Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2008

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 22:43, 29 April 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Houston

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and Postoak to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 03:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The only thing I see wrong with this article is that references 33 through 63 are just skyscraperpage links with no links to emporis. Besides that its perfect. Alaskan assassin (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching that. It may take awhile, but I will fix them all. Cheers, Rai•me 04:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Never mind, I guess it took a lot less time than I had thought. Anyway, all of the "doubled" SkyscraperPage links have been removed, and Emporis refs have been added. Cheers, Rai•me 04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Another great effort, definitely worthy of FL status. VerruckteDan (talk) 13:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 03:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support Some of the notes in the table are not sourced at all. Especially, those "formerly known", "also known", and "originally known" names that are unsourced. I checked both Emporis and SkyscraperPage, and I can't find that JPMorgan Chase Tower was known as Texas Commerce Tower, or Wells Fargo Bank Plaza was known as Allied Bank Plaza, etc. --Crzycheetah 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - I have added references for all of the "former name" entries that required them. What other notes need references? The "tallest constructed in the..." decade notes are easily discernable from the sortability of the "Year" column. -- Rai•me 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That's better. One more thing, the links to the world and U.S. lists should be added to all notes, not just for the Chase Tower. The reason is that if I sort alphabetically, the order of the notes is going to change and those links will be at the bottom instead.--Crzycheetah 22:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done - links added. Thanks for the review, Rai•me 23:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

---

Metallica discography

previous FLC (21:24, 15 April 2008)

Alright, lets try again! I rewrote the lead in the time between the last nom and now. Again, I am welcome to any construtive criticism. There was a couple of comments on the previous FLC that did not have a conclusion, so if you would like to bring them up again, go for it. Thanks, Burningclean _[speak] 20:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support like last time! Drewcifer (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man 15:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• "comprehensive" seems redundant to me. It's either the discography or not.
  • I don't think I've seen any FL discographies withouth "comprehensive" in the lead sentence.
    • The Breeders, Carrie Underwood, The Corrs, Dave Gahan, Depeche Mode (to name but five up to those starting with D).... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• "on a two year to in" tour?
• Misc and music video sections are uncited.
  • They don't need to be. Burningclean _[speak] 16:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • According to whom? Citations should be provided for material which could be contentious. Is there something in the article which references the content of these two sections? How do I know you haven't made it up in other words...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • On every previous discography I've worked on it was suggested that it doesn't need to be sourced. The musi videos and CDs cite themselves. Only material that could potentialy be argued should be sourced. Burningclean _[speak] 16:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well I guess that's what I'm doing, arguing about the material. Not to worry, if that's a project-wide approach then so be it. Other featured content I've worked on usually demands higher standards than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
          • That's alright. Don't you think that Cds and DVD cite themsleves though? Burningclean _[speak] 16:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise excellent work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I've copyedited the lead twice, so I'm a contributor I guess. I would like to see citations for music video directors, stuff like that can be argued...but it's not a *must*. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The only two sources are MVDbace (unreliable) and The Videos: 1989-2005 (first party) Burningclean _[speak] 03:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Put Some Kind of Monster in the EPs section, because that's what it is. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

  Done. Burningclean _[speak] 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is a statement about selling 100 million albums worldwide but the citation only says 85 million. And, it's a self-ref to boot. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Huh, I didn't notice that. Thanks. I'll change it to 85m. Burningclean _[speak] 00:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support looks good. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Check the Album column in the misc. section: Most of those need "soundtrack" along with the movie name. Otherwise its quite confusing; Shoot 'Em Up links to the movie etc. Also I don't understand the Darwin Awards link. And The Videos: 1989-2005 is fine as a source to refer the directors. indopug (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done Burningclean _[speak] 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Try to keep it all in one line. Link "soundtrack" to the soundtrack article, if available. indopug (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Looks great, awesome work! ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• This is the English speaking Wikipedia, as such I'd prefer to see NZ's chart position column next to other English speaking countries at the beginning of the table, re-arrange them in alphabetical order (keeping US first as it's the band's home country), and arrange the non-English speaking countries in alphabetical order after that.
• Did the live albums not chart in the US? I think it might be important to note that as they're an American band
  • They didn't chart.
• Some prose to indtroduce Miscellaneous wouldn't go amiss. What are these tracks? Non-album tracks that appeared on compilation albums? Movie or video game soundtracks? Perhaps a notes or comments column would help also
• Can the directors of music videos be referenced?
  • Alright.
• Not important, really, but perhaps change the title of the section "Videos" to something else, as most are DVDs, and are likely not to be "videos" in the future
  • The majority of them were released on VHS and later re-released on DVD. Burningclean _[speak] 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I got. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral as I am unable to see this nom to the end. Sorry. Hope my comments were helpful though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

---

List of National Parks of Canada

This is one that I had been meaning to clean up, but never got around to it... Until now. It is modeled after List of areas in the United States National Park System (which I am actually considering nominating for removal because it doesn't have stats like area) and is fully sourced. Any comments are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "...is a List..." no reason why List is a proper noun so decap it.
  •  Done
• Captions full stops are the wrong way round - the lead image is a full sentence so full stop yes, all others are fragments so full stop no.
  •  Done
• "The goal of the national park service..." needs citation.
  • It does. The citation is a couple of sentences later.
• "feasbility" - typo.
  •  Done
• "For a list of National Historic Sites, see: List of national historic sites of Canada." - isn't this what "See also" sections are really for?
  •  Done
• Wikipedia:MOS#Color_coding says don't use colour alone to depict particular properties.
• "Year Estab'd " - no capital E required, and why not write the whole word out? You've got space. Use a
if you like.
  •  Done
• Area should be shown in acres (or similar imperial measurement) as well.
  • No, this is a list about a Canadian subject, so we're allowed to use the metric system.
    • Featured content should be accessible to all and that includes the hundreds of millions of people who use the imperial system of measurement. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, I'll experiment with it, but it might screw up the sortability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• Consider right aligned area col so commas align correctly.
• I would consider merging the proposed and abolished tables into the main, colour code and/or reference accordingly. The abolished/proposed date can go into the ref. Then you get a nice contiguous table.
  • I would prefer to keep the seperate, I think it works better when it is the seperate tables.
• Polar Bear can be polar bear - neither word is a proper noun.
  •  Done
• Do National Park Reserves table have year established available to make it consistent with the previous table?
  • I think they are already included.
• Some tables look forced in width, some not, be consistent, and try to make all tables consistent in column widths.

Starter for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Done, thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A few minor things from Suicidalhamster (talk · contribs)

• Park Canada is first mentioned in the third sentence, a few sentences later it seems to be introduced again with Parks Canada–the governing body for the system–. These two sentences say similar things (if administered and governing body mean similar things). Could they be merged?
  •  Done
    • Actually what I wanted to see change has not. I made this edit to show what I was on about. Feel free to re-word. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Can the year the parks were abolished be added to that table.
  • They were already there, I had accidentally mislabeled the table header. It has been fixed now.
• I take it there are no newer statistics than 2005 for progress?
  • None that I could find. I doubt there would be any because during that stretch they only announced one new park. Three new ones have been created in the last year, so I expect there will be new stats soon.
• I've probably missed something but I count 7 national park reserves (excluding Kluane) in the table, however the lead says there are six.
  • One is a future park, which isn't open yet. It has been moved to its own table.

Cheers Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could the Lead be slightly longer? There must be so much that could be said on this topic, seems quite mean to leave it so short. And it'd balance the lists better. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment OK, this could be annoying because it's been discussed somewhere, but I'd expect to see one list, not several. This way, you can't easily scan them all alphabetically or by size etc because they've been broken up by type. Surely some creative work with an additional column could allow a single table to display all of them without being misleading? (I'd omit the putative future ones from tables but include it as footnote or text or something, as they're not actually national parks, so have no place in a list of such) --Dweller (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • While I am open to merging the National Parks and National Park Reserves column, I think the rest should be kept seperate. I think adding an additional column would make the table look worse and it would seem unnecessary since there are only 2 NMCAs and 1 Landmark. As for the future parks, I suppose they could be merged into one table, but they really should be included for completeness, because they are National Parks that have been confirmed, they just aren't open yet. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll go along with your thoughtful response. Slightly confused by this though: "

Future National Marine Conservation Areas

Four more Marine parks will be established as part of the Marine Conservation Areas Act." says four but only one listed... I can guess why, but needs some explanation. --Dweller (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Curious about tenses in "National Landmark". They're a mix of future tense and past tense about something that does seem to exist, although not in the manner originally foreseen, perhaps. Could this be sorted (and my {{cn}} dealt with - could be in following ref, I know). --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably the Lake Superior thingy has been announced, but not yet established. I guess this from the lack of established date, but the text isn't clear on this. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I trust Scorpion to deal appropriately with my remaining issues. Good job, nice article. --Dweller (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When I see a list at FLC by Scorpion, I just assume that it will pass now. Another great list, all issues addressed, no reason to oppose. Qst (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - My comments have been addressed. Great list. Suicidalhamster (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:43, 29 April 2008.

---

1976 Summer Olympics medal count

This is modeled after the 1928 Summer Olympics medal count which is a current FLC. The list is fully sourced. It includes which nations won their first medal and who won the most, but I decided not to get too much into individual/nation achievements because it's a list of the games medal count, not a list of medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Why does Iran sort before Italy?
  • Because r comes before t.
    • Wow, I must have been tired...! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
• "divided in 198 events" into?
  •  Done
• rugby points at a dab - it should be rugby union.
  •  Done
• "and most overall medals (129)" in the lead, 125 in the table.
  •  Done
• " in 23[7] different " put [7] at the end of the sentence.
  •  Done
• "pommel horse and men's horizontal bar events, and a second-place tie in the women's vault " link pommel horse, horizontal bar and vault.
  •  Done

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have any comments, as I think it looks very nice and meets all the featured criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 07:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all the criteria as far as I can see. Has appropriate image, well sourced, table sorts properly. Appropriate Lead. Well done. Woody (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Although I find the use of "medaled" distasteful, it's possibly just a personal thing. I'm also unsure about the use of dashes in the Lead, but that's a small thing and you're probably fine (I regularly have to re-read WP:DASH and I'm tired right now) --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I removed that part because it wasn't specific to the 1976 games. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
• 'Needs sprucing up. Examples only: "a total of ... a total of" in the same sentence, and another further down in the lead. "South Africa" not a person. "Athletes of"? "Won one"—awkward. Semicolon after "medals.". En dashes, not hyphens, for interrupters in piped refs. TONY (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I have removed all of the "a total of"s except two, I have fixed everything you mentioned, and I've done a little rewording. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:07, 29 April 2008.

---

The Simpsons (season 5)

Another season of The Simpsons. Personally, I think each of these lists is better than the last. Anyway, it is fully sourced and I will address concerns as they are brought up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Haven't noticed it before, but do all the other seasons' infoboxes match the colour of the DVD?
  • Yes. I did that because the normal blue/yellow colours clashed with most of the DVD case colours.
• "who executive produced 20 episodes this season" → Personal preference, but I don't like the "this season"
  •  Done
• The wikilinks of Region 1, Region 2 and Region 4 all redirect to the same place, DVD region code
  •  Done
• "Several of the shows original writers who had been with the show since the first season left" is repetitive
  •  Done
• ""Cape Feare" which was" needs a comma
•  Done
• "hold overs" in the lead, "holdover" in Production
  •  Done
• "Jay Kogen, Wallace Wolodarsky, Sam Simon and Jeff Martin wrote their final episodes for the season four production run" wouldn't this be better placed on the season 4 article?
  • Yes, but I figured it would be worth mentioning who had left.
• Did Jean and Rice return during this season, or a later season?
  •  Done
• You link to the thirteenth season, but not the first season
  •  Done
• Ref [6] appears mid-sentence
• "One-time writers for the season include David Richardson and Bill Canterbury, who received two writing credits." sounds contradictory
  •  Done
• "The season started off with "Homer's Barbershop Quartet" because it guest starred George Harrison." More explaination needed, I think
• "but the writers managed to win the argument" how? what argument?
  •  Done
• "TV Shows on DVD.com" in ref [43] should be "TVShowsonDVD.com", all one word. Ref [44] concerns me as much as seeing Amazon on many other articles in that it's a shopping site
  • I was concerned about its usage too, but it is the official shop for The Simpsons, and the reference is used for the DVD's special features, not something potentially controversial like sales figures or opinions.

That's all from me. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• The "Release Dates" header in the DVD table should have had a little d, per WP:HEAD so I changed it. Meets the criteria, and follows MOS, so I Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 01:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Good stuff. Although I do think at times it verges on over-detailing certain things, it looks all good to me. After tweaking a weensy bit of grammar myself, the only issue I'd have to bring up is Compared to previously produced episodes, the episode featured several elements that could be described as silly and cartoonish. This was a result of the staff's careless attitude towards the end of season four. The episode ran long which led to the creation of the rake sequence, which became a memorable moment for this episode. Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again.[9]
  • Firstly, a source would be great for "silly and cartoonish" - this could be considered POV. If ref 9 at the end of the paragraph does support this, it would be nice to have a secondary source if one's available.
    •  Done
  • Secondly, "the staff's careless attitude" might need to be reworded. Reading it as it is, I'm not sure if they really just couldn't give a damn, or if they just weren't trying as hard, or any other possibility. What does the commentary say?
    •  Done
  • I'm taking "the episode ran long" to mean that it went overtime - which led to the creation of the rake sequence? Wouldn't they add in all the extra rakes if the episode ran short? I swear I'd heard that. Am I wrong?
    • I think an IP must have changed that, and we missed it. It's supposed to be short.
  • "Originally, Sideshow Bob was only supposed to step on one rake after he stepped out from the underside of the Simpson family's car, but this was changed to nine rakes in a row. The idea was to make it funny, then unfunny and later funny again." Could we lose all of this? This is the kind of over-detail I was talking about. The article's about season 4 as a whole, and shouldn't spend too long highlighting individual episodes. I don't see this serving much of a purpose unless it's supposed to be talking about the staff's "careless attitude", in which case trimming a bit might be nice.
• I'll be happy to support with changes made or some kind of reply. —97198 talk 09:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I've made all of the changes. Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 11:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Looks great! —97198 talk 13:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Are there any information about ratings? Also, it would be better if this page had a reception section where you could mention some quotes from TV experts; both positive and negative comments if available. --Crzycheetah 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You have to remember that this is a fifteen year old season, so there isn't much from reliable sources on the internet. As for ratings info, I probably could try to dig something up. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There are many archives on the internet nowadays, though. Glad to see the ratings section. One more question, for the 86 - 5 episode, you use both "&" and "and" in the writers' column, shouldn't you use a comma instead of the "&" symbol?--Crzycheetah 00:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The reason is that the episode was split into four parts. The first was written by Greg Daniels & Dan McGrath, the second by Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein, the third by Bill Canterbury and the fourth by Conan O'Brien. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I see, then I would just add a <br /> after Canterbury and remove "and".--Crzycheetah 01:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Maybe, but I'd prefer to keep it to three lines rather than four. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - I made two minor edits in terms of style. References show not be put in the middle of sentences. They should go after punctuation (commas, full stops, etc.). ISD (talk) 06:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 19:10, 28 April 2008.

---

List of East Carolina Pirates head football coaches

I have had this list peer reviewed and fixed those changes. No college football list like this, but the NFL has a few FL that I used as a template. Everything else looks fine. Picture is fine.

• Support as nom. PGPirate 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks to be in order. I have no other comments besides those from the PR which were taken care of. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support yes, improved drastically since last time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

• Weak oppose
  • In the Sonny Randle's row, I think it should say that he was the "1972 Media Southern Conference Coach-of-the-Year" because in that "Annual Awards" reference, there are two types of the "coach of the year" awards: coaches and media. This page should make it clear to non-experts that Sonny Randle won the media award instead of coaches. Th 1972 award should be referenced, by the way.
    • It is reference 11, which is in the same box. I will put another ref in the box to make it more clear.
  • You nominated the {{ECUPiratesFBCoach}} template for deletion claiming it's redundant to some other template yet it's still on this page, why?
    • Must have caught me in the middle of the process. I added {{ECUPiratesFB}} template.
  • Those name change notes should be in the lead instead.
    • Changed
  • That Patricia Staino reference needs a retrieval date. Also, shouldn't the Metro Magazine be the publisher?
    • Retrieval date doesnt work, changed to publisher though.
  • The Bonesville.net reference needs a retrieval date, as well. 2004-12-14 should be in parenthesis and linked.
    • Not working
  • The References section should have two subheadings, general and specific.
    • Done

--Crzycheetah 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• • I think {{ECUPiratesFB}} should be placed right before the categories, but I'm not sure, though.--Crzycheetah 03:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeh, I am not totally sure either. But I will move it. PGPirate 12:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support No more concerns are left. Good job!--Crzycheetah 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. You need to remove the hyphens from "Coach-of-the-Year" since you're not using it as an adjective. I'll also go through the lede for style and flow, but there's nothing major to prevent my support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Peanut4

• Comment You shouldn't use endashes in prose (see WP:DASH) for the list of bowl finals. I.e. "In those games, six coaches have brought the Pirates to bowl games: Jack Boone in 1952 and 1954, Clarence Stasavich in 1963 to 1965, Pat Dye in 1978, Bill Lewis in 1991, Steve Logan in 1994–95 and 1999–2001, and Skip Holtz in 2006–07. Four coaches have won conference championships with the Pirates: Jack Boone in 1953, Clarence Stasavich in 1966, Sonny Randle in 1972–73, and Pat Dye in 1976." Does Steve Logan mean 1994 and 1995? If so say that, if it's 1994-95 season that's okay. Etc, etc. Peanut4 (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Done PGPirate 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Only minor concern has been addressed. Easily conforms to FL criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 19:10, 28 April 2008.

---

List of Israeli cities

This article is based on List of United States cities by population and is of a high standard. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice. Drewcifer (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Definitely an interesting, well-constructed list. I do have a few suggestions however:

•  Done My main concern is with the two population columns. Since Wikipedia is not meant to be a repository for statistics, I don't see any point in having two columns for two different years. Only the most current population is necessary. However, I would argue that those columns are necessary in the tables where the change is actually important, namely "Cities with a declining population" and "Fastest growing cities". So I guess I'm just saying there's no point in it being in the main cities table.
•  Done The widths of rows should ideally be kept consistent between tables.
•  Done The images don't need to be numbered.
•  Done In general, columns with numbers should be center aligned.

I tried to see how to do this. Can you please give some guidence.

No problem: it's pretty easy, but might be a little time consuming. Each cell that needs to be center aligned should start with So the code for the Betar Illit row should be:

Drewcifer (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Also in general, the name of a column shouldn't be a symbol (ie %).
•  Done "(formerly separate towns)" should be a footnote, not in the table itself. Drewcifer (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

•  Done The data in percentage change columns should have a percent sign in each cell. ie. "70.9%" "49.1%" and so on. Drewcifer (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why not List of cities in Israel by population?
• You could also remove the area column, and make a List of cities in Israel by area article
•  Done I don't really understand the need of the second paragraph of the lead. I would say that poulation#s to importance may be true for a lot of cities in all parts of the world. One sentence begins with "Because", too, which is gramatically incorrect, and the parenthesesed part, "(and people's perceptions)" should be referenced.

Other than that I agree with all of Drewcifer's comments. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. To be honest, I was weighing up making two lists in my own mind before but just thought with the sortable tables it would give two almost identical pages so I personally am not sure whether it is worth doing this although if you feel it would be very beneficial/the general feeling is this, then I will go ahead. Is there a way of ordering it automatically or is it a manual job? I removed that paragraph also. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

•  Done A bit of over-capitalising - Common Name could just be Common name... etc.
• Can the area be given in metric and imperial as well please. You could embed the {{convert}} template in a {{sort}} template to ensure sortability is maintained.

Sorry - I dont understand how to do this.

Well you need to first use the {{convert}} template to convert from km2 to miles2, and then use the {{sort}} template to ensure it still sorts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Probably best to right-align the population so the commas align. Same for decimal point alignment of area.

I have an issue here as I was told by Drewcifer3000 to center align the numerical figures. Either way, I still dont know how to do it.

You can right align large numbers like this by using align=right in the relevant cells... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was told by Drewcifer to center align them! Im not sure what to do.

• Population doesn't seem to sort correctly for me - Jersualem is in a weird place.

I dont seem to have any issues. Let me know.

I have problems in Safari with both Jerusalem and Kafr Qasim when sorting on population. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dont use Safari - its fine on IE. I dont really know what to suggest here.

• Why do two entries not have Arabic translations? Worth a note.

I'm getting these at the moment.

•  Done References should be in numerical order, there's a [6][4] for instance.
•  Done 12% is an arbitrary level of growth, isn't it? Is there a reason why it's not 10 or 15%?

I have no idea why that's like that but its now 10%

•  Done "large immigrant population" - large is POV.
•  Done "Immigrants are considered those who arrived in Israel after 1990." - according to whom?
•  Done Note c could use a full stop.

Some issues there for me with POV, so I must oppose at the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Ive now addressed the bulk of these issues. The arabic names should be on their way. I dont really know how to do the conversion template although will be happy to do so, and dont have any issues on my comptuer with the sorting. Theres a contradiction between you and Drewcifer over alignment - what do I do here. Thanks for your comments. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. As per previous nominations, I do not believe that the status of the cities in the West Bank is adequately explained. The sentence "The list includes three cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty with which it is roughly contiguous" is virtually unreadable - I certainly can't figure out what it means. What is "roughly contiguous" with what? In order for me to support this list, I think it needs three things:

•  Done Rename to "List of Israeli cities" rather than "List of cities in Israel", in order to define the cities by what rather than where they are. A city which is in the West Bank is ipso facto not in Israel, just as the British embassy in Paris is not "in" Britain, even though it might be considered to be British territory.
•  Done A paragraph in the intro properly explaining the status of the three (four?) West Bank cities, including some mention of the view of the international community as well as the Israeli view.

I've put it under List of Cities though because I dont feel it is notable enough to be plaed in the intro.

•  Done Some similar explanation of the status of Jerusalem. It may not need a full paragraph, but at the very least it needs to state whether or not the figures for population and area include East Jerusalem (I assume they do) and why that might be controversial. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, this is in the same paragraph as the West Bank

Hope this is ok. Thanks for your comments. I dont see why the Jerusalem and West Bank bits cant go as notes because they only apply to 5 of 74 but if it is neccessary I have no real issue keeping it here. Thanks again. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Much improved, thanks. I'm still not sure about this sentence: "The list includes four cities in the West Bank to which Israel has not applied its sovereignty". It's not clear whether "not applied its sovereignty" refers to the West Bank as a whole or whether to just the four cities - I assume the former, but it's ambiguous as written. Subject to that being clarified, I'm moved to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now support. Thanks for your rapid responses. One other small point - could you please have a look at footnote C. It uses the same awkward wording that I pointed out around "roughly contiguous". --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Coherent, understandable, and informative. A spot check of references turned up no problems, and a cursory glance through the article revealed no glaring grammatical or factual errors that I could detect. I might suggest editing some of the prose for smoothness and flow, but even as it is now, it's still better than 95% of the prose I've seen on Wikipedia. Good job by all involved. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Meets all requirements. Good work :-) Tompw (talk) (review) 20:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

SFWA Footballer of the Year

Here's yet another list based on the same format as existing FLs PFA Players' Player of the Year, FWA Footballer of the Year, etc. Let me know what you think........ ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Can't find anything wrong, although the colums for Country and Club in "Breakdown of winners" needn't be so wide, and references 6 to 12 are footnotes, but it's no big deal. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, my comments were dealt with at the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good list. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

List of Detroit Lions head coaches

This is an excellent list. However, with the lack of free use images, there are none next to the table. Other than that - looks good. - Milk's favorite Cookie 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom.

Comments Just a couple of little things

• Shame there's no free images. Did you look at Flicker yet? If there are some that are copyrighted to the user, it might be worth asking them to free it so it can be included on Wikipedia
• "...including coaches for the Portsmouth Spartans (1930–1933), of the National Football League (NFL)." It sounds like only the Spartans were of the NFL
• "...a play off of the..." "Off of" is a little poor
• Per COLOR, do not use only colours to highlight. Some sort of text, such as an asterisk, caret, dagger or double dagger.

And that's it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixes needed.

• There is no link to either Detroit Lions or head coach, which is unhelpful to readers. Can probably be done best in the bolded text in the lead.
• I have a feeling Portsmouth, Ohio should be just Portsmouth, Ohio. I don't think there's anything in the MoS but I remember reading it in another FLC nom the other day... not sure on this one.
• Note 7 says Clark lost 1 playoff game, whilst the lead and table say he won the superbowl/1 playoff game (respectively).
• I don't like the key being a completely separate section to the table, personally; it looks disjointed from it.
• The lead claims Mornhinweg is the worst coach statistically by win%, yet the table says Karcis has a win% of .000. I think Mornhinweg should still be mentioned - his record is particularly poor over so many games - but Karcis should be added simply because it's contradictory not to have him noted.
• The lead seems strangely formatted... I would probably merged paragraphs 2 & 3, then have "Statistics correct as of [...]" in a separate one myself, but this is up to you. Something to consider at least.

NB, I disagree with the above editor on the WP:COLOURS thing. It doesn't mention anything about using colours as a backdrop in tables (and infact shows examples of it being used on the main page). I've seen other lists pass FLC without anyone else noting this, and personally like them. But this is your call, just airing my opinion. :) Regards, AllynJ (talk | contribs) 06:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:COLORS#Using colours in articles, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - all concerns dealt with, good work. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Hal Griffin should have an article, even if it's just a stub.
• External Links should be External links (per WP:HEAD).

Otherwise, Matthew's right about the colours, and that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll also support if an article on Hal Griffin is written. Wizardman 21:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And  Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I finished everything - except the images. I couldn't find anything. - Milk's favorite Cookie 22:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm ready to support, as long as the green shading is used with some sort of text identifier, per the MOS quoted above. Also, there was no real need to remove the Hall of Fame shading, as long as some text identifier was used alongside, otherwise it doesn't follow the style set by other Head coach lists. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a good list. Nice work! Gary King (talk) 07:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - all concerns dealt with, good work. :) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Can you throw in a See also section? Seems incomplete without it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, looks great. Very well done list. Support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "changed their name to the Lions.." spare period.
• See Also and External Links should be See also and External links per WP:HEAD.
• "...in terms of winning percentage, with .000,..." - why not just say he never coached a win?
• "Regular Season" in the table, why not just Regular season? (i.e. small season?)
• The asterisk in the key should say "Elected to the Hall of Fame", not just "Hall of Fame".

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 01:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all good, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

Record home attendances of English football clubs

A list of the record attendances of the 92 clubs in English league football. When I first came across this list it was more or less complete, but lacked references. Now it is fully referenced and has had a productive peer review. I am therefore now submitting it in the hope that it cuts the mustard at FLC. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hey Oldelpaso, some comments before I give unequivocal support.

• Last two claims in the lead are unsourced. Now, if they're sourced in the main list then fine but you've sourced the previous statement so it creates an anomaly.
• Since the table is sortable (and as you have done for Maine Road) the competition column should be referenced in each row since it could sort any which way.
• No need to allow the ref col to be sortable, and I'd personally opt to centrally align it.
• "As of April 4, 2008" - I'd write "Statistics correct as of April 4, 2008."
• Does Group Stage need that capitalisation?

These are all minor issues; their resolution will result in my support for an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

All done, I think. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't linked the competition in each line... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So I hadn't. Now done. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support wholeheartedly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support with the most minor of minor points. Does the rank column need to be sortable? It's the same sort as the attendance column. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support This looks like a great job. Good job. Gary King (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Very well researched list which satisfies the FL criteria admirably. The nominator has clearly put a deal of work into it, taken it to peer review, left the peer review open long enough to gain a decent amount of comment and suggestion, and actively responded to said comment. A few odds and ends:

• Is the title of the list misleading? especially in the light of the ongoing Arsenal players list FLRC. It's called ...of English football clubs, yet in the lead we find out it lists only Premier League and Football League clubs.
• Should the image caption use St Mary's Stadium rather than the abbreviated St Mary's? Either way, the article name hasn't got a dot after the St
• When the competition column is sorted, it looks rather odd with the FA Cup rounds sorted alphabetically, i.e fifth, first, fourth, etc
• Do you know in which round of the Amateur Cup Barnet's attendance record was set?
• If you're using citation templates for formatting references, I'd prefer to see them completed as per the documentation, specifically that the distinction between "work" and "publisher" be properly made. For instance, note currently #9 has the "work" parameter set to The Football Association, which is in fact the publisher; perhaps this should be changed to publisher, or the work should be The Football Association website, as you've done with the football club websites cited. There are (only a very few) others.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1) It is not claiming to be Record home attendances of all English football clubs, and I do not think we should treat readers as if they have an absolute lack of common sense.

2) I have removed the rogue full stop. It is almost universally referred to without the "Stadium" appellation, so I don't think leaving it out it a problem.

3) I have no idea how to resolve this.

4) It seems it was the fourth round, now added.

5) I've made the changes, though I still maintain the distinction is of no consequence :)

Oldelpaso (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Agree entirely :-)

5) In terms of showing clearly where your information comes from, I'd agree it doesn't make any difference. But if you're going to choose to use citation templates to format your references on an article which you then nominate for featured status, I can't see an argument against filling them in precisely.

3) I've carried on where Peanut left off and got the cup rounds sorted. If you'd like me to do the league divisions similarly, for consistency, let me know.

Thanks, I've now sorted the league divisions. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • 3) I've done the first. Basically use {{sort}}. Though you'll have to keep it consistent with the divisions as well I suppose. I'll leave it up to you if you want to revert my change, or apply them more consistently. Peanut4 (talk) 19:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 00:36, 22 April 2008.

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero II

Self-nomination - I have followed the same approach for the first List of songs in Guitar Hero in fixing up this list, and have already asked Drewcifer for an off-the-cuff check of the table (as there's some new formatting that needs to be done for this list). --MASEM 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Good work! One last minor suggestion: the year column is wider then it needs to be. I'd recommend putting the sortable button thing on the line below "Year", since you've already got room for it. Drewcifer (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• That sorting icon is not easily placable, I've forced a small column width to make it drop onto a second line. --MASEM 03:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Whatever you did, it looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Oppose for now. Looks pretty good, but there's one fatal flaw: the sources. Namely, the fact that the article references Wikipedia itself. Also, it sources blogs. Albeit, the blog is Major Nelson's, but it would definitely be preferable if you could find alternate sources (which I'm sure you could). A few other less pressing issues: the publisher values of the first two citations should be IGN, not IGN.com. Also, only wikilink in the first citation a publisher is mentioned. I am still wary of the notes for Guitar playable and the video preview thing. The video preview in particular seems reaaallly uneccessary: I can't imagine that contributing anything to the reader's understanding of the game or the songs. The rythm guitar/bass thing makes the list read more like a guide (see WP:Guide then a list). The same can be said for alot of the Main setlist prose. Column titles should only use capitals for proper nouns and the first word. So "Master Recording" should be "Master recording", "Release Date" should be "Release date", etc. The release dates should probably be spelled out. The list looks good so far, it just needs a bit of fine-tuning before I can support. Drewcifer (talk) 05:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia refs I saw, and left them in but added a more appropriate source before nom ,as not sure how they'd be taken. Although I should be able to find duplicate information in other sources (given that GH2 is very popular), I will point out that Major Nelson's blog is generally considered the most reliable source for Xbox Live release information since he's basically cataloging everything that comes out each, regardless of popularity.

On wikilinking publishers, I know you'd normally do that in the wikitext, but given how reference order can change easily and automatically when using citation templates and when clearing other articles to FA, I've been told to wikilink the publisher at all times in the templates.

I agree that the rhythm guitar/video preview thing is not necessary or part of a general reader's understanding (though I think rhythm guitar may be of interest to some musicians), but I also think that moving them to symbols doesn't detract from the many purpose of the list. However, if there's more commentary against them, I can also see removing them. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, of the points above, I've addressed all of them except the wikilinking publisher one, and the rhythm guitar part (I did take out video previews). --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. A few more comments:

• The blog references are still a problem.
• I'm not a fan of the new My Chemical Romance picture: mainly because in low-resolution monitors such as mine (1024x768, which is a pretty common resolution), it squeezes the table into an uncomfortable size horizontally, making it unnecessarily big vertically. That, and the column widths no-longer match the other tables.
• I'd recommend making a subheader in the Downloadable content section for the second table. Having two tables back-to-back isn't good form, especially when they list different things.
• As for the green/black checks thing, it's not really a big deal, I just figured black was more neutral than green. Drewcifer (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, pic gone, {{ok}} used for checkmarks, added the subheader. I did add additional, more reliable sources to augment the Major Nelson's blog sources, and though while I feel that while a "blog", it has at least become to be considered as an RS within the gaming community. However, if this is a sticking point, it is possible to remove them, so... --MASEM 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Good work so far (my past comments are hidden below). The Major Nelson blog still seem unnecessary to me. Of course there's the fact that it's a blog, but now that each blog source is echoed by another source, why are they necessary there at all? I think it would just be better to take them out completely since they're not adding adding anything now. Drewcifer (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and removed them, since you're right about them no longer needed.--MASEM 22:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Agree with Drewcifer over the blog references, though I can't see where it references Wikipedia.
• The article talks about having to unlock the tiers, but then auto-sorts the songs alphabetically. I think they should be sorted to the PS2's Tier, as it was released first, and is probably how most readers of this page will want it presented to them.
• What does the dagger represent?
• Nevermind. The dagger note should be above the table, with the mdash; note and master recordings note.
• Use Y or Y ({{ok}} or {{tick}}) instead of the image, if you have to have a check mark.
• Again the dagger note and the double-dagger-or-whatever-it's-called Xbox exclusive notes should appear before the table. That double dagger is too close to the dagger, too, which would be fine if it was being used to show which songs include bass, but I would choose an entirely different symbol to highlight the XBox tracks
• Should the cost, even in funny money, be included per WP:DIRECTORY?
• ¶ key should be before the table

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs)

The alpha order, and the current checkmark, is based on Drewcifer's comments from the previous List of songs in Guitar Hero and comments. First, that these lists need to be less specific about the gameplay and more about the songs (thus the reason it's closer to a discography than a level list), thus sorting alpha on title is more appropriate. Secondary, he was the one to suggest the use of the black checkmark instead of a colored one for the checkmarks. Costs are a bit tricky, since it is noted in the Guitar Hero II article (albeit standalone from this) that these are considered 'expensive' and that a lot of money has been made on the DLC. Look at WP:NOT, I don't see these falling absolutely any of the cases for sales catalog (it may be that these all can be considered "competing products"), but it has been the case that most downloadable content from XBox Live, PlayStation Network, or Wii Shopping has been included across many other articles. I think this is a good question for the WP:VG project to consider, but for now I think they should stay in, but I can remove them if necessary. --MASEM 13:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the points listed above, I've fixed the mini-keys to be above the table, removed the cost and size info per a discussion on WT:VG and WT:NOT. Again, see above for the alpha order and the use of the black checkmark symbol. --MASEM 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a good list. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support RkOrToN 03:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Agreed, everything looks good and well-explained. Killervogel5 (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

---

List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients

This is another of the Victoria Cross recipients lists. It follows on from List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and its "sublists" Australian and Canadian recipients, all FLs. It meets all the criteria as far as I can tell and it has built upon comments in previous FLCs. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (no groaning please...!)

Hopefully these won't be too irksome...

• Image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
• (Post-nominal...) doesn't need to be capitalised.
• "The Victoria Cross was the highest war honour..." followed by "The Victoria Cross (Post-nominal letters "VC") is a military award for extraordinary valour..." - I'm confused a little here. I guess the first sentence remarked on when it was awarded in the "old days" but the sentences switch tense, the second instance of Victoria Cross is emboldened and its post-nominal explained (which should happen first time round). Perhaps a little work could be done here.
• In fact, the first para of the lead switches pretty much every sentence from "is" to "was" and repeats itself a little.
• There are 169 and while I accept they're awarded rarely, is it worth stating that "As of April 2008, "?
• I think the lead could use a couple of citations, statements like "Both Catholic and Protestant officers and servicemen born in Ireland served alongside each other in the British Military." for example.
• "8 Irishmen" eight.
• Several of the recipients have images you can use - I don't want to impose style on anyone but you could illustrate the article more like Wisden Cricketers of the Year. But that's purely a personal opinion and feel free to ignore me entirely.
• "5 people were awarded " - five.

Otherwise a great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, not too irksome at all! (Still apologetic about that!) Done all the little fixes now. The Lead was confused, I think I have fixed it with a rewrite and a citation.

With regards to the images: I don't think it would work for this list or many of the VC lists. They are cramped enough as it is, when I went down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in. Thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I switch between 1024 wide and 2 x 1600 so I guess it's easy to forget. I'll re-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it just that 169 was wrong? You've got 188 now (in the lead, I haven't counted!). I've moved the explanation of VC back on sentence. Otherwise I'm virtually done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I had updated the "War" tallies earlier, but forgot about the main tally. Thanks for your fix and review. Woody (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

One last thing, and forgive my ignorance, but you have "Nourse's (Transvaal) Horse" and "Imperial Light Horse (Natal)" - it seems inconsistent to me but since both are red-linked I wouldn't really know. Can you shed some light for me? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am more of a Navy man, and am in no way an expert on the intricacies of the Army Battalion structure. It is linked to Battalions and Regiments. There is the Queen's Royal Regiment (West Surrey) and then 31st (Huntingdonshire) Regiment of Foot, just look at the Lineage of Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment for an example of how complicated it is. You could try over at the British Milhist task force or the more active talk page if you want a deep explanation.

As it is, I have reworded it to Nourse's Horse (Transvaal) after reading [1] Woody (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns rapidly addressed, great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Support Before I make any decision, I was wondering if there was a specific reason that some of the recipients have notes, but most don't? Cromdog (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The notes are for extraordinary circumstances say the Andaman Islands recipients who weren't "in the presence of the enemy". It also lists the couple of cases where if you go to the page e.g. Robert Scott (VC) it says he was an English recipient, so I added in the notes to avoid confusion. They will become redundant once I get the articles up to scratch I suppose. Woody (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok, that sounds good to me. Cromdog (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment James Joseph Magennis's unit is listed as HMS Stygian (P249), but in the List of Victoria Cross recipients of the Royal Navy it is down as HMS XE3. I suspect that HMS XE3 is the more accurate, as Stygian towed the midget submarine into the area, stood by whilst Magennis & Co did the deed, and then picked them up and towed them back after it was done, but then perhaps there's a reason for listing Stygian? Benea (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the sources said the Stygian, but I checked Ashcroft which said it was the HMS XE.3, and Magennis's VC was the first one Ashcroft bought so he has researched it a lot. I believe that they must have listed the Stygian as the ship, due to it being the base of operations. Thanks. Woody (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - another excellent list. Benea (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job. This looks like a great list. Gary King (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

---

Wisden Cricketers of the Year

previous FLC

After some recovery work performed by me, User:Dweller and User:Jpeeling, I feel now that this list is worthwhile of featured status. It was a previous FL which was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead. That's fixed, and besides that we now have a nicely illustrated set of tables with comprehensive references and nationalities included. I'm invoking my own carpe diem clause to get the ball rolling here at WP:FLC and will happily attend to any comments and criticisms as soon as I can. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Was happy to work on this in memoriam, ALoan. --Dweller (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• John Wisden (1913, 29 years posthumously and 50 years after he retired from first-class cricket), : I guess you have to mention that this was to honour him in the 50th year of publication.
  • Sorry but do you have an explicit reference stating as such? I'm not in possession of the 1913 almanack. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The online edition of 1913 doesn't explicitly talk about the connection. Is this sufficient - "The jubilee issue of the Almanack was in 1913, and for that year the editor, Sydney Pardon, chose a portrait of the founder, John Wisden." (Wisden's cricketers of the year : The first century, 1989) ? . There are also indirect references like these - "John Wisden, founder of the Almanack, to whose memory the whole feature was devoted in the Jubilee issue of 1913" [2] For more specific references, we may have to poke Johnlp or Jhall1.
      • I think that's fine, I've reworded the text and added an appropriate reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also found that Wisden was not the CoY - there was no official CoY in 1913 - but as mentioned above the 1913 edition carried a personal recollections section Tintin 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Jayasuriya's award was exceptional in that he did not play in England in that season but was treated as a special case. May be worth a mention.
  • Note added. Good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Wisden Cricketers' Almanack: each annual edition from 1889 to the present. -> Why does this go to an internal link ? It is linked from the very first line, and should rather be linked to the Wisden archive.
  • I've reverted that internal link to an external, general link to the Wisden Almanack site. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Seventy percent of the photos are of non-Englishmen though the Brits have won some 75% of the awards. I know why, but it doesn't look too good. Tintin 17:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I suspect that's my PC mind gone haywire. But we are stuck with the images we're stuck with. I'll have a dig around. By the way, have you seen the non-English flag version in my sandbox? That would reduce the number of images further. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, replied in WT:CRIC Tintin 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Photos reorganised, with a more pro-English approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Great work and looks really good. A nice, neat, easy to read layout. Some quick points:

• "Nationality for internationals reflects the team they played for, while for non-internationals, country of birth is shown" This means I am unsure if the flag next to Bill Alley, Mark Waugh and Ottis Gibson means they were named as Cricketers of the Year playing for their nation or only that they were born in that country.
  • Ok, well perhaps a reference here or there will help alleviate your confusion! Stick with us! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Use of the new South African flag before 1993 is a little anachronistic, perhaps? The same with the Indian flag pre 1948. I'm not sure the flags add much at all to be honest. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I take the point about pre-x year flags, but one of the reasons this was delisted was because it didn't contain the nationality info. So I think excluding ENG is a fair compromise. However, I'll def. look into those pre-x year flag. Funnily enough I felt that as I was adding them in. Silly old me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• "was delisted by a single comment about lack of sources in the lead", if you disagreed with its delisting, then you should have commented, the FLRC was open 30 days and the Cricket WikiProject was notified. There were two commenters, and nobody left any comments that it should remain listed. Besides, it was actually delisted because of a lack of sources in general (the only ref pointed to a general Cricket site), and because it was poorly formatted, not because of a "lack of sources in the lead". Surely you can agree that the current versions is WAY better than this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just talking facts Scorpion! I was too busy on other lists to hit this one hard. Anyway, it seems that even now we can't satisfy everyone, looks likely that the nationality information will have to go, this list should not become a repository of every fact about each cricketer listed, it's about who won this award. I thought the current version is way better, that why a few of us have worked really hard on it. But it's gradually devolving back to the delisted version. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Addressed comments by Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• Has the list been copyedited? I've spotted a few places that seem to be basic grammatical/MOS errors that would likely be caught during a copyediting.

1. "Where nationality is questionable or changed during the course of a player's career, it has been derived from teams represented during / preceding the season for which the award was made" sounds dangerously close to being OR? What is the basis for this derivation?
2. There seem to be a lot of notes in the footnotes that would seem to be something to note in the actual article itself, and why not put the notes on those people instead of in a notes tag? Why are the first two entries sharing one cell while the rest have individual table cells?
3. A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?
4. What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections? I can kind for the Wars from the lead, but why split out "after 1981"? What changed to cause those to be separate?
5. The flags are a short way to do nationality info, however I believe the way it currently is done does not comply with WP:MOSFLAG.
6. The general references are still way to general; just giving a link to http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/current/story/almanack does not provide a reference for anything not appearing on the front page. The second general link is the only one containing specific information easily identifiable in the list (namely the list itself). Where is the nationality information coming from? Where is everything listed in the notes coming from? You can't just say "X was born in" in the notes, as that is not a reference, only a remark. References are still needed.Collectonian (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But the original was in part criticised for lack of nationalities. Where someone didn't play international cricket doesn't mean they had no nationality. We've been as clear as can be both in this general comment and the footnotes how we derived a nationality for each individual. By doing so, I hope we avoid slipping over the OR line. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not quite. The original was partly criticized for not saying what teamed the played for, not necessarily their nationalities. ;) Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the sandbox below, most of the notes have been removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"A few times there seems to have only been one winner instead of the usual five. Why?" Is this not explained adequately in the Lead? If it's unclear, we can clarify. --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"What is the reasoning behind the splits between sections?" To make the sections manageable but I'll happily merge the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Seemingly arbitrary sections removed - tables merged. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Really the last two sections were the most arbitrary, but the single table looks better I think. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd make my simple brain ache less if you pointed to the section of MOSFLAG you're referring to... Actually, on second thoughts, I'm going to bed :-) --Dweller (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there an alternative which you'd find acceptable? e.g. (AUS) after the name? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the comment about the general references. What do you mean? Re the nationalities - do they constitute extraordinary claims? Do you really want each man's nationality cited? There's been a lot of winners - cricket's been around a long time and Wisden's 5 per year approach will make the thing littered with citations and probably unreadable. --Dweller (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

First people want the nationalities and now they want each and every nationality cited! This list is not the place to cite their nationality. Perhaps we should revert to the version that was delisted without any nationality information. That way we'd avoid any contravention of MOSFLAG as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to be difficult, but I would agree with that approach. I don't know if I would revert to the last version as this list looks great to me, but regarding nationality it is trying to do too much. This is most definitely a problem with listing cricketers as of West Indian nationality (West Indies is not a nation) All the notes about players being born here, there and everywhere is probably overkill too. I would suggest if you are going to list by nationality, only mark those who were named as a COTY as part of a touring team, although even that is probably not needed. The list does not need nationality to pass as a featured list and I would have defended the list at FLR if I had seen it on that basis. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 07:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sandbox it and see what people think... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, with a featured article/list it doesn't matter if its an "extraordinary claim." Unless it is general knowledge (sky blue, etc etc), it must be sourced. The removal of a lot of the notes has helped here as did the removal of the flags all together, however refs 10-24 are footnotes with no sources for the name. Some note need to be added to indicate how you know it was renamed.. Also, they should be moved to the year or another field and just drop the notes column all together. It just makes the table look like it has a lot of empty spaces now. Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does the list stand in terms of the copyediting? Collectonian (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. (a) I'll move the notes. (b) Copyedit? Can you point to anything you have specific issues with? There's not a great deal to copyedit... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes now moved and notes column removed. The source for the name is the general reference. Do you want me to reference each reference as well and remove the general one? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine I just wanted to be sure what the source was :) I'll look at the lead to see what I noticed and post some notes later today. Collectonian (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph reads awkwardly to me, but not sure how to reword it to flow better. The " should come after the . not before. I made a suggested change to the paragraph structure to get the topic sentences together and to the table header. Feel free to undo, as both are just a suggestion. :) I like the change in picture to the cover. Is there any reason given for why only one person was selected in some years? Are the Australian Cricketers of the year and the cricketers of the century included in the list? If not, maybe remove that sentence and make those two links see alsos? Collectonian (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Only unaddressed issue is the need for the lead to be copy edited as some of the writing fells stilted and is not flowing well. Collectonian (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues I had have been adequately addressed and I feel it is now ready to regain its FL star. Collectonian (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Okay, to assuage concerns over citation of nationalities, depiction of such with flags, contravention of MOSFLAG etc, I've created a new sandbox version of the page here. I'd appreciate some quick comments to see if we're getting any closer. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm so confident it's better (in a different way) I've made the same modifications to the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support the revised version. It looks great without the flagcruft and the references are now much more appropriate and navigable. Thanks for taking the time to deal with my concerns. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 08:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Johnlp (talk · contribs)

1. . The picture of John Wisden is less appropriate than the previous picture of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, since the Cricketers of the Year were instituted years after Wisden's death and are the choice of the editor based on deeds in the game of cricket in the previous season. Wisden himself was featured in a commemorative section in the 1913 almanack, and no Cricketers of the Year were selected that year (possibly because 1912 was such a disastrous season!). The almanack in recent years has carried a list of Cricketers of the Year: for 1913, it says "John Wisden: Personal Recollections". Before the present table was constructed, Cricketers of the Year were identified in the long list of "Births and Deaths of Cricketers" by "CY" and a year: eg "Subba Row, R. CY 1961". The John Wisden entry does not identify him with a CY note.
2. . The word "Winners" at the head of the table seems odd in this context, since this isn't a competition that is "won" or even entered for. It's an honour in the gift of the editor of Wisden. Perhaps it should just say "Cricketers of the Year".

John, thanks for your comments. Okay, so we'll rework Mr Wisden's entry and change the image. And I've modified the winners heading accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments - The list now looks pretty good to me. Two points:

• 1. I don't know if it's because I use 800x600 resolution (being short-sighted), but the pictures don't appear to the right of the table but precede it. Thus you have to scroll down a long way through the pictures before reaching the table. Would it be possiblt to intersperse the pictures between sections of the table?
• 2. In view of the discussion above about John Wisden not actually being a true CoY, in the table the 1913 entry for him should either be removed or at least have footnote 7 attached to it.

JH (talk page) 09:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're using Firefox? It renders fine in IE7. I'm not sure what it looks like in Safari (I'll check tonight). As for the footnote, I'll add that in asap. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I'm using IE7. I suspect that my preferred screen width of 800 pixels means it isn't wide enough to fit the pictures in alongside the table, which has a fixed width. I've now confirmed that by using IE7's facility to set text size to "smallest", when the pictures ddo appear alongside the table. Since few people will be viewing at 800x600, I'm content for things to be left as they are. JH (talk page) 09:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I'm running 1600x1200x2 here but running down at 800x600 I get the same problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So, John, are we done? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, yes. :) Thank you for all the work that you and Dweller have put in. JH (talk page) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have slightly tweaked the wording and the footnote about the 1913 award to better reflect the comments made here. Please feel free to criticise or fix.

I've also expunged "winner" from all the captions and I'll also do one last flick through the Lead text to ensure "winning" isn't there. This is despite my own feelings that they are indeed winners - they have won an award, a fantastic, historic honour and a supreme accolade. Best of all, they have won immortality. Not bad, huh? Anyway, I'm a consensual editor ;-) and the word's gawn. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

John, far be it from me to canvass your opinion, but are you now prepared to, dare I say, support this FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support the article as it currently stands JH (talk page) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support from me too. Johnlp (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support This article looks great. Good job! Gary King (talk) 07:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Dweller insists that I find some error in the article, so shall try my best.

• Hobbs was first recognised in 1909, but was selected a second time in 1926 to honour his breaking W. G. Grace's record of 126 first-class hundreds;[4]

The reference goes to the CI page of Hobbs. What is the reference for ? If it is to prove that Hobbs did it twice, ref.3 is sufficient. If it is to cite the reason for the second CoY, the CI Hobbs page - as far as I can find from a quick check - does not mention it. A link like http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/153105.html will serve the latter purpose better.

Exactly the same comment for Warner and ref.5

• From 2000 to 2003 the award was made based on players' impact on cricket worldwide rather than just the preceding season in England, but the decision was reversed in 2004 with the introduction of a separate Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World award.[7]

Ref 7 talks only about the Leading cricketer of the year. If you want to cite the "2000-2003", ref.3 does that better.

Looks good. Tintin 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tintin, thanks for your careful notes. I think I've used the suggested refs accordingly, if you'd be so kind to check. Thanks for your time. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Tintin 07:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:55, 18 April 2008.

---

List of North Carolina hurricanes

I based this list off of List of Florida hurricanes, and I feel it is featured-worthy. There is one potential problem I should address right now. The article is based off of the four sub-articles, all of which are featured (except one, which is one FLC) and thus perfect sourcing is near-impossible. I hope that's not a problem, and I'll address any comments or concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "Floyd is considered the worst modern natural disaster " isn't Floyd a hurricane and did Floyd cause the worst modern natural disaster?
• I'd expand the lead to two paragraphs.
• " 17.5 percent" why not just 17.5%? And other instances..
• "occassionally " should be occasionally.
• 1900-1949 should use en-dash so 1900–1949, same for 50-79.
• Since this article is the overview, direct/indirect fatalities should be explained.
• Suddenly the windspeeds switch to knots in the table. Why?
• "Landfall Location" - Landfall location.
• Why are some "unnamed" linked to named hurricanes? (I think I asked this before but can't remember the answer!)
• Why are only some years linked in the table? And why the italics for one hurricane only?
• I think you need some references for the 1900-1949 and the 1950-1979 sections.

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the Floyd thing, and added a ref. Regarding the lede, I opted to keep it short, since that's what List of Florida hurricanes did as well, and I figured that any more info would be redundant with the climatology section. Regarding the percentages, WP:MOS states Percent or per cent are commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article, with % usable for more scientific articles. Though this article is scientific, it usage is more for statistical purposes, so I think percent and not % is more appropriate. I added an actual table for deaths, which explains direct vs. indirect deaths. Regarding windspeeds, I opted not to put both mph and km/h in the table, and went for the less controversial "knot". I added the name to one of the unnamed hurricane links, since that is a more accepted name, but the other I left as a link; the Wikipedia title of the other one was the 1933 Outer Banks hurricane, but because the table specifies the landfall location (which was the Outer Banks), I thought it was redundant. I added the links to the years. The italicized names did mean those names are not official, but it wasn't that important, so I removed the italics. I hope that's good! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether this should be here or on FAC. I'd clearly pass either one, so support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderfully written, greatly detailed, and should definitely be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. Nice job! Gary King (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good article as ever by Hurricanehink 02blythed (talk) 10:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks like The Rambling Man already mentioned all the issues, and they were all fixed perfectly. I can't see anything that should prevent this from being featured. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 08:25, 16 April 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Detroit and List of tallest buildings in Tulsa. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 05:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Eleven of the 20" looks odd with words and numbers in one sentence. WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words doesn't mind words over ten being spelled if they use only one or two words. Personally, I prefer words over numbers, but the rest of the article uses numbers, and it's not a big deal as long as its consistent.
  •  Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• "(after Philadelphia)" and "(after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia)" needn't be in parentheses
  • Well, if they are not listed in parentheses, then the sentence would contain 6 commas without any breaks (Overall, Pittsburgh's skyline is ranked (based on existing and under-construction buildings over 500 feet (152 m) tall) second in Pennsylvania, after Philadelphia, third in the Northeast, after New York City, Boston and Philadelphia, and 13th in the United States.) Personally, I think it is better with parentheses, as they make the sentence much easier to read. -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Notes B and C could be referenced
  •  Done -- Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise, good list! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review. Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support try as I might I can't find anything beyond Matthew's comments. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Cheers, Rai-me 19:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing wrong with it but I think is better for the lead than the current. Just because the panoroma gives that same view as the current image in the lead. Alaskan assassin (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good, a great addition to the Featured Lists. I also agree with Alaskan assassin about the picture. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• •  Done - Image changed. The problem I had with Image:PittSkyline082904.jpg was that it doesn't show as much detail of as many buildings (U.S. Steel Tower, the tallest in the city, is not very visible), but it is more aesthically pleasing. Cheers, Rai•me 03:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - list looks great. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Nice job! Gary King (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

---

List of True Tears episodes

This is a list of episodes of the True Tears anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes, and List of Claymore episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good and complete. One additional piece of information that might be relevant to have would be the DVD sales figures, because I recall reading they were remarkably low, but that's more relevant to the series as a whole than the list of episodes, so I won't fault the page for it. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Would probably be more relevant to a reception section at True Tears (anime), yeah. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Fixed.
• Don't force the thumb size - for the lead image the WP:MOS#Images would suggest the use of the upright parameter.
  • Fixed.
• "P.A. works " - should that be "P.A. Works"?
  • Fixed. Typo.
• "BS11 Digital" - needs context for those not familiar with where this channel broadcasts.
  • Fixed.
• First sentnce of episode 1 synopsis is too long, split it.
  • Fixed.
• " he gets defensive " becomes defensive?
  • Fixed.
• "Aiko asks Shinichirō in tears to think about her as well. " the "in tears" here reads oddly.
  • Fixed.
• "but they do not get harmed" "but they are not harmed".
  • Fixed.
• "and falls of the bike" off the bike.
  • Fixed.

Otherwise a fine list. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support my major concerns addressed, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The linked True Tears is so placed because it's part of the subject's title. I see that's specifically advised against, but is it better to leave the words unbolded or unlinked? --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Response I'd opt for unlinked and still bold since "True Tears" is in the title of the article. You can link the True Tears on its next occurence. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Please inform me if anything else needs to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "This is a list of episodes of the 2008 Japanese animated television series True Tears." would be better as "This is a list of episodes of True Tears. True Tears is a 2008 Japanese animated television series... blah blah". This will fix the WP:LEAD#Bold issue
  • Cut the bold. I think it's fine now. If you still want it changed, I'll do it.
• The sentence "The episodes are loosely based on the visual novel True Tears by La'cryma, using an entirely different story with different characters, and a different art style" should have a reference, because the way it describes it, it seems nothing like the visual novel at all!
  • Reworded the sentence.
• Who's father died, Shinichirō's or Hiromi's?
  • Says "her father," which makes it fairly evident I think.
    • I think it needs to be clearer who is male or female. A native English speaker won't know just by the names who is what, like they would John and Sarah-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Reworded accordingly.
• "interacts" → "interactions", maybe?
  • Fixed.
• "The title for a given episode is a line spoken within the episode." Reference this, as not many people will be able to speak Japanese to verify themselves
  • Hard to source this. Would you rather have it cut?
    • Doesn't {{cite episode}} have fields for quote and minutes? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • So 3-4 cites for that sentence or do I need all 13? Just curious. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Added a couple references. Is this sufficient or is more verification needed? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 16:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• How does Shiniciro continue to lament when this is the first episode?
  • Fixed.
• "Shinichirō Nakagami continues to lament how he cannot express his feelings for Hiromi Yuasa, noting that when he knew her before, he always treasured her smile, but she acts coldly at home, and Shinichirō regrets not being able to see her tears, or any form of significant emotion" is an extremely long and unweildy sentence.
  • Fixed.

Real life calls. Gotta jet. I'll do some more tomorrow. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please tell me if anything else needs to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a little bit of copyediting for the first six episodes. You can see the diff here. I felt the summaries were extremely long and convoluted with a few too many commas. The remaining episodes still need looking at, I think, but if you think otherwise, feel free to undo it. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good per above. Gary King (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I didn't get around to answering you. So many FLC recently means I lose track! Anyway, my concerns seem to have been met, and it meets the criteria, so I Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

---

List of New York Giants head coaches

Another well done list, nicely referenced, info, accurate. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support As nom. - Milk's favorite Cookie 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title
• Avoid manually resizing thumbs per WP:MOS#Images - the lead image should use upright to modify its size.
• "have won seven, including three of the four Super Bowls in which they have played." should be cited.
• Ref [10] cites a number of the awards but many others aren't cited.

Otherwise no real complaints from me! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Milk's favorite Cookie 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't link the bold title, per WP:LEAD
• "and have played for eighteen NFL Championships and have won seven..." too many "and have"s
• Wikilink NFL championships in the first paragraph, and drop it in the second
• "Steve Owen is the all-time leader in games coached and wins" is a little clunky
• Those two picture next to the table are very long. If you crop them to head shots, it will allow more to be added, assuming there are free pictures available.

Otherwise, nice list -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done with everything above. There are also know other free use images (I think), so cropping would be useless. Thanks, - Milk's favorite Cookie 01:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support all done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I see no problems with this FLC. Wizardman 20:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure about Benny Friedman being classed as a hall of famer since he's in there as a player. Buc (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Concerns taken care of, and it meets the criteria.
  • Sorry, per WP:COLORS#Using colours in articles, "Ensure that colour is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use coloured text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a colour screen will not receive that information." I'll support once again when the shaded cells have some sort of text-identifier inlcuded, such as astericks, daggers or carets. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Now I support. Nice job -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I don't think the colors are a major problem. Very well-done list. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 6)

Another season list. Any comments or concerns raised will be addressed. Thank you. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Support as nominatior -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "it wasn't until " avoid contractions.
• "at 9:30," p.m. missing? I think there's more than one of these...
• "broadcast episode twelve to fifteen " episodes...
• "broadcast episode twelve to fifteen before it aired episode thirteen" 12 to 15 contains 13... little reword here.
• Link weed to marijuana.
• "as a auto mechanic"...
• " she can't keep " see above.
• "confronts them, which results in his death " No full stop but this needs a bit of a reword to explain how it resulted in his death.
• "is in sorrow. " "is in mourning."?
• "jeopardising " -probably needs a zee?
• "DVD release of season five " season six!

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All done. Thank you for the review -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, sorry for the delay... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looking good.
  • marked the first death in the series of a main character - it's picky, but seems to read better as "the first death of a main character in the series"
  • Publication names in Reception such as Winnipeg Sun should be italicised.
  • Episodes: "dad" to "father" and "mom" to "mother"?
  • her feelings for current boyfriend Peter, and her ex-boyfriend, Sean - latter comma, or even both, not necessary.
  • Pick "webpage" or "web page" and sweep through the article for some consistency.
  • Ellie's ex, Jesse - maybe "ex-boyfriend" is a little more encyclopedic.
• Hope the comments helped! —97198 talk 12:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting those. They've all been addressed. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This list needs to move along out of the WP:FLC backlogs, where other articles need more attention :) Gary King (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 5)

Another Degrassi season page. Everything looks to be in order, well referenced, seems to meet the FL criteria. No dead links, fair use rationales missing. The one thing I'm not sure on is if the word "realize" is spelled the British way in Canada, so if someone can let me know, that'd be great. All other comments/concerns also welcome, and will be addressed in a timely manner. Regards. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:16, 30 March, 2008

Support as nominator -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Provide context for CTV for us lot who don't know where the station operates.
• Get rid of the full stop in the image caption fragment (after digipak).
• Can you reduce the three tiny paras in Crew to maybe two?
• Set Details (missed this before) - why not Set details? Same for the other subsections of DVD release.

Just a few opening comments... get the ball rolling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support per all the other D:TNG lists. Good work Matthew. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

All done I've applied these changes across all the D:TNG season pages too, including season 6, which I've just nominated, too. Thanks for the review. If you find anything else, holler! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support In the Venus' description, you wrote "her parent to throw...", maybe you meant her parents? If not, then be more specific and write "her mother" or "her father".--Crzycheetah 23:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's just as good as the other Degrassi pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good. This shouldn't still be in the WP:FLC backlog, where other articles need more improvement :) Gary King (talk) 03:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 21:33, 15 April 2008.

---

Twelve Imams

It's a complete, well referenced and useful list.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a good list. A few comments:

• ) Can any images be possibly added to it?
• ) Please replace "Martyred" with "Killed" per WP:MOS
• ) Please check the reference for "Sacrificing himself and his family at the Battle of Karbala for the sake of a true Islamic polity" I couldn't map it to Britannica.
• ) Possibly add a famous saying for each Imam.
• ) Please fix "Suny press" to "SUNY Press".
• ) A few sentences are not sourced, please fix them.

--Be happy!! (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• ) A shrine of Imam Hussain has been added to it.
• ) Fixed.
• ) Fixed.
• ) Will in a moment. On second thought, I don't believe this would be a good idea, as the list is saturated enough. I can do it if you feel it to be really necessary however.
• ) Fixed.
• ) Will soon.

--Enzuru 07:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good idea to add few sentences from each Imam. It's not Wikiquote article.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• The first sentence of the page is very long and heavy. It should be broken into at least two, and also referenced.

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of "Theology of Twelvers", use "[[Theology of Twelvers]", and Twelvers later in the article

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of "or Ithna Ashariya", it should be "(Language used: Ithna Ashariya)"

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why "'Ali" and not "Ali"?

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Should "jurispudence" be "jurisdiction"?

"jurisprudence" is correct.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done I omitted that part.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• "who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurispudence on all matters" is repetitive and heavy

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• The final sentence of the first Lead paragraph is also long and heavy.

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have problem with new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done We wrote a new lead.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• "An Imam ," stray space

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• "successors to Muhammad.[1]" → "successor to Muhammad.[1]"

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The lead needs an explaination of what an Imam is.

There is an explanation:there is an infallible and knowledgeable male descendant of Ali and Fatimah at any given time who is the divinely appointed infallible authority, who has jurisprudence on all matters of faith and law in the Muslim community.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But it doesn't say that this is Iman. It just says it's some guy -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would use a proper wikitable to make the table
• Ali ibn Abu Talib seems to link to two different people

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• What does CE and AH mean in the "Lifespan (CE/AH)" column

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Doesn't lifespan usually mean the number of years someone is alive, rather than the actual years they were born and died in?

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• All the years should be displayed as "600–661", not "600 – 661"

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Is 600–661 BC or AD? I think it should be specified as this isn't a subject many English Wikipedia users will be familiar with

 Done (BC is CE) --Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is "BH"?

Before Hijra.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That needs to be expressed, then, with an explaination of what Hijra is. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

Is it acceptable to write [[Islamic_calendar#Chronology|BH]]--Seyyed(t-c) 04:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia for all, and if there is some terms or jargon that the regular reader doesn't understand, it needs explaining or at worst a simple Wikilink -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:08, 25 March, 2008

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's probably better to split the Lifespan column into two separate columns; one for Gregorian calendar dates and the other for Muslim calendar dates

I disagree, I feel it is clean like this. --Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Birth" → "Birthplace" Also include the country

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• " 57 or – 114" 57 or what?

 Done--Enzuru 07:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• The info about Muhammad ibn al-Hassan makes him sound almost Godlike. He has to have physically died, whether the people believe it or not.

As Henry Corbin describes in his work, History of Islamic Philosophy, it doesn't make him sound almost Godlike. I can't add different viewpoints in the list. It should be mention in the article. I tried to write something which is acceptable for Shias who believe he's alive and non-Shia.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But a belief that he's alive in some sort of spiritual form, or even a belief that he's actually alive isn't the same as truly being alive. There's no way that a person can be alive from the year 800AD, and no amount of faith can turn that into fact. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:51, 25 March, 2008

How can I explain the issue in the list? I think even I can't explain it in the footnote. There is another article for it Muhammad al-Mahdi#The Occultation. Of course we should add some explanation in that article like what Corbin has described in his book. (The Hidden Imam and Eschatology pp. 68 - 73) or what Allama Tabatabaee explains in Si'ite Islam --Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would try to find a definitive date of death first, although I do understand that this may be difficult if the Shias think of him as still alive. Then I would have the notes explain that in the belief system he is still alive. If no date can be found, keep the "Unknown" but obviously make it clear that while he can't be alive, he is in their beliefs. I also noticed one capitalised version of "He", as opposed to "he" throughout the rest. I don't know if this is like the "He" of the Christian god, or just a typo. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:06, 25 March, 2008

I corrected that H. I've never seen any date of death. Most of the non-Shia academicians and historians don't believe in his existence at all. Some of them believe that he was born but they don't believe he's still alive. There are some non-Shia who have mystic viewpoint such as Henry Corbin who believe he's born and he's still alive. But in this viewpoint he rule over the time and time doesn't affect him.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think the point here is really about whether Mahdi ibn Hasan lives or not. We are talking about a religious belief not unsimilar to what we have in "mashiyach nagiyd" in Jewish eschatology and Messianic prophecy in Christianity. This too runs along the same lines.--Zereshk (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• For the title, I would do "Arabic title (Turkish tr.)", place the Turkish translation in parentheses, and remove the lines

They aren't translations, Turks and Arab-rite Shi'ah have different names for them, but since they are such a big population and spread out in many countries, we gave attention to them. --Enzuru 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Same with name
• I also think the table could be presented better, and perhaps with some sortable fields.

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:49, 25 March, 2008

Which field can be sorted in the table?--Seyyed(t-c) 03:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I would choose to do name, title, years and birthplace. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:13, 25 March, 2008

I can't understand correctly. They have more than one title. Also ten out of twelve have the same birthplace. --Seyyed(t-c) 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. OK I see your point :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:28, 25 March, 2008

Question) The article says the following about the 4th Imam: "According to some Shia scholars he was poisoned on the order of Caliph al-Walid I in Medina, Saudi Arabia." Is this the view of some Shia scholars or all of them? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done The majority. Consider it fixed. --Enzuru 08:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For my own information, is there any Shia scholar who thinks otherwise? What is the view of minority? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not too familiar with the historicity of the subject of their deaths, but Seyyed might know. My perception is that the majority of scholars and laymen have the position that all the Imams were poisoned aside from Ali, Husayn, and al-Mahdi, by the reigning caliph. --Enzuru 08:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

According to western historians such as Madelung some of them have dead naturally. But even in this case they disagree with each other. For example while Madelung think Imam Reza died naturally, Petrushevsky disagrees. Thus in the cases which western academicians have different ideas I wrote According to Shia. God willing, I will check the Shia sources for other reports.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I check there are too few Shia scholars who disagree with it and we shouldn't mention it per Undue weight.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Commment

Lead I think we should work on the lead. Please refer to the talk page of the article for more discussions.--Seyyed(t-c) 09:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 05:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• I think the table would be better presented as a Wikitable
• I made the table headers bold, but the headers cells could do with shading, too, IMO
• Those notes underneath the table need attatching to the text

 Done I moved them to the footnotes. Does it satisfy you?--Seyyed(t-c) 17:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than that I'm going to stay neutral on this one. It seems to meet the criteria and MOS, but I can't bring myself to support something that I just can't understand. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:26, 27 March, 2008

Please explain what can't you understand.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Interesting list! I do have a few suggestions, though. And I admit to knowing almost nothing about the topic, so excuse any ignorance on my part:

• I too would suggest converting the table to a wikitable, as it simplifies markup and makes for a more consistent encyclopedia.
• The sources/foototes are a little messy. A random article I found that did a good job of juggling it all is Thoughts on the Education of Daughters.

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• The list/table itself should be in its own section.

 Done by Sephiroth BCR--Seyyed(t-c) 04:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• For someone like me who doesn't know much about the Twelvers, the lead doesn't explain everything. For example, why 12? Why isn't there Imams to this day? Or is Muhammad ibn al-Hassan an Imam to this day? Which makes me even more confused: is an Imam a physical being or a spiritual being? Mortal or immortal? Like I said, I know nothing at all about the topic, and the list makes me interested, but I'm left with more questions than answers. Drewcifer (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Twelvers, a branch of Shia Islam, has twelve Imams while seveners have seven ones. However I think who wants to know more should refer to Imamah (Shi'a twelver doctrine) and I added some external links for whoever wants to know more. This is just a list and it's not appropriate place to explain the doctorine completely. --Seyyed(t-c) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose until a few things are fixed:
  • answers.com is an unacceptable source... luckily it is citing from Mideast & N. Africa Encyclopedia so we need to track down original page numbers and bibliographic data from the encyclopedia. This is definitely necessary... and it would be nice to get some paper sources for the books hosted on balagh.net... mainly because websites even of notable institutions change... but, it's not something I'd oppose for

I think this is the real source--Seyyed(t-c) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Citation style is somewhat messy... for the Tabatabae you should used the proper citation for an online book... that includes using the original SUNY edition information but also the website information. Also, for the footnotes I would only link pp. ##-## and not the book's title... It's somewhat a hodge podge of styles where you have some form under References but not necessarily the editions linked under the footnotes (if something is an online edition and you link to it then the reference should also show that it's an online edition). Because, I now see you reference a Ansarian Publications version and not a SUNY one... it's somewhat misleading to link to the SUNY one... I understand university press gives more authority while online gives greater ease but there is a better and less misleading way to do taht I'm sure. --gren グレン 13:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

 DoneI remove all of the links which refer to online version of Tabatabaei's book. As I checked their page number are similar. I add the online version as an external link.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Copy-editting has done by Sephiroth BCR.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Eh...shallow copy-editing at best. I think another set of eyes would be nice for the prose. The table also needs to be fixed (I'm crappy at layout), and some of the referencing styles still need work I think. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• support, it seems that most of the concerns about this list have been resolved. I think it is ready for featured status. Pejman47 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I really like the formatting of the table, and I believe the prose is now at a sufficient level. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I also support this article for FA status. It would be good to also show picture of Mashhad.--alidoostzadeh (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I read thru it. I think the article is good to go.--Zereshk (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support This looks like a good read and deserves the star. Good job! Gary King (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:49, 14 April 2008.

---

List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winning managers

Well, what can I say? I made a botched attempt at a featured topic of UEFA tournament winning managers and User:Struway2 correctly pointed out I'd missed the Intertoto Cup. So here, with considerable help in sourcing references from Struway2, it is. For those who have seen the other lists, including the List of UEFA club tournament winning managers, rest assured I shall be going back there to fill in the relevant statistics for these managers before attempting to head back to WP:FTC. As ever, thank you in advance for your time, energy, comments, criticism and perhaps support! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "...competition, held during the summer, for the leading European..." It seems like there is a serial comma, which is too American for this article.
  • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Should 2006 be linked to UEFA Intertoto Cup 2006? Same for 1995 and 2009?
  • Linked, beside 2009 which won't exist yet and, if it did, would be deleted! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• "with FC Schalke 04 of his native Germany" sounds slightly odd
  • Reworded to stick to the bare facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• If you're going for FT, including either a template which links them all, or putting them all in "See also" is necessary.
  • That'll happen when I worry about the FTC. For the meantime, consider this in isolation! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Cheers Matthew! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Concerns addressed. Meets criteria. Another good list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Peanut4

Comments

• I would suggest to just put each year in once and then adjust the row height across all the appropriate entries. Though I do see the con that it would make that column unsortable. Peanut4 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Doing that makes the sortable bit of the table malfunction, not just for that column but the whole table. I'm going to leave it so the whole table is sortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No worries. I wondered if it would. My only suggestion would be to unsort that column or would that still leave the malfunction? I'll get back to you with anything else, but I couldn't see anything on first glance. Peanut4 (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I'm no expert in wiki markup but I've yet to find a way to use rowspan and not mess the whole table's sortability up... Is the rest of the list up to spec? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Two points on re-evaluation
  • I have Denmark down as one win, and Germany down as seven.
    • Hmm, maths lets me down once more. Good spot, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest putting references for the fact three managers used to win it. And another reference for one going to the manager whose team reaches the furthest in the UEFA Cup. I certainly never knew about the latter bit - everyday's a schoo day, eh?
    • Done, linked the official UEFA regulations into the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Otherwise good work. Peanut4 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Support - everything resolved. Spot on as the other lists. Peanut4 (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Can't see any reason not to support. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work, as ever ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Despite the distasteful nature of this competition. --Dweller (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The first para says "for the leading European clubs that have failed to qualify for either the UEFA Champions League or the UEFA Cup". In contradiction, the second para says "The first tournament provided two winners, both of whom qualified for the UEFA Cup". Perhaps it should say somewhere that winning the Intertoto Cup qualifies a team for the UEFA Cup?
  • Explained The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I hope you considered WP:VUE when sourcing this article.
  • I hope you did too! Of course, due to the relative obscurity of a number of these managers, foreign language sources have been used. As yet, no-one has challenged them. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cheers back to you! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support I have to declare an interest as I did a fair bit of the sourcing for the managers table. The list meets FL criteria, the free-use illustrations are particularly good. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:49, 14 April 2008.

---

List of International Mathematical Olympiads

previous FLC (13:13, 24 March 2008)

I'm resubmitting only hours after the last one closed: There was only one major issue left (the date formatting) and that's been addressed. You can read everything else in the previous nomination. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why don't all IMO's have references?t
  • See the previous nomination. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fine, but it's not clear in the article I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Reference number seven (which because of an interface bug is dubbed eight in the main text) says it. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Page ranges in citations need en-dash not hyphens.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• For #4, "July 07, 1962 – June 15, " has a rogue comma.
  •  Done
• For useful sortable table, consider having From and To columns for the date and make the From column sortable by using the {{dts2}} template (as you currently have).
  • I'm not sure why one would want to sort that at all, actually. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well you allow sort on the other columns. But no problem either way. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• "(and other branches of abstract algebra, and topology are generally not present on the six-problem paper." missing closing parentheses?
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• "It also includes the cities which each olympiad was hosted in." - "...the cities in which each olympiad was hosted."
  •  Done
• Do you really think it essential to wikilink "country" to Nation?
  • I guess not. Removed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Expand GDR, FRG.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• My date column is too narrow so it wraps on #6.
  • Made wider. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why isn't ref 6 in the refs column?
• Where's ref [7] in the article?
  • Both of the above are interface bugs; ref seven is for some reason dubbed ref 8 in the article. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Presumably City column should be City/cities?
  •  Done

That's all I have, it's an oppose for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why no reference for #43 in Glasgow?
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Order citations in numerical order, you have [6][5] now.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Not keen on dates like July 08... July 8 would be fine by me.
  • I'll get rid of those while formatting the dates.
• "abstract algebra, and topology" no need for comma.
  •  Done Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Why are the dates dd month year - month dd? Particularly why is it date first then month first? It looks all range. Personally I'd go for dd month - dd month year or month dd - month dd year. Peanut4 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How about year month dd - month dd? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That wouldn't work for those running over month than one month, and is still inconsistent. Both the first and second entry need to be either date first or month first. See WP:DATE for full details. Peanut4 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry don't know what I read first time. Yes year month dd - month dd, would be fine. See WP:DATE for full details of acceptable date formats. Keep them consistent, and it's fine. Peanut4 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, and you need to check the dates of the first olympiad. It goes back in time at the moment. Peanut4 (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I reformatted some of the dates, but they didn't show up! You can view the source to verify that I changed it, but the month is still first on the article. I tried purging the server cache, but no result... Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 20:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The absence of individual references is extremely conspicuous, but would be less so if that references column was removed. Alternatively, provide page refs, such as <ref>Olson (2004) p. 45</ref>
  • People opposed the last FL because of the absence of a refs column. I guess I'll do the latter, then, but be warned, it'll make the refs section look very ugly. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• It's odd looking at the header for "#" rendering on three separate lines
  • Er, huh? I'm not sure I understand.
    • Maybe it's just my screen then, but # is on one line, [4] is on a second line and the sortable click button is on a third line. Maybe specify a column width? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 22:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• What happened to the sorting of the dates?
  • Someone said that it was unnecessary in the last FL, so I made it unsortable.
• What is the "six-probem paper"?
  • Clarified. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• "include medals for roughly the top half " is vague and unencyclopedic
  • Fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• The Lead should be expanded to at least two paragraphs
  • Split. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Lastly, I can't help feeling this list could be expanded somewhat with the inclusion of winners perhaps
  • Like I said in the previous FL. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:57, 30 March, 2008

I don't know why but I'm not "feeling" this list, even though there's nothing wrong with it and it does, after all, meet the criteria, is well written, and follows the MOS and all other policies and guidelines. Support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good list, but the reference for the 2001 competition is about the 2000 one instead. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Right. Support then, good job. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 15:49, 14 April 2008.

---

List of cricketers called for throwing in major cricket matches in Australia

This list, which Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and I collaborated on, details those cricketers who have been called for throwing (see Throwing (cricket)) in major cricket matches played in Australia; ie. first-class cricket matches and One-Day Internationals. It is a highly topical and relevant list, free from any biographies of living persons concerns, with clearly-set out criteria for inclusion, is referenced properly, and is in my opinion sufficiently stable for featured list status.

Thanks in advance for any comments; Blnguyen and I will be happy to recieve, act on and/or discuss suggestions for improving this list, and of course (as with any other article) please be bold in making this list better! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Nice list, very interesting
• The ", from either side." in the Note just before the table is confusing. Does it mean either team, either end of the pitch, or something else?
  • Ah, good point. Clarified, I think. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hm.. OK, now I get it, but I don't think it's actually necessary. The reader is able to see which team the thrower is from simply by reading the list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 30 March, 2008
      • I think the idea was to clarify that the player didn't have to be Australia, but merely be playing in Australia. Any suggestions on further improvement along these lines? Daniel (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • The note seems clearer without it. Also, the article title says "in Australia", not "in Australian matches" or some such. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 13:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Removed. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• The article title is really long, can anything be done to reduce it?
  • Not really, or else the list title won't clearly define and represent the scope. I guess the "List of" could be ditched, but I don't think it'll make much difference, really. If you or anyone else has any suggestions, feel free to post them here for discussion—Blnguyen and I couldn't think of anything else. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Which reference actually relates to the throwers?
  • The list itself? Number 8, as noted next to "Player". Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• One more It's not important, but this list lends itself to being sortable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:42, 30 March, 2008
  • Done :) Daniel (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:59, 29 March, 2008

Thanks! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments - yeah, very interesting concept for a list, not bothered about the size of the name if you can intelligently link it into other articles.

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Done. Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• While I know the image is very useful and informative, you should try to comply with image sizes per WP:MOS#Images, this would involve just using thumb.
  • Done, I alwaus forget about that :) Daniel (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Worth explaining the scope of "major" here because the article you link to suggests it's a "colloquial" term...
  • Is this more sufficently explained in the article itself to remedy your concerns? Daniel (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is there a reason for the italics such as no ball in the lead...?
  • I'll leave that one for Blnguyen to justify :) Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I think they're being used as an alternative to scare quotes. Should I swap them over? Daniel (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think either scare quotes or italics are needed. I would find a suitable wikilink if possible.... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Worth talking about the analysis of the actions of folks such as Murali (I found this interesting) in the lead?
  • Yep, seems like a good idea. What do you think, a short sentence or two at the end of the last paragraph about how players are sent to testing facilities to check their action, and how it's criticised as it's not a "game environment"? Would require a reference in addition to the one you provided, but I don't think that would be hard. Thoughts appreciated. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure I'm keen on the bold in the list. Maybe colour code the cells instead.
  • Changed to blue, the colour may need some tweaking; thoughts (note: I changed the colour again in the later diff, so it isn't as bright; see the current version)? Daniel (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd force the dates to {{nowrap}} - the columns are oddly spaced because "New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australia XIII" - anyway of shortening this?
  • I've changed it to use abbreviations—it's now about the same length as the other entries. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Notes and References section can be merged and subsectioned - References as a heading then General and Specific for your References and Notes respectively.
  • Do you have an example of this in another article/list which I could look at? Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Check out this little beauty.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Is what I did just now what you were looking for? Daniel (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Parfait. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all your input. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Tried to copyedit lead, but couldn't find anything. Seems FL ready. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Some small points for consideration.
  • I would mention Law 24 specifically in the text and even quote the relevant clause. I know it can be found in the linked article but finding the link isn't intuitive, especially for non-cricket enthusiasts.
  • The lead says nothing about throwing specifically in Australia; i.e. Has it been more of an issue in Australia more than elsewhere for example.
  • The list, to me, seems to show quite clear clumping in the frequency of no-ball calls for throwing, e.g. high frequencies between 1897-1901, 1930-31, 1960-64 and 1995-99. Did these all relate to individual players or was there a general "campaign" against throwing at these times? For example, the Muralitharan, Halcombe and Marsh entries seem to scream out for some context. Perhaps footnotes could be used, such as in List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries Not sure if a list should cover these sorts of issues or not but the list seems to me lacking in context otherwise.
  • Is is possible to show how many times the bowler was called in the match? For example Meckiff was called once and removed from the bowling attack but Murali was called several times by Hair and then moved to the other end.
  • Would a link to a scorecard for each list item be useful?
  • Finally, just for interest sake, is Charles MacGill related to this famous wine connoisseur?

The points above are for consideration only, please don't feel obliged to adopt them if you feel they would not improve the article. To my mind the list meets the FL criteria as it stands. Great work! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Surprisinginly interesting list, and very well done. As a question, however, the lead mentions that careers have been destroyed over throwing incidents. How, exactly, would this action destroy a player's career? As a person with only a rudimentary understanding of cricket, neither this list, nor the article on Throwing (cricket) really makes this clear. Is it simply because of the potential for a one year suspension if caught throwing illegally twice in two years? Resolute 17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very interesting list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 06:09, 13 April 2008.

---

List of tributaries of Larrys Creek

List of tributaries of Larrys Creek is a complete list of all 42 named tributaries of Larrys Creek, a stream in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. It has two shorter lists for the tributaries of the two major tributaries, the First and Second Forks. It has had a very helpful peer review, which is here, that found no major problems. The suggestions for improvement have all been addressed and I believe the list meets the criteria for featured list candidates. Note that this list falls under criterion 1.a.3: contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the members of the set are not sufficiently notable to have individual articles.

Since the tables are 100% of the possible width, there is not room for pictures in them, nor are there pictures for most of the streams listed. I have instead used a gallery to show thumbnail images of four streams. This use of a gallery follows the model of three Featured Lists: List of Pennsylvania state parks, List of municipalities in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, and List of municipalities in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania.

This is a self-nomination in that I am the editor who has worked the most on this list (and the Larrys Creek article), but I want to thank Dincher, The ed17, The Rambling Man, and Pete for all of their help. Thanks in advance for all input, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support This list is very comprehensive, thoroughly researched and referenced. It might not the be most notable creek in the world, but good work is good work and this is work is pretty darned good. Dincher (talk) 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support and kind words Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support glad to have been of service at the peer review and all my issues were well dealt with there so I have no reservations whatsoever in supporting this. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support and kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I think it would be better to use {{sort}} in the table, because all of the items in inverted commas are at the top when sorted alphabetically. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea - I have made the change in all three tables and it works on my computer (sorts properly now). Thanks! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support then. Well done! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your support and suggestions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Excellent list! Very well researched, interesting, well sourced, informative, and seems almost perfect. Very well done. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 21:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your kind words and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Nice list, though I think the headers could be done differently, by making "Main stem tributaries", "First Fork tributaries" and "Second Fork tributaries" should all be H3.-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed accordingly, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • One more thing, unlink the bold text in the lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title, and I think I'll be ready to support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for catching that - it has been reverted Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice list. Meets the criteria, no other issues to be found. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • thanks for your suggestions and support, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice job! Dhaluza (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks so much Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Very impressed with the first version I saw, and with all the ensuing improvements. The suggestion above to use H3 headers was a really good idea, and makes the article's structure much easer to grasp at a glance. Excellent work all around! (That {{sort}} template looks really useful, too -- I'll have to figure out how to use that!) -Pete (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much, one reason I wrote the list was to be a model article for presenting information on tributaries in a watershed, so I hope it is useful for smaller streams and perhaps could give ideas for larger ones as well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 06:09, 13 April 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in New Orleans. I have been working with Alaskan assassin to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 22:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Another fine addition to the growing group of "tallest buildings" featured lists. VerruckteDan (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images, not forced to a user-defined number of pixels.
  • The MOS doesn't state that images should be sized:

  Image size is a matter of preference. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for the overwhelming majority of readers), and a maximum of 300px.

  So I don't really see what need to be changed with the current layout. The only thing the MOS does specify about image sizing is that the lead image should be at least 300px, and the lead image in this list is that size. -- Rai-me 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• In Note A, numbers below 10 should be written out in text.
  •  Done -- Rai-me 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing the list. Cheers, Rai-me 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Could a mention of the Minneapolis Skyway System be included? It's the largest in the world and connects most of the buildings. ~ Eóin (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done - sentence added at the end of the first paragraph in the lead. Cheers, Rai-me 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Support: great list, very comprehensive. ~ Eóin (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Raime, this is a beautiful article. Would it be possible to add a column naming the architects? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Unfortunately, I don't think it is very feasible to add another column; it was tried adding an additional column for street addresses in some building articles originally, but this caused the tables to become extremely "crunched" and very hard to read at lower screen resolutions. Adding an architect column would do the same... Cheers, Rai-me 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tentative oppose. Sorry to have to say that because I like the article. So much design and engineering know-how goes into these buildings I wouldn't be able to support this as featured work without architect credits. It would be like a list of paintings without their artists. I know you have a series of "List of tallest buildings..." going, and that it is a little bit of work. But adding rows within rows would make this quite easy to accomplish at any screen resolution including mobile. Help:Table shows how to nest information in case that helps. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Even so, I don't think architects should be added. As I am not the only building list editor, I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skyscrapers#Inclusion of building architects in tallest building lists to find out the opinions of other editors. Please feel free to express or expand upon your opinions on the matter there. Here is my opinion on why architects should not be listed (transcluded from the aforementioned discussion at WP:SKY):
  • First and foremost, architects, while very suitable to list in articles pertaining to architecture in a city or just lists of buildings in general, are not relevant to list in lists of tallest buildings. In these lists, height is all that matters; that makes floor counts relevant for obvious reasons, years of completion relevant to show general trends in high-rise construction, and limited notes pertaining only to height relevant. Any additional information not pertaining directly to height, including architects, should not be included and should be saved for individual building articles.
  • In many cases, recently brought to light with the construction of the Freedom Tower, the final plans are changed drastically from the original vision of the architect. In many, if not most, cases, the developer(s) plays a far more significant role in the building process. Does this mean we would also have to list developers in the tables?
  • As noted above, the addition of the inclusion of architects would lead to a plethora of new possibilities for lists - developer, owner, use, cost, etc., all of which are irrelevant to building height and should be saved for infoboxes and prose in individual building articles.
  • For many shorter, less well-known buildings, there is little to no information about the architects of buildings that can be found - this is a problem I have run into while creating building articles for past FLs. However, as all buildings have architects, having this lack of information in some cases would heard the completeness and comprehensiveness of the list, both of which are FL criteria.
  • Many buildings are jointly designed by several architectural firms. Would we need to list all of them? Again, such information is much better suited for articles than tables.
• However, if there is consensus among several editors to include architects in tallest building lists, then I will find a way to include the information. Cheers, Rai-me 03:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed. I posted my thoughts at the WikiProject and am more than happy to change my vote if consensus really is in favor of no architects. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Support. Striking tentative oppose in favor of support because the WikiProject tells me so. Thanks for seeing the idea through, and again compliments on this list which surely should be featured. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support - great work! Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:48, 10 April 2008.

---

SPFA Players' Player of the Year

This is based on the same basic format as PFA Players' Player of the Year, which looks to be on course for FL. I've incorporated any issues raised at that FLC into this article before listing it..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Consider cropping that Nakamura image, it's high enough in resolution to withstand that, you'll get a much closer/clearer portrait that way.
• Could drop in first non-Scot to win in the lead.

Otherwise you'll get my thumbs up... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Both done ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A little on the slow side I felt, but Support nevertheless.... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Another nice list, but shouldn't YPY be SYPY, as you're using YPY for the English one? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Changed ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Cool. Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 07:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments Great list and a few minor comments.
  • Is there an age limit for the SPFA Young Player of the Year?
  • Notes column needed for the list.

That's about it. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Presumably there is a specific age limit for the YPY (in England it's 23) but I can't find any source that mentions what it is. And the table already has a notes column........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough with the Young Player award. The notes column has since been added, but needs the sortable function removed. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Done now, the article had a notes column when I listed it at FLC but it seems that when I wasn't looking another user removed it, then, between you adding your comment above and me seeing it, decided to put it back. Anyway, it's all sorted now...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments sorted. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very good article as ever ChrisTheDude 02blythed (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:48, 10 April 2008.

---

List of North Carolina hurricanes (1900-1949)

I just published this article this morning, based on other similar hurricane FL's (List of Florida hurricanes (1900-1949) and List of North Carolina hurricanes (1950-1979), specifically). It finishes the series of North Carolina hurricanes, and I believe it passes all of the FL criteria; if you find any problems, I'll be happy to address them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Image in lead needs thumb and caption.
• 9 seasons - nine seasons.
• "In the 1916 season, five storms affect the state, which is the season with the most storms impacting the state." - "...five storms affected the state which makes it the season with most storms" or similar.
• Lead is written in a curious present tense. Surely this is in the past? The other sections, fine, I get it, but not the lead.
• Link Tennessee.
• For, say, the 1903 Vagabond hurricane, state the name explicitly rather than pipe to hurricane - non-experts may just ignore the link thinking it's going to plain old hurricane.
• " all people on Ocracoke " -what does this mean?
• Don't force thumbnail image sizes per WP:MOS#Images.
• " 41 feet" - convert.
• Centrally align Number in table.
• Why do unnamed hurricanes link to articles with names? Not necessarily official names, but better to have their colloquial name than nothing.
• All deaths direct so why discuss indirect deaths? This won't change, it's 60 years ago!

That should be enough to start with! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response. I got all of that, except for centrally align Number in table, which I don't know how to do. The table was already marked with the command center. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  You're welcome. I've done the central alignment, check out my last edit to see what I did. Oh, and you've remove the discussion about direct/indirect deaths but left "direct" in the table. I'd add a note to say all deaths were direct, explaining what that means, and then just have numbers in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, ok, thanks again. Is there anything else that needs to be done before you would support it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The purpose of date wikilinking is to enable user preferences to apply to the format, not to link to an article on that date in history. Therefore the usual "link once per section" rule doesn't apply and you should repeat-link the year. To see the problem, change your date preferences to "16:12, 15 January 2001" You will see that the "," appears between the day-month and the year when you don't wikilink the year, but is elided when you do. The problem is even worse on date formats where the year is at the front.

I assume the charts and tables are based on the data collected within the list itself, so if another hurricane is found (or removed), these need updated. You may want to leave a note to that effect on the talk page. Colin°^Talk 11:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good. I got them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Beautiful article. I do believe, FL and FTC are both in order. Go for it, Hurricanehink...Also, maybe possibly add a photo to the 1900s/1910s sections, maybe just a track map, but something to imagify the article. Otherwise, great job!^Mitch32^contribs 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Terrific writing as with all of the others, definitive support. Hello32020 (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:48, 10 April 2008.

---

Bibliography of Edgar Allan Poe

I've never tried to work for a featured list before but I think this article is ready. It's taken a lot of work but it is complete, including all known works of Edgar Allan Poe published and unpublished during his lifetime. I would consider putting the list of poems into a table similar to the list of short stories if reviewers suggest it.

I will be out of town for a couple days so I may not immediately respond to the first few comments. Any advice will help. Thanks in advance! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hello Midnightdreary, certainly a very thorough list. Specific comments...

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• Not keen on the gallery, I'd intersperse the list with these images and use one of the them in the lead.
• Yes, the poems look awkward listed as they are. I would tabulate.
• I'd work on making articles for the red linked poems and those you link out to wikisource.
• In Tales table, unbold the titles, and Publication year should be date really since some of the entries are complete dates.
• Again, I'd prefer to see articles in Wikipedia than linked out to Wikisource... but that's a personal preference...

That's about all from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I agree, I'm wasn't sold on the gallery. I removed it and interspersed a few images. I didn't want to make too many individual articles because there just isn't much to say about some of them (especially the incomplete/unpublished poems, one of which is only 13 words). I'll get to work on that poetry table if others agree (and when I'm back in town). --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - A well referenced and thoroughly complete list. This will surely be helpful to all who are researching the works of Poe. Dincher (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I'd also prefer to see the list of poems converted into a table. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:45, 29 March, 2008
• Support I contributed to the peer review for this and suggested converting the poems to a sortable table there, and would still like to see that done. Otherwise no complaints and lots of praise for a job well done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, folks! Sorry for the slow response; though real world obligations have been piling up for me lately, I'll get to work on that table as soon as possible!

Table is now complete! I think it looks good, so thanks to everyone who pushed for it! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hmm. Poe gave his permission after he died? :)
• That infobox should be before the picture, IMO.

Otherwise, good job! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 13:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to clarify that. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments addressed. Meets the criteria. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment At least the 'title' and 'first published in' columns should be made sortable in each table Hmains (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea you could do that... and, along with that, I have no idea how! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:48, 10 April 2008.

---

List of tallest buildings in Charlotte

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Tulsa and List of tallest buildings in San Francisco. I have been working with two other editors, Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide, to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is finally there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai-me 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Only one mention of First Union is given, when prior to the merger, three towers downtown were part of First Union Center; I unfortunately don't know which of the new ones were the old ones, though, because there was also an existing Wachovia building, so I don't know how the numbering changed. I think these former names should be noted just as One First Union is noted.
    •  Done -- Rai-me 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Except... when they did the merger, there was an existing Wachovia building, I think it was the white and gold one. Looking at Emporis, it looks like I'm thinking of 400 S Tryon? --Golbez (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, you're correct: [3]. I have updated 400 South Tryon's entry to include its 2 former names. Cheers, Rai-me 02:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I know there's probably nowhere to put this, but it does seem ever-so-slightly interesting to me that Hearst Tower was the first building built outside of the decades-long bank pissing contest; it marked the first time since 1971 that the two tallest buildings weren't named after banks.
    • Yes, I really don't know where to put that. The Hearst Tower (although not named after a bank) was constructed and is owned by Bank of America anyway... But that is interesting. If you can think of any place to add it (I don't think it would really be appropriate for the table, and I don't see where to put it in the lead), I will add it. -- Rai-me 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Is "proposed" only for future ones, not past ones? I ask because Four First Union was once proposed as one of the tallest buildings in the world...
    • Yes, it only for currently proposed and not canceled structures. -- Rai-me 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • There's a discrepancy. The main table shows Two Wachovia (built 1971) at 132m, taller than 200 S Tryon (built 1961) at 91m. However, the timeline table shows that 200 S Tryon remained the tallest in the city until BoA Plaza was built in 1974. According to the main table, it lost that title in 1971. Please clear this up.
    •  Done - fixed error. Two Wachovia is now listed in the timeline. -- Rai-me 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's all for now. Hope to see this one make it! --Golbez (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the very speedy review! Cheers, Rai-me 01:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No problem, I clicked the moment I saw it, happy to see there were photos, since I had been cursing myself for not taking more photos of the downtown before I left. --Golbez (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity, how tall is Bank of America Stadium? When I've driven through Charlotte, that always seemed to be rather tall. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It is about 155 feet (47 m): [4]. So, it doesn't make the height cutoff. Cheers, Rai-me 12:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Wasen't 121 west trade the first non bank building? Alaskan assassin (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support, there's probably detail missing but since I'm a [former] resident that nags at me more than it should, on its own it looks like a good list. :) now to get around to making an article on Four First Union... --Golbez (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Another nice list. Criteria met. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Great list, keep up the good work. VerruckteDan (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:48, 10 April 2008.

---

30 Rock (season 1)

This is the first nomination for this article, which i'm self nominating. I feel it meets all the criteria but there will probably be some typos and problems with grammar. I've tried to style this article after Lost (season 1) and The Office (U.S. season 3). Some sections, namely the reception sections, may need expanding which is no problem. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Link NBC in lead.
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Little Stranger, inc" - reads odd.
  •  Done Changed to just "Little Stranger" -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Avoid squashing text between images per WP:MOS#Images.
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cast image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• " timeslot of 8/7 central." hey?
  • That's because Central time zone get their feeds from the East coast or something, so if something is at 8pm, it airs at 7 in Central as they're an hour behind. Every station over here says "tonight at 8/7 Central" (The networks in the other timezones offset their broadcasts so it would be at 8pm local time). You are correct in noting it though, as I haven't seen other articles use it -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:20, 29 March, 2008
  •  Done Changed to "its timeslot of 8PM Eastern Standard Time" -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why abbreviate General Electric if you don't use the abbreviation?
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Episode 15 has two titles. Why?
  •  Done NBC initially released the press release for the episode "Hard Ball" under the title "Negotiation" but, they retracted the release and re-released it under "Hard Ball." Also, the WGA labeled the episode as "Negotiation" on its nominations. I've referenced it but, it's inside the quotes due to the template. There is no field in {{Episode list}} for alternative title references, unlike official titles. I've commented on the template talk page about it. -- Jamie jca (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see the harm in using "RTitle=", as it still references the differences in title and applies equally to "Hard Ball" -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:35, 30 March, 2008
      •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "...originally aired between October 2006 and April 2007, beginning on Wednesday, October 11, 2006 with "Pilot"." is unnecessarily long. "...orginally aired between October 11, 2006 and Apil 26, 2007" gives the same information without the need for repetition.
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Link to NBC in the Lead and remove the link under the Crew section
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also consider, "the first four episodes aired on Wednesdays at 8:00 pm, the next thirteen episodes aired on Thursdays at 9:30 pm under NBC's promotional banner "Comedy Night Done Right", and the final four episodes aired on Thursdays at 9:00 pm."
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the bit Re Tina Fey being a "hyphenate" in the image caption is strange
  •  Done I noticed that was strange when I was moving around the images, I did a little rewording. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Link Tina Fey in the Crew section
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is there a link to "staff writers"?
  • No, there's not. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is Daisy not a staff writer? It's unclear
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I think the placement of commas is messed up. I think they're not needed before and after "co-wrote", and one should be placed after "at least two episodes". Alternatively, split it into two sentences
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Should producers be listed after exec producers rather than after writers? I'm just thinking about the order of importance, really.
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• There's some who say the Futon Critic isn't a reliable source. As these are press releases, it shouldn't be too hard to find it elsewhere, such as PRNewswire or Yahoo TV
  •  Doing... I'll have a look now. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure naive needs to be linked, and "southern born" should be "Southern-born"
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• On the other hand, if a link to Trucker-hat exists, I think that should be used
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Does Twenty Good Years have a Wiki article?
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• "generally positive reviews" need not be in quotes
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comma not needed at "'Despite Fey's two loses, in acting categories"
  •  Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:16, 29 March, 2008

Support All concerns addressed. Meets the criteria, follows guidelines and policies. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've been a little less lazy than usual today, and gone through and made my own grammar fixes - I now have no complaints! Good work. —97198 talk 09:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support I have no problems with this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.

---

List of Governors of New York

The next in the group (previous ones including CO and WI), I started working on this when the Spitzer thing broke hoping to bring it up to standards before he left; didn't quite make that, but here we are. --Golbez (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Five paras in the lead seems a bit excessive, especially if you believe in WP:LEAD.
• Avoid bold links in lead, per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• "For pre-statehood colonial governors, see the list of colonial governors of New York and directors-general of New Netherland. For the revolutionary government between 1775 and 1777, see New York Provincial Congress." not keen on the For... see... in the prose. Either make this a {{see also}} or write the links into prose more elegantly.
• Don't like the "no image available" images at all. It makes the list incomplete in my opinion.

Otherwise a great list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Five paras seems needed to convey the amount of information previous FLCs have requested and had, I can't really see much in there to get rid of. :(
• Bold links have been in all of the other governor FLs, but I will admit it has always irked me. But then again, I'm having trouble thinking of a way of putting them in text without being annoying repetitive.
• I've done a little better with the prose there.
• What can I do, then? Have those rows be much thinner? Or get rid of all the images altogether and have just a selection of 6 or 7 along the right side of the page, a la Colorado?
• Thanks for the comments! --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think a selective gallery is better than the "Do you have a free image?" image.. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I wouldn't include ½ for David Paterson, the incumbent. It won't be long before that ½ is out of date.
• I had to read "† denotes those offices from which the governor resigned to take the governorship." a couple of times before I understood it

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 15:37, 29 March, 2008

• • The 1/2 is not supposed to be taken literally, as the note for Terms says; it's intended to show that there is a discrete term here being divided among two people. If he gets re-elected to it, he will get 1 1/2; if he resigns, then he and Spitzer drop to 1/3 and (presumably) Bruno would get 1/3. And so on and so forth. If he were just elected, he would get a "1" even though he had just started the term.
  • I'd love if you could find a better wording for that, I stole it from the WI list which at present is the best of these lists IMO. --Golbez (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Not off the top of my head. It's the word "governor" that's bugging me, because at the time they resigned their post to become governor, they weren't governors.
    • Re your reply to TRM, a vertical gallery of 6 or 7 would be better than pointing out there are missing pictures. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:31, 30 March, 2008

• Support I just made the lead four paragraphs so I coud vote for it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 02:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've changed it to a gallery, but I've removed all I think I can and it still goes one over - on my copious monitor, Paterson is shoved down to the next section. I'm trying to figure out who should get the boot: Dewey or Rockefeller? :P --Golbez (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a quickie, the captions are fragments so don't need a full stop! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks a lot better with the pictures now. Nice work -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support Citations A through M, except C and G, need publisher's info.--Crzycheetah 20:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment the table columns (other than the last) should be made sortable, as great tables now have. Hmains (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Not possible, since the Lt. Gov column can have multiple entries per row. --Golbez (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 04:02, 8 April 2008.

---

List of universities in Bangladesh

This is a comprehensive list containing names and key information (foundation date, location, type etc.) of all the universities located in Bangladesh. Moreover, though not all in a good shape, but all the names listed here have their own articles. Participants of WikiProject Bangladesh and WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities tried their best to check and recheck different information and also added necessary citation where it was needed. Note that, university websites are not listed here as reference instead we have added them as information in the main list. If this nomination becomes successful, it will be the first Featured List of this kind (i.e. nationally). Cheers! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments-It is a good list, however, some of the universities need to be sourced for verifiability, mostly those without official websites.--TrUCo-X 22:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Also their needs to be some type of title bolded in the lead.--TrUCo-X 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This image needs its copyright/fair- use addressed. --TrUCo-X

Update Image removed, primary descriptor bolded. Work with references in progress. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

More Updates - I have added around 12-15 third party references from Banglapedia, national encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Work in progress. TrU, could you please comment on other issues that you feel should be fixed? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good. But, there is a problem in the table (in the Dhaka division).--TrUCo-X 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have fixed the problem. I think it was created by any of us while adding references. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my problems are fixed, however, until the problems below are fixed and have been stated that they have been addressed, I will not give my vote "yet". --TrUCo-X 03:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have updated many issues as per recommendations of other editors. Would you please review this list once again? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support-my problems and many MoS problem stated below are now fixed and this list fits the FL criteria "now".--TrUCo-X 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Remove {{main}} from the beginning of the article and incorporate the link into the lead
• A dash should be used in place of the hyphen in the Lead
• Honestly though, it could do with being removed and written as normal flowing prose, removing the italics and colons, too
• Write out OIC in full in its first use and put the acronym in parentheses
• "A total of about 104 institutions" ambiguous
• Remove the over-linking of Bangladesh and People's Republic of Bangladesh
• Shorten "People's Republic of Bangladesh" down to simply "Bangladesh"
• Per WP:HEAD, links cannot be used in section titles. It's better to provide the link in prose instead, explaining what these divisions are.
• What does "Nick" mean?
• A secondary or tertiary reference is needed for each university, rather than an official website link
• References needed for each nickname, year and specialization
• The lists aren't sortable, so remove the over-wikilinking

So its oppose for now until the MOS and Sourcing is fixed -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:12, 25 March, 2008 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Update {{main}} removed and the link incorporated in text, hyphen replaced, prose normalized, OIC elaorated, ambiguity removed, overlinking removed, Bangladesh shortened, linking of heads removed, "nick" linked. Work with references in progress. Last comment not addressed, guidance needed. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good job on the updates so far.
• Hmm. Nick links to Athletic nickname, which is American in its context. Are you sure this works for Bangladeshi universities too? Surely nickname would be better? Also, they just look like initialization of the universities' names so I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary to include.
• For the last comment, just remove the over-wikilinking of Location and Specialization. There's no point sorting the lists because Sylhet division, special universities and Barisal division list only either 1 or two unis.
• Instead of "Following are the public universities located in Barisal division" etc, give a little depth and background info into what these divisions are. Are they university divisions, or are they regions similar to counties in the UK or states in the US?
• -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:50, 26 March, 2008

You have asked two important questions that I think should be answered quickly. I am slightly in hurry and will be get back soon to reply rest of your queries.

• Nick names are basically abbreviation of the respective institution title. We always emphasize on this short-form (not only in this list but also in main articles) since many universities in Bangladesh are well known by their abbreviation instead of their full name. For an example, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology is frequently (and even officially) called BUET and pronounced as Buyet. Moreover, this is not an alphabetically shorted abbreviation. Suppose, Jahangirnagar University is JU but Jagannath University is JNU. Chittagong University is CU but we haven't found what is the short form of newly created Comilla University yet. Because of above reasons, we have added this abbreviation section. But, it is really a nice question whether it should be nickname or something else?
• Division is a the first (from top) level distinction of the country. Though they are not state like USA or constituent countries like the UK by status, but administratively you if you break Bangladesh, you will get six divisions. We didn't emphasize on the number of universities within a division rather we tried to organized them based on administrative entity. You may notice that Northern Ireland has only two universities QUB and UU, still they are listed in a separate section in UK university list so that they can represent first level administrative parts of the UK, i.e. constituent countries. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment It is important that the clarification is provided in the article itself, not in a discussion. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social network, and important things that are not apparent in the article makes it sub-standard, no matter how much it was explained on a talk page. I have provided an clarification for the "division", and also relinked "nicks" to Acronym and initialism. Hope this works. Cheers Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, agreed and thanks. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have covered all the issues that you recommended (except one). Could you please have a look at this list once again? Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Each sub-section needs a short overview of the public/private universities in the division. Two/three lines would be adequate, I guess.
• What is a division?
• Lists would be more useful if they were sortable. I don't know the code/mark up to do that, therefore, help needed.
• I am filling the gap in references by use of UGC pages on public universities and private universities. A hand lent there would be useful.
• This university seems to be missing from the list.

More comments may be coming soon. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(inserted) Comment about sortable list Initially I prepared it as a sortable list but later I removed this feature since sorting criteria is very limited here. We have prepared it based on Alphabetical order sorting, starting from division names to institution title. Other two criteria that can be used to sort this list are Foundation date and Location. If sortability is necessary to pass Featured List nomination, I will fix it tonight. Though it's a boring code-fixing task, but it wont take more than half-an-hour. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(inserted) Sortability is not a requirement, but accessibility is. Dhaka Division has long lists for both categories, and it would greatly beneficial to have sortable lists (like I was trying to figure out a chronological sequence of university foundation dates, and had to take some pain). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• This university is missing from the list, too
• America Bangladesh University needs a foundation date
• "BANGLAPEDIA" in the cites need to become "Banglapedia", over-capitalization is not encouraged
• 104 institutes and the Presidential Order for UGC will need citations

More will be coming. I am trying to address the issues as much as I can. But, this would need intervention of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladeshi Universities. Anybody out there? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have started fixing above issues.

• "BANGLAPEDIA" -> "Banglapedia" -- Done
• "Sortability" will be fixed within next few hours. -- Done
• I have doubt whether America Bangladesh University is operational or not. This list[5] has its address and contact number. Can anyone from Bangladesh recheck this issue?
• Looking for a citation for the claim of 104 institutions.

Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you get someone create article stubs for the missing universities? Without them this list has little chance of passing through. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have just created East Delta University article and also placed it in the list. I am going to create rest very soon. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added sortable feature in all the tables. Now this whole list is sortable based on name, foundation year, location and specialization. Moreover, I have also added this feature for numbering field to get the original list back. Note that though we have created this list based on alphabetical order, but underlying algorithm used for alphabetical sorting in sortable class of this list differs from the regular form which eventually makes a distinction between numbering and name based sort (just try it, you'll understand what actually I am trying to mean by those programming jargon). -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - but with comments - Good effort and many issues seem to be fixed. I did notice some points about references:

• This reference is from Geocities, and may not really be a reliable RS for anything.
• You need to provide "retrieved on" for many references. Please use {{Cite web}}.
• For newspaper references, please use {{Cite news}}. --Ragib (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• References from Geocities, Tripod etc. have been removed.
• Citations are fixed as per {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more comments

• There is no citation for Noakhali Science and Technology University, Bangladesh National University, Pundra University of Science and Technology and Islamic University of Technology.
• There is no introductory summary for sub-sections for the private universities, like the sub-sections for the public universities have.
• There is no contextual introductions for the mother-sections: "Public uiversities" and "Private universities". Public universities section could easily have something on the subsidized education, while the Private universities section could have the Private university act that so unnecessarily appear on most private university articles.
• No need to to link women's studies in the table. It's been already linked in the lead.
• Cites necessary for the lead are still missing.
• Most importantly, there is still at least one missing university.
• There could be something on the number of students enrolled, even an aggregate somewhere. It is optional though.

More comments may be forthcoming. And, oh, nice work with cites and sortable tables. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Post Script The issue with America Bangladesh University will be resolved on Sunday (in Bangladesh Fridays and Saturdays are weekends). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have created BIU article and also added this title in the list. Should I remove internal link of Technology as well? I have added Private and Public university intro though just copied from another article. Will it be okay or requires rewrite? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

A highly commendable job. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I tried my best to update this list as per mentioned suggestions though still I am left with adding few references. Could you please mention more issues that you think should be fixed? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support Niaz has really done it. This list is already better than a number of existing FLs. No use delaying the inevitable. This one meets all standards already. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support - but with comments

• Asian University for Women this university is not included.
• Foundation date of some universities e.g.Bangladesh Islami University should be included.

Tanvir che (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. I believe this list meets the featured list criteria. Arman ^(Talk) 12:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support: It should become an FL. --Tarif from Bangladesh (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support: Per concerns raised above and below--NAHID 07:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  

More comments

• The prose for each division, (esp. Dhaka Division) is a little choppy, with a lot of short stubby sentences
• "have come into being" would be better if reworded, it's not a very encyclopaedic term
• Why no founded date for America Bangladesh University and Bangladesh Islami University? And if there is no reliable information, something should be said to that effect. Also, those hyphens should be ;mdash-es for future reference

It's come a long way since I saw it, and I've striken my oppose above. Nearly ready to support if you get these things sorted out. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:17, 29 March, 2008

Since America Bangladesh University is no longer operational, it is removed from this list and foundation date of Bangladesh Islami University is missing even on the official site and also on their UGC, Bangladesh profile. I tried my level best to cover rest of the suggestions. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions and recommendations checklist

Proposed by TrUCo-X

• Some of the universities need to be sourced for verifiability, mostly those without official websites: All the universities are now cited with third party references.
• Their needs to be some type of title bolded in the lead: Updated.
• This image needs its copyright/fair- use addressed: Resolved.

Covered all. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed by ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @

• Remove {{main}} from the beginning of the article and incorporate the link into the lead: Removed.
• A dash should be used in place of the hyphen in the Lead: Updated accordingly.
• Honestly though, it could do with being removed and written as normal flowing prose, removing the italics and colons, too: Updated (please recheck whether it is okay or not?)
• Write out OIC in full in its first use and put the acronym in parentheses: Updated accordingly.
• "A total of about 104 institutions" ambiguous: Removed.
• Remove the over-linking of Bangladesh and People's Republic of Bangladesh: Removed and updated accordingly.
• Shorten "People's Republic of Bangladesh" down to simply "Bangladesh": Updated.
• Per WP:HEAD, links cannot be used in section titles. It's better to provide the link in prose instead, explaining what these divisions are.: Updated and written as per your suggestions.
• What does "Nick" mean?: Explained in the list using internal link to acronym and also here as well.
• A secondary or tertiary reference is needed for each university, rather than an official website link: All the universities are now cited with third party references.
• References needed for each nickname, year and specialization: Above references also work for this point.
• The lists aren't sortable, so remove the over-wikilinking: Updated, now it is sortable.

All the suggestions have been covered except one. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• The prose for each division, (esp. Dhaka Division) is a little choppy, with a lot of short stubby sentences: Modified.
• "have come into being" would be better if reworded, it's not a very encyclopaedic term: Removed and modified accordingly.
• Why no founded date for America Bangladesh University and Bangladesh Islami University? And if there is no reliable information, something should be said to that effect. Also, those hyphens should be ;mdash-es for future reference: Updated as per your suggestions and also reason is explained bellow your last post.

Covered. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed by Aditya

• Each sub-section needs a short overview of the public/private universities in the division. Two/three lines would be adequate, I guess: Updated accordingly.
• What is a division?: Explained.
• Lists would be more useful if they were sortable. I don't know the code/mark up to do that, therefore, help needed.: Now it is sortable.
• This university seems to be missing from the list.: Article created and updated in this list.
• There is no citation for Noakhali Science and Technology University, Bangladesh National University, Pundra University of Science and Technology and Islamic University of Technology.:Citation added.
• There is no introductory summary for sub-sections for the private universities, like the sub-sections for the public universities have.:Introductory summary added.
• There is no contextual introductions for the mother-sections: "Public uiversities" and "Private universities". Public universities section could easily have something on the subsidized education, while the Private universities section could have the Private university act that so unnecessarily appear on most private university articles.: Added.
• No need to to link women's studies in the table. It's been already linked in the lead.: Link removed.
• Cites necessary for the lead are still missing.
• Most importantly, there is still at least one missing university.: All the universities are now covered.
• There could be something on the number of students enrolled, even an aggregate somewhere. It is optional though.

I am working on other issues that you proposed. Will be solved within this weekend. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All the suggestions have been covered except optional one and lead cite. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This link] will be helpful, I hope. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I visited it day before yesterday and added it as a reference for Bangladesh National University. Though it provides detail statistics on number of students and teachers for schools and colleges, I couldn't find such options for universities. But, today I have added it as an overall reference site for Bangladesh related education. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The data-table on the page says Number of Universities, Teachers and Enrolment by management and sex (the heading says University Education). I didn't find any mention of schools or colleges anywhere on the page (apart from buttons on the top that led to other pages). So, I thought it was about universities. Sorry if I was mistaken.

Actually it was my mistake. I thought you are talking about individual break-down which is given only for school and colleges. But your recommended link provides statistics for universities. I am adding it at a suitable place. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 19:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed by Ragib

• This reference is from Geocities, and may not really be a reliable RS for anything: References from Geocities, Tripod etc. have been removed.
• You need to provide "retrieved on" for many references. Please use {{Cite web}}. Updated accordingly.
• For newspaper references, please use {{Cite news}}: Updated.

I will gradually update this check-list to meet all the recommendations. Cheers! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed by Tanvir che

• Asian University for Women this university is not included.: Now listed and cited with multiple third party references.
• Foundation date of some universities e.g. Bangladesh Islami University should be included.: Still looking for its foundation date. This info is missing even on its official page. Another university with missing foundation date will be removed soon since it is not operational anymore. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 15:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

America Bangladesh University (without a foundation date entry) is removed from this list since it is nomore operational and foundation date of Bangladesh Islami University is missing even on its official site or on UGC profile, thus I failed to add this info. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 11:21, 30 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.

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 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

List of Masters Tournament champions

After going through a peer review, I feel the list is ready to be scrutinise at FLC, I believe it meets all the criteria necessary to attin this status, it is stable, and well referenced. Thanks in advance for comments NapHit (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Explain what happened between 1943 & 1945, and perhaps it should be – rather than -?

changed to en dash, just one question about 1943–1945, where you referring to to explaining this ine the note, or in the lead? NapHit (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would add just a single sentence to say the competition was not held from 1943 to 1945 due to the Second World War. But it's not big deal, if it doesn't flow somewhere in the lead nicely then don't bother, I had missed your footnote...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Table doesn't sort on par because of the E (suggest you use {{sort}} and sort it to zero)...

This fixed now thanks for pointing this out NapHit (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

With regard to the picture captions, I believe either of the following would be correct:

• Tiger Woods, who has won the Masters four times
• Tiger Woods has won the Masters four times.

In other words, add a comma or lose the "who". If possible, try to re-phrase one or two of the captions to avoid repetition. --Jameboy (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Jameboy, I've re-worded some of the captions, hopefully there not as repetitive now NapHit (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good work. I've also made a couple of minor grammatical/punctuation corrections. It's looking good now. --Jameboy (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• I removed a "the" here, but feel free to add it back in if I was wrong. Anyway, Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:58, 28 March, 2008

Comment

There are two playoffs that are not mentioned.

• 1942: Byron Nelson defeated Ben Hogan
• 1970: Billy Casper defeated Gene Littler

They should be footnoted for consistency.Giants2008 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers I'd missed them two, there added now NapHit (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The playoffs have been footnoted, but the champions of those years aren't in green like the other playoff winners. Please take care of this as well. Giants2008 (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, I've corrected this now cheers NapHit (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

With these issues taken care of, I'm now happy to Support this informative and well-referenced list. Giants2008 (talk) 15:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

Colleges of the University of Cambridge

previous FLC

Renominating this as I've expanded it, illustrated it, referenced it and ensure the numbers are accurate and up to date. The shields have gone since many of them aren't free use and I can't believe a fair use rationale for each one would extend to this article. I'd be interested in other people's opinions on this because if the consensus is that they can then I'll put them back! Thanks in advance for comments, criticism, support or otherwise! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• The total columns are out of line
  • Done, silly me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• I've added a {{cn}}
  • Removed, rephrased, cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The above list does not include several historical colleges which no longer exist." I suggest "The above list does not include several defunct colleges."
  • Yuck, defunct? I don't really see the difference in information between those two sentences and I certainly will never be using the word defunct. Ugh. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Lol. Fair enough. I'm slightly concerned about the term "historical" - it comes across as OR or needing citation, given that it has a sense of meaning "historically notable". You're also using quite a lot of words to describe something simple - how about sticking with "former" in place of "defunct"? --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Are you confusing historical with historic? I'll think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Hysterical? --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Former. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Information about Cavendish is inconsistent in presentation with others - no foundation date, doesn't specify that the college ceased to exist (just its buildings)
  • Found additional source for foundation. Not much information exists about the Cavendish... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• reflist2?
  • Done, but I doubt you'll see any difference if you're using IE7. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Me? Using IE? You should know better... Lol! --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support all done. --Dweller (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Primary source of accommodation? So they're just halls of residence where no actual teaching and learning happens?
  • That's about the size of it. Faculties and departments do the teaching, colleges do the accommodation and food... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• I'd wikilink undergrad and grads for those who aren't familiar with the (British) university system
  • Undergrad fine, grad not so good but at least a link to BA or above.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)."
• "for example Churchill has a bias towards the sciences,[9]" Comma!
  • Comma added...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No! There's a comma at the end of the sentence! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:28, 28 March, 2008
      • ARGH! Been a long day... fixed..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's ok. I now support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:44, 28 March, 2008

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:54, 28 March, 2008

Comments from Seegoon

Support - all in all, very concise, but here are a few notes.

• I don't like the way the first paragraph runs. Consecutive sentences start with "These colleges", "The colleges" and "The colleges". Not pretty!
  • Rephrased... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• "three admit only women, New Hall, Newnham and Lucy Cavendish" - shouldn't this be a colon, or perhaps a semicolon? This example is repeated twice more in the same paragraph. I might be wrong though, so I'll take that on the chin.
  • Repunctuated... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise: "or subjects, for example" - shouldn't this be a semicolon once more?
  • Doubtless, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Any chance you could further explain the theological college note at the end of the table?
  • Expanded a touch. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• This isn't necessary per se, as it might be best displayed on the page of the colleges themselves, respectively - but would it be worth noting any specialist fields of study?
  • Hmm. I think this is better on the college pages really... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• It might be worth remedying the redlinks.
  • I've written two article stubs and made a redirect for the Cavendish since there seems to be insufficient material available for me online to generate even a stub...! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good job as ever. Seegoon (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Seegoon, firstly, thanks for your kind words both here and on my talkpage. Secondly, it's Friday night, 7pm and I'm grabbing my coat on the way to the pub... I'll address your concerns as soon as I can. Promise! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nom (in case...) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

List of speakers who have spoken to both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament

Bit out of my box on this one and arguably the longest title ever, but this is a factually accurate, well illustrated and useful list of a small group of individuals. I'm happy to address any and all concerns here and thank you in advance for anything you contribute. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The sentence "French President Albert Lebrun was the first of thirty different people to have addressed both the House of Commons and the House of Lords in March 1939." needs to be reworded. Right now, it says that all 30 people addressed the Houses in March 1939, while the list shows otherwise. Perhaps something along the lines of "In March, 1939, French President Albert Lebrun became the first person ever to address both the House of Commons and the House of Lords; subsequently, more than 30 other people proceeded to do the same." MeegsC | Talk 15:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Definitely, a good point, that's what comes from not satisfactorily copyediting your own nonsense! I've removed the thirty altogether, nothing spectacular - the list says it all, and I've done a light c/e. Thanks for your comment! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment What does your note 23, "Dalai Lama's speech was part of the All-party group on Tibet", mean? Struway2 (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Doesn't make sense does it? I can't find sufficient information to back up the claim so I've removed that note and other similar notes, unless anyone can find suitable references. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I imagine those notes mean that the speaker concerned addressed the Houses at the invitation of the group referred to. This article would appear to back up that interpretation in the Dalai Lama's case, at any rate. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I guess you're right but since the article doesn't expressly mention that, I'll take your ref and add it the article. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You might want to explain why this list is so small—why is it unusual for someone to address both Houses at once? Don't assume too much understanding on the part of your (potentially non-UK) readers. MeegsC | Talk 18:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another fair point. Although, having said that, the brevity of the list is almost self-explanatory. I'll see what I can do. And thanks for your correction! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Urk, I think the article title will have to be longer. Many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people have addressed both houses, just not at the same time. (Think of all those many, many MPs who've been "kicked upstairs" to the Lord's) Under the current title, the list is not comprehensive. Sorry.
  • Okay, assuming we can come to an agreeable answer on this, I'll move it... suggestions are welcome, I'd guess at something like "Speakers of who addressed both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament at once" (so axe "List of...", change to "addressed" and add "at once"...) - countersuggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd be fine with that (without the stray "of"). Maybe "simultaneously"? NB I think page moves during this process causes a few glitches that need fixing. --Dweller (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's why I thought I'd try to get an agreement here and then change it later... Speakers who have addressed both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament simultaneously it is then? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I think that works, even if it wins no brevity competitions. Good thinking on waiting. Might be worth putting a banner at the top of this page before it becomes a reason for opposing. --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• "on behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Committee". Not sure what the source says, but should it be "at the request of", as I doubt he'd have been a member of that Committee
  • Reworded and found another source at the same time which I've added to the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• In that same sentence, it seems that Mandela and Gorbachev spoke simultaneous, which would have been distracting and rather discourteous, though I've no doubt some elderly Peers may still have dropped off.
  • Chortle. Holds sides. Okay, rephrased.
• Sarkozy "most recent" as "last" sounds like a decision's been taken for it not to happen again, which I don't think is true.
  • Changed to most recent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why not give Gorby a position like you gave Kofi?
  • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Think you need specific wikilink to Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama
  • Done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Article currently orphaned in mainspace terms, which is not ideal for Featured material.
  • Done. Sorted. (You're getting very particular in your old age you know...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• My ignorance here - and perhaps should be covered in the text whether I'm right or wrong - doesn't the monarch address both Houses in the Lord's at the State Opening? --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, you're right, I guess the title could be made even longer to take into account that the speech is given in the House of Lords to members of both Houses while this list contains speeches made in a "neutral" venue. Anyway, I've added a caveat to the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - all done. --Dweller (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looks like Dweller beat me to it on most things, but...

• Are there articles for the Royal Gallery and Commitee Rooms? Otherwise, where are this places?
  • No there aren't, they're all in the Palace of Westminster... I'll see what I can do.. The Rambling Man (talk)
    • Linked Royal Gallery to the relevant section of the Palace of Westminster, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is there no "Position" for Mandela and the Lama?
  • Sorted now. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Can any other articles be linked to this page?
  • Can't think of many, but I could link it to individual speaker's pages I guess... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Linked now very appropriately to the Royal Gallery discussion at Palace of Westminster The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:43, 28 March, 2008

• It looks like some of the lead has been removed, though I haven't checked to see if this was Vandalism or your own editing as I assume you're watching the page yourself -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:04, 28 March, 2008
  • Yeah, it was me, I blew it, big time. Cut and corrupt as my QA manager would say.... Should be fixed now I hope. Have you changed your sig again?! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah. User:Matthewedwards/sig. It's set up so that every time I enter it, the border changes colour. The only thing I need to remember is to remove a ~ every time I press the sig button. However, someone told me it was "very disruptive", so I might change it again. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:37, 28 March, 2008

Support Another good one from the List Factory that is TRM -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Good topic, nicely formatted, appears to be thoroughly sourced. Congratulations and thanks! --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Support as nom (did I mention that?!) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

PFA Young Player of the Year

This is based on the same basic format as PFA Players' Player of the Year, which looks to be on course for FL. I've incorporated any issues raised at that FLC into this article before listing it..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Hi Chris, good list, just wondered if you could expand the lead a touch to discuss non-British winners, the fact that only three have won it? Also, were any of the players from outside the top division? If not then could be worth a mention too... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Both points now covered in the lead ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Two consecutive sentences now start "Although..." which don't read too clever. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I already noticed that and changed one ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Support I love it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Can't even find a typo to bring up! -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:52, 28 March, 2008
• Support coupla bits and pieces.
  • In the Winners by... tables, if you narrowed the Number of wins column and increased the overall width of the tables, they'd look less lumpy.
  • Your external link has a misplaced apostrophe. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Both points addressed ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 29 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.

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 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

FWA Footballer of the Year

This is based on the same basic format as PFA Players' Player of the Year, which looks to be on course for FL. I've incorporated any issues raised at that FLC into this article before listing it..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Order of images is odd, why not same order as the table? (Same could apply to the other FLC as well, I can't recall....)
• "On one occasions ..." whoops.

Otherwise, looking good. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorted both points ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support it is then! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Is it English football, or English and Welsh football?
• From that, is the FWA solely England based, or are some in Wales too?

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:50, 28 March, 2008

• • The FWA website says they have members throughout England, no mention is made of Wales. And the award is presented to a player in the English leagues, so "English football" is appropriate. I realise that technically speaking there are three Welsh teams in the English league, but to say "the best player in English and Welsh football" would imply that it could be won by a player in the League of Wales, which is not the case ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well then there's nothing left to do but Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:36, 30 March, 2008
• Comment
  • In lead, The latest winner needs an As of date.
  • Pleased to see you get the apostrophe in Fans' PotY right, even if the PFA don't!
  • In the Winners by... tables, if you narrowed the Number of wins column and increased the overall width of the tables, they'd look less lumpy. (C&P'd from comments at YPY FLC, too many acronyms round here IMHO) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    • ALl points addressed ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support A well referenced and an informative list, which is fully deserving of FL status NapHit (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

Order of battle at the Battle of Tory Island

Another order of battle similar to Order of battle at the Glorious First of June. As with that one this is a little speculative but I feel that it passes the criteria. Comments welcome. --Jackyd101 (talk) 09:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Hi Jackyd101, certainly not an area of expertise for me but some MOS comments and other bits and pieces as I find them will hopefully be of use to you.

• Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

Removed, but where do you suggest the link to the main article should be?

• It's a shame to see that long red link in the middle of the lead, any chance of a stub?

A French speaking editor has agreed to create this article when he has a chance, but he hasn't gotten around to it yet. He can doa better job of a stub than I can.

• "..a scratch ..." not 100% sure that this is clear to everyone.

Clarified.

• "Unbeknownst " a little too Shakespearean for me! Why not just "Unknown..."?

Changed.

• I'm never keen on small fonts, they prejudice against people with visual difficulties.

Sorry, I'm not sure where this is?

"Ship", "Rate", "Guns" etc... headings in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, done.

• Presumably there's some logic behind why you have some redlinks and some unlinked Commanders?

Those in red links should have articles but I haven't assembled the materials to create them all yet (on the whole I prefer holding off from creating stubs until I can do an article justice). Those without links at all are unlikely to ever merit an article of their own.

• Commodore Bompart's Squadron casualties are listed differently from Commodore Warren's squadron in the Action of 12 October, 1798 section. Why?

Because the casualties for the largest and worst damaged French ship are not broken down in the sources, being given as 270 killed and wounded. All the casualties for the British ships are clearly broken down into killed and wounded and so a more defined total can be given.

Then since it appears inconsistently and since I had to ask why, I suggest you add a note to that effect in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry missed this. Now done.

• What does "-" mean in the casualties section? Is it "unknown"? or zero?

Ah, good point, for one ship it mean that it wasn't recorded and for another it means that it wasn't engaged at all. I have now changed this.

• "Action of 13 October, 1798" section could use some explanation as it's very different from the 12 October!

I tried to provide links to the relevant sections of Battle of Tory Island, but they came out with a big # mark in the middle. Do you know how to pipe this link so the # doesn't appear?

What are you trying to link to exactly and what would you like the link to say? The Rambling Man

(talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to use a link like

Further information: Battle of Tory Island § Melampus and Résolue

but to make it look a bit tidier it would appear like Melampus and Résolue.

So cheat and say For more details on this topic, see Melampus and Résolue. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Very sneaky, I like it.

• There are no casualty summaries for the Flight of the Loire... any reason for this?

I just didn't put them in, done now.

• "Captain Jean-François Legrand †" - what does † mean? KIA I suppose, but no key for this.

Done.

• " dropped out on October 28." what does dropped out mean here?

Clarified.

• A lot of articles now have a single "References" section with "Specific" and "General" subsections. Worth considering I guess.

So, a few things to look at I think. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much. I have looked at your comments and implemented them where possible. All the best.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Couple of further responses above... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Replies given.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, I think I have addressed all your points now.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just the note about the broken down casualties (I've added another response up in the comments above)... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry missed that. Now I think I have addressed all your points. Anything else?--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support nice work, my comments resolved accurately and rapidly. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support A nice orbat which meets the criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• In what order are the ships listed? Is it consistent for each table? Might it be useful to have the ship name and commander columns sortable? Hmains (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• The "Unbeknownst" that TRM pointed out still exists

Not any more.

• Link Rate in the table headers to Rating system of the Royal Navy, and removd over-wikilinking of "First rate", "Second rate", etc in the tables.

I'm not sure how removing the links benefits the article. I understand the reasons overlinking is discouraged in text, but here it provides uniformity.

• Why are the French ships rated, when those links say they relate to Royal Navy rating system?

For the purposes of comparison. Although the French did not use this rating system professionally, it is normal in naval history texts to do so for comparative purposes.

• Also, those ratings should have a hyphen, not a space.

The terms can be used with either a hyphen or a space and they redirect to the same place anyway.

• Should the French ships have any initials, an equivalent of HMS, basically?

No, French ships of the period did not have any prefixes and it is anachronistic to back date modern ship prefixes.

• Rather than "For more details on this topic, see…", can't some prose be included, and incorporate the links into that prose instead?

I'm not convinced of the value of including a potted history here when a simple link will lead to a much more complete explanation. In an ideal world, these tables would be included in the main article but as they are long and will dominate the text I moved them here instead and on a suggestion from TRM included wikilinks to the relevant parts of the main article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 16:45, 28 March, 2008

Thankyou for your comments, I have addressed them above and incoporated some into the article. Other I have questioned and would appreciate feedback on them before I implement them in the article or not.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Provided feedback on 2 points, everything else ok. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008

I think these points have now been addressed. Thankyou for your interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses:

• How have the ships been entered into the tables? It doesn't appear to be alphabetical, by rating, by # of guns, or anything else.

They have been entered according to their position in the respective battlelines and consequently the order in which they joined battle. How would you recommend this is explained?

Can it be narrowed down to the time, or nearest hour when they engaged battle? I don't really know what to suggest as I'm not familiar with it, but the article is called Order of Battle, so maybe nothing needs to be done. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008

I have created a simple key to understanding the table which I have placed with the references. This covers this issue. Hopefully this addresses the problem.

The key should appear before the first table, otherwise the reader is looking at the information with no idea what it relates to. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried this but it looked very untidy. I have made a note at the top linking to the bottom, is this enough?

• Any chance of including ^[refs] in the notes sections of the tables?

Sorry, I meant to come back to this and forgot. The information in the tables comes from the same source which gives the most detaield information but is backed up in general by the other sources provided. I don't really think the article needs 30 odd references to the same place on eveyline, would it be better instead to provide a link for each table, then at least the page numbers would change?--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That would work, I think. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:37, 28 March, 2008

Done, let me know what you think.

That works for me, although the hyphens in page name should be endashes (–), per WP:MOS. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done

• One last thing, about the red links that point to pages of French ships captured by the British. Looking at the articles for them that do exist, they all include in the infoboxes and main text that they were captured and recommission as British. I don't think the articles you've red linked to will ever be created and so are unnecessary inclusions here. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is the case actually, some ships (HMS Proserpine and HMS Resolue) for example had very uneventful careers and may never have their own articles, but it is fairly common for ships that change hands to have seperate articles on their different service in different navies (i.e. USS Phoenix (CL-46) and ARA General Belgrano) and I think ships like HMS Donegal, HMS Loire and HMS Immortalite may well have seperate articles on their French and British incarnations at some point in the future. However for the moment it maybe better to redirect them as that is where the information can currently be found.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice list, I like it when non-sports, media or music lists come through here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire

Rudget (talk) and I have been working on this list extensively for a little over a month now, and we both feel that it is now ready for FLC, and that it meets the featured list criteria. I (and I'm sure Rudget will, too) address any issues which may be raised in the discussion as soon as possible. Thank you for your time. Qst (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that this list is based off the Greater London and Somerset lists. Qst (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) (aka Mr Boring)

Okay, cool list, big ticks, interesting reflist. My comments...

• Avoid links in the bold lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Done. Rudget. 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "...Hertfordshire, which is part of Eastern England...." - it's a county in England isn't it?
  • Done. Qst (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider including a map of Herts to provide context to the description you have in the lead.
  • I was going to do this, but it would impede on the table below it. Rudget. 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Only thing is that a non-expert wouldn't have any context. In fact I'd support a map over the current image. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, what about this image? Qst (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a good start. I was sure there was a more Eastern England version of that map? If not then fine, but I do think the context for non-expert readers is more important than, dare I say, an image of a footpath...? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • 8*Yeah, when you put it like that...you're right. Okay, done. Qst (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "For other counties, see List of SSSIs by Area of Search." - perfect for See Also section, not for inclusion in the lead.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Numbers below 10 should be spelled out - 6=six etc.
  • Done. Rudget. 18:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Images should be sized per WP:MOS#Images.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• The caption in the lead image is a fragment so it doesn't need a full stop.
  • Done. Rudget. 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reduce the size of the ticks, to the near minimum for me.
  • Done. Rudget. 18:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• You have A–D and then F-O, en-dash or hyphen?! Plus, the titles could be better anyway.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider forcing the column widths the same for all tables for consistent look and feel.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Will the non-linked places ever get articles? (just a question really)
  • Probably, yes - I'm slowly working through creating them. Qst (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Reason for Designation" - why not lower case designation?
  • Done. Rudget. 18:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

A few things to look at. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• You've got " 1,634km²" fully wiklinked to square km. Use the {{convert}} template to add acres as well and, if required, wikilink sq km after that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but could you or Rudget do that - I just cannot get my head around the syntax. :( Qst (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Done. I've done it to acres. Rudget. 11:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support my major comments dealt with, quickly and effectively, good work guys. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looks like TRM covered most of it already, but

• I'd rather have it as one continuous link, rather than broken up A–E, F–O etc. I'm sure there's still a way of creating a link anchor so that they an A-Z Contents table can be used.
  • Done. Qst (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Who was notified? The area, the people in charge of the area, local residents, etc
  • The actual SSSIs, they were notified (i.e similar to being designated). Rudget. 11:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This doesn't mean notified as in being told of a situation, it means the site was notified by government. Qst (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Anyways, done. Qst (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:10, 25 March, 2008 03:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Well done -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:30, 27 March, 2008

Resolved stuff from Crzycheetah

Comment The Somerset list that you used lists 126 sites and every one of them has an article here at Wikipedia. On the other hand, Hertfordshire lists only 43 sites, 13 of which don't have their own articles. If I were a Hertfordshire resident, I'd feel disrespected. If 13 of those sites had articles, I'd feel that this list "exemplifies our very best work". Right now, though, there is still room to make this a better list. By the way, populate the Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire at least.--Crzycheetah 21:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest - I don't think it matters. One can easily look up on the external website, and I don't think its necessary to create lots of links. Other lists of similar sorts have passed with the sites linked to the actual village/town where they are located, so I don't see any reason why this should be treated differently, to be honest. Qst (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since most of the FLs have all sites linked, to be honest, I don't see any reason why this should be treated differently either. If one can easily look up on the external website, then why create this whole table? Just put the external links and you're good to go!--Crzycheetah 22:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If we did create those that are not linked, would they meet notability? As far as I can see, the not linking of a few articles is of no difference, as Qst notes above, similar lists have passed with less. Rudget. 14:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between Ashwell Springs and Amwell Quarry? Why is one notable and not the other? If they're really non-notable, then link it to the village/town it's located in. The links should be there. Plus, whenever you have time, could you go over the links again to check whether it's linked to the right page? Westwood Quarry, for example, is linked to a disamg. page.--Crzycheetah 21:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay; apologies for the late reply, I missed this in my watchlist. Anyways, I've fixed the disambig/incorrect links, linked to the location where these sites belong (if the page exists, that is,) so I've done everything I can, even though there are still some unlinked data there. I hope everything is to your liking now. Qst (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had the same problem, apologies. I just did a little more after I saw Qst in my watchlist. I've pipelinked a few more places, I should get some more done. Rudget (review) 19:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Westwood Quarry is still linked to a disamb. page.--Crzycheetah 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Qst (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(→)I found out that Westwood Quarry is located in Westwood, Wiltshire. I suggest creating Westwood, Wiltshire article and link Westwood Quarry to it. All villages and towns are notable, especially, there are three articles that already have a link to Westwood, Wiltshire.--Crzycheetah 05:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a different village. Hertfordshire is quite some distance from Wiltshire, but the Westwood Quarry page is done. Rudget (review) 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support There are less than 1/3 of the SSSIs that have no links, which is satisfiable for me.--Crzycheetah 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 23:26, 6 April 2008.

---

Orlando Magic draft history

I believe it's ready for this process. I am sure there are going to be comments/ concerns/ questions, I'll try my best to answer them.--Crzycheetah 22:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comment

• The image text reads funny. I think "Shaquille O'Neal was drafted by Orlando Magic in 1992."
• The grey header text is hard to read against the blue. I think white will be better.

That's it as a quick glance. I'll do better in the morning after some sleep :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• • And I'll be waiting.--Crzycheetah 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

More...

• Try to avoid linking in the bold title, per WP:LEAD
  • Avoided.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are three uses of the acronym NBA before National Basketball Association is written out
  • Corrected.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Before each draft, an NBA Lottery is held to determine the order of selection for the non-playoff teams, or the teams holding their picks through trades, for the first round only" is a bit jargony
  • This statement is taken from the official website of the NBA.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That might be why then. It probably assumes that readers of its site know something about the sport. Can it be reworded to become more accessible-to-all? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I added wikilinks to some sports-related terms and tweaked that sentence a little.--Crzycheetah 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not that concerned about the sports jargon. There's no conceivable reason for someone to use this list without having some prior knowledge about the NBA. However, I am concerned that statements are apparently lifted verbatim from NBA.com. That's plagiarism, and a probable copyvio. Make sure you say everything in your own words. Zagalejo^^^ 05:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
          • No statement is taken verbatim. I took ideas that were in there and added a reference note next to them.--Crzycheetah 06:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
            • The majority of the sentence Matthew quoted is lifted word-for-word from this page. Everything between "order of selection" and "first round only" is the same. You can't just change a word or two here and there; you need to use your own words as much as possible. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
              • That sentence was changed when Matthew first mentioned it. Could you take a look at this page?--Crzycheetah 07:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't notice your edits, thanks.--Crzycheetah 07:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Is "pick" the term used in the NBA? It just seems a bit colloquial
  • Yes, it is. Watch this youtube video and you'll hear NBA Commissioner saying "with the first pick...".--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Can you include a key for the position acronyms in the table?
  • I think a key will be redundant since all acronyms are linked.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• And maybe identify which former teams were college, high school and clubs.
  • Clubs' countries are typed next to the club names; next to the high school, the high school's city is typed; all teams without any notes next to them are colleges. If you have an idea on how to make this more obvious, please share.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Hmm.. no, not really. :) -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 15:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Crzycheetah 19:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Meets the criteria, is well referenced. Nice addition to FLs. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:43, 28 March, 2008

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "with their 11th pick..."? It was the draft's 11th pick, not Orlando's wasn't it? It was Orlando's first pick of their two...
    • I reworded that one. Zagalejo^^^ 15:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • " who was selected an All-Star a record-tying 14 consecutive times" sounds like this had happened before the draft - perhaps "who went on to be selected as an All-Star...."
    • Corrected.--Crzycheetah 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • " three first round picks in 1998 and 2000 belonged to the Orlando Magic" - reads strangely to me "belonged to the Orlando Magic" just doesn't seem right....
    • Well, they had those picks and could do whatever they wanted with them. First, I wanted to use the word "owned", but it sounded too "strong" to me.--Crzycheetah 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Why small font in the table if the draft is foreign? It makes it hard to read and doesn't enhance the article at all. And it may be in other draft articles but it doesn't make it right!
    • Small font is used whenever the information is not as important for the casual reader as it is for a NBA fan. I removed the <small></small> from the clubs column, but I believe for the trade notes, small text is needed to distinguish the note itself from the player's name.--Crzycheetah 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• That's about it for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support (sorry in the delay, been really busy around here!) Still not keen on the small fonts, there's no reason to use them at all, but it's not going to prevent me supporting. You just ought to consider people with visualisation issues. Good work though. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • • I always consider them. This time, they just need to click on the footnote and read a detailed version of whatever is written in small letters. Thanks for your review.--Crzycheetah 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was to compare this to other draft-related articles, specifically those which are already considered "featured lists". On 2003 NBA Draft and 2004 NBA Draft, a small note appears in the table for players who were traded shortly after being drafted and/or were drafted with a previously traded pick. This article uses <ref>s for that, and content is mixed together with sources (like meat and receipts tucked into the same drawer after a trip to the Wal-Mart deli, if you want to be a silly sausage about it). I don't think this is ideal, though I realize technical limitations prevent the use of independent sets of footnotes. I would suggest integrating the trade info into the table itself, as it is of considerable interest even to the casual reader. This could be done by adding a small note next to the name of each drafted player.

Another option would be to add a "Notes" column at the far right, allowing us to include a brief summary (1-3 sentences, -ish) of the overall effect of each of Orlando's selections. Information like what already exists in the lead for the franchise players (Anderson, Shaq, Howard) could be added/moved to the table. I would be willing to help with this if it doesn't sound stylistically absurd. There are no "obvious flaws" right now but I do see further potential for this and similar pages. — CharlotteWebb 15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the notes similar to what I did in the 2003 NBA Draft and 2004 NBA Draft pages. Whenever there are more than five footnotes, it's very hard to separate notes from sources. Adding another column would make the table congested and hard to read, that's just my opinion, of course.--Crzycheetah 20:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Although an image of a player in a game would be nice. Also, I don't really like the combination of colours in the table header, would it be possible to change it to the normal colours (or better colouring)? Also is it necessary to have "[Year] draft" in every row? Wouldn't it be easier to switch the column title to "draft year" then just list the years? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I can't find an image of these players with the Orlando jersey on. I switched the colors and changed silver to white. I dropped the word "draft" from the rows, but didn't change the title because "draft year" would widen the column. --Crzycheetah 05:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 07:02, 6 April 2008.

---

List of Rental Magica episodes

This is a list of episodes of the Rental Magica anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya episodes, List of Kaze no Stigma episodes, and List of Gunslinger Girl episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Sorry I can't do a really thorough job right now but a quick skim revealed a few MOS issues...

• Image caption in the lead is a fragment so remove the full stop.
• Check WP:CITE, this sentence "... on December 21, 2007,[5], January 25, 2008.[6], February 22, 2008,[7]..." seems to have gone placement/punctuation crazy in the middle!
• Avoid links in the bold part of the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.

I'll check the synopses later, but a quick read didn't pick out anything significant. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support - good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can "produced by the Japanese animation studio ZEXCS and Victor Entertainment, which produced the animation and music respectively." be reworded?

• Done.

• It's only March 24 now, so how is it known that the last episode has/will be shown on the other channels mentioned?

• I see nothing to show that they won't air then.

• I don't know if it's covered by WP:FUTURE though.

• *Shrug* The statement as it stands is true - the episodes do air later on those networks and have so far.

• Are Japanese episode lists usually sortable?

• No, the only reason for them being sortable is the nonlinear airing order. It's supposed to be an oddball feature for this particular anime.

• Why is the Title and airdate column sub divided?

• It's how the {{Japanese episode list}} and {{S-Japanese episode list}} templates function.

• "the first episode broadcasted is the seventh episode chronologically." Is that chronological to the storyline, or when it was produced? If it's the latter, I'd actually say "produced".

• It's the former.

That's it for now -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:57, 25 March, 2008 02:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Please let me know if there's anything else to be addressed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think there is. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:44, 25 March, 2008

Support. Good list, meets criteria and Wiki guidelines/policies. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:28, 27 March, 2008

• Support Looks good! Gary King (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support It's nice to see you back Sephiroth BCR. The "B" and "C" columns threw me off at first, but it's nice to see a sortable list of episodes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Finishing my third featured topic and a handful of GAs was a bit time-consuming. :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: what's the source for the episodes chronological airing, and information available as to why it is being seemingly aired out of order? What order are they put in on the DVDs. Not sure I like the sortable look, but the explanation for it seems reasonable. Collectonian (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Source two is for both sentences. DVDs are by broadcast order. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 07:02, 6 April 2008.

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero

Self-nomination - Looking at the standards and criteria for FLs, I feel this list is appropriate for one; I've had a peer review done that suggests that this is also the case, implementing the changes suggested from that. --MASEM 02:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A reference is needed for the sentence "Guitar Hero's gameplay features...."
• References are needed for the sentences in the prose of "Main setlist" and "Bonus songs" section
• Is there any information anywhere on the number of key presses each song has on the various levels?
• While the page itself is good, I can't help but feel it needs some "va-va-voom", though I can't think of anything specific. ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:18, 25 March, 2008

First two I can get. When you say "number of key presses each song has" are you talking the total number of notes within each song? This is not standard information, and even Gamefaqs lacks it; also, this points to Drewcifer's comment below that there's a certain "fan" approach that this would add. As for the fourth point, the only thing I was trying to add was a screenshot of the song select list to give an idea of how it's presented, but I can't find one for that. --MASEM 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside of points 3 and 4, the references have been addressed. --MASEM 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I realized at least some "voom" that can be added, by including Commons pics for some artists (as long as there's a relevant factoid that connects them more than just being in the game). Here, for example, one can comment that Zack Wylde of Black Label Society requested they have a song in the game (& documented), alongside a commons picture of Zack; in anticipation for GH2's list, I can similarly state that Buckethead wrote Jordan for the game, alongside a commons picture of the player. As long as I'm pulling from Commons, a few pictures of this type does help to break the page a bit. --MASEM 23:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments I was hoping to see one of these GH lists here some day. Overall the list looks good, I do however have a few suggestions. First, I would urge you to take into consideration the other two lists for GH2 and GH3, and find some sort of format that suits them all, before settling one here that doesn't work in the others. This is more of a meta-suggestion, but it would be awkward to have three basically similar lists that are all formatted completely differently, as they are now. Second, I think the list is organized a little bit from the fan's perspective, rather than from the perspective of a reader trying to learn more about the game. What I mean by this is mainly the division of the list into sections per game section. The average reader would be unaware of these divisions, and to me their importance to the list seems somewhat minor. Additionally, it doesn't allow one to see/sort a list of all the songs in one table. Usually you would want to split up a list by the type of item being listed (in this case dividing it up into main songs, downloadable/bonus songs, and miscellaneous songs), but further dividing it up based on the progression within the game seems unneccessary. As a compromise, I would suggest putting them all into a single table, and adding a third column for the section of the game. That way, we can still sort by the order they are presented in the game, but we can also order all of the songs by artist and song title too. Lastly, I've only played GH3, but does GH1 mention the year of the songs? That might be a good column to add. Drewcifer (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

GH1 does not include year information within the game; thus any inclusion is border OR. However, I do agree that I can make a table, keeping the tier and orders appropriately, which should be able to extend to the other games. I am trying to think ahead, and this may be an issue if/when we bring List of songs in Rock Band to FLC, because now there's 5 tiers to consider, which the current page has. However, I do plan to use the input here to bring GH2/GH3's lists to the same level. --MASEM 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made the article into one table, which I think works fine (sorting on table using hidden fields to keep the order). I can see this working for the other games in the series. --MASEM 14:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Great, looks good. I have a few more minor suggestions: the lead should have a bolded introduction. An external links section would be nice. The citations need a bit of cleanup. Full attribution should be given across the board. Also check for publisher values that link to disambiguation pages. References 4, 5, 6, and 10 aren't references, their notes. They should be in their own section or at the bottom of the section they apply to. See Christopher Walken filmography for an example. Drewcifer (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

These details should be corrected. --MASEM 15:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The references still need some polishing (some still link to disambiguation pages). Also, Forums aren't considered reliable sources, so that source needs to be replaced. Drewcifer (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's where I have a problem: there's no source for the "Graveyard Shift" song that isn't a forum and/or of less reputation (eg youtube). Arguable, I can point to score tables at ScoreHero that says the song is present, but not even Gamefaqs lists the song. Any suggestions here? --MASEM 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can empathize with your dilemma, but unfortunately a Forum can't be considered a good source. In fact I'm not even sure if ScoreHero or Andrewbuch.com would be considered reliable sources either. Try and find some info on IGN or something like that. Unfortunately, this is a deal breaker for me, so I hope you can figure something out. Drewcifer (talk) 06:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the question is, I'm trying to think what can be done here. There's two issues; first is that the "Graveyard Shift" song is by some person is only supported by a forum post; that "fact" can be removed because that's the only source I can find for it. This still leaves the demonstration of the existance of the two "hidden" songs; their existance is shown through many many fourm posts and blogs and a couple cheat code lists that include the appropriate code to enter, but no major site mentions them (there's a post at Kotaku that basically ends up back at Andrewbuch.com). It seems poor to deny these exist, nor (after removing the authorship for the second track) is it a dubious claim. --MASEM 13:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a good solution for you. But if the Graveyard Shift track was an unofficial track (which it sounds like it was), it probably shouldn't be included anyways. Otherwise, try and find some additional/alternate sources. Drewcifer (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few more sources, not the most reliable sources in the world, I don't know if that will help. There is a printed source (the published book of GameShark codes) as well that I'm trying to see if someone has already, but that's likely the best source in terms of reliability. If these fail, would moving information to a footnote be appropriate, or that still the same situation? --MASEM 15:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Hope to see more GH lists here soon. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost forgot! I have one more suggestion. I mentioned this earlier, but the more I think about it the more I think it's a good idea: I think a year column should be included. It's not OR, it's an undeniable fact what year a song came out, and it would be pretty easy to find out (just go to the songs article). I think that would be good because you could sort by year, and therefore see what songs are used from what era. Make sense? Also, the widths of similar columns in various tables should ideally be kept consistent. Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Column widths have been set, and I found that all but 3 songs had year credits in the manual, so yea, I don't feel its that much OR (only one song I had to search outside of WP for the year info). --MASEM 13:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Lastly, I'd recommended moving the year column to the far left, to echo just about every other music-list (namely discographies). Drewcifer (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, do you think some rowspan would look good on the table? Also, how will that affect sorting? gren グレン 14:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Messes it up badly. User:Masem/ghrowspan for an example. I think the advise of focusing less on the order and more on just what songs are there is better. --MASEM 15:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support List looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Although I have some concerns about the notability of the topic, the page is very well formatted. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 07:02, 6 April 2008.

---

List of Seinfeld episodes

I believe the list has finally reached a point that it's well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Information that needs to be cited is.Gman124 (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: We have decided on consensus that there can be no non-free/fair-use media on lists. Please remove those (completely unnecessary anyway) logos from the article immediately. I'd even say logos like those in no way satisfy fair-use criterion on Wikipedia and should be deleted. The lead is too stubby; combine the small paragraphs into bigger ones that read well together. Why don't you include the image in this article in the lead? indopug (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria #3 states "It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text and acceptable copyright status. Non-free content (fair use) images must pass the non-free content criteria." That would imply fair use images are allowed. Granted, I didn't see it before you posted this comment so I don't know if there were too many or rationales weren't included, but purely for my own reference, can you point me to where this consensus exists? -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I would go with Indopug's comments as well. Another idea for a suitable image could be the complete series boxset, although you have to remember to include the fair use rationale. ISD (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I think that this article is now of FL status. I made a minor edit in the introduction, but that's about it. ISD (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the logos. Gman124 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments-The lead needs more sourcing, also is note 28 really necessary, to me thats trivial.TrUCo-X 16:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

added some more references to the lead and removed the unnecessary reference. Gman124 (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Ok, good. But also, are references 32-33 necessary as well?TrUCo-X 21:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

removed those two notes. Gman124 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Matthew

• Per WP:LEAD, there should be no wikilinking. Move the link to the next use of "Seinfeld".
• The bolding of "Seinfeld" should also be itallicised.
• "Seinfeld was a 'show about nothing,' similar to the self-parodying 'show within a show' of Season 4 episodes "The Pilot, Part 1" and "Part 2"." — "Show about nothing" needs a reference as it's a quote. Further explaination of this and "show within a show" is also needed. I don't think Season needs capitalising either.
• Is there a reference for The Seinfeld Chronicles?

 DoneGman124 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that "it was soon picked up for a full season order" needs referencing
  •  Done expanded this episode a bit and added ref. Gman124 (talk) 23:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The first season is the considered smallest sitcom order in television history" — I would double-check that. Many shows in the UK for example have only 5 or 6 episodes per season (series in British English)
• I don't know if it's yet another IE7 issue, but "Production code" in the table headers isn't centered like the others are.
  • The "Production Code" header is already centers it's just because of the citation it looks it's not, i think the citation is counted in centering the headers. Gman124 (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• If the cast and crew credit "The Kiss Hello" as the 100th episode, I'd make the table show that by removing the "Highlights Shows". To me, anyway, they seem like they belong in a separate "Special episodes" section after season 9, along with "The Clip Show, Part 1"
  • On that note, where do these episodes exist in DVD releases and in syndication reruns?

on the Seinfeld site it says that The Clip show is in Discs 3 or 4 in season 9 see here, however the season six episode Highlights show is also named the clip show on season six dvd see here Gman124 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• The plot summaries vary in length from one sentence to 6 or 7. Either some of the larger ones should be reduced, or the shorter ones expanded, or both.
•  Done the summaries were removed and moved to season pages. Gman124 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• The following contractions exist: doesn't, doesn't, isn't, can't, doesn't, can't, doesn't, wasn't, don't, doesn't, doesn't, doesn't, isn't, can't, if these are outside of quotations or episode titles, they should be expanded.
• Avoid using Amazon as a reference as it's a sales site. TVShowsOnDVD.com is good for US release information. As for Region 2 or 4, try to find maybe old magazine or newspaper articles or reviews giving a release date.
• TV.com isn't a reliable source for production codes as that information is edited by anybody just like Wikipedia. (Usually production codes appear on the last frame of closing credits)
  •  Done replaces tv.com reference with epguide.com. Gman124 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Use {{main}} or {{see also}} and link to each season article.

 Done added {{main}} and link to each season article. Gman124 (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• On that note, it might be better to move the episode summaries to those article pages, and recreate this page to look more like List of Lost episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, and List of Smallville episodes, especially considering the size of it.
  •  Done removed summaries from the list. Gman124 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now.

• More
• The tables and each column within should have their widths forced so they all align with each other.

 Done fixed width of the tables. Gman124 (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Shading the table headers a similar colour to the DVD boxes would help spark it up a little. Just don't make it look too pretty or like a Skittlepedia.

 Done added colors to header tables just like the other featured articles. Gman124 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• An image might be good too. Is there a massive box set that's been released containing all the seasons, or maybe a screengrab of the intertitles

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done added image. Gman124 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please review my changes. Sometimes actors' names are mentioned and sometimes they are not. Note #32 needs a citation. I do not see the significance of Notes #33 and #34. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

removed those two notes. Gman124 (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Support All concerns addressed. Meets the criteria. One thing though, the column width for the writers is very wide, even wider than the title's itself. It'd look more presentable if the directors' and writers' columns were the same width and <br /> the second writer onto another line. It's not that big of a deal though. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support The table format is a little different from what I'm used to, but I can support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 18:58, 3 April 2008.

---

Carolina Panthers seasons

I added to the lede to conform to other FL articles such as Green Bay Packers seasons. Everything else looks FL ok. PGPirate 14:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. PGPirate 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment,  Done definitely needs more thorough citations. I don't necessarily think everything needs footnotes but at least if sections use a certain source you should make that clear. I am sure some of the other lists have good examples of that. gren グレン 02:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

•  Done There is an empty "Footnotes" section.

In use now.

•  Done Each statement in the lead should be referenced, as they aren't covered later in the list, like they would be in an article.
•  Done Where are the Carolina Panthers based? NC, or SC, for example? City would be good, too.
•  Done "season-by-season", not "season–by–season".
•  Done What are expansion teams?
•  Done "The franchise has two Division Championships and one Conference Championship" - Wins, appearances, or losses?
•  Done "The club has never experience a continuous winning season" → "The club has never experienced consecutive winning seasons"
•  Done "After that hard fought victory": WP:Peacock
•  Done Charlotte, North Carolina → Charlotte, North Carolina
  • I always thought the way do it was {{[[Template:City, State|City, State]]}}.
    • Oh. Well I don't know then. I can't find anything in the MOS, actually, but TRM should be able to give a definitive answer—he seems to know the Manual inside out. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think the MOS deals with this. I'd prefer not to see commas in wikilinks so I'd have kept it as it was.... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
        • reverted back. PGPirate 13:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Done St. Louis, Missouri → St. Louis, Missouri
•  Done Philadelphia, Pennsylvania → Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
•  Done I may have missed it, but what is a Wild Card Berth?

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 07:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1 more

•  Done Is it "franchise", "club" or "team"? Each is used indiscriminately throughout the Lead, and it really should be one or the other. -- Matthew | <span class="plainlinks" talk |Contribs 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I tired to use more than one word to break up the repetitive nature of using one name. I am guessing you want the article to stick to one term? - PGPirate 16:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think two at the most. <rant>I still don't understand American football, and I don't understand why they're a "franchise", when every definition of the term that I know would go against it.</rant> Anyway, "franchise" is the official term, so I would continue to use that, and then I think "team" is used more frequently, colloquially, than "club", which always sounds British to me, so I would remove "club". -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Lose the current season and bullet piont at the top. Buc (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Green Bay Packers seasons, Chicago Bears seasons, etc etc have this; all are FLs.
    • San Diego Chargers seasons Buc (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I still see the current season. Buc (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Per this page, the proper format, in a nutshell, should mirror Chicago Bears seasons. That page has the current 2008 year listed. PGPirate 13:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
          • I see no current season on that format. Buc (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I do not see what you are talking about. PGPirate 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
              • The format page you linked to. Buc (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
                • I am lost to where you see this on the Carolina Panthers article. PGPirate 01:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• What Buc is saying is that since the list starts out with "This is a list of seasons completed by the Carolina Panthers" that the table itself should not have the "2008" row until the Panthers finish the 2008 season. I feel this logic is flawed, as all the team season lists were updated throughout the 2007 season, and going with this logic the 2007 season should not have been added until the season ended. Also, it seems pretty bad form if Wikipedia cant stay updated, as our whole selling point here is that we are not a paper encyclopedia and can be updated instantly. With all that said, I changed the lead in Green Bay Packers seasons to reflect this, so that we can stay with precedent and place the next season in the table even though it hasnt been completed. Feel free to make this change if you feel it solves the problem. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I totally agree with everything you said. It's seems silly not to have the current season. However my argument is in fact based on what was told when trying to get San Diego Chargers seasons and Leeds United A.F.C. seasons to FL status. That baically FL should not have to constently updated. Don't agree with it myself but that's the rule. Buc (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Well it boils down to stability. If a team plays forty or fifty games a season then it means a list relating to said team would need to be updated once every, say, five days. That makes the list inherently unstable. And I've heard it all before, the "we promise to keep it up to date" line. It never works out that way. Making the list constrained to the last completed season makes it solid, factually correct and doesn't rely on weekly updates. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I totally understand with football seasons, as I am a Gunner but still seem to miss some of the matches (granted Im in America) due to the fact that there are so many cups and tournaments that the club participates in. But with American football seasons, there is only 17 weeks in a season, with each team playing 16 games and only playing on 4 different days the whole season (90% of these games are played on Sunday, with one game on Monday, and later in the season a few games on thursday and saturday). Also, as in Green Bay Packers seasons, there is a warning at the top stating what day the list is updated to. That said, if consensus is to remove it (and consensus should be reached at WP:NFL, not here) then so be it. Also, the argument that a FL should not be updated constantly is faulty, as List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is being constantly updated. I actually believe that WP:LGBT has a collaboration going to keep the list updated, but I could be wrong. I feel that readers going to a season list want to see every season, including the current season. A list is made for ease of search-ability for the readers, and I believe that making the list complete for the reader trumps all concerns about stability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose right now...

•  Done Don't link in the bold lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title
  • It is done in Chicago Bears seasons, which is the "template"...
•  Done (NFL) should be placed after the first use of the expanded version.
•  Done Remove "present" season, stick with completed seasons per all the discussion above.
•  Done "The franchise..." vs "Their best..." - discretionary plurals? Be consistent.
  • Good Catch
•  Done 9–yard, just check you're using a hyphen here, not an en-dash or otherwise.
  • Curious to why an endash is not needed.
    • Manual of style says hyphen in this case. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I thought endash was used, guess I need to read WP:DASH again.
•  Done "The teams’ worse season" - worst season? And does team=franchise?
  • I did not change anything when it comes to "team" and "franchise". I am going on the assumtion that people will know its the same. Should it change?
•  Done Citations should order numerically, so not [4][2].
•  Done Why small font in the key? It adds nothing and prejudices against people with visualisation difficulties.
•  Done "Postseason Results" - "results" will be fine, not a proper noun and we're not talking German!
  • Whats wrong with Germans?:)
• Why is season column bold?
  • I do not see where to make it un-bold. The coding isnt the normal ''' '''
    • Yes, that's very odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Should anything else be done?
•  Done Awards should be specifically referenced.
•  Done You have a 2008 season row (which should go) but your totals only add accumulate to end of 2007. If you keep the 2008 season, the totals will be confusing. If you don't add in the 2008 season to the totals, what's the point in it being there?
  • Just a note (and I may be misunderstanding you here), the 2008 NFL season has not started yet, thus there are no totals for that season. The season doesnt start til like August.
    • Yeah, so why have the row at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Chicago Bears seasons has is, which again is the template.....
        • See below, the template you're all working to is full of errors. It needs a lot of work. And regardless of that template, what's the logic of an empty row for four months? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
•  Done Why are some but not all of the totals in italics?
•  Done Ref [2] needs date sorting out.
• There's a slow migration to a single References section with Specific and General as sub-headings. Worth considering.

A few things to check out. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• This nom says to me that we need to find some consistency in the NFL season articles, both with the current season and a few other things. Buc (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would concur. If you have a style guide, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Team seasons list format, at least make sure it meets WP:MOS - currently there are problems with that example with WP:CITE, WP:DASH, inconsistent terminology, overcapitalisation, blank cells and so on. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  •  Done In the opening sentence you have "list of seasons completed", but in the table you include 2008. If the bolded lead is correct, then 2008 should be omitted, because it is not a completed season; however, if your style guide expects 2008 to be included, then the opening sentence should be changed.
  •  Done "...from 1995 to 2007" would be one less thing to update each year if you said "from 1995 to the end of the latest completed season".
  •  Done "The Panthers have played over two hundred games in a total of 13 seasons". You need an "as of" date, perhaps "As of the end of the 2007 season..."
  •  Done "every winning season has precluded and proceeded a losing season". Neither precluded nor proceeded mean what you're using them to mean; suggest something like "has both followed and preceded".
  • The bold season column is because it's preceded by a ! in the table markup. If you want it unbolded, replace the ! with a pipe | character, though I'd leave it, personally.
    • I like the bolded as well, but The Rambling Man advised again it....
      • Actually, I simply asked why it was bold, I didn't advise either way. Usually bold text is significant in some sense. I just didn't see the significance and so wondered if I had missed something... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Oopes, misread it. :) PGPirate 17:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with the reviewers above that there's a problem with the season list style guide running counter to WP:MOS, though you're right to choose WP:MOS where there's a conflict. Struway2 (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

More comments

•  Done Move the "For complete team history..." to a See also section
•  Done Still some references missing for my liking: The bit re Superbowl
•  Done "best year was the 2003 NFL season. The team won the NFC South division for the first time in franchise history. The Panthers had five wins compared to one loss in division play." I'm guessing the second 2 sentences relate to the 2003 season, but they're stubby.
•  Done Actually, that entire para seems full of stubby sentences, and is also a little WP:Trivial for my liking
•  Done Wikilink "Wild Card Berth" or otherwise explain
•  Done Per WP:CS#Further reading/External links those listed under "References" should be under a "Further reading" section
•  Done JT-SW.com appears to be a WP:FANSITE and the hickosports link doesn't work

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:30, 27 March, 2008

•  Done Comment: Is there a reason that the table of contents is down at the bottom? I'd throw it back up at the top, but I'm not exactly sure how that's done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's because the table has no section header, so appears as part of the Lead. Either a section header needs adding, or at worst, the code "__FORCETOC__". -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 14:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Added section head to force TOC to appear right after the lede - PGPirate 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Support Nominator has addressed all the comments and concerns to make this far better than it was when first nominated. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support, I still don't see what the source for the "official records of the NFL" is (I suppose the links to NFL.com below?) but it seems neither of the other featured lists mentioned in this article make it any more explicit. Beyond that great improvement. gren グレン 13:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support (assuming you deal with the references/further reading comment below.) I'm impressed by the efforts made by the nominator to get this list to comply with the FL criteria.

There's still a bit of confusion about references/further reading; what WP:CS#Further reading/External links actually says, is that

"All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it [under Further reading or External links as appropriate] as well."

So, if any of the Further reading links are used as sources for your article, those links must go in a References section; if you think any would be of interest to the general reader, then leave those ones in the Further reading section as well. And it would be helpful to specifically reference "official NFL records" (just above the table) to the NFL standings link, if that's where the data comes from.

good work, well done. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the header from Futher reading to References. Also

NFL.com - History - Yearly Standings. National Football League Official website. Retrieved on January 28, 2008.

references the official NFL records. Does this need to be inline cited, or is this OK? Thanks, PGPirate 17:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably would inline-cite it, if only to avoid confusion as shown by gren above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Support but please revise your "template" for these season lists so it complies with WP:MOS or we'll be going over old ground again and again. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 18:58, 3 April 2008.

---

PFA Players' Player of the Year

The bare bones of this list was present but I have knocked the table into shape, added references, images, etc. Let me know what you think anyway...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - pretty much a support. The only thing I would suggest is changing Association to association in "Voting takes place every spring, with each member of the Association". Peanut4 (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Done it :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, though I think TRM's suggestion for the columns is also a good one. Peanut4 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment as per Peanut4, almost support but would like more than one example of a player saying how prestigious the award is (you say players and there's only Teddy's reference) and I'd also like the Winner by ... tables aligned, columnwise. Otherwise, gets my support. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Will have a look for a second quote. Could you clarify what you mean by "the Winner by ... tables aligned, columnwise".....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Think I've got it now....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
      • ...........and I found a second quote too :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - you've dealt with my niggling concerns. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Support with comments

• Is "adjudged" a real word?
  • I think so! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Since the award is a personal one, rather than team related, I'd rather see the Nationality table before the club table
• There's no need to sort the "Also won" table, because 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2006–07 can only be sorted by the first entry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:06, 25 March, 2008
  • I have moved the table around and made the "also won" column unsortable, per your suggestions. And yes, adjudged is indeed a real word ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Link needed for London, but that's all I can do to comment on. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Have wikilinked London :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great work, well done NapHit (talk) 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support though my comment on the Winners by... tables at your other FLCs would apply here as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • actioned ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 29 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.

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 22:04, 1 April 2008.

---

List of Chicago Bears head coaches

This is a very nicely done list. Well referenced. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Avoid links in the emboldened lead sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  • Images should not be forced to user-defined widths. As a preference, use the upright paramter for portraits. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for more information on this.
  • "Chicago Staleys (1921) and Decatur Staleys (1919–1920) " Why in reverse chronological order?
  • "APFA " should go in parentheses after the first use of its expanded phrase.
  • Ref [2] should be moved to immediately after the comma after the year Anderson and Johnsos won the title.
  • " ... and wins, and Ralph ..." more like "and wins; Ralph..." or "and wins, while Ralph..."
  • " (with at least one full season coached)" presumably this relates to the "leads all coaches in " statement, but where it's placed in the sentence makes it unclear.
  • "Statistics correct as of December 30, 2007, after the end of the 2007 NFL season." don't need to make this small. It doesn't help readers who have difficulty reading small text and doesn't enhance the article at all. (and I know this is used elsewhere, but elsewhere it's also wrong!)
  • What does the em-dash represent in the # column?
  • I thought the lead said the team played as Chicago Staleys? Was it not for a whole season?
  • Caption in the baseball card image is a fragment so shouldn't have a full stop at the end.
  • I assume the coach awards are referenced somewhere general? It's worth referencing them specifically.
• That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Notes and references should be in seperate sections, see here for an example. This allows for sourcing of footnotes. The existing "references" section needs to be relabled "General references". VegaDark (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done (Phew!) I think I got everything. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• As with the other similar lists up for nom, JT-SW.com and hickoksports.com worry me as WP:FANSITE, and WP:RS.
  • I'd remove these from the article completely, rather than put them in an external links section. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done I didn't see that they were in the external links section. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Those listed under "References" should be under "Further Reading" or "External links", per WP:CS
• Make the "Satistics correct as of..." normal size
• Why "–" instead of a zero?

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:11, 27 March, 2008

Support Another good list. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support (I had to resize the images per WP:MOS#Images so I hope that doesn't upset you too much) good work... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nom. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:04, 1 April 2008.

---

List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games

Following the successful promotion of List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games to featured list status a few days ago, I nominate the related Winter Games list. I have already incorporated into this list the feedback comments I received from the Summer Games list during it's FLC process, so I think this is in pretty good shape already. I'd like to have a second photo, but I can't find any that are public domain. I have found a couple of non-free images from the 2006 Games on Flickr, but I am unsure that they would qualify under WP:FUC for this list. Perhaps I'll upload to get some comments and we can always delete it if necessary. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "but were in retrospect designated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as the I Olympic Winter Games" Is the "I" misplaced, or is the roman numeral? Also, it needs a reference.

  It's a roman numeral; should I change the formatting to make that clearer? I will add a reference.

• It's just that on my monitor the I appears at the end of a line, and the rest on a new line, so it kinda confused me. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Added reference and put   after the "I" to prevent linebreak.

• I know it's usually hard to find references for something that's non-existant, but "These would be the last Winter Games for twelve years, as the planned 1940 Games and 1944 Games were cancelled due to World War II." should be referenceable

  Yup, will do. Actually shouldn't be hard to find.

   Done

• The Summer Games list's history is separated into "pre war", "inter war", "post war and Cold War" and "Recent". Can this be done here?

  Hmm, maybe. There is no pre-war period for the Winter Games, and the biggest reason why I highlighted the Cold War era in the summer article was because of the boycotts, which didn't happen for the Winter Games, so I didn't think it needed to be highlighted as such. I can still see what I can do about breaking up the history into subsections, though.

   Done Expanded history section by also including discussion of winter sports at summer Games prior to 1924, and broke into three sub-sections.

• In the Summer list, it looks like Rep Of China became Taipei, and Taipei became China, but in this list, they compete at the same games.

  Well maybe I need to do something about the summer list! The intention is to display the following sequence: China first competed at the 1932 Summer Games, and that Olympic Committee ended up moving headquarters to Taiwan along with the rest of the nationalist government after the civil war. That NOC competed as the "Republic of China" in the 50s and 60s but it wasn't until after a 1979 resolution that the PRC and the ROC could both compete at the Games, and only if ROC/Taiwan was designated "Chinese Taipei". Now, with respect to the Winter Games specifically, they didn't compete for the first time until 1972, so there is clear continuity between the 1972–1976 appearances as ROC and the 1984– appearances as Chinese Taipei. Every instance was a delegation of Taiwanese competitors only, which is not the case on the summer list, which is why that list is a bit more complicated. So... what should I do to this list to make it clearer? I don't want to introduce the complexity of the summer list as it is not necessary here.

• I don't think anything, if that's the case. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Make sure the same notes, when applicable, are being used in both lists

  Will do.

   Done

• What does the silver shading mean (like that in ROC)? I would add it to the Key.

  Ah, yeah, that colour is supposed to indicate periods of time when the nation didn't exist in that form, but was represented by another NOC (also used for Soviet Union for 1994-, for example). I will add to the legend.

   Done

That's all -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 21:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I will get to work on that in the next day or two. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all but the China reference. I will think about how to make that clearer. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that this statement, "The Olympic calendar was adjusted so that Winter Games would be held in the second year following the Summer Games, so that they alternate every two years." needs a reference and a date when exactly the calendar was adjusted. Why did they want both Olympics to alternate every two years? This statement also needs to be mentioned in the lead.--Crzycheetah 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

   Done except for the lead. What do you think needs to be said there? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• It need to be mentioned in the lead that the interval between two olympics is 4 years with the only exception in 1994 due to the calendar adjustment.--Crzycheetah 22:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

  How about now? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Supportt That's what I wanted.--Crzycheetah 22:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. At the level of the already featured Summer counterpart list. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Support Very nice list, just as good as the Summer one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted 22:04, 1 April 2008.

---

Castles in Greater Manchester

I believe this list satisfies all the FL criteria. Thanks in advance for any comments. Nev1 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

• Oppose It's good to see those castles in separate sections, but they're short. Dunham Castle, Rochdale Castle, and Ullerwood Castle sections are too short. If there is no info to expand them further, then it will be better if a table is used instead.--Crzycheetah 23:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • When I proposed this article for FL I was aware that it might get opposed because some of the sections are admittedly short, however several have since been expanded although I admit that Ullerwood Castle still poses a problem. I disagree that a table would be more appropriate than the current prose format, but perhaps you would care to to explain why you think a table is better in this instance. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The sections still remain short. Having a table is better than short sections. As I already said above, if there is no information available to expand those sections, then a table would be better. If you could expand those sections, then a table is not necessary. I hope it's clear enough for you.--Crzycheetah 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Perfectly clear, I'm just not convinced that you're right; even with some short sections, I don't think a table would be better. I think the reader would be better served by the article's current form rather than a table which may miss out some information; not everything here can be easily tabulated. Nev1 (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
        • All right, if you don't want a table, forget it. It was just a suggestion anyway.--Crzycheetah 02:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • • It actually wouldn't be as troublesome as you might think. Here's something I knocked up in only five minutes (which explains the basicness of it).
            • I'm beginning to be convinced that a table might work, I'll get started on tabulating it and see how it works. Nev1 (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I've implemented the table, looks like I was wrong it can be made to work without losing information. Sadly I couldn't find room for one image, any ideas how or if it could be incorporated? Nev1 (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Un-indent) You could just do a gallery. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:18, 29 March, 2008
  • Good point, I should have thought of that myself. I tried it out but it looked rather sorry with only two pictures, so I'll leave it as it is. Nev1 (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• What is a "motte-and-bailey"? I know it's linked, but a short description wouldn't hurt. Also, though you say a ringwork is essentially just a "bailey", more of a description here would be good too.
  • A brief description has been included in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Four motte-and-baileys" → "Four are motte-and-baileys"
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• "It is unclear what form Manchester and Ullerwood Castles were constructed in, although from their date motte-and-bailey is most likely." Needs citation
  • Richerman found a source saying Manchester Castle was a fortified manor house, a reference has been added regarding Ullerwood. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Why is it "Scheduled ancient monuments", when it links to "Scheduled Monuments in Greater Manchester" (in the lead)? Also, what is a scheduled monument?
  • Scheduled Ancient Monuments can also be referred to as Scheduled Monuments and are defined by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. An explanation has been added. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Does reference 5 in the lead reference the fact that they were all motte-and-baileys, or the second half of the sentence regarding the speed and ease these types can be erected?
  • It refers to the speed with which they could be built. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• Who is the baron referring to in "the baron's rebellion against Henry II"?
  • Sorry, my bad grammar. It should have been "barons' rebellion". A wiki link has been added to the lead to further explain it. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Can Hamon de Massey, Geoffrey de Constentyn, William de Neville, Sir Thomas Pilkington be wikilinked?
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• "notably the unusual ringwork of Buckton Castle" If it's notable, there should be a reference. And without it, "unusual" is WP:POV
  • Ok, this has been removed, it was a bit pointless anyway. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• After the grid reference for Buckton castle there's a big gap before the closing parentheses, though this may be a Wikipedia issue
  • I've moved the ref that applies for clarity. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reference needed for "It was constructed with a stone wall, surrounded by a ditch 10 metres (33 ft) wide and 6 metres (20 ft) deep and covers an area of 1,250 square metres (0.31 acres)."
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• is "razed" spelled correctly?
  • Yes, as in "razed to the ground". Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Scheduled ancient monument" again links to Scheduled Monument, and only needs linking one time.
  • Removed overlinking. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Dunham Castle, Manchester Castle, Rochdale Castle, Stockport Castle, and Ullerwood Castle especially, all need expanding.
  • These have been expanded somewhat, although the biggest problem is Ullerwood, for which there seems to be a derth of information. Nev1 (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
• I also dislike the use of the conjectures "probably", "could be" "maybe" etc. Unless that's what the references say, and then I could possibly accept it.
  • I'm no fan of uncertainty either, but that seems to be the way it is with castles. Such conditions are used in the sources. Nev1 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now, but I'll be happy to look over it again once these are addressed. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 01:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

More

• For an article on castles in Greater Manchester, I'm surprised Manchester Castle has no article. It strikes me as absolutely odd to have that one as a red link.
  • Article created. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Ringworks were essentially just baileys." sounds colloquial
  • Rewritten, it's definately more technical now. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• The section for Ullerwood Castle is still small. There's more on its article page ;)
  • A bit more, I've mentioned the confusion with Watch Hill. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Since the section for Ullerwood Castle is so small, move "It is unclear what form of castle Ullerwood was, although from its date and link with the castles of Dunham and Watch Hill, a motte-and-bailey is most likely.[5]" from the lead to that section.
  • I've found a decent source which lists the castle as a shell keep. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• From that, what links with those castles?
  • No longer important (see previous point). But for the record it's that they were built for the same person at the same time, that should have been mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Consider moving the grid references for each castle from the middle of a sentence to immediately following the name of the castle
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Does Ullerwood Castle still belong to Hamon de Massey?
  • Tense sorted. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Remove the over-linking of motte-and-bailey, motte, ringwork etc as they're all linked to in the Lead
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• "tower or keep" → "keep or tower"
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The castle is first referred to in 1360, by which time it was ruinous.[16] It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument.[12] The site has been damaged by 18th-century treasure hunters." are fragmented sentences.
  • Rewritten slightly, hopefully sorted. Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• So too is "The castle may have replaced an earlier house on the site, surrounded by a moat.[19] Bury Castle was razed to the ground after the Wars of the Roses."
  • Reorganised, it should have a better flow now. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Check each section for stubby sentences. There seems to be a lot.
  • Some have been expanded or merged, does more need to be done? Nev1 (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• "The castle was probably a motte and may not have had a bailey." needs a cite.
  • Done, I moved the reference to the appropriate place. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Ringworks are an uncommon form of fortification – though contemporary with motte-and-baileys – a ringwork may have been built rather than a motte-and-bailey because the soil was too thin to provide a proper motte.[14]" Should probably be moved to the Lead section, as it describes more than just Buckton Castle.
  • Moved to lead as suggested. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• If "The castle was probably a motte", the I would change, "The motte is 24 metres (79 ft) in diameter" to "the castle is 24 meters..."
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Check for past and present tense usage in all sections, for example: "Dunham Castle is", "The castle was probably a motte", "The motte is 24 metres (79 ft) in diameter"
  • The changes in tense make my head spin, it should be better now, but I can't guarantee it's perfect. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• "Manchester Castle was first referred to in 1184 and is a fortified manor house;" Reference for date is needed
  • Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's all for this round. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 00:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Couple more

• "It was protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but was delisted" uses too many "was"es. It sounds a little better as, "It was protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but subsequently delisted", but have a play around.
  • I've had a go 'It used to be protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but was delisted as it may be a "natural hummock of glacial sand".' Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ref [23] for Dunham suggests it could simply be a natural mound of glacial sand, and not a castle. I think this disambiguity needs to be mentioned.
  • Added. Nev1 (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
• If any other references suggest any other sites may be something else completely, I would note that too.
  • I've double checked, and this doesn't apply to any of the other castles mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthew | talk | Contribs 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Castle	Location	Type	Earliest known date	Scheduled Monument	Notes
Buckton Castle	Buckton Hill, Carbrook grid reference SD98920162	Ringwork	1360	Yes	Constructed with a stone wall, surrounded by a ditch 10 metres (33 ft) wide and 6 metres (20 ft) deep and covers an area of 1,250 square metres (0.31 acres).
Dunham	Dunham Massey grid reference SJ73428742	Motte	1173	No	24 metres (79 ft) in diameter and survives 2 metres (6.6 ft) in height. The castle was still standing in 1323 and fell into disuse between than and 1362. Was protected as a Scheduled Ancient Monument, but subsequently delisted.

Greatly improved but as Crzycheetah said, with the lack of information it still lends itself to a table format. Just waiting on other reviewers' comments to see if they catch anything major that I missed and how they're handled before I support or oppose. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:01, 28 March, 2008

I don't think there's anything more to do to this, now. Therefore I support. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Support I really like it now. There two nitpicks, though. First, I think there should be a section heading for the table. Second, there are one (or two) reference(s) used in each row, maybe just one (or two) footnote(s) is enough? The list itself looks great!--Crzycheetah 02:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks really good. I only have one suggestions: an external links section of some sort would be nice. Other than that, great work! Drewcifer (talk) 17:07, 30 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.