Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed 1 kept
March 13 promoted 11 failed 2 kept
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
May 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
August 10 promoted 7 failed 1 kept
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed 2 kept
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed 1 kept
April 20 promoted 17 failed 1 kept
May 23 promoted 14 failed
June 22 promoted 9 failed 1 kept
July 29 promoted 20 failed 2 kept/1 removed
August 41 promoted 15 failed 3 removed
September 42 promoted 11 failed 1 kept/1 removed
October 43 promoted 17 failed 2 kept
November 40 promoted 18 failed
December 38 promoted 15 failed 2 removed
2008
January 46 promoted 18 failed 6 removed
February 34 promoted 16 failed 10 removed/3 kept
March 65 promoted 9 failed 4 removed/2 kept
April 48 promoted 25 failed 2 removed/2 kept
May 50 promoted 39 failed 1 removed
June 46 promoted 23 failed/2 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
July 85 promoted 27 failed/10 quick-failed 3 removed/2 kept
August 58 promoted 52 failed/7 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
September 59 promoted 33 failed/5 quick-failed 3 removed/1 kept
October 75 promoted 30 failed/2 quick-failed 5 removed
November 86 promoted 13 failed 8 removed/5 kept
December 70 promoted 11 failed 3 removed/2 kept
2009
January 63 promoted 16 failed 3 removed/1 kept
February 62 promoted 24 failed/1 quick-failed 4 removed/1 kept
March 47 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/1 kept
April 47 promoted 15 failed 13 removed/2 kept
May 28 promoted 19 failed 15 removed/2 kept
June 56 promoted 14 failed 16 removed/4 kept
July 45 promoted 21 failed 9 removed/5 kept
August 37 promoted 15 failed 8 removed/6 kept
September 25 promoted 11 failed 3 removed/4 kept
October 40 promoted 13 failed 2 removed/4 kept
November 26 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
December 24 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/0 kept
2010
January 30 promoted 13 failed 2 removed/2 kept
February 39 promoted 23 failed 0 removed/8 kept
March 38 promoted 20 failed 2 removed/1 kept
April 35 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/1 kept
May 30 promoted 7 failed 2 removed/2 kept
June 33 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/2 kept
July 36 promoted 15 failed 1 removed/5 kept
August 31 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/0 kept
September 36 promoted 13 failed 1 removed/3 kept
October 23 promoted 13 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 22 promoted 10 failed 2 removed/2 kept
December 26 promoted 7 failed 3 removed/2 kept
2011
January 16 promoted 13 failed 6 removed/2 kept
February 28 promoted 11 failed 5 removed/2 kept
March 21 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 8 failed 6 removed/1 kept
May 21 promoted 14 failed 2 removed/2 kept
June 21 promoted 10 failed 0 removed/4 kept
July 29 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
August 19 promoted 21 failed 0 removed/5 kept
September 22 promoted 8 failed 1 removed/0 kept
October 23 promoted 3 failed 3 removed/0 kept
November 13 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/0 kept
December 13 promoted 9 failed 1 removed/1 kept
2012
January 18 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/1 kept
February 21 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 17 promoted 8 failed 1 removed/1 kept
April 11 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
May 8 promoted 16 failed 3 removed/1 kept
June 14 promoted 15 failed 2 removed/1 kept
July 18 promoted 7 failed 5 removed/1 kept
August 42 promoted 6 failed 3 removed/2 kept
September 26 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/2 kept
October 28 promoted 15 failed 5 removed/0 kept
November 20 promoted 8 failed 2 removed/3 kept
December 16 promoted 14 failed 4 removed/2 kept
2013
January 19 promoted 12 failed 4 removed/3 kept
February 22 promoted 8 failed 0 removed/1 kept
March 19 promoted 13 failed 0 removed/3 kept
April 19 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/2 kept
May 17 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
June 24 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/1 kept
July 23 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 15 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 26 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 13 promoted 13 failed 1 removed/1 kept
November 12 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 8 promoted 3 failed 2 removed/0 kept
2014
January 13 promoted 10 failed 0 removed/0 kept
February 12 promoted 10 failed 3 removed/0 kept
March 28 promoted 8 failed 0 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/1 kept
May 15 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
June 11 promoted 6 failed 0 removed/0 kept
July 18 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
August 12 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
September 16 promoted 13 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 9 promoted 12 failed 1 removed/0 kept
November 14 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/1 kept
December 5 promoted 7 failed 2 removed/2 kept
2015
January 17 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/0 kept
February 13 promoted 5 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 15 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
April 17 promoted 5 failed 11 removed/2 kept
May 15 promoted 9 failed 3 removed/0 kept
June 14 promoted 4 failed 6 removed/0 kept
July 22 promoted 9 failed 1 removed/1 kept
August 29 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 26 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/6 kept
October 18 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/1 kept
November 23 promoted 8 failed 4 removed/1 kept
December 10 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
2016
January 16 promoted 10 failed 5 removed/0 kept
February 8 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/0 kept
March 10 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/0 kept
April 12 promoted 6 failed 2 removed/0 kept
May 14 promoted 9 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 16 promoted 6 failed 2 removed/0 kept
July 9 promoted 4 failed 0 removed/1 kept
August 17 promoted 7 failed 0 removed/0 kept
September 21 promoted 11 failed 0 removed/0 kept
October 8 promoted 5 failed 2 removed/2 kept
November 8 promoted 4 failed 1 removed/0 kept
December 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
2017
January 14 promoted 9 failed 2 removed/1 kept
February 13 promoted 7 failed 1 removed/0 kept
March 10 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
April 16 promoted 6 failed 3 removed/2 kept
May 16 promoted 1 failed 0 removed/0 kept
June 12 promoted 5 failed 1 removed/0 kept
July 10 promoted 2 failed 0 removed/0 kept
August 19 promoted 2 failed 2 removed/2 kept
September 15 promoted 6 failed 1 removed/1 kept
October 15 promoted 3 failed 0 removed/0 kept
November 11 promoted 1 failed 1 removed/0 kept

List of California birds[edit]

This is a self-nomination, and I'm nominating it because I believe it meets all of the requirements for a featured list. I've tried to create a good balance between visually pleasing and informative pictures and having a list that is not too cluttered and too large for people with modem connections. The writing in the list is mostly taken from List of North American birds. Basar 05:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm going to ignore List of North American birds as this list needs to stand on its own. The lead has several short paragraphs and unnecessarily quotes when it could just state. The Check-list you mention should be in the references (with a link to the online edition). Each section has a few sentences about the family, and nbr of worldwide, US and California species - what is your source for those details? Colin°Talk 17:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's right to judge this article on its own merit, but you have to consider whether the criticism is valid or not since four, count 'em four, other lists with the exact same text have been giving glowing FLC reviews. WP:CITE says that all material that is likely to be challenged or has been challenged needs sourcing. This material might qualify as material that won't likely be challenged as factually inaccurate. I like having the quote in the LC. I like the tone that it brings, but I can change it if there is a community consensus against it. I added the A.O.U. reference. Basar 00:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - and mystifies me why this has no other supporters. Perhaps it should be renominated? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Basar 01:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment can you make a more compact version of the TOC. (See here for an example of the sort of thing I mean). Ideally, it should indicate how the sections are grouped by order (because they appear totally random looking at the default TOC). Also, an image per section would be good (unless the sections are so short that the image would spill onto the next one). Tompw (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That is quite the TOC; I had never seen one of those before. I can sure make one, but it might not look as good as the one referred. The first half of the sections have many, many orders and the last half is a single order. I could simply group them into non-passerines and passerines; it would at least be more compact. I think adding a few more pictures would be OK. Basar 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Whilst I like the TOC that Tompw has linked to, I think the current TOC is more appropriate for this type of page, unless there's some way you can do two columns side-by-side. CheekyMonkey 10:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I made a preview of the proposed TOC in my sandbox User:Basar/Sandbox. Comments are welcome before I go to the work of finishing it. Two columns may be possible, but I think this looks nice too. Basar 18:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me... though both groups have been labelled "Non-passerines". Tompw (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A few further comments: Consider making (I) and (E) into footnotes (see Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal for an example); format the quote from CBRC with <blockquote>; and use an "as of 2006" type link in the lead; metion briefly what introduced/expatriated means. Tompw (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the quote and added the as of 2006 link, but I'm not sure about the other two changes. Introduced and expatriated seem more like normal English words that people should know rather than technical jargon that needs to be defined. I see how the footnotes would be sort of slick, but I feel funny about using an old template, and I'm not sure it adds much. I also like having that information at the top so I can incorporate it in the discussion of numbers. If I did the E and I with footnotes, I would feel like I should do the asterisk too, but then I wouldn't have much to say in the LS; it would also make for a big footnote. Thanks for running your program on the TOC; I think it was a good idea to have it more compact. Basar 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The footnote thingwas just a suggestion - it's not a big deal either way. My problem with introducted/expatriated is that these are normal Enlgish words being used in a technical sense. (Like "group" in mathematics). I was thinking about something like "Ten of these species are introduced (transported there by human activity)" and something similar for Expatriated (which links to expatriate in the sense of someone settled abroad, not the sense used in the article). Glad you found the TOC useful. Tompw (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the TOC now looks very neat, but the terms Non-passerines and Passerines are not linked or explained anywhere. I think adding an additional sentence to the paragraph starting "This list is presented in taxonomic order..." explaining that they are also grouped into these two groups would cover this. I think the terms introducted/expatriated are self explanatory and are good as they are, though I'm fairly neutral on this. CheekyMonkey 12:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I defined expatriated, introduced, and passerine. I think the changes turned out well. Basar 00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep, looks good. CheekyMonkey 12:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, can't really add anything else to this list.--Wizardman 16:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Tompw (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

List of important operas[edit]

Well-constructed and well-organized list that is absolutely NPOV: the compilation method is well described and complies exactly with the previous precedent at the featured List of major opera composers. Highly useful and highly encyclopedic as well as being exhaustively annotated to reliable sources. Self-nomination - obviously, no one one person could have done all of that, though. Moreschi Request a recording? 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomination seconded by a significant contributor. There are over 300 references to this list. --Folantin 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Support. I think this is well done and clearly shows its inclusion criteria. Rmhermen 00:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This list is very well done. However the footnotes.... while this is generally a perfectly acceptable way of doing citations, might I suggest using inline citations of the form (Viking, p123) at the end of the relevant sentence, rather than footnotes? It's just otehrwise you have this huge mass of footnotes at the end. Tompw (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Is that really such a major problem? So that we have to make over 300 changes? Nor would that work so well with the cites from Grove Online, where for obvious reasons page numbers are not given. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • OK, fair enough. Tompw (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (I know nothing about opera...) Read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references and revise the lead and the "See also" section. The portraits should be standard sized thumbnails (i.e. remove the supplied dimensions to leave to reader's preferences). I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the comments for each opera. It reads like a rapid review of operas rather than an objective list. I see the list had a brush with deletion over OR issues. There are still a number of weasel words. I'd be happier with the opinions if I was sure they were widely held and uncontroversial. But instead, I can't help think that many comments are just personal opinions that the editors have chosen. For example: "Much of the music of Akhnaten is some of the most dissonant that Glass has composed." doesn't sound like a generous thing to say. Briefly looking up some sources, you could have written "The last part of Philip Glass' "Portrait-Trilogy" of operas." Stick to the facts and restrict opinion to the big things like an opera's position in history. Colin°Talk 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • But that isn't opinion. That's what our sources are telling us. When we reference things like "X's most popular opera" or "some of Y's most dissonant music" we are doing just that: referencing these statements to the reliable sources from which they come. There is no personal opinion involved whatsoever. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 11:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you there. Comments of those in the field are fine to include, provided they are properly referenced, and where the comments become definate opinions, it is better to use the form "the critic David Cairns describes it as 'cinematic' ". However, I've been reading through the list, and I haven't found any commentry that isn't presented suitably. Also, I don't think this is WP:OR- it combining information from a range of sources in a carefully and clearly defined way, with references. (There were similar issues with List of major opera composers, which got promoted) Tompw (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Just because the opinion comes from a referenced source doesn't stop it being opinion. As Tompw suggests, it should ideally be explicitly attributed to a third party (or group) unless you are absolutely sure it is a nearly universal POV. As WP:NPOV advises, when you state a fact about someone's opinion, significant alternative opinions must be given voice too. Something which isn't really feasible in list format and therefore if you state an opinion in the list, it better be a very widely held one. A real clanger I've just spotted is "A perennial favourite with audiences around the world", which is just advertising copy. Anyway, these are just comments, not objections. Colin°Talk 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't think the opinions expressed are controversial. Also, I don't understand the example you take: "Much of the music of Akhnaten is some of the most dissonant that Glass has composed". This is exactly the kind of "objective" comment you seem to be demanding. Dissonance is a technical term in music. It isn't a term of abuse, it's just a description. Some people like dissonant music, others don't, but it's been used in opera for over a hundred years now. If our references say "Akhnaten" contains dissonant music then we can follow suit. --Folantin 14:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
          • He he. Well, I did say "I know nothing..." :-) Colin°Talk 19:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Tompw (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- ALoan (Talk) 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

List of X-Men episodes[edit]

I've asked some of the reviewers who commented on this nomination to indicate their position more explicitly. Currently we have 4 supports by named editors. These include the nominator, which was his/her first ever edit, and Gman124 who is the main editor of the list. There are two anon reviewers, whose support comments can be considered but this isn't a vote. We also have two objects - I've asked Tuf-Kat if his/her objections have been addressed. For this nomination to succeed, we need clearer support from independent reviewers. Colin°Talk 12:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is complete enough, it doesn't have any red links and I don't see any Grammar mistakes. So I think it should be considered.UDHSS 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • 'Support'UDHSS 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    The closing editor will count the nomination as one "support" anyway. But you seem to be lacking just one more support. --GunnarRene 03:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought we just needed a minimum of four votesGman124 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Please provide fair-use-rational to all images and make the summaries seem less like a plot teaser and more like a summary. Once these are fixed, I will probably support this. The Placebo Effect 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Possibly move to List of X-Men Episodes since their is only one series with that name and mention the other animated series as another article with a template at top. And I agree with Jay32183 about summaries and wikilinks. The Placebo Effect 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that you need the fair use rationales. I also agree that the teasers need to go, but you seem to be going over board in that attempt. Write a one paragraph summary, beginning-middle-end. We don't need every little detail. Include more wikilinks for those who aren't familiar with X-Men. I don't think the words "TV Series" are needed in the title of the article. Would it be possible to add directors to the list as well? Jay32183 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I looked everywhere, but couldn't find the directors listed anywhere, for X-men seriesGman124 16:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Support The only concern of mine you didn't fix was listing the directors. Since they don't seem to be anywhere reasonable to find I can ignore that for now. Jay32183 18:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to excessive use of fair use images. Also no references. Renata 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The pictures make reading the article easier. All other Featured Lists about Episodes have this many Fair-Use Images. Would you rather see the tables without the pictures? The Placebo Effect 01:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yup. There are episode list without images and they look just as good. Renata 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I have seen very few episode lists without images and they don't look good without images, so I believe we need images in episode lists, it makes the episode list more appealing147.31.184.207 00:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
            • And this is exactly the argument that violates Wikipedia policy. See WP:FUC, point #8. I oppose based on #3. Renata 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • You need a more convincing argument than "the page looks better". The reasoning for every image needs to be "this image improves the readers' understanding of this", which is why fair use rationales were requested. Jay32183 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Question So, you guys want are suggesting to get rid of all the images in the article?147.31.184.207 02:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
              • That is what Renata is suggesting. What I said is that the fair use rationales on the image pages need to explain why that screenshot is used. There should be a direct relation between the rationale and the summary for the episode, so that any reader can verify that the image is actually being used to benefit the article in more than just a decorative way. Jay32183 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Object due to the lack of fair use rationales. Also, the references need to use Template:Cite web, or at least give more complete information. I'm not sure why any of those external links are present either - though undoubtedly useful for page on the TV show, they aren't specifically useful for this page, and should probably be removed. Tuf-Kat 18:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have removed all the images and fixed the references, and after some summary altration the article should be goodUDHSS 20:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Episode-specific fair use rationales were provided by the editors. --GunnarRene 19:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose
    • The summaries need some copy-editing. Not so much for style as for grammar.
    • The images should either return to the list or be deleted completely from Wikipeida. If the images serve to identify the episodes in question, then there is no reason to remove them and removing them only makes the list less informative: It becomes more difficult to identify an episode, because you can only rely on the summaries and sequence. (The only justification might be to avoid spoilers, but I smacked a spoiler template on top of the list.) If the images don't identify the episode in question, then they should be removed from the associated episode articles and deleted from Wikipedia.--GunnarRene 22:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Granted, there is some work involved in making a fair use rationale, but can also be rather easy work. One rationale works for both the episode article and the list. You can copy-paste most of the rationale from one episode screenshot to the next, except for the part of the rationale that explains why this particular image was chosen to identify the episode. See List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes or List of RahXephon media for two different formats used. --GunnarRene 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I added the pictures back and added fair use rationals for most of the imagesGman124 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
          • If you find one that you're having trouble writing a rationale for, it probably needs to be replaced, just to let you know. Jay32183 04:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
            • adding fair use rationals for the episodes imagesGman124 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Now support. --GunnarRene 19:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC) Conditional support/weak oppose: Motivate the changes of colour in the table and provide a colour key; I see that it's somehow related to multi-episode plots, but I don't quite get it, and it seems inconsistently used. That was the condition. Here's more ideas:
    • Possibly provide coloured lines both above and below stand-out episodes. See List of RahXephon media to see what I mean. Colour is sometimes used to denote season breaks (List of Sopranos episodes), but you don't need to do that since you have section headers - and having both episode type and season marked by coulour makes for a Saruman-hippy-trippy experience. This is a 1f) concern, but it is mostly cosmetic. --GunnarRene 02:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • A related comment: What was the standard for splitting or merging two-parters in the list? The two-parter shown on the same day makes a lot of sense, but what abou the others?--GunnarRene 02:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I had merged the two-parters bevcause i thought it would make the episode list shorter, but someone changed them backUDHSS 18:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Object. Inappropriate lead. It should contain the number of episodes, a small description about the series, a sentence explaining the "Spider-man crossover" Support. I recommend you to check similar FLs:

CG 08:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I think the article is fixed nowGman124 23:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have put fair use rationals on all the images, and replaced images that I couldn't write rationals for, and the teasers are also removed, and replaced with small summariesGman124 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Moved page to List of X-Men episodesGman124 23:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have shortened the episode summaries. Gman124 16:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I support this article for Featured List, since I don't have any concerns or questions about the article207.172.203.4 20:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • 'Support'. All the images have fair use tags, summaries are short, and references have been added.147.31.184.207 23:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Support', as I have worked on this article, and I feel I have adressed all of the objections, and I feel that this page is completed as much as I could.Gman124 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support All me needs have been addressed. If only all the T.V. episode lists had people this dedicated to git it htrough FLC. The Placebo Effect 13:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I've made the minor changes I was going to suggest. VegaDark 10:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900)[edit]

(Previous nom) The previous nomination failed because only two people voted on it, one of which wasn't an opposition and the other was earlier today without a sufficient objection. I still think it adheres to the criteria, so I'm nominating it again in hope more people will vote on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Support, appears to meet the featured list criteria, and the image criterion can be ignored here because it is extremely difficult to find images for storms prior to 1900. --Coredesat 05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I still feel that doubts noted by your sources (e.g. National Hurricane Centre entries with footnotes "c" and "z") should be indicated in the article and that the storms with dubious casualty figures should be excluded from the Deadly Storms table. The NHC source has several pages of interesting information about the history, terminology, and reporting accuracy pertaining to this period. Surely another paragraph could be added to the lead with some of this info. The lead for the Deadly storms section could be expanded with info from the "Casualty Information" in the source. Colin°Talk 08:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I added a little bit of that. The problem is, this article is on Florida hurricanes, not tropical cyclone deaths in general, so I didn't change all of it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Colin°Talk 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Just that the dash after the date, I believe, should not go like this "1850- A storm..." but like this "1850 – A storm..." Small nitpick, but could you fix that? Thanks! Renata 02:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • comment There is no value in having links to standalone years throughout the article. No value is provided by this. Hmains 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you suggesting removing the year links throughout the article? That would be against the format that the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject does, and I don't see the harm in having them wikilinked. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The harm is that links should only be added when the content of the linked article has material that contributes to the understanding of the base article. These links that simply point to 'year articles' have no such value. And would not no matter what the article/project. Hmains 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I added the remaining links to years and dates. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Date need to be properly wikilinked to enable user preferences. Both day-month and year need to be linked. Rmhermen 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • For the most part they are. Do you mean every last year has to be linked? I thought that the year was only supposed to be wikilinked once at its first use. What, in specific, is your concern? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • The proper format for 'month day year' dates is month day year no matter how often the particular month day and year recur in the article. Not my idea; just the WP date guidelines for 'user date preferences'. Hmains 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Alright, I added the extra links. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Rmhermen 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

United States Navy enlisted rate insignia[edit]

I have been working on this list for a while now and believe its is ready to go through the FLC process. — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 15:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose This was only on peer review for two days and got just an automated comment. Why did you not let it run the course? What's the rush? I think it is worth going back to peer review again. Then ask someone independent to the article from WikiProject Military history to reassess the rating (currently "start"). I'm not sure how "useful" this is as a list. For example, the first table of twelve contains only three distinct wikilinks. Overall it looks to me like a mid-sized article with a handful of short embedded tables. The logos are very nicely drawn. I assume you are allowed to copy the design? Also, the first pic should be a JPG since it is a photo. Colin°Talk 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    I would think it's more a list than a prose article. The basic structure is still governed by the ordered presentation of each insignia & level; the amount of prose is significant, for a list, but it's still essentially annotation to the tables, which are the main focus here. (If this were examined as a prose article, the tables would probably be excessive, and the prose not substantial enough.) Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It also had a WP:MILHIST Peer review hereWilsBadKarma (Talk) 02:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't find it there. Was it archived? Colin°Talk 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I linked it wrong. I just corrected the link to go to the project page.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 12:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the copy right question copyrighting rank insignias violates international law, so therefore this image belongs to public domain anyway on top of that I created the images so there shouldn't be an issue.
This is a list of rate insignia it does't pertain to one insignia so therefore it shouldn't be considered an article. Its displaying information about many different insignia.— WilsBadKarma (Talk) 02:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
The general insignia copyright question is currently being debated; it doesn't actually matter in this case, however, since all U.S. insignia are public domain as works of the federal government. Kirill Lokshin 02:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, seems to meet all the criteria. Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I've reconsidered my position. It is well referenced and presented. However, I do have some comments:
    • The E1-E3 table's wikilinks aren't useful IMO. The "Hospitalman Recruit"'s link is wrong. Linking different words to the same article is misleading and gives the impression that there is e.g. a Hospitalman article. Either create such articles, or else delink all but the first occurence.
    • The location of the "Coloration of petty officer rating badges" section, prior to the "E-4 to E-6" section (concerning petty officers) seems wrong. Could this be moved to become two paragraphs inside the latter section?
    • Could the list be renamed United States Navy enlisted rates to match the existing List of United States Navy ratings. From the history, this list started off as just a list of insignia, but it has changed to explain the different rates in detail. Therefore it is no longer just about insignia in the same way as the ratings list isn't about ratings insignia (though features them). Indeed the latter list links to this one as though it is an article about rates rather just a list of insignia.
    • Can you rephrase the 2nd paragraph to avoid the double parenthesis?
Colin°Talk 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Response I appreciate you taking another look. I have removed the redundant links to seaman in the E-1 - E-3 Section, relinked Hospitalman sections to the Hospital Corpsman page, merged the coloration section into the E-4 - E-6 section, renamed the page, and removed the acronym of command masted chief so it no longer has double parenthesis.
  • Support. Comment. Looks quite good, but the prose could be a little more crisp. For instance: It was not until 1841 that a rate badge was assigned which consisted of .... How about: In 1841 a rate badge was assigned, consisting of... Or with From 1885 to 1894, the Navy only recognized three classes of Petty Officers - the word "only" seems unnecessary. Do these sorts of edits sit well with the author? It would be good to have a reference for the origin of the term "petty officer" since many readers will assume the origin is something else. Minor issue: "fouled anchor" could use a short parenthetical explanation. Gimmetrow 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Response I have rewritten the sections that you mentioned and added a short description of what a fouled anchor is. Also there is a reference to the origin of Petty Officers cited and the end of the sentence in the first paragraph of the E-4 - E-6 section. I don't really understand what else I can do. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 04:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done a copyed. Some of the changes were simply to provide variation in phrasing (depending upon -> according to) or to match style guides (spacing, combine short paragraphs). Near the end, the text deals with the CMC and MCPON as singular but at times uses plural pronouns. Tried to fix but may have missed some. Please verify the changes to those sections are still correct. Gimmetrow 06:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Some other minor points confusing me. This text says a CMC is the senior most enlisted person in a command, but the CMC article says second highest. That could be clarified. The link for Force MCPO redirects to the more general article on Master Chief Petty Officer. Not sure what the solution is, maybe a brief description of Force MCPO in the CMC article? Gimmetrow 16:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note on the CMC article I hadn't really read it. I corrected the error on the article page since in a command a CMC is the highest ranked NON-Commissioned officer. Plus I'll work on expanding the FLTCM/FORCM section of the Master Chief Petty Officer article.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 23:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present - I think there is quite a lot of useful material in there at the moment but it's not well structured and is quite difficult reading for the uninitiated.
My first thought is the opening, ones rank or rate identifies where one fits in the chain of command, and ones pay is a consequence of that. I think the statement needs to be quite punchy. From there on in I'd then talk about the rates themselves and move the discussion about fabrics and colours further down the article. In each section I'd talk more directly about duties, responsibilities and authority, I feel as if the language is a little bit vague at the moment, hedging around and it feels as if there's a point, but I just can't put my finger on what it is.
Personally I'd disagree with your definition of Petty Officer in relation to Officers, I would infer from the current wording that POs would only work for senior officers, bearing in mind that most ships have a plethora of more junior officers (anything below Lt Cdr) then it's not clear who does the actual work.
I'm sorry that this is a bit negative, but there is certainly the core of a good article in there and I'm sure you can get some more distance from it.
ALR 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and don't be sorry, constructive criticism is what this is all about. I can see your point on the lead and and your feelings about the rates and colors being moved down. but as for a major expansion, this is a list not an article (per your statement "there is certainly the core of a good article") it's hefty now adding more may push it overboard since most lists have nothing more that a lead and the list itself, plus I believe that that elaborating on the duties of each rate should be left to that particular rates article. If you see above I have already ran into an issue as to it being to wordy to be a list. Now, for your your point on petty officers I can definitely reword the section to make it more clear and for that matter the entire list. Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 22:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, with that in mind I think you might make more use of existing articles and {{main article}} tag for pretty much every section and then try to migrate towards a summary style.
You might want to link to Bosuns Mate in the early paragraph where you mention that it's in all the examples.
I appreciate this probably expands your workload a chunk but you might want to consider the whole ranks system as a portfolio of articles and develop them to work well together as a suite. Rank structure; signs, symbols and badges are intimately related.
ALR 13:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I can definitely add the main articles easy, but isn't that what the links in the tables are for to take the viewer to the main article? I can tone down the descriptions and go to a more summary style no problem but I feel that is what I have already done. The reason I don't have much mention of the duties for each rate is because I feel that this is best explained on the subjects article page. I do however have the history, use, and description of the rate itself since this is a list of the rate and it seems appropriate to include such information here. As for the symbols, badges and signs these are called ratings and they already have there own Featured List, so adding the same information here would constitute content forking see:List of United States Navy ratings.Cheers — WilsBadKarma (Talk) 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Saskatchewan premiers[edit]

  • Self-nom - A complete and actuate list with an introduction, references, and all premiers' names, parties, photos, dates, assemblies, elections, and ridings. --Arctic Gnome 16:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support as one of the other contributers. Although, Arctic Gnome did a lot more than I did (I found a couple of photos and some dates). The list is complete, and on par with other Featured Lists (like List of Ontario premiers). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 19:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Could you make a color key like the Quebec list has. It's probably easier for the reader. Jay32183 03:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. --Arctic Gnome 03:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Support Perfect now. Jay32183 05:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral pending the licensing clarification regarding Image:Lorne Calvert.jpg, currently sitting smack-bang in the middle of the lead section. I'll re-evaluate it after that, but it looks fine so far (image sourcing/rationale for the rest of them I want to investigate further). Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (signing properly this time) Tompw (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I would say neutral, but some parts of the list are just magnificent, and therefore, I would say Weak Support to this list. It is factually accurate, alright. I am still looking for more images, and easier to navigate. The list seemed to be not completed yet, since the bottom row has no picture, not giving a complete idea of the whole list. Nonetheless, the list is excellently created. By the way, the timeline is magnificent. --CSI or CIS 22:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could you fix the images. On my PC they are floating out of their celle and overlap each other. CG 09:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to help, but I honestly don't know what's going on with your display. I've looked at the list in a few different browsers on both a mac and windows and it looks fine in all cases. Sorry, but I don't know what to do. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

2002 NFL Draft[edit]

Much like the 2003 NFL Draft, 2004 NFL Draft, 2005 NFL Draft, and 2006 NFL Draft, this list is among the best wikipedia has to offer. Everything that needs citing is taken care of, there's no serious problmes anywhere, it's comphrehensive, etc. Support as nom.--Wizardman 06:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I'll close it myself around the start of February. I'd rather wait for onr other person though, FL's shouldn't fail due to lack of participation.--Wizardman 23:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the requirements of a featured list, and same quality as the other featured drafts. Jay32183 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Image:2002nfldraft.gif needs a fair use rationale. Not sure if the other featured drafts have fair use rationales for their images, but they should. Other than that it looks good. VegaDark 20:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope, none of them do. I'll create one though, would've assumed the logo fair use tag would've covered it, but apparently not.--Wizardman 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It's actually a licencing tag, and does mention that a detailed fair use rationale should be added. Jay32183 21:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. Images with a tag only like that and no additional fair use rationale written out are actually speedy deletable if uploaded since May 4, 2006 and tagged as such for 7 days. In this case the image was uploaded before that so it isn't speedy deletable, but it still needs a fair use rationale.
From Wikipedia:Fair Use- 10.The image or media description page must contain:
  • Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different).
  • An appropriate fair use tag indicating which Wikipedia policy provision permitting the use is claimed. A list of image tags can be found on the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use page.
  • For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained at Help:Image page#Fair use rationale. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question. (emphasis mine)
So it needs a rationale in addition to the tag. VegaDark 21:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair Use Rationale provided, hope it's sufficient.--Wizardman 06:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned by the number of redlinks. Guettarda 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, for many of those players I can't write an article since it would fail WP:BIO. Delinking them wouldn't look right to me, though I may not have a choice.--Wizardman 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, players that don't actually end up playing in at least one game shouldn't have an article made for them, unless they are notable for another reason. At this point, if they haven't played by now after being drafted in 2002 they are unlikely to ever make it in the pros, so delinking them would probably be acceptable. However, you may want to check if they ever made it in the AFL or NFL Europe before delinking them, as that would be notable enough for an article. VegaDark 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. (Moving comments from IRC):
    • Please link all the player names, whether they currently have an article or not.
    • "...shown on ESPN" > "...broadcast on ESPN".
    • Unnecessary space before the references section
    • I prefer switching to wikitable sortable class for easier navigation.
    • "NFL.com: NFL Draft History" > "NFL Draft History on NFL.com" or "NFL Draft History"
    • "The draft was shown on ESPN both days and eventually moved to ESPN2 both days." - Confusing, how could the draft be moved to ESPN2 for both days?
    • The third reference is coupled with a note, split it the note to a new subsection or get rid of it.
    • Link all the cities mentioned in the "NFL Team" column.
    • Add NFL Draft as a see also. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Quebec premiers[edit]

  • Self-nom - A complete and actuate list with an introduction, references, and all premiers' names, parties, photos, dates, assemblies, and elections. --Arctic Gnome 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support on par with other featured lists of leaders. Jay32183 06:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest having the different coloru background explaned by a key, rather than prose (especially as there are three shades of blue going on). Tompw (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Tompw (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments:
    • The lead seems a bit too long, it should contain 2-3 paragraphs per WP:LEAD. I suggest removing the explanation of minister as not being very relevant to the subject.
    • Color the entire rows of the premier box color, take a look at List of Presidents of the United States as an example. Also lighten the colors for easier reading.
    • The "Period" column should contain hypens and be properly linked per WP:DATE.
    • Centralize the images.
    • "Elections" column: add punctuation colons after "Elected", "Re-elected", or "Resigned". Don't shorten the dates, and link them properly as above. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree with you about the lead, I'll shorten it.
      • I think that would make the list a bit too colourful. This list is modeled after List of Prime Ministers of Canada and List of Ontario premiers, which are both featured. The American list uses duller colours, so they sort of get away with it, but I still think that one is a bit bright.
      • I can add some hyphens, but it seems that linking the dates would creates a blue-link overload.
      • I'll centre them now.
      • What punctuation do you want? A phrase like "Elected March 8" looks like a proper statement without punctuation. --Arctic Gnome 05:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Criteria 2 of WP:WIAFL requests the list to follow the guidelines of WP:MOS, and linking full dates is a part of it as well.
        • Well I'd honestly prefer "Elected March 8" to be changed to "Elected: March 8" for styling. I also found multiply problems on that column (e.g. René Lévesque row). Michaelas10 (Talk) 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • i like this list, support.--Wizardman 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

List of defense of marriage amendments to U.S. state constitutions by type[edit]

This is a self-nomination, as Zantastik and I composed this list from scratch in my sandbox over the last few weeks. The list is useful, as it includes links to every article on the individual amendments. It is comprehensive, as it covers every defense of marriage amendment that has passed so far. Claims are verifiable in reliable sources as the list is well-sourced. Though it may need to be updated as more elections are held, the list is stable. Zantastik and I find the list to be visually appealing. It has multiple maps, including an animated gif, that were created in the process of compiling the list. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support as self-nominator, of course. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Temporary object I can fix that red Hawaii issue for you. Is it supposed to be pink for the duration of the animation? --GunnarRene 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes it is (the same color it is on the other map). And thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 21:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I added 1996 as a "before" year, and colored Hawai pink.--GunnarRene 21:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Excellent! Thank you very much. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now Support as long as either this edit is kept in essence, or Virginia is included somehow in the category above it. --GunnarRene 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support – very well-crafted, and the maps are a huge plus. That's also an awesome infobox, must explore those pages some time. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Biased Support. I compiled this list along with Jersyko and belive that at long last it meets the criteria for featured lists. --Zantastik talk 15:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Great list, but could you fix the last table (about Virginia) by shortening the "title" column and making the "Amendment" column wider. CG 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    Done. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a good list but two points:
    • DOMAwatch isn't a neutral source and ideally should be replaced, e.g. with a government site.
    • Animation is generally discouraged unless movement is actually what is being discussed. It doesn't print, can be distracting, takes a while to show everything and doesn't stay put long enough to study. I strongly recommend this map be dropped (it is already on the main article page) then the other map can be moved to the standard top-right position. A map isn't the ideal format to show the chronological change since this isn't a geographically shifting phenomenon. A vertically-stacked bar-chart would be better. Colin°Talk 13:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I think an animation shows this geographical change better and more efficiently than making yet another set of maps that show the development over time. We are well aware of the limitations of an animation, but in addition to the still image, the information is duplicated in the textual table and is summarized in the lead, which should make the info accessible also for the blind. I'm opposed to a bar chart, since it would be less illustrative. Also, what would be the unit measure? Number of states? Number of citizens covered? --GunnarRene 15:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree with GunnarRene on this point, though please give my biased view little weight. I would like to hear what others think about the map, though. Regarding DOMAwatch, yeah, it's certainly not a neutral source (we didn't want to use it at all). Unfortunately, however, several states have failed to keep their websites up to date (I remember Oklahoma, in particular, had only an extremely old version of their constitution online), and Zantastik and I were completely shocked at the lack of other good resources on this subject on the web for a few of the amendments. Thus, where we had to, we defaulted to domawatch (I believe there are 4 instances in the article). · j e r s y k o talk · 15:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
        • But I didn't suggest "making yet another set of maps" and this isn't a "geographical change". Landmass is not affected by constitutional change. Either of your suggested units (states or citizens) would an improvement on square-feet! A graph showing the total or percentage of US citizens affected by these changes might actually show some detail not visible with the current page since the number of citizens in a state varies considerably. Does anyone else have an opinion? Colin°Talk 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Do you mean something like this? (10KB GIF file). It a bar chart of the percentage of U.S. population living in states under the different ypes of constituional amendement. (2006 population figures used throughout). Tompw (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, that's the sort of thing. To be useful long-term, it needs to use the population figures from each year, which might take a wee while to find. I don't think the level of primary-school maths involved in doing this counts as WP:OR? The columns could be brought closer together. Colin°Talk 20:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that the graphics used in this list should be geographically-oriented, not based on population. This list and its accompanying article address U.S. state constitutional amendments. It does not address percentages of Americans who live in areas with ssm bans written into their state constitutions; with this in mind, the bar graph wouldn't be germane. I feel that the animated gif is useful in that it shows the spread, over time, of these amendments. If the list were full of animations it would be distracting, but this is just one picture -- the rest of the list is just that -- a list. (Obviously, as co-author I'm biased. So judge my arguments on their own merits, considering that I'm half-asleep as I write this). --Zantastik talk 06:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, nice list, love the animation.--Wizardman 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Manchester United F.C. players[edit]

Self-nom. The list is comprehensive, factually accurate, stable and well-constructed with no redlinks. It is also similar to List of Arsenal F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players, both of which are featured. Thaurisil 03:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The source for this isn't clear. One of the references appears to be a dead link. Guettarda 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have clarified the references. None of the references are dead links. Red11.org does have several periods of downtime, but it is not a dead link. Thaurisil 04:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Everything that can be included is included. Regarding the references: I have seen Red11.org working just fine in December 2006. As a last resort, the Wayback Machine can help verify all the facts. :) Great job, Thaurisil. --Crzycheetah 05:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - All looks fine for me. Perhaps the "various" positions could be changed to their actual positions, as the field's quite wide, but that's a minor thing. HornetMike 10:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Maybe the <br />'s could be removed from the career dates of players who had more than one spell at the club to make the table more uniform? But that's pedantic. SteveO 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I've tried doing this. For the career dates of players such as Richard Smith, there is no change whether the <br /> is there or not. For the career dates of players such as Joseph Cassidy, removing the <br /> causes the first line to read "1893, 1895–", and the second line to read "1900", which is more untidy than if the <br /> is left there. Thanks for the comment anyway! Thaurisil 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for sure, with one comment: is there a free image in any of the biographies, where the image is of a person who is notable for their Man Utd contributions? Eg. maybe "first player to reach 100 games", "first captain" (if he's on the list), "most successful captain", "player and then coach of Man Utd" etc. If there is, it'll make the right-hand-side of the lead look better :) Cheers, but support nevertheless, Daniel.Bryant 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, images have been added by Oldelpaso. Thaurisil 08:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

List of RahXephon media[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured list criteria

    • (a) All episodes and CDs have links. We have many anime media lists, but this one has a more worldwide view than most, since it lists media and broadcasts in languages other than English, as well as English editions from regions other than North America. Parts of the lists have been copied to other language Wikipedias.
    • (b) The list is not likely to grow much more, since it includes all existing materials within its criteria.
    • (c) Both inline citations and and general references.
    • (d) Hard to find something disputable here.... Episode order is as aired, and the interlude is placed in the middle, in the mid-May episode break.
    • (e) Recently populated the episode list with episode articles. Not much more to add to this one. Only foreseeable additions are high-def releases and new broadcasts.
    • (f) I leave the structure evaluation up to others. It's "hierarchially" sectioned with interpage links.
  1. MoS
    • (a) Has a lead. Feel free to change it or critique it
    • (c) ToC is long, but has not reached the auto-review limit. Not all headings are ToC-level.
  2. Fair use rationales for all images. Should there be a CD cover there as well, or is the number of fair use images high enough?
  • Support as nominator (self-nomination) --GunnarRene 20:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support -- Pretty nice LOE hybrid. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The fair use rationales on the screenshots do not explain why that particular image was chosen. We need to be sure that the images are representative of the episode, not just a random capture from the episode. Right now, a non-expert cannot do that. Jay32183 22:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Is this something like you had in mind? Or were the a few specific episode screenshots you had problems with? In any case, I don't know if we really have a need to do that; the other featured episode lists don't do this (based on a quick sample). --GunnarRene 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Check List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, in writing those fair use rationales the editors decided some of the images were inappropriate and replaced them. Jay32183 23:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
        • All screenshots in list addressed. Instead of making a new section on the image page, I explained WHY it identifies the episode in the existing section. Struck out the bold "comment"; remove the strike if there are rationales you find weak. --GunnarRene 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Those are fine, but it a bit presumptious to strike someone else's comment. Always better to have him or her do it. Jay32183 00:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I've commented on FACs and FLCs before, but it's my first nomination. I'll keep that in mind. --GunnarRene 00:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I addedd Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves; if you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. to the FLC instructions now. --GunnarRene 23:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
            • BTW: Support or neutral? --GunnarRene 09:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm going to have to stay neutral for now, until I can review the list fully. There doesn't seem to be anything forcing an object though. Jay32183 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Very deserving. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The tables need fixing, some are larger than others:
Fixed. All are now 98% width.
Have the 26 "main" episodes in one continuous table, not broken up because of the special episodes. If anything, have the recap episode in the same table with the other 26.
It's broken up by episode type. I sorted by story chronology, which I believe is a reasonable list order.
The list breaks have been removed, and the episode list now has uniform columns. I kept the colouring and order, though.
The info on "Title references" on the episode list could be removed. They don't contribute much where they are, and since there are episode articles anyway... have them there. It'd be a little reason to read the article, I think.
Ah, yes. This was a holdover from when the list had no episode articles. Moved into episodes.
Are the colors in the "episode length table" supposed to be a color scheme? If so, what aren't you using them? Also, the ep. length could be incorporated elsewhere, so the table is not really necessary.
It explains the colour scheme used in the list a'la List of Sopranos episodes and shows the different episode types. I am using the colour scheme. It could be possible to combine the list all into one table and have different line colours in it, but that looked ugly. So I went for split-up tables.
I made a second try for a combined table, and it works better now.
There's two entries on the RahXephon Interlude OVA: one inside the episode list, the other under "Other anime." I'd suggest removing the one on the list, since it was an extra with the PS2 game.
I thought it would be useful to show that the OVA fits somewhere in the middle, as an interlude suggested by its title; the OVA section can explain more than the list entry can, and I don't think it warrants its own article.
Not really important but, wouldn't "Printed media" be a better title than "Books"?
Good idea. After all, even though it only lists books, that section also explains about the initial serial run in a magazine, not a book.
A table's not really necessary for the "Theme songs", is it?
Well, it could be a point list... What do other people think?
That's it, for now. So, I'd say: Conditional Support.--Nohansen 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Somewhat loosely related to the list, do we really need individual episode articles for this series? I don't think it's a FLC requirement, but they seem to have been created for it? -- Ned Scott 07:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you neutral as to the featuring the list? I could go both ways for many of the articles, really. I don't want this to turn into a replacement for DVD liner notes with trivia galore. But some of them definately should have articles, and maybe all. What they give instead of only a list:
      • Both director and writer, which for some episodes in particular are notable and referred to in other articles. The credits that appear on some database sites are also wrong.
      • Links to the episodes on other sites like TV.com and IMDb.
      • Room for specific references related to that episode.
      • Reception information that is specific to that episode. (I allready know of such, particularly for the first episodes, the last episodes, Kyoja Circuit, Child Hood's End, Blue Friend, off the top of my head)
      • RahXephon is thick with foreshadowing and arc points that can be noted in a non-speculative way.
      • Guest cast. Not particularly interesting for the most part, so that's not a reason to keep in itself.--GunnarRene 09:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
      • One more thing: Locations. The plot summary should not be the majority of the article in my view. It should have a concise summary and focus on out-of-universe stuff and references forward and backward. --GunnarRene 09:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't really consider it a factor for this FLC if there are episode articles or not, but I just wanted it to be noted that episode articles are certainly not required for an FL. I haven't come to a conclusion on the FLC yet, but I just wanted to note the episode thing while it was on my mind. -- Ned Scott 09:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
          • As I pointed out in The Big O's media peer review, I was also discouraged from creating episode articles. See here. I'm with GunnarRene, there's just some stuff that work better in episode specific articles: Foreshadowing, one-time characters, important locations, etc.--Nohansen 12:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support One of the finest anime lists I've seen. Better than some other FLs. - Peregrine Fisher 18:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Romaji titles need to be fixed though. "Futari no machi" → "Futrai no Machi"--SeizureDog 09:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support seems nice and meets all parts of WP:FL?. A good looking list. -- Ned Scott 18:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose per excessive use of fair use images. Renata 23:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Specifically? Which image(s) do you object to? Have you read the fair use rationales?
    • Also note that it even has a free/liber image in it; which is more than most other media lists will have for several decades.--GunnarRene 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Renata is counting images. This interpretation of FUC#3 was overwhelmingly shot down at the fair use discussion. But Renata will not drop the objection unless the images are removed. Jay32183 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, proportion of reproduction, that is how much of the work is reproduced, would be an "image-counting" objection of the valid sort, but just counting the number of images per article is not. Since this is an animated series with about 12 (and sometimes 24) images per second that adds up at least 15 000 unique images per episode (OP and ED excluded) at a much higher resolution than what I have uploaded. So I guess the objection fails then.--GunnarRene 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)