Leeds United A.F.C. seasons and Bradford City A.F.C. seasons. Thanks for your time NapHit (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments Very good, but some comments.
  • ...Houlding decided to form a new club, an initial approach..." - needs rewording.
  • "...for the 1892–93 season. Which they..." - makes no sense.
  • ..."match.." - need to remove the extra full stop.
  • ...1900-01..." - endash needed
  • "Liverpool reached their first FA Cup Final in 1914, losing to Burnley, the club won..." makes no grammatical sense.
  • "...first division..." - needs capitalising.
  • "stewardship" - should say something like "management" instead.
  • "...the, European cup..." - misplaced comma and "cup" needs capitalising.
  • "...season,[6] this..." - should say "which".
  • "...and FA Cup won..." - no need for "wom".
  • "1st" needs to be in gold on all instances.
  • Maybe what "DNE" stands for could be shown in the key?

It is, it's at the top of the Key to rounds NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mostly issues with the prose. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments they have have all bee dealt with NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• More comments Not far now, just a few bits...
  • "Liverpool won their first league title during the 1900–01 season" - needs clarifying that it was their first Division One title.
  • "...won the title this time"... - add a comma between "title this".
  • ...when Liverpool regained..." - I'd recommend saying "they" instead of using "Liverpool" twice in one sentence.
• Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments dealt with, well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Peanut4

*Comments (with current oppose)

• • Prose-wise
    • "With an empty stadium, Houlding decided to form a new club, his application for the club to play in the Football League was rejected." needs re-wording, it includes two main verbs and two disjointed clauses. Also needs a reference.
    • "Thus Liverpool entered the Lancashire League for the 1892–93 season, which they subsequently won, ensuring promotion to the Second Division for the following season, Liverpool won the league without losing a match." Similar to above. The last clause is disjointed to the main theme of the sentence. And promotion is also wrong.
    • Generally the prose needs a good copy-edit. It's very disjointed in my opinion.
  • Other than that, everything looks fine and dealt with since the Peer Review. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I've gone through the prose and I now think it's a lot better than it was before NapHit (talk) 13:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Certainly better. But think the prose still has a lot of short sentences. But nothing worthy of an oppose. Peanut4 (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've rectified some of the sentences which can flow into each other, any better now? NapHit (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another improvement. Well done. Prose is fine, and the table looks spot on. Peanut4 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Struway2

Comments First, sorry I never got back to the peer review; looked at the list the other day and it was tagged {{inuse}}, and next time I looked it was here, and much improved!

• The bit about bolding players shouldn't really be in the lead, it already appears appropriately in the key. Also, I'm not sure you really need to mention the local cups not being included.
• In the table, you may want to note that Liverpool's early promotions/relegation were through the test match system, as automatic promotion/relegation didn't come in until 1898-99.
• You're missing the 1945-46 FA Cup.
• Where there are multiple competitions in the same season, as in 2005-06, if the competition box is split up into separate rows, the rounds reached in each comp can be coloured appropriately. As in Leeds seasons 1970-71, for example.
• At 1024-width screen, the 2005-06 season wraps to seven display lines because the Other/Europe column is so narrow. Could you consider listing the Charity/Community Shield in the Other/Europe column, as Leeds seasons does, rather than having it separate?
• You have 'NF' in the rounds key but no such table entry.

that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comment Struway, hopefully the list is more o your liking now? NapHit (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Much improved at and since its peer review, this list follows the established pattern of association football club season lists. It satisfies the timeline criterion, is stable and complete, is well-referenced and annotated where appropriate, and has a relevant free-use image. Good work. Struway2 (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment When there is one more than one European competition in one season, you should give each its own row, as in this abortive attempt from a while ago. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeh I've changed to accomodate this now cheers NapHit (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - why aren't FA Cup and League Cup linked in the lead while the other cup contests are? Otherwise can't find a problem with it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, fixed NapHit (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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

List of AS Roma players

Self-nom. It seems to me that the list meets all of the criteria. Furthermore it is copied from List of Arsenal F.C. players which is already featured. Gaúcho

• Oppose

• The majority of the entries in the list are redlinked. Criterion 1a of Wikipedia:What is a featured list? states A useful list must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links).
• Statistics are missing for several entries, with no explanation given.
• The lead states that some players who have played fewer matches are also included; this includes some players who fell just short of the 100 total and players who made significant contributions to the club's history, but a significant number have less than 100 appearances, including several with less than 50.
• The references are bare links with no formatting. A format such as the {{Cite web}} template should be used. Oldelpaso 19:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too many redlinks and no stats, as per Oldelpaso. Kingfisherswift 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too many redlinks, and too many of them have played fewer than 100 matches. Qwghlm 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Stats are just enough for me to find it compelling, however the red-links are a little bit of a worry. I also recommend you add a "Records" or similar section, where you detail those from the list with the most caps, goals etc. The idea is to make it compelling to read :D Good luck, Daniel.Bryant 03:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

County flowers of the United Kingdom

Nominating this as I think that although it probably isn't of FL quality yet, it has the potential to be, and some feedback would be useful. SP-KP 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - pretty good. The lead needs expanding into a decent paragraph: perhaps you could crib some from county flowers? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks - I'll do what you suggest. SP-KP 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - there seem to be photos missing from list entries, despite the corresponding articles having perfectly good images. Any reasons? Laïka 17:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I noticed that as well. Also one which is missing a picture does not correspond to the genus in the target article which also does not mention the species: Chiltern Gentian, Gentianella germanica. Bigger question: Since most of the linked scientific names go to the same article as the common names, shouldn't we just leave the scientific names unlinked. Rmhermen 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Probably they weren't there when I originally created the list - if you've found some, please add them in and remove them from the "To Do" list on the talk page, or let me know which ones they are & I can do it. I'll check out the Chiltern Gentian issue. Linking both the common & scientific names was done as that seems to be the convention used in other biological lists. I've no firm preference on it either way though. SP-KP 18:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If the scientific name is correct, Chiltern Gentian should link to genus Gentianella, not Gentiana. Rmhermen 19:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment' - shouldn't it be "List of county flowers of the United Kingdom"? BTW, I don't think it can pass until it states "Source to be determined for Northern Ireland" on the bottom... --Dijxtra 11:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I feel it has great potential, however it lacks sources and context. The fact that there is minimal text explaining what the list is about makes me have to vote oppose - the lack of sources would have me at neutral. However, with a little bit of work, this could become a FL. Good luck, Daniel.Bryant 03:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi Daniel. When you say above that the list lacks sources - i.e. there are no sources - I'm confused, as there is a sources section at the end of the list, I'm sure you would have spotted that, so I guess you mean something else. Want to have another try at explaining what you mean? SP-KP 18:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I was a little bit vague. The sources are nearly perfect, however as is noted in the #Sources section, some are missing. Normally, this could be forgiven, but Featured Content is meant to be Wikipedia's best (and therefore most well-sourced) content, and hence it really needs the source for Nth Ireland. Also, the lead needs to be expanded (which was the "context" I was alluding to). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If you follow ALoan and Rmhermen's suggestions you may be on to a winner. You don't need to change the article name, there are other featured lists without "list" in the title. For the NI "county status", where did you get the "Native" info? If you can't reliably source it then just replace with "N/A" and drop the comment in your "Sources" (for now). Rename "Sources" as "References". Use the cite web template for the Plantlife ref. Add an explanation of "Native", "Casual" and "Archaeophyte" in your intro. I'd consider dropping the trivia note about Alexanders and Poppy for Norfolk. If you get your finger out, you might be able to get featured this time round. Colin°^Talk 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the list really should make it clear if these are county flowers in any offical capacity - most places make laws and so on for official emblems; from the opening description, brief as it is, it sounds as if these are flowers assigned to counties by some conservation organisation and do not have any "offical" status as county flowers. Changing the name of the article to Plantlife's county flowers of the United Kingdom, would be more accurate.--Peta 03:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by number of active troops

Self-Nomination. Worked on this for a while and after an exhaustive time finding the proper troop levels for all the countries of the world and getting them referenced. I think this is the most referenced and numerically accurate article on Wikipedia. I think this deserves to be FAC. Mercenary2k 09:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• reluctant weak oppose. Good work! It is a very nice list, but you need to fix some things to get it to FL status:
  • describe what exactly "Active Troops", "Reserve Force" and "Paramilitary" mean (read it as: expand the lead, man)
  • add the 29 countries that do not maintain a military to the list (the fact that they have 0 troops doesn't mean they shouldn't be on the list)
  • add the countries you don't have information for (I don't see Somalia on the list, for instance - add it to the list and put "n/a" as numbers, maybe in few years the numbers turn up)
  • reference the population count

Yes, the last one is painful, but you can't WP:CITE Wikipedia, unfortunately (WP:RS: "Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source"), and that's exactly what your list does. I hope that this remarks won't make you sink into defeatism because you are on a right path, just a bit more work is needed... --Dijxtra 10:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

the CIA rankings should do the job for the pop I think... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you should deal with the fact that Serbia and Montenegro are now separated entities. CG 14:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I picked one easily verified number (the totals for the U.S.) and found that the listed source gives a different number for active troops, and contains no mention of reserve or paramilitary troops. While the number of reserves is similar to the number listed in the U.S. military article on Wikipedia, I can find no source for the paramilitary or even what groups were included in that number. 53,000 is listed but the Coast Guard only has 41,000, what else was counted? Rmhermen 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose then since my concerns were not addressed. Rmhermen 17:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support — If Serbia and Montenegro is divided into two entries and countries without a military are added at the bottom. – Zntrip 03:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support However, I feel that the terms need to be defined for greater transparency of facts. Otherwise, nice! Daniel.Bryant 03:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support Because I feel that someone has to update this next year, else again it will have to be renominated if it still is FA status. But for now i'd say it's a nice compilation. Idleguy 11:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• WOW! With 230+ references it must be a record :) Hoewever the are two main things to fix: Lead which is too short and the same references that need better formatting (i.e. it needs page/article name, publisher, author, and all the other stuff from {{cite web}}). Renata 01:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose It may appear to have 230+ references but in fact (despite different names) many point to the same web page or document. Of those that are separate web pages, the majority are pages within "Encyclopedia of the Nations". Really, you only want to give the full {{cite web}} treatment once per document/site. Those references that are shared should be shared. The reference should be named with its actual name (e.g. "Jamaica", within the site "Encyclopedia of the Nations") rather than what you are taking from it (e.g. "Jamaica Armed Forces"). If certain references come from specific pages within a larger document that is used many times, consider separating the footnote from the full reference citation (see List of DanceSport dances). Colin°^Talk 08:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I spend almost a week getting this whole page referenced. And do you realize how long it will take to do what you are asking? :( Mercenary2k 03:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You've done the hard bit. It just needs reformatting and a little bit of extra info added. I reckon about an hour or so with a decent text editor. If you would like me to have a go, let me know. Colin°^Talk 09:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for your comments guy. I will try to expand the lead, add countries which dont have an army and stuff. Been busy with exams at University. So I will try to accomodate these changes, really soon. Mercenary2k 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

List of games in game theory

A nice complete list that I think meets the criteria. It has no references, but it includes only information from other articles. If needed, I can copy all references from those articles to this list. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Lacks sources. It could use a longer lead that would introduce the subject better. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added references, I will think about what to do with the lead section and modify it soon. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm actually at a bit of a loss for what to do with the lead section. I don't want to repeat the material contained in Game theory. Can you suggest what you might like to see there? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

A good way to expand it would be what the headers of the columns mean. That way readers won't have to read a separate article just to understand this list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few sentences (and links) for each of the column headings. I suspect the target audience for this list would be people who already know these concepts, or at least have heard of them. So I don't think more detail would be appropriate. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I won't oppose for now. At this point, however, I'm also at a loss of how you could improve the list. May I suggest you advertise this nomination a bit in Math-related noticeboards around Wikipedia. I already did on the talk page of Game theory. I'm sure enthusiasts would be able to give you better feedback than myself at this point. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have advertised at Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory. Unfortunately, there aren't many active members currently, so we still might not get too much. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm a bit confused by your previous comment, do you think the list is still in need of some amorphous improvement? Is this why you aren't supporting? Or is it just that you don't feel like you know enough about the subject? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

A bit of both. I've got the hunch the list could be improved somehow in terms of content, however since I don't know enough about the subject (and at the moment I don't have the time to learn much about it) I can't give you a proper "vote" either way anymore. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There's lots of references, can they be linked to specific points in the text/list with "ref" tags? The only other suggestion I can think of is to subclassify, I don't think it'll be worth the effort though, and it would kind of make it no longer be a "list". Pete.Hurd 20:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have discursive footnotes, I was remiss to add reference footnotes as well, but perhaps that's worth doing. Can you think of a way to remove the discursive footnotes perhaps? I think the best way to do sub-classification would be by adding more columns, otherwise it really becomes an article on games in game theory (which might be worth having). In fact, do folks think that might be a better way to go than a list? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused, as some of these seem to be more diverse 'classes' of games (like coordination games) while some of these are 'specific' games (like PD). Is this appropriate? Also, there are some other things that could be added, such as fields of application, origins, etc. Those two sound interesting to me, but they might make things cluttered. What do you think? Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think coordination games is the only set on the list which contains members of other sets on the list. Since, sometimes, people talk about coordination games generally, and also because there are coordination games which do not fit into other categories, I thought I should include it on its own. I'm don't really see the problem with that. Can you say more about why it bothers yu? Re: other things. Let me think about it. My first intuition is that it will make things cluttered. Also, I'm not sure it will be easy to find answers to the origins question in all cases. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes

An absolutely beautiful list of Star Trek: TNG episode. Absolutely outstanding.--*Kat* 08:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent list. Bignole 22:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Comprehensive, uncontroversial, complies with style guides and has good images. - Peregrinefisher 22:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object The images do not have fair use rationales on the image page, and they are marked as film screenshots rather than tv screenshots. The fair use rationales are the big issue though. The episode summaries could probably be expanded a little. Jay32183 18:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the issue of the fair use rationales. It also needs to explicitly state its sources. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, due to various instances of brilliant prose and also the fair use rationales on the images. SergeantBolt (t,c) 22:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Shania Twain music videos

While I never started this article, I really tidied it up and made it like no other music video page on Wikipedia. The list is accurate, I have several sources with matching information plus a DVD release that confirms them. The list uses pictures (all of which have fair-use rationals included) to further enhance the list. There's no other featured list that has anything to do with music, so it would be interesting if this could become the first one. --Thankyoubaby 17:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I honestly don't know why no one is supporting or objecting to this, I would like if anyone could at least leave feedback so it doesn't sit here and I can make improvements. Personally I think it deserves to be featured. Everyone here just skipped over it and talked about the newer one above. --Thankyoubaby 18:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object Intro paragraph to short. I'm no copyright guru, but I'm not sure those would pass muster. Joe I 01:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for leaving the feedback. I expanded the intro paragraph as best as I could. As for the screenshots, I got the "template" from a screenshot of a music video from a featured article (Cool (song)), so they should be up to par. . --Thankyoubaby 02:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Striking my object, but still don't think I can support. What about a non video pic for the lead? And maybe a column for the ranking the song got on video charts?. Joe I 03:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The list seems to tick all the boxes and is attractive to look at. I'm close to supporting this but have some important concerns about the references. Personally, I think a clip from a video is fair-use for illustrating an artists video releases. If someone who actually knows the copyright rules can correct me...

I think you need to hunt down some better references. CMT is one I found, is a legit site for viewing the clips, and is owned by Viacom so is likely to be a reliable source. Her offical site doesn't seem to have details on the videos that I could find. The MVDB site is OK, I think, but a bit less professional. The personal web sites: Dutch Shania Twain Club, and Tommy's #1 Shania Twain Super Site aren't really suitable for a Featured List. The VideoStatic and ShaniaForums links are blogs/forums which certainly shouldn't be included.

I know that fans collect lots of titbits of info that help fill out the list, but by relying on personal fan web sites, it makes Wikipedia no more reliable than one bloke and his computer. Really, our sources should have editorial teams and professional values. I think you should review all facts in your list and either trim or find solid sources for each one. If the best you can find are blogs or forums comments, the those facts have to go.

I apologise for not commenting earlier. Perhaps uncertainty over the image rights, or just personal musical taste has put people off. You may be running out of time to get enough support this time. If you can improve the references and we can get clear guidance on the images, then I don't see why this list couldn't get featured in future. Colin°^Talk 17:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input. I'll try and find some better resources and references and maybe re-nominate it down the road sometime, since I doubt it will pass now. --Thankyoubaby 22:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

List of United States federal legislation

This is a long and comprehensive list of Acts of Congress even including those during the Articles of Confederation. It is not complete, but it will grow and evolve over time. It needs some work, but it already has a lot of useful information in it. Please give it a fair review. —Markles 14:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Chadlupkes

While we may quibble about the definition of major legislation, I think this article is a very impressive piece of work and deserves recognition. It's also a great starting point for branching off to more comprehensive lists for each Congressional session.

• Support Hmains 00:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC) However, this article is already 65K bytes in size when edited and can only grow larger. How could the list be split into 2 or 3 articles or subarticles, now or in the future? Perhaps a 1801-1900 sub article and a 1901-2000 sub article with the possibility of later breaking at 50 year intervals if any 100 year article itself gets too large.

  Comment: I agree the article will need to be split into a series of lists by date at some point. Given the size, I feel sooner rather than would be best. Tompw 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: I reluctantly concur about splitting. I would really like to have one list because it just makes it easier to find things. But it is getting pretty big. I think splitting should wait at least until the Featured status is resolved and then for some time afterwards (if approved).—Markles 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Covalent 17:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC). Article is well done and represents a lot of research and compilation of data. Kudos to Markles.

• Comment: My main problem is that list does not have a clearly defined scope. A featured list should be "Comprehensive: Covers the defined scope by including every member of a set" (Wikipedia:What is a featured list?). Either the list intends to list every single Act of Congress (a mammoth task no where near complete yet, and one I wish you the best of luck with); or there is some way of choosing which Acts to include - and there are no stated criteria for inclusion. Which is the case? Tompw 20:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Reply: You know, that's a very good point. I don't know how to define its scope clearly. Can you (or anyone else here) help me us Wikipedia with this?—Markles 20:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Reply: Well... I personally feel that listing every single Act would be over the top, and not really useful a lot of the time. A better option would be to list all Acts for which Wikipedia has articles (more subjectively, maybe also Acts for which it should have articles on, but doesn't yet). Tompw 21:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Discussion continues: That's a good idea. Why don't you incorporate this standard onto the article page. I've created a little blue (#ccffff) wikitable box, which you can change. With this standard in mind, then, do you support featured status?—Markles 22:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Only if you can show that the list is largely complete... It seems you've used everything cited in the "xxth United States Congress" articles.... but is everything from Category:United States federal legislation and all its 30 sub-catergories? Tompw 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, it's the other way around. I've copied many/most from this list out to the many Congress articles. And most of the articles from the category & its subcateogries (excepting Category:United States proposed federal legislation).—Markles 01:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support In view fot the above. Tompw 11:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Support stilltim 02:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC) a useful list and indeed the source of the information on the xx Congress pages.
• Oppose No clear inclusion criteria, no completeness, not outstanding organization or presentation. Rmhermen 18:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose until inclusion criteria are better defined. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that the criterion for inclusion needs to be more explicit. A list of "significant" legislation from a US law textbook would be ideal. It is also noticeable that there the list is heavily weighted to recent legislation - are laws made in the last few years really more significant than ones that have lasted 200 years, or have all the old ones been repealed? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, some time ago I added quite a few entries to the list to make sure it captured every piece of legislation identified in Brian K. Landsberg (ed), Major Acts of Congress, ISBN: 0028657497. My understanding is that the book is authoritative in the field. bd2412 T 14:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Great - please would you add that as a reference, and add a sentence explaining the selection in the lead section. Does this list contain many extra ones, on top of the "Major Acts" listed by Landsberg? How were they selected? Is is really the case that there were 18 "major" acts in 2003/4 and 14 so far in 2005/6, but only 17 in the 50 years from 1811 to 1861 (including 13 Congresses that seem to have done nothing of any importance at all)? This is an important list, and there seems to be some progress in sorting out these problems, but the selection criterion and proper referencing are important enough for me to object until they are sorted out. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Acts contained within the article exceed those in the book. First, some Acts not appearing in the book already had articles. Second, the book seemed to me to be weighted towards older legislation, while Wikipedia in general is better with more recent events. Third, the book was published in 2003, and has missed developments since. bd2412 T 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• support - Very impressive and interesting list. highly useful too. Sotakeit 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well-done list! bd2412 T 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object per ALoan—selection policy is key. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)