Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:19, 30 August 2008 [1].

---

List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners of Jesus College, Oxford

After a helpful Peer Review, another Jesus College list for your perusal, which I believe meets FL requirements of quality and comprehensiveness. Bencherlite^Talk 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I peer reviewed this list carefully and believe it to be exceptionally well researched and sourced. The nominator has also created a series of articles around various figures on the list, making the information more valuable. High-quality work. qp10qp (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work, good choice of images. - PKM (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Cr. 6—Notes column all squashed up; please borrow horizontal space from the other columns. Tony (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not specifying the width of the columns, so each takes up a proportional amount of space. On my computer at work (which has a small monitor), the ref numbers are one above each other (rather than side by side), the "position" column is no wider than the word "commissioner" and the names take up two lines on many occasions; so I'm not sure where this extra space for the notes column is meant to come from! Can I ask you to play around with the table layout and report back on what works best? I'm not avoiding the issue, but I don't have this problem even on my small work monitor, and you are the first person to raise this as an issue. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 06:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's OK, but it's disappointing that in the first table, the notes column does cause huge vertical redundancy in the other columns unless you widen the window a lot. The subsequent tables are fine. I don't know how to "play around" with the widths. Tony (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent piece of work, but please change Welsh clergyman to Welsh clergyman. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

{{done}}. Thanks for the catch. Bencherlite^Talk 15:38, 28 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 29 August 2008 [2].

---

List of Sendai International Music Competition winners

previous FLC (04:46, 12 June 2008)

This list failed last time, since then, I've split the article up into List of Sendai International Music Competition winners and Sendai International Music Competition, for the list of winners and an explanation of what the competition actually is. This time around, I think it satisfies the FLC criteria. I'll be willing to address any comments in the FLC asap. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments
  • I don't like this sentence. In the second tournament in 2004, the competition became more "international" with winners from Asia, Europe and North America finished in the prize winning places. "became more international?" Isn't this already a international tournament? Yes only 2 continent winners were in the early stages but it's still international, reword this in a format that says the same but in a different way. Done
  • Japanese Saeka Matsuyama won the violin part to the final and Xiaotang Tan from China came in first place in the piano category. - violin part to the final? You mean she won that part to go the final? Done - Meant to say "in the final".

--S_RX 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - my comments have been addressed, meets the FL Criteria. Great work by editor(s).S_RX 01:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • " there is no actual winner" - you mean no "overall" winner surely? Done - Changed.
  • "first placed " - hyphenation required I think. Done - Fixed.
  • "highest prize" - what do you mean by highest? Comment - Highest, as in 1st place.
  • Perhaps worth saying in the opening part of the lead that the contest is held every three years. Done - Mentioned in first sentence.
  • General ref has "Sendai International Music Competition" as publisher while the specific refs have "www.simc.jp" but as far as I can tell, they're the same? Done - All changed to Sendai International Music Competition.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.culturalprofiles.net/Visiting%5FArts/Directories/Overview/
    • Well, I can see no reason why this would not be a reliable source, it is not publically edited, and isn't a forum or blog style. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
        • This shows a bit detail about who uses them, and this can also be quite useful. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I can live with that... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to check the non-English language sources.

Support I gave the nominator a little guidance in IRC and made a couple of minor edits to the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:38, 28 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:47, 29 August 2008 [3].

---

List of Good Charlotte awards

previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)

Gary King (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• There's a really big gap between the TOC and the content. Can that be removed?
• Why is http://www.rockonthenet.com a reliable source?
• Do you really need a cite to say that they have released four albums?

naerii 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the gap by cropping the image so the infobox was smaller. I'm inclined to think that rockonthenet.com is reliable as it has been used several times by other newspapers and such, as I mention at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arcade Fire awards to TRM. It's also continued to be used in recent awards lists (not nominated by me), and when I use it, it is supplementing other references, not replacing, as I find it useful, so I don't think that's a problem. I'll leave the reference about the four albums as it's already there and it isn't doing any harm. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.hollywoodupclose.com/news/music/story/tiesto_crowned_king_of_tmf_awards/
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals in the references (current ref 16).

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That reference changed since I last saw it; it was using an Elle magazine website; it now appears to redirect to another site owned by the same company. I've updated the publisher to reflect this; the information on the actual page is the same as it was before, it's just that the site has changed. Gary King (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Perhaps you could expand on "All of the albums have been released with two record labels: Epic Records and Daylight Records" Is one their US label and the other their international label? "with" could be "by", too.
• Could you wikilink the publishers (BBC, Sony BMG, MTV, etc) in the references, please?

Nice otherwise. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Both labels are for the United States. These are done. Gary King (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's all I had. Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:07, 27 August 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 by User:Scorpion0422 00:09, 28 August 2008 [4].

---

Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season

Based off my last FLC, I've done some odd work to it, formatting and copyediting, with the assistance of RattleMan (talk · contribs), who referenced the entire list a few months ago. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well formatted list that is well referenced and has a good lead. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Well formatted, comprehensive prose, meets the FL criteria.S_RX 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support, well formatted comprehensive list. I found no flaws. naerii 12:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• SupportJason Rees (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Comments, is it worth having the records that are contained within the lead referenced? Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "" Subtropical Storm Andrea forms 150 nautical miles (280 km, 175 miles) east of Jacksonville, Florida[1]" - no full stop.
  • Andrea's image caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
  • July relinks UTC and EDT, June didn't. Any reason for this?
  • And Aug 13 links UTC again... why?
  • Official start (Jun 1) sentence isn't linked.
  • Dean's image also has a fragment for a caption.
  • AST isn't linked on its first instance.
  • Depression ten image caption is also a fragment.
  • "forms well out in the open" - what is "well out"? quantify if possible to keep the encyclopedic nature.
  • Noel's image caption.. ditto per above.
  • Official end needs citation as well. (It may be that the lead cites it but for consistency's sake, add it into the timeline).
  • Not directly related but you should consider creating a Category:Meteorology timelines category.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As always, thanks for the comments. Done with everything, including creating that cat. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ace. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment - HURDAT ref missing an access date. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Damn {{Hurdat}}! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I can't see anything else wrong with it. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments' - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Have you moved on from FAC? :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:55, 25 August 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 by User:Scorpion0422 00:09, 28 August 2008 [5].

---

List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni

previous FLC (07:55, 9 August 2008)

Self-resubmittal after correcting the comments from the previous FLC. Thanks very much to all the reviewers. Skeet Shooter (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments that were fixed after the FLC period closed are on the List's talk page:

• Talk:List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni#Address Remaining Comments from Featured List Nomination

Resolved comments from --S_RX 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I feel the key can be made into a table or something like that because the way it is now is sloppy in my eyes.  Done. Converted key into table. Skeet Shooter (talk) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the Alumni for astronauts, periods aren't needed in the notable events column because most of the notes aren't complete sentences and just list missions with now other words.  Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I also agree with Matthew, because there is a great length of references, they should be in a separate column.--S_RX 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• I'd still like to see the references in their own column, rather than in the "notable events" column. Reason being is that they aren't just referencing the events, they're also referencing the person. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent work. I completely support this. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew. I appreciate your review and comments. Likewise to SRX and the earlier reviewers. Skeet Shooter (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent job and great work on responding to the comments, everything looks in top shape and meets the FL criteria, great work by the editor(s).S_RX 13:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, SRX. I do appreciate all the constructive comments and suggestions. Skeet Shooter (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 113 (Everest, F. ) needs a page number

 Not done. My intent was to provide a reference to verify Everest was the subject and co-author of The Fastest Man Alive, so the citation points to the entire book (no page numbers). This approach seems consistent with WP:CITE#Including page numbers, but if there is a another method, please let me know. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

"Page numbers within a book or article are not required when a citation is for a general description of a book or article"

• Same for current refs 135 & 136 (Lopez, D.) and current refs 138, 139, 140, 141 (the Marrett books).

 Not done. Same rationale as above. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen the link checker before - a very useful tool. Thank you for the comments. Skeet Shooter (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The link checker is my friend at FAC. Those rationales work for me... all done! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 24 August 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 by User:Scorpion0422 00:09, 28 August 2008 [6].

---

List of former Football League clubs

I have shaped this list in the mould of List of former Scottish Football League clubs, which has successfully passed the FLC process. The list has undergone a peer review, which brought to attention issues that have since been amended. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Accrington Stanley row should mention that a reformed club under the same name are now playing in the FL. Also the Wimbledon row should mention AFC Wimbledon. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done I've expanded on these clubs. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Then Support per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• When you say "depending on the Conference clubs' ability to meet FA requirements", do you mean the club that has been relegated or clubs within the Conference National? What happens if they don't meet the FA requirements? Are they then not relegated, or are they just kicked out? naerii 16:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done This is referring to the Conference clubs and the club would simply not be relegated. I've tried to clarify this in the article. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, loooks good. naerii 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

• The First Division and Division One are both used choose one and stick with it
  •  Done Changed to First Division. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• The notes should be under a separate heading as seen here
  •  Done Switched to footnotes. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all great work NapHit (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support fantastic work well done NapHit (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts / comments from me:

• The lead doesn't actually discuss the list in much detail, just the history of the Football League. So, for example, do we need to know here that the league was suspended during WWI? Why not add in some information about the list e.g. that all current members of the Premier League were once members of the Football League (not immediately obvious from this list), the number of clubs that are out of business, the club that has fallen the furthest in the pyramid etc.
  •  Done Added some extra information about the list itself in the lead. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Is this a complete list? If so, is there a source for it being a complete list?
  •  Done Soccerbase has reocrd of all the clubs to have played in the Football League - I've added it as a general reference. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    •  Not done where does Soccerbase show that this is a complete list? Bencherlite^Talk 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Nowhere speficially, but their past league tables show which clubs were in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done I've now added a complete list of clubs to have played in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• "Fourth Division, now League Two" – just "League Two" (you've already told us that it used to be the Fourth Division)
  •  Done Changed. I included Fourth Division as for the 2003–04 season this is what the division was known as. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• "face relegation to the Conference" – do you mean that they are relegated, or that they only might be?
  • I'd say it's only a rarity that teams won't be relegated. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Not quite the point I was making; on re-reading, it might be clearer if that sentence was swapped with the previous one, and the point made that that season saw an increase in the number of relegated teams from 1 to 2. Incidentally, is it the 2002/3 season or the 2003/4 season? I assume the former given the contents of the reference, but it could be clearer; similarly with 1987 (1986/7 or 1987/8?)
      •  Done I've clarified which seasons these changes were implemented. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

*Clubs from Wales - I can see a couple of names lower down that are Welsh, but my understanding was that Cardiff and Swansea (and, until last season, Wrexham) were very much the exception to the English-only set up. Is this susceptible of easy clarification?

• • Not sure what you mean. The league may only contain two Welsh clubs, but at the end of the day there are still Welsh clubs in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that the FA governs football in England, the FAW governs football in Wales and there's a different league structure in Wales to England; having said that, it probably requires too much explanation to fit neatly into the lead....
• "depending on the ability of the Conference clubs' pending promotion to meet FA requirements" misuses the possessive apostrophe – how about "although they would not be relegated if the Conference National champions could not be promoted for not meeting FA ground requirements", or something along those lines
  •  Done Had a go at rewording. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Should the "notes" columns be "refs", as it leads to "References", not "Notes"?
  •  Done Indeed - I've changed accordingly. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking good generally, though, and well done for making it sortable (something I was going to suggest had I got round to posting earlier!) Bencherlite^Talk 16:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments updated. Bencherlite^Talk 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The list includes clubs that are current members of the Premier League, who lost their Football League after being admitted, and those which lost their status by other means." The middle bit doesn't make sense.
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk)
• Would it be more helpful with the Soccerbase league table links, to link to each club's last Football League season table? For instance, the Thames F.C. reference links to the current Premier League table, and my instant reaction was that the link was wrong, till I looked further down the page to find the dropdown for league tables including Thames. If you add the seasonid parameter to the url, you could link to 1931/32 Div 3S, their last FL season.
  •  Done Changed links to last season in the Football League. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Would it be clearer if the heading to the current Prem clubs table included the season? either instead of Current or in brackets at the end of the heading.
  •  Done Added current season in parenthesis. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Would it be helpful to add sourced notes of why each club left the FL? presumably most were just relegated or not re-elected.
  • Where would you say these notes should be displayed? Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • In a column of their own; two possibilities
      1. add a narrowish column that just says Relegated/Not re-elected/Resigned/Liquidated/whatever it is, then if it's worth going into more detail, do it in the footnotes section, like you've already done with Leeds City and Maidstone, or if not just add a reference. Relegated clubs would source to the existing Soccerbase ref anyway so for those you wouldn't need another ref.
      2. add a column the same width as the Current status column (make them both 25-30%) and put any detail in the column.
    • If you think either of those would work? While I think of it, you don't really need the word Currently in "Currently playing in..." column entries, the heading already says Current status. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Would you say this is the kind of thing you're thinking of? Also, I think I'll switch all the references to FCHD, as it covers both the reason for leaving the league as well as seasons in the league. Would be redundant to have it and Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's fine; and FCHD is certainly easier to check the relevant facts from. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
          •  Done Column for the reason for dropping out of the league has now been included. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• The existing footnotes need sources.
  •  Done References added. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the peer review, much of this stuff could have been sorted out there. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're missing New Brighton Tower F.C.
  •  Done Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• I can't tell from reading their respective Wiki articles whether the former Football League club South Shields F.C., which relocated to Gateshead, should count as the same club as the former Football League club Gateshead A.F.C., or a different one, along the lines of Wimbledon which you count as different from MK Dons.
  •  Done Ive counted them as seperate clubs, like that of Wimbledon and MK Dons. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the Gateshead F.C. currently playing in the Conf North isn't the same club as the Football League one (see its FCHD page).
  •  Done Corrected. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
• If it might help, there's a complete list of clubs having played in the Football League here; I think you've got them all. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Added this instead of Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.footballsite.co.uk/index.html
  • http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/
  • http://www.soccer.mistral.co.uk/fleg/flhist.htm
  • http://www.fchd.info/
• Per the MOS, link titles should not be in all capitals in the references.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 24 August 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 by User:Scorpion0422 00:09, 28 August 2008 [7].

---

List of Sunderland A.F.C. players

I have nominated this article for featured list candidate as I feel it satisfies the criteria, and I would be willing to address any concerns raised in the FLC as soon as possible. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support- Execellent and well written list. Mackemfixer (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Some of the players' positions are very generic, while others are quite specific. For example, there's only one attacking midfielder, but I'm sure that more than one attacking midfielder has played for Sunderland in the past. Therefore, I would suggest that you make the positions generic for all players, using "Goalkeeper", "Defender", "Midfielder" and "Forward" as the four options. In the case of players who played in the 19th century and early 20th century, full-backs should be classed as defenders, half-backs as midfielders and outside, inside and centre forwards should be classed as forwards. – PeeJay 15:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - Changed them to generic. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Support – PeeJay 08:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments
  • "Alf Common, The first..." - no capitalisation needed for "The". Done
  • Jimmy Montgomery's years are wrong in the lead. Done - Ouch, i got that one way wrong, I must have been asleep.
  • "...for the club, two, Danny Collins..." - needs rewording. Done - Reworded.
  • I'd change the "Statistics are correct as of" bit to the last game, which was on 11 May 2008. Even though it will probably need updating tomorrow... Done - Changed.
  • Not sure about the column titles "SAFC profile" and "Country profile". Maybe "Club source" and "National source", or something along those lines. Done - Changed.
  • Are the internationals players those who played for their country whilst at the club or during their whole career? Comment - Only whilst at the club.
  • You may be aware, but a few internationals, like Sandy McAllister and Charlie Thomson don't have country profiles. Done - McAllister didn't play for Scotland while at Sunderland, I mistakenly bolded the country, and have added Thomson's profile.
  • Shouldn't Bert Johnston's nationality be bolded? Done - Bolded, must have missed that one.
  • Jimmy Montgomery's link is incorrect - it links for Len Ashurst. Done - Added correct link.
  • Consecutive footnotes should be ordered numerically, so "[10][5]" needs fixing. Done

Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• More comments
  • "...in the clubs 100..." - apostrophe needed in "clubs". Done
  • "...of them includes current..." - I'd change "includes" to "including". Done

Nearly there now. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments deal with. Well done. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• You may want to separate notes from references, as you have done with Sunderland A.F.C. seasons. Would make the notes readable and the reference section much smaller. Done - Added Footnotes section.
• Have a check through the references. ##1 and 13 are the same ref, so you could combine. Newspapers go in the work parameter in cite templates, not publisher. #11, #15 have unnecessary capitals. #12 book sources don't need access dates. Done - Fixed.
• Date joined and left column headings are misleading, if as you said at the PR the years represent first and last first-team game played.
  • Comment - Do you think it would be best I just had a single column for the career span instead of separate columns for joined and left? Sunderland06 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • If you want to be able to sort on year of last game, stay with separate columns; if not, probably one column is clearer, particularly for players with two spells at the club. Either way, perhaps you could add a note above the table, or a footnote attached to the column heading(s), saying the year indicates the player's first and/or last first-team match for the club. I might go and do the same for some other list :-) Done - Added footnotes.
• Also, you have typos in Jimmy Millar's dates. Done - Fixed. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

Big problem with the club source and national source columns. Using external links means that there is no reference list at the bottom of the page to refer to. The short "Notes" section should actually be "References", and all of these links should be converted to references using the {{cite web}} template so that they appear in this section. This is the only problem I see with the list, but it's a big one. Currently, I oppose, but will reconsider if this is corrected.

Additional comment: "club's 100 year centenary season" - redundant, just say "centenary season". Remove "100 year".

Oppose from Killervogel5

The article did have a massive reference list at the bottom, but the problem was that other references became swamped with about 250 player profile references around them, It is really just a way of keeping it organised and tidy. Sunderland06 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is tidy-looking; unfortunately, being tidy and following MOS don't always line up perfectly. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay KV5, thanks for pointing out about the embedded links, I would never have guessed it was a MoS violation, anyways... I've added the international profiles to references. I was wondering if a general reference for stat cat, where all the club profiles come from with the usual accessdate, and then if I pointed it out again in the club profile column that all the club profiles come from stat cat, with accessdate etc. So it would keep the embedded links but as if they were references, seeing as though they would be covered by the general reference. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For me, that's perfectly acceptable. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great, I'll begin on that shortly. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done - Added general ref and note. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.thestatcat.co.uk/default.asp
    • Firstly, this website, along with London Hearts, England Stats, Northern Ireland's Footballing Greats and Soccerscene are among the trusted websites in the Football WikiProject, they are merely a statistician database, where the appearances, goals and other various stats are collected, and none of them are publicly edited.
    • [8], related site, [9], plus numerous mentioning of subpages of the website; especially player profiles.
  • http://www.londonhearts.com/index.htm
    • As above, it is used for stats of former and current Scotland national football team players and managers.
    • [10], [11], [12], annual meeting, also having the individual pages for profiles etc mentioned regularly.
  • http://www.englandstats.com/
    • As above, it is used for stats of former and current England national football team players and managers.
    • 4th hit on google, when searching for "England statistics" and 1st hit when searching for "England football statistics" above RSSSF, [13] and [14]. [15], [16], as mentioned on previous FLC's and FAC's, it is very highly regarded by its WikiProject at WP:FOOTY in the links page.
  • http://nifootball.blogspot.com/
    • As above, and although this is a blogspot website, it is a trusted website of the Football WikiProject for Northern Ireland stats, the owner of the website merely uses the blog format as a cheap host.
    • This website is a sister website of [17] and although it is a blog, as before mentioned, it is strictly to use as cheap hosting, as an alternative to a domain. A user also explained to me about the website here after I had suspicions about the site.
  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SUNDERcommon.htm
    • Spartacus is a website made by John Simkin, it is only edited by him, and he has also written for the Guardian's educational website. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/author.htm
    • Guardian news page about editor of the website, interview with author wikipedia sub section; here.
  • http://soccerscene.ie/
    • As above, it is used for stats of former and current Republic of Ireland national football team players and managers.
    • Third site on [18], [19], aswell as a whole host of individual subpage links.
  • http://www.fa-cupfinals.co.uk/index.htm
    • The FA Cup Finals website details every FA Cup season since its beginning in 1872 and is merely a database of results.
    • 5th google hit when searching "fa cup finals", heavily linked through [20].
  • http://www.4thegame.com/
    • 4 The Game is again a stats website, similar to Soccerbase and Football Club History Database, it is a branch off from its parent website, Total Sport Online.
    • Sourced from numerous articles in [21], [22], it is aswell linked in many different individual news articles.
• Am I correct in supposing that http://www.a-love-supreme.com/index.htm is the website of a magazine/newspaper?
  • Yes, it is a magazine for the club.
• http://www.walesonline.co.uk/ am I correct that this is a publishing company?
  • Yeah, that's right.

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very sorry about the wait, I have been occupied and this thing just slipped my mind. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Bill_Walsh is an ambiguous link. — Dispenser 00:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Created the article, now linked correrctly. Sunderland06 (talk) 16:27, 27 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 09:39, 25 August 2008 [23].

---

Opeth discography

I think it is ready to receive criticism and be a FL. The work was divided between me and Burningclean (talk · contribs).

Cannibaloki 22:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Cannibaloki. I'll help out with the nom too. Burningclean _[speak] 23:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

:) or :]. Support --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak oppose
  • In 2008, the band released its ninth studio album Watershed, which debuted at best-career number 23 on the Billboard 200, and peaked the top of Finnish chart.[2] - "at best career number", so this is the best they have done right? The way it is worded is confusing, how about at 23 on the Billboard 200, their career best position or something like that.
  • There are many claims in the lead but there is only two references, and they do not cover the entire prose entirely.
  • What is verifying the directors in the music videos, if it is the refs on the song title, they should be moved to the directors column, if not, refs need to be found.--S_RX 22:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Further comments
  • Looks better, but I will give a conditional support if refs are given to verify the information in the second para. in the lead about them forming, there is nothing to back that up.--S_RX 13:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - looks way better with new sources.--S_RX 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • The article about Opeth calls them "heavy metal" while this list says they're "progressive death metal". I know the other article isn't at FLC/FAC or whatever but I hate these kind of discrepancies - can you sort it out one way or the other?
    •  Done This is really a problem.
  • The "one video" in the lead - is this a video album per the infobox?
    •  Done I think...
  • "He later recruited bassist Mikael Åkerfeldt without the consent of the other band members he previously hired. An argument between Isberg and the other members, with the exception of Åkerfeldt, led to the departure of all members except Isberg and Åkerfeldt." This reads factually correct but really awkwardly. I think you could rephrase into two sentences and really improve the prose. We don't really need to know about the argument I guess, we could just say "He later recruited bassist Mikael Åkerfeldt without the consent of the other band members he previously hired which resulted in the departure..." or something like that?
    •  Done Hmm...
  • Ref 1 is dead so I can't check it fully references the lead.
    •  Done dead → resurrected
  • "keep the band going" doesn't read particularly encyclopedic.
    •  Done Fixed.
  • "He contacted guitarist " - then what? Did they join him in the band?
    •  Done Fixed.
  • "In 1995, Opeth released its first studio album, Orchid. After several more lineup shifts, the band released Morningrise and My Arms, Your Hearse in 1996 and 1997 respectively." choppy first sentence, consider merging with the following, "...Orchid, and after more changes to the lineup, the band..."
    •  Done Fixed.
  • A lot of personnel information in an article which should be focussed on the discography.
  • "peaked the top" peaked at the top?
    •  Done hehe, this word was eaten!
  • Can I be sure the first six albums were released in all 12 of those countries? Your key says ""—" denotes a release that did not chart." but where is the proof that they actually released the albums which then went on to not chart? There is a big difference between failing to chart and not being released at all.
    •  Done I changed this information, but I do not know exactly what you wanted.
      • I undid this edition because all the albums were released on countries present on chart table. Cannibaloki 18:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Where were the singles released and how did they chart?
    •  Not done None of singles did chart, in anywhere.
      • Were any of them released in any country? In any case it should be noted that none of the singles charted explicitly rather than just leave it up to the imagination. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
        • "The discography of Opeth, a Stockholm, Sweden-based heavy metal band, consists of nine studio albums, two live albums, two box sets, six singles which did not chart in anywhere, and a video album certified as gold on Canada". — I found the way, but need your help. Cannibaloki 17:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I removed this section, because not found any reliable source to prove the existence of these singles. Cannibaloki 19:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Videography section - Videos - is this Video albums?
    •  Done I only modified the name of this section, because MOS:DISCOG ≠ WP:WIAFL.
  • Ref 15 is not explicit, find another one please.
    •  Done taken from blabbermouth.net.
  • Not convinced Zobbel is WP:RS. I have been told it takes its information from a published chart book, in which case use that source, not this transcribed (possibly erroneous - I've seen mistakes in it) version.
    •  Done Already removed.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The order of sections in the page should match the order given in the infobox. Or vica versa.
• Is the Austrian chart position of #53 for one album that notable that it aids in the understanding of how well the album performed?
• Blabbermouth doesn't appear to be the publisher of the references. It's Road Runner Records.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Important note Cannibaloki was recently blocked for an as of now unknown amount of time. Unless he is unblocked and steps back in, I will fully take over this nomination. Burningclean _[speak] 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It was not me that was blocked, but the server on which I use to access the Wikipedia. Cannibaloki 17:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. Sorry about that. Burningclean _[speak] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• The albums table has a lot of em-dash which the key describes as ""—" denotes a release that did not chart." - are you sure that each album was released in each country? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliability of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The first six albums have the "was not released or no information available" key - what references back each and every one of these up please? Do you think featured content should have "information not available"? I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What I should write or do? Cannibaloki 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well you need to find out if those albums were released in any of those countries otherwise 75% of that table is "unknown". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
      • "–" unknown. or I should write unknown in the center of this 75% for first 6 releases? Cannibaloki 17:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
        • No, there really shouldn't be anything "unknown" in these lists. More research required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • I found in the Opeth's official website information about the countries where the albums were released and at the right of each page of the album release, still is few information? Cannibaloki 18:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
          • "—" denotes releases that did not chart or were not released in that country. I think it is better, what you think? Cannibaloki 19:24, 24 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 09:24, 25 August 2008 [24].

---

National Basketball Association awards

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

I am re-co-nominating this article with Chrishomingtang because we still believe that this article is ready for this promotion. The reason why this article lacks pictures is because we both cannot find any that we can use that isn't non-free content. I am also re-nominating this article because of the lack of comments on the last one and I hope that more of the FLC reviewers will look more into this FLC. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

• There are several years which aren't linked at their first occurrence. For example, 1947 is in the lead but not linked until the "History" section. 1949 is not linked at all. Neither is 1975

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• "First awarded in the 1956," - remove the.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• "first awarded in the inaugural NBA Finals in 1947." - first awarded after the Finals; it's not awarded during the game.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the trophy was not named the Walter Brown trophy until 1964, then it should not be referred to as such at the beginning of the paragraph. Did it have another name before that (e.g., NBA Championship Trophy, etc.)?

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The only individual award in the NBA Finals is the Finals Most Valuable Player" - follow by a comma.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Center the numbers in the "Created" column of the second table to match the first table.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Change the link on "commissioner" so that it links to the section of the article on commissioners in sports; otherwise, the link doesn't make much sense.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• New comment: References for awards should go to league-independent sources if at all possible, to pass the independent sources requirement of WP:N.

Check if the one I put on works. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly does, it was the one I was hoping for. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

• "the Most Valuable Player is presented to the most valuable player of the regular NBA season." - you use the term "MVP" (abbreviation mine) to define itself. Can you expand on what MVP means in the definition? Also, it should the Most Valuable Player award.
  • I think the readers will understand what most valuable player means so does it really need a brief definition?
    • A) I think it would be better to have a definition than a recursive definition; B) You have to remember that a list, and especially one that's going to be featured, should cover topics so that someone who knows nothing about basketball would not be confused by anything within it. For those reasons, yes, I believe that it does. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 00:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, but is there any reason that it's not referred to by its official name? I just checked the ref and the award's official name is apparently the "Maurice Podoloff Trophy". That should at least be mentioned. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Added —Chris! _ct 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Why is the first table sortable? there are only two(!) items.

Done —Chris! _ct 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Why do we need the See also section here? All necessary links are already in the templates.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the section with this link since it is not in the template.—Chris! _ct 21:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is that link important? If that link is really that important, why isn't it listed in the template? --Crzycheetah 20:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I will remove it.—Chris! _ct 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 18:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Reference → References

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 06:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support--Crzycheetah 00:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• The following deadlinked:
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveofyear.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_finalsmvp.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_executiveofyear.html
  • http://www.nba.com/history/awards_sixthmanofyear.html

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed —Chris! _ct 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• I know it's a little late in the day but I think I'd prefer to see the lead expanded and, possibly, subsume the History section. If this (as I suspect) is going to form the primary article in a Featured Topic then I think it ought to be downright amazing, rather than simply excellent and expanding the lead would help that enormously. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

So you want me to merge the history section with the lead. Is that right?—Chris! _ct 18:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the lead is very brief indeed. I was thinking that you could merge the history section with the lead but do it well... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. What do you think?—Chris! _ct 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. I just need to understand what note [A] means and I think I'm done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The note is used to explain the voting system of that particular award.—Chris! _ct 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being dense perhaps but what do you mean by the "tenth" vote? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The award is usually determined by nine vote. but in at least one final, fans votes are counted as the "tenth" vote.—Chris! _ct 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, can you reflect this in the note so I don't have to ask the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I just did. What do you think?—Chris! _ct 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Top drawer. I'll sleep on it (tired) and no doubt it'll see success shortly...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. —Chris! _ct 19:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great work on this list; I can't imagine it being put together better. Hello32020 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 09:24, 25 August 2008 [25].

---

List of Brotherhood episodes

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

I'm resubmitting this. All previous objections have been addressed but no one voted. I'd hate to see the list, which I think qualifies for FL status, miss its promotion simply because no one cared to have a look at it.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 12:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Support vastly improved since the last time I read it. Seems to fulfil the criteria. Good job.--Opark 77 (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.dvdtalk.com/
  • http://www.ugo.com/

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool.

They're both professional, reputable sites with edited content.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here's some stuff:
  • http://www.dvdtalk.com/welcome.html - "about us" information for DVD talk
  • http://www.ugo.com/ugo/html/static/corporate.asp - and for UGO
  • http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/07/ugo-networks-fi.html - article about UGO being bought by Hearst, which means they now back the site
  • http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/tv/11821581.html - article in the Star Tribune recommending DVD talk as a reliable source

Hope that helps.–FunkyVoltron ^talk 19:53, 24 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 15:55, 24 August 2008 [26].

---

List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners

I'm putting this list up for FLC as I believe that it meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list. The list has undergone a peer review where issues were ironed out. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments
  • Shouldn't the list be renamed "List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winners", as per the other lists?
  • "...held in 1999;[1] with"... - the semicolon could just be a comma.
  • Barcelona doesn't need to be wikilinked on its second instance.
  • The key should have some features from the UEFA Cup one, including rewording to "winners" and explaining what "Bold" represents.

Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Done all, thanks for the comments matty NapHit (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nearly there - "Extra time" in the key doesn't need to be capitalised. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for spotting that matty corrected now NapHit (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments deal with, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image caption - champion -> winner, and no full stop.
  • Could link seasonal to Season (sports) to avoid confusion with summer, spring etc..!
  • "a straight knock-out tournament" - is straight required here? I think I know what you mean (i.e. no round-robin beforehand?) but I'm not sure to a non-expert that this is clear.
  • "reorganisation of their cup competitions" - while I love discretionary plurals, I think here it would be appropriate to say "of its cup competitions" as UEFA is a single entity.
  • Odd placement of the winner of the first tournament (i.e. after the last winner) - reorganise that.
  • " before it was abolished." - they can't have won it after it was abolished, and you've already told us it's abolished, so this seems redundant to me.
  • I like the country sorting!
  • Note d is missing a full stop.
  • Did you borrow my references?! (Kidding, hope you did, might have saved you some work!).
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha yeh I borrowed a few of your sources glad you don't mind, I've corrected all the faults you pointed out, cheers NapHit (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5
Just a couple of things.

• "The first competition was won by Fiorentina who beat Rangers 4–1 over two-legs to win the 1961 Final" - Two legs should not have a dash because it refers to the two legs (it's not an adjective like in two-legged final). Also, any reason why two-legged is linked on its third occurrence instead of first?
• "with Lazio triumphing over Real Mallorca." - I really don't like the use of "triumphing over" here, seems a little WP:WEASEL or WP:NPOV. I would use "defeating" instead.
• This isn't a deal breaker by any means, but could you tell me why you use footnotes for other victory notes and in the two-legged final, you don't? I might feel better if there was a footnote saying Fiorentina won 4-1 on aggregate.
• In the references section, use semicolons to make sections (;General references) rather than subheadings.

Other than that, the list itself looks good!

Review by Killervogel5

The only reason there are notes for certain matches are that these matches finished in a draw and were decided either on penalties or in a replay, so a note is required to explain this. Also in the two-legged final there is a column underneath which tells the score. Thanks for the comments. NapHit (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5 - Good work!

Comments

• Why does it not have the results of replays?

The results of the replays are in the notes section NapHit (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Notes column is mostly refs.

The notes column are for both notes and refs NapHit (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Don't really need the sorting buttons.
  • They are notable enough to be in the table. Bucs (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, sort facilities should be included wherever possible, per FLC criterion 4. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Only when it's a list of numbers (I might be wrong there but I'm preetty sure). Bucs (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The sort function can be used for names, places and other stuff as well as numbers NapHit (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

• Since the "Most successful teams" section is so called does it really need to list every single team?

I don't really see a problem with this it's providing useful information and if I just included the winners, some of whom have been runners-up it would be wrong not to include every team that has not been runners-up.

Bucs (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though... I think you should keep the information but not call it "most successful." Makes it seem like the list could be incomplete when in reality, it's not. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've changed it to "Winners by teams" hopefully that sorts the problem NapHit (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Might it be better as "Results by team," since there are some non-winners? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?thisNav=News&article=472487 deadlinks
• Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals. (Current ref 27 MANCHESTER UNITED v. BARCELONA)

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments all issues have been taken care off NapHit (talk) 15:36, 24 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 15:55, 24 August 2008 [27].

---

List of submissions to the 74th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film

Nominating another submission list. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support, another great list. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support I added the Armenian translation, so it's good to go to the Hall of Fame now. ;) --Crzycheetah 08:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 24 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:18, 22 August 2008 [28].

---

Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

previous FLC (07:14, 11 August 2008)

Alright, let's try this again. It failed a couple days ago, due to a lack of support, despite having the majority of the issues addressed. Now that the article's polished up from the last FLC, I'm hoping this will be easy. In any event, thanks for the reviews! Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - I meant for my last !vote to be a Support once you had addressed my concerns, but I suppose I should have been more explicit. I know voting without proposing actionable suggestions is generally not given much weight, but your last FLC addressed all of my suggestions. Brilliant article. Plasticup ^T/C 12:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I found this by typing in the direct address. I think that you forgot to list is on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Plasticup ^T/C 12:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, I could have sworn I added it. Oh well, done now. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - your lead says the season ended Nov 30 but the list says the season ended Dec 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This tends to be a little confusing. You see, the National Hurricane Center designates the Atlantic hurricane season to officially begin on June 1 and officially end on November 30. That is the period when most tropical cyclones form in the basin. However, it is not unprecedented for storms to occur outside of those dates, similar to the way snow can fall before or after the winter months. Hope that clears it up some. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that I think but the wording in the list contradicts itself directly so it's a source of confusion. The Dec 3 entry reads "ending the season" while the lead says "season, which officially began on June 1, 2004, and lasted until November 30" - perhaps it needs a footnote or something to avoid this confusion. Also, Charley and Danielle are bold once each, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Boldings removed. I must have missed them when removing the others. Also, I reworded the list to specify that November 30 was the last storm of the season, not the official end. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Super job, thanks. Final question, might have asked it already - why not use the {{convert}} template for guaranteed consistent conversion and non-breaking spaces per the MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • • As wind speeds in storm reports are most often rounded to the nearest five mph, using {{convert}} would give a specific, non-rounded conversion. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Have you looked at using sigfig in the template? You could round to the nearest 10 kph for 323 kph->320kph by using sigfig=2? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • I'm terrible with templates, so I can't seem to figure out how to work that parameter, but I'll continue to tinker with it. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • That template would not be precise enough. The original sources have a resolution of 5 kph/mph/kt, so using convert, even with sigfig=2, modifies the value of the conversion away from the original source. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • I thought since the original sources would all be imperial (being US-sourced), then they'd all be in mph. I've checked quite a few and they're all that way. Converting to kph doesn't need to be to the nearest 5kph, what's the logic behind that? 1mph is nearly 2kph so if you were really keen to make a logical rounding, kph should be rounded to the nearest 10kph. But frankly I'm not sure why the rounding of the converted unit needs to take place at all. Right now you have arguably incorrect conversions through an arbitrary rounding. And in the list there currently exists " 45 mph (72 km/h)" which isn't resolved to 5kph either...You also have "240 miles (390 km)" where 240 miles is 386km (so rounded to the nearest 10km?). Are there cut-off points which I'm unaware of where you round to nearest 1, 5, 10 etc? Can someone advise? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
                    • Yes. Maximum sustained windspeed measurements and position fixes are provided by the source material by using the original value in knots, rounding it to mph and km/h, and then rounding up all the values to the nearest 5 or 0. This is due to the resolution of the grid used by the National Hurricane Center and other Regional Specialized Meteorological Centres in tropical cyclone forecasting. There are other measurements, like recorded peak gusts at measurement stations, that can be converted to the nearest unit because these measurements have a higher resolution than the position and max winds measurements. Essentially, we follow whatever value the source uses, and we don't see a problem with rounding up or down manually. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well whoever "we" are, your rounding is not explained clearly and is inconsistent. It appears that numbers below 100 (?) are rounded to the nearest unit. Rounding to the nearest 5 or 0 seems to occur at an arbitrary point too. Your sources here appear in mph to the nearest 5mph, it doesn't mean the converted values have to follow any such rule - it just compounds the error. What's wrong with the {{convert}} template which provides consistently correct answers to a definable sig fig? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We = WP:WPTC. Again, whatever rounded value is used by sources operationally (like this source for a current storm) is what we tend to use. Note the in the link, the NHC says that 40 mi = 65 km/h, while with convert, it would be 64 km/h. {{convert}} is unnecessary, and would introduce deviation from sources; I would object to this article being promoted if the template were used for this purpose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, the penny has finally dropped! In that case, may I suggest a footnote which says all conversions are as per the source information? That way we all win - you can avoid using the template and I can shut up about the dodgy conversions! Is that a deal or is that a deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about the text I just put there? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I'll shut up now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments 1) the first thing that lept out at me when i looked at this article was that the season begining and end are not marked in the prose where as on the 2005 Atlantic timeline they are marked within the prose 2) Referencing - There is only one dates that does not have a reference on it which is August 3rd Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Since my comments have now been Resolved i Support the nomination Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - reference #1 (HURDAT) is missing an access date, and links to page that doesn't reference either a) the number of storms in the season, or b) the definition of a major hurricane. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Ugh, the problem with that reference is that it will be broken next year. I guess if you keep an eye on it, it shouldn't be a problem. I still don't like the second paragraph of the lede that much, but I think it is clearer than the version in the first nomination. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:13, 12 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:06, 21 August 2008 [29].

---

New York Yankees seasons

My first FLC nomination, this list borrows elements from current baseball team season FLs, and I've made some further improvements. It's been through a peer review, where the reviewer seemed impressed with it. I believe this meets the criteris and will make any necessary changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest a name change to "List of New York Yankees seasons"? --haha169 (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. All sports team season FLs are titled this way. I want to see if other reviewers agree with you; if they do, I will happily rename it. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved Comments from S_RX

• Comments
  • I agree with Haha, this is a list of their seasons not a article about their seasons. This should probably be discussed with the Baseball project.
  • I feel the note about the "key" should be placed in the "Year by year" section.
  • May I suggest making a small table at the top of the "year by year" section that can serve as the key, and it will eliminate the long list of notes, which are mixed with the key and other notes about the information.
  • Another suggestion, placing the "general references" incorporated into the table as a extra row. Like in the table at 2008 WWE Draft.
  • Why is their an extra column in the table, yet it is not used?

--S_RX 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I made a table with all the abbreviations from the notes. The note about the key wasn't really needed after that, so I removed it. I also added a reference at the bottom of the table and removed the others, since they weren't needed (the ref covers all seasons). Opinions on the name are split 1-1 at WT:BASEBALL, and I'm watching that closely. My only question is where the extra column in the table is; I don't see it. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply - Great, may I also suggest placing the sentence about the Yankees' seasons incorporated into the lead or in a see also section because IMO it is interfering in the flow of the list.
  • I don't know if the table was intended to be built that way, but after the Awards column there is an extra "little" column, do you see it now?--S_RX 13:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Can't believe I missed that; thanks for fixing it. I moved the link to a new See also section. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Support - my comments were addressed, I see no other flaws visible in the list or prose and meets the FL criteria.--S_RX 17:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Seems a shame there's no appropriate lead image, looks a little unappealing as it stands. I'd move the stadium image there as it looks a little odd tagged onto the end of the player images.
    • Moved the stadium image to the lead. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "eight charter franchises" not 100% clear to a non-expert what this means.
    • Changed to "eight original members". Is that better? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Eliminate the small text in the key.
    • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of your captions are complete sentences so they need full stops.
    • Added full stops to two captions. The stadium one seems borderline to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Don Larsen threw a perfect game in Game 5 of the 1956 World Series," citation required.
    • Added a note for the 1956 World Series, with citation included. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • " 4–0–1" unless I'm mistaken, this is the only scoreline with three parameters so it needs a footnote and reference to explain it.
    • Yes, that is the only tie mentioned. I added a note and reference to it. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Known as "Mr. October" for his clutch postseason hitting, Reggie Jackson " reference required.
    • I decided to just rephrase the caption. Calling someone a "clutch hitter" is POV by any standard. I got a little carried away there. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Footnote may be of use to let the non-expert understand the appearance of East in 1969.
    • Done. Let me know if it needs a reference. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • My ignorance, but if you can only win or lose in regular season games, how can you finish 1/2 a game behind?
    • Because games can be rained out, or stopped due to darkness in the old days before stadiums were lighted. See the aforementioned 4-0-1. Games can't really end tied anymore, except for this one. Teams always try to make up postponed or suspended games, but some still end up cancelled. One of the baseball season FLs explains how the Games Back column is calculated. Would it be a good idea to add this? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think a small footnote explaining how halves can arise would be a very good idea indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Footnote added. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Otherwise very good.
    • Thanks! Giants2008 (17-14) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• Stand-alone years in the lead and the table that are linked to "baseball years" (the {{by|YYYY}} template) should be linked to the corresponding "Major League Baseball season". You can replace the current template with {{mlby|YYYY}} to link to those seasons.
• In the key, you should put a footnote explaining what "games back" means for non-experts.
• The following terms should be linked in the table headers: division should be linked to Division (sports), league to List of organized baseball leagues, wins to Win (baseball), losses to Loss (baseball), win% to Winning percentage, and GB to games behind.
• Baltimore Orioles regular season records at the bottom should use the same date format as the rest of the table (YYYY–YYYY); don't abbreviate dates by leaving out the first two digits.
• Rather than putting the reference row at the bottom of the table and the references next to "Totals", make those references (#64-66) general references.
• The statistics for the 2008 season are incomplete. It should either be removed from the table or completed.
• To combat the whitespace issue, I would move the Murderers' Row picture up into the Table Key section. That way, the black and white picture is not right next to all the color pictures. Aesthetically, I think that would look better.
• As per WP:DASH, en-dashes should not be used "when the nearby wording demands it, e.g., he served from 1939 to 1941 and not he served from 1939–1941, in which from and to are complementary and should both be spelled out." This happens twice in the lead, "from 1974–1975" and "From 1921–1964".

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• All done, with the exception of moving the reference at the bottom of the table. SRX told me to put that there earlier in the comments that are hidden. I did move the references next to Totals, though. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• The bold for championship years should go across the column (see St. Louis Cardinals seasons and Philadelphia Phillies seasons for an example of what I mean).
  • Actually, I don't think I explained myself properly. Sorry. The colored blocks should be the ones bold-ed across the rows, not the entire row, and only the World Series bold in the playoff box. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5 - An excellent sports season featured list candidate. 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Orlady

Comments

• Overall, this is a good list.
• Since "seasons" is part of the title, the lead section should use the word fairly early and provide a link to Season (sports).
  • I extended the third sentence to provide a season link. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    • That looks good. --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• I don't like the way the "Totals" section at the bottom of the table looks. I haven't compared other "seasons" lists to see how it's handled elsewhere. However, I wonder if the summary of the records should be broken off into a separate table.
  • As a note, the Totals section here is handled in the same way as the other three baseball season FLs. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer to keep a similar format to the other baseball season lists, but if necessary I could try to build a small table for the all-time records. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, the fact that this was done in other FLs doesn't mean that it's the ideal way of handling the information. Even an excellent article can be improved. [wink]
        Given my WP display preferences and other display settings on the computer I'm using right now, the word "Totals" sits in the middle of a table cell with dimensions 2.9 inches high by 2.7 inches wide, and most of the table rows to the right occupy 2 lines (one of them is lines). That looks really dumb. Comparing with other MLB seasons lists, I see that the Red Sox list does not include this kind of information (that's a problem with that list, IMO); Philadelphia Phillies seasons has a less complicated history and thus a less complicated summary; and St. Louis Cardinals seasons has a complicated history, but because there are no images to the right of the table, the display is not bunched up the way it is in the Yankees article. I think the Yankees table would be more aesthetically pleasing if the summary of the statistics were in a separate table, and that some other sports seasons articles (such as Chicago Bears seasons) would also be improved by creating a separate table for summary statistics. (However, the format looks fine in articles such as Indianapolis Colts seasons.) --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I've moved the all-time franchise records to a newly created table. Not sure what the reviewers will think, but it does look cleaner to me. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
          • That looks good to me. Maybe this can set a new standard for other sports seasons lists (she said with a smile). --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• What is the purpose/function of "References:[64]" at the bottom of the list table (in the "Totals" section)? (It seems out of place.)
  • I believe this is a general reference for the entire table. This has me confused, because I added it in response to another reviewer's suggestion. You are the second reviewer to tell me this should not be here. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

--Orlady (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Aha! One of the other sports seasons tables I looked at had a similar note in the form of "Source:[64]." Calling it "source" would make more sense to this reviewer. However, I think that it would be even better to provide a comprehensive note something like the following: "These statistics are from New York Yankees History & Encyclopedia,[64] except where noted, and are current as of August 12, 2008. Bold denotes a World Series championship." --Orlady (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I moved the reference, while making it clear that it is from Baseball-Reference. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Support All of my comments have been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 13:09, 17 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:06, 21 August 2008 [30].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1999

previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008) I am re-nominating this list, because I believe that all of the issues that needed to be addressed from the last FLC have been fixed. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I like it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from S_RX

• Comments - great list, which I like since I am Latino, but few things.
  • There needs to be some type of image in the list or in the lead, maybe a picture of Rick Martin since he was on the chart for a long time or Sharkira, or one of the other singers who were on the chart for a long time. DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The second para. in the lead should be split into 2, as that is a big paragraph. DONE! Jaespinoza (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

--S_RX 23:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - my comments have been addressed, and I feel that this article now meets the FL criteria.S_RX 17:53, 20 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:03, 20 August 2008 [31].

---

List of Minnesota Twins managers

I believe this list meets all the FLC criteria. Thanks in advance. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...while still being members of ..." "while still playing for" is clearer.
    • I was attempting not to use the word to define itself, but I will change it if you think it's better.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Four paras in lead for such a short list seems a little over the top, perhaps three max?
    • I was trying to separate by topic, but you are right.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think linking Washington Senators (1901-1960) is misleading as it just redirects back to Minnesota Twins.
    • OK, should I just de-link it or let it roll over to the dab page? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • I'd delink it unless there's a specific section you could link to? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Section linked  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "its life in Washington, D. C. as the Senators, where they played f" - "its life as the Washington Senators in Washington D.C., where they played..."
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there a suitable link for expansion team?
    • Apparently so, I didn't even think to check!  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You get to 1960 before mentioning a manager - this is a manager list, perhaps some work on, say, including info on the first ever manager etc could improve the lead and make it more relevant than franchise movements.
    • I wanted to mention the franchise movements because they aren't shown in the table (it explains why all the pictures of managers have "W" on their uniform too). I will try to do a little expansion. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • There really isn't much to say about the first manager - his article is just a stub that I created the other day to remove a redlink in the table. Does it need a large amount of information, or could I talk about the Hall of Famers, since they are all Senators-era managers, and since I proposed a DYK related to that anyway? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
        • I'm not really insistent on the first manager thing, it was just clear on my second or third reading of the lead that half of it seemed to focus more on the franchise than the managers - I think if it a list of the seasons then the franchise info is more relevant, but for a list of managers, I think the franchise stuff is interesting, worth a couple of sentences and not much more. Hall of Famers is a reasonable idea too because at least that relates to the individuals in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
          •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "the most in franchise history" their franchise or all franchise?
  • "longest-tenured manager in franchise history" ditto.
    • (to the above two questions) Their franchise; this is usually understood as clear and adding the "their" strikes me as redundant. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think perhaps you're right for people who are fully at ease with the franchise system but to me (a good old-fashioned Brit) I think the clarification would not be redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Done and  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Not surprisingly" -just your opinion I'm afraid.
    • Haha, I didn't think that would make it past FLC, I just spiced up the language a little bit.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • " number of wins divided by number of games in the season" the table is about careers, not seasons.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Order refs numerically if possible, unless there's a good reason not to, for example, you have [9][6][21]
    • These refs are used in the lead, which is why they happen to be out of order. The numerical order in the cell is because each manager's first ref is his managerial record, followed by each playoff reference in chronological order. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • I know that, but you can reorder the ref names and the new refs such that the refs are in numerical order. If you're stuck, give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
        • OK, I'm stuck... KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
          • I'll be honest, there's no MOS guidance on this and you seem to have a pretty answer for their current ordering. I'm not going to get worked up about it, I'd rather see [6][9][21] but what the heck! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorting on WS (up) has odd effect, 5 0's, then a bunch of &em-dash, then 1 and 2... surely the 0's should be followed by the 1 & 2?
    • They should, especially because the em-dashes are sorted as -01, but the column won't even sort for me anymore. I think this is a bug with the sorting rather than the code. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "nicknamed "The Big Train" and ranked ninth on the all-time strikeout list," is this cited anywhere?
    • It is now.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bullet point that external link.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Please review Johnny Goryl's entry (1980-81). The link to the ref is dead but I doubt he managed 458 games in two half seasons. -maclean 19:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed the link and the record - I really don't know how that happened.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It gives the managers in text in chronological order, but why not in the lead point out 2-3 of the most famous. Like Tom Kelly and Walter Johnson ( just guesses ). I think that is more valuable than the sentence about player-managers which could instead be one of the transition sentences in the history section.Pirate^Argh!!1! 05:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Walter Johnson was mentioned, along with Bucky Harris and Joe Cronin, in the historical section about Hall of Fame managers. In addition, Tom Kelly is also mentioned as having won the World Series in 1987 and 1991. I did do a slight expansion for Kelly, mentioning that he is second to Harris is both games and seasons managed. Beyond that, to talk about relative fame is toeing the NPOV line, and I certainly don't want to cross that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • All but two links are from one source; very disturbing
    • It was either that or use official team sources, which is not recommended. I could have gone with a mix of web sources, but Baseball Reference has the best reputation and is the most reputable. Using that USA Today source will help. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Minnesota franchise began its life as the Washington Senators in Washington, D. C. - Any sources?
    • The USA Today source you gave me will reference that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The playoff records are not easy to verify. I am assuming you use those "season statistics" pages as a reference, but they're very hard to use. I suggest you to use this link from a very respectable publisher instead of those multiple pages with a lot of meaningless stats.
    • I added the ref, but I kept the individual season refs as well. I don't consider those statistics to be meaningless; they show all of the playoff records, as well as managerial data and player statistics for the entire season. As long as the information is sourced, there's no reason to be critical of the source itself unless there's a reason to consider it unreputable. Thanks for the USA Today source! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Right now, whenever there are more than 2 sources for one manager, it becomes very confusing as to whaich one to use to verify certain information.--Crzycheetah 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I'll go on the record and say I don't like removing those references, but I'll do it to get this list to pass FLC. Y Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bill Rigney's WPct is incorrect
    • Y Fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • For the "totals" row, why don't you use ! instead of

Support Looks much better.--Crzycheetah 20:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - looks very good, just a couple of things.

• In the table, WPct, this is IMO sloppy, why not just W%?
  • This is the way I've always abbreviated winning percentage; it's still linked and explained, and personally I don't like using symbols in the headers. I personally think that looks sloppy, I think we obviously just have an aesthetic difference of opinion here. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Statistics current through 2007 season - what does this mean?
  • Basically, it means that statistics from the ongoing (current) season are not included, per criterion 7. That's standard across featured lists that involve team/personal records that rack up throughout the baseball season, which is very long. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• The references need to be in order, like [31][2] --> [2][31]
  • See comments from The Rambling Man. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

S_RX 23:31, 19 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:03, 20 August 2008 [32].

---

List of tallest buildings in Shanghai

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modelled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Seattle. I have been working on and off to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it has (finally) been achieved. I believe it meets all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. It uses metric first due to the city's non-US location. Any comments or suggested improvements will be appreciated. Many thanks --Joowwww (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'm not blown away by the opening sentence "This list of tallest buildings in Shanghai ranks skyscrapers in Shanghai, China by height." - "This is {name of the list} which ranks {name of the list the other way round}" - It may have been the case that this was okay, but I'd just like to see something more imaginative like "There are over x skyscrapers in Shanghai, China, which..." or similar. Just my opinion but there you have it!
  • "...become the tallest building in Shanghai when completed" well presumably the tallest in China?  Done (changed) --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "that stand at least 170 m (560 ft) tall," - is this an arbitrary choice? Not a big deal for me but I've seen all sorts of different criteria applied here.
  • Notes are, generally speaking, sentence fragments so they shouldn't have full stops.  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If lists contain two or more tables in a row with exactly the same columns I'd prefer to see them with the same widths.
  • I'd prefer not to see blank cells (e.g. the rank for the Oriental Pearl Tower - an em-dash or something would be better so people understand that you didn't just forget to put something in there...)  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Years as tallest col should use en-dash, not hyphen to separate years, per WP:DASH.  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 2 looks a little unreferenced! "The Burj Dubai, although not listed, is taller than the Taipei 101." should be cited to be honest.  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The general reference, what's the point of it since you use Emporis for all your specific refs?  Done (removed) --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Instead of Category:Shanghai, why not Category:Buildings and structures in Shanghai or even Category:Skyscrapers in Shanghai?  Done --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, a few responses: As for the opening sentence, it's the same opening sentence as all other FLs I've checked. I can change it if you feel it's necessary but I'm hesitant to break from convention. 170 m is the cut-off point for both the list and the navbox template, each FL seems to have its own cut-off depending on the city's amount of skyscrapers. As for the list width: I'm not sure how to make the tables the same width as the completed buildings one (which has a gallery at the side keeping it to a certain width), so if anyone knows how to do that it would be appreciated. Although other FLs also have different sized tables. --Joowwww (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Breaking from convention is good. And don't worry, as an FL director I wouldn't encourage you to do something that would end with the FLC failing. The old "other FL's have this..." thing needs to be eradicated. We want to progress and improve the FLs. As for table widths, check out other FLs which do this. If you get really stuck, give me a shout. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I've made a few changes and had a go at standardising table widths. Convention has been broken :-) --Joowwww (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Coolio. I'll go see! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment, the under construction section does not list all of the projects under construction. See this. The SkyscraperPage link at the bottom doesn't work. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done, thanks --Joowwww (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as an experienced users with WP:SKY and who has contributed to Skyscraper FL's, I see no flaws, which have been taken care of, as of right now and meets the FL Criteria. Great work by all editors and this list exemplifies Wikipedia's best.S_RX 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well referenced too! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:57, 20 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 16:18, 19 August 2008 [33].

---

NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award

previous FLC (11:53, 7 August 2008)

I am renominating the list with K. Annoyomous24 because not many people commented in the last FLC.—Chris! _ct 18:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• Link the years 1951, 1952, 1953 in the lead. They should go to related NBA season links rather than stand-alone years.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you are going to include the All-Star game navbox, change the list in the navbox to appropriately match the article title.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Aesthetically, the nationality column strikes me as abnormally large. Would you maybe consider shortening "United States" and "United States Virgin Islands" to their IOC codes (USA and ISV, respectively)? There are places in the lead where abbreviations can be put in as well.

If you look at the table, it's fairly thin, and if I do that, it will look like an anorexic table. I think we should just leave it that way. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The table is not sortable, so United States and United States Virgin Islands only need to be linked on their first occurrence.

The table is not sortable because of all the row spans and column spans. I have to see what Chrishomingtang thinks about it. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The above also goes for team names and player names.

look above. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be sorted. Just de-link the teams since it stays in order. That's all. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Check if it's ok! Also, the whole Nationality column are templates. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The reference from NBA.com (the official team source) should be replaced by an source external to the league if one can be found.

DONE!

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it this way... looks good. I think that having Tim Duncan as US and USVI is unnecessary. I think that it could just be USVI with the footnote from the bottom and that's all. The footnote explains that he plays for the US internationally, and it explains that he's a citizen of the US... the US designation really is redundant. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chrishomingtang said that since he is a citizen of the United States, his nationality should be both. I still think it should only be {{VIR}} but he doesn't agree. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 17:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you; redundancy has no place in a FL. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, we need a verification that people who are born in Virgin Islands automatically become US citizens. --Crzycheetah 21:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The legal precedent for that is jus soli, or "right of the land", so that's what you should probably look for to find a reference for this. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now sourced—Chris! _ct 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it can be just the {{VIR}} template with the footnote; no need for double nationalities. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should show double nationalities because it is clearer. Every other award pages are like that.—Chris! _ct 19:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Standards change. WP:FLAG states that "If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied; most often it is the place of birth." In other words, one flag per person. Also, "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent sporting nationality, not nationality." KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So what should we do? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will change it.—Chris! _ct 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If Ben Gordon has a dual citizenship with both United Kingdom and United States, should we put both or just one? Also, if Patrick Ewing was born in Jamaica, but became a naturalized citizen of the USA before entering the NBA, should we put his born country or the country he was naturalized to when getting that award or honor? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 00:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My preference would be that the correct nationalities be linked when they occur. For example, Hakeem Olajuwon is Nigerian. It should be Nigeria until such time in the table as he became a naturalized citizen. At that time, it should be changed, and the first year should have the footnote. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Chrishomingtang told me that we need to use the flags of the nations they were born in. So do we use the nationality that they were when getting the award/honor or do we do what Chrishomingtang said? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 00:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is confusing.—Chris! _ct 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris, you said that we need to use the flags of the nations they were born in. on WP:FLAG, it writes most often. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 00:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See the "Use of flags for sportspeople" section, where it says "Flags should illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not played at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then the eligibility rule that is most apt should be applied; most often it is the place of birth."—Chris! _ct 00:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 07:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The table really should be sortable. Make a note about the 1999 lockout and remove all colspans and rowspans.--Crzycheetah 06:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But how is Chrishomintang and I supposed to tell the readers that there were ties in three of the years? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 06:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead states it right now.--Crzycheetah 09:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 17:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version mostly because of aesthetic reason. I just don't think we should force the table to be sortable. Also, since some award pages also use colspans, we should keep it consistent.—Chris! _ct 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

FL criterion 4 is "Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities." It should be sortable if possible. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Chrishomingtang, I think we shouls sort this table. As KV5 said, it needs easy navigation. If we don't, I just wasted 30 minutes sorting for no apparent reason. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 18:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the table should be sortable if possible. But since we have colspans and rowspans to show that there are joint winners and the lockout in 1999, sortable table is not possible. Removing colspans and rowspans to force the table to be sortable is not a good idea either as readers might be confused with two 2000 award winners and no 1999 winners in the table. K. Annoyomous24, I am sorry that I wasted your 30 minutes, but I still think the original version is better.—Chris! _ct 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

As Crzycheetah explained, those things are explained in the lead, which is why it's perfectly kosher to go back to the sorted version. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those things are explained in the lead. But I think the list, especially a featured list, should also express the same things in the table. Is table sort function really that important here? I don't think readers will found the list hard to navigate if the table is unsortable. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Readers, who only look at the table, might be confused by the fact that there were two 2000 award winners and no 1999 winners and have to refer back to the lead for explanation.—Chris! _ct 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Crzycheetah, this portion is originally your review; what do you think? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(→)Chris, you're right! Whenever readers get confused about anything, they can always refer to the lead. That's what the lead is for; it is a place where one finds answers. The sorting helps us find the names we're looking for quicker and see what team is represented the most. I am for the sorting function.--Crzycheetah 08:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then how do we show co-winners if colspans can't be used?—Chris! _ct 04:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason I don't want to use the sorting is that other award pages don't have sorting as well due to the use of colspans. Some examples are NBA Rookie of the Year Award and J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award, which also show co-winners.—Chris! _ct 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Colspans are usually used whenever we want to avoid repeating same info over and over. In this case, colspans are not used to indicate co-winners, they are being used just for the purpose of spanning; no more no less. The co-winners are mentioned in the lead, so if there is any confusion, the lead is there to help. As for other award pages, they should be sortable, as well.--Crzycheetah 23:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will reluctantly change all of them to sortable tables.—Chris! _ct 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Done —Chris! _ct 01:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not done. You forgot to link the unlinked on the table. If you want me to do that for you, I'll be happy to. -- K. Annoyomous24 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean I am done with the sorting. Linking the unlinked is another thing. :) And yes please help me with that. Thanks—Chris! _ct 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I really appreciate your patience during this nomination. It's working just fine now. I like the "a" note you added. I don't like those numbers in parentheses, though. I feel like it's trivial info. Overall, another great list of NBA award recipients. --Crzycheetah 07:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:24, 18 August 2008 [34].

---

List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock

previous FLC (16:08, 8 August 2008)

Resubmitting this; all previous comments/objections were fixed during the previous FLC, but there were no followups of support from those that responded, so the list remained unpromoted. --MASEM 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Support-meets all criteria and follows format of other Guitar Hero song lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Looks pretty good. There are a few prose issues that I'd like taken care of before I support though.

• Redundant: "Guitar Hero III features a total of 73 songs on the game's media.."
• "Releases" sounds weird to me in this sentence. When I first read it I thought released downloadable content, maybe try "versions" "The Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 releases support..."
• Sounds too wordy: "There is one exclusive downloadable song for the Xbox 360, as well as one exclusive downloadable song for the PlayStation 3."
  What about something like "The 360 and PS3 version each had an exclusive song"?
• Switch "open up" to "access"; just sounds more professional to me: "...including the Encore, to open up the next one.'"
• I think emdashes would work better here instead of parenthesis. "All songs (except Boss Battles) can be unlocked..."
• This sentence lost me. I'm not sure what it is conveying. Is it suppose to be CD instead of game? "The game includes songs included on the game disc..."

I noticed some inconsistencies with the refs.

• Some sources say IGN and others IGN Entertainment, Inc. I would go with IGN for simplicity's sake and for consistency.
• Same thing with majornelson.com and Major Nelson's Blog
• Shacknews and Activision too.

Overall, it looks very comprehensive and well sourced. I've never been a fan of the green Yes and red No cells in tables, but that's nothing worth opposing. I'll check back in on the list later. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Reply to Comments: I am not the nominator or an involved editor, but for the sake of being bold (and to reinforce my support) I fixed most of the prose issues. The only prose comment I did not address was the emdash replacement suggestion; I was not sure whether that would improve the article or not. I left that and the reference issues for Masem to fix. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The prose looks better; the emdashes aren't deal breakers. The only issue left from above are the publisher names in refs. And hate to be a nit picker, but I think one or two sentences about the game's reception in the lead would be good. Something like the number of units sold and if the songs were well received. I think that would round out the list. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Remember, this is the list of songs, not the game itself. This information is covered in the main article. --MASEM 21:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but I think one sentence about the songs' reception adds to the notability of the list. But it's hardly anything worth withholding support. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Publication names have been normalized. --MASEM 22:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: My main concerns have been addressed. The prose is well written, and the content is comprehensive and well structured. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:46, 17 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 16:24, 18 August 2008 [35].

---

Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

This is my first Featured list candidate, so I will confess that I am unfamiliar with the style guidelines. I looked at a few current Featured Lists and corrected the mistakes that I noticed, so hopefully we will find it to be up to snuff. Before we begin, a disclosure: I don't know whether the second paragraph of the lead is appropriate. It was (more or less) like that when I came to the article, and I can re-write it if need be.

I have survived a couple FAs without major injury, and I think most of the reviewers can say the same, so let's give this a shot. Plasticup ^T/C 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...hurricane season, documents..." - comma unnecessary.
  • "most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history." this statement needs a reference.
  • "a record 4 storms " - four.
  • " effectively persisted " - did it effectively persist or actually persist?
  • The bold text is hideous. I don't want to see it used that way at all.
  • Shame Punta del Ingles has no article.
  • Nor Boca Madre.
  • "1430" needs a comma, i.e. 1,430 - are you using the {{convert}} template for all these?
  • Same for 1065.
  • And 1000.
  • "not reflected operationally" means what?
  • Don't think Category:Timelines is needed if you have Category:2005 timelines.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Addressed

Comma removed from the lead

"most active" claim cited specificially

"a record 4 storms" spelled out, but that necesitates that "a record twenty-eight tropical or subtropical storms" also be spelled out: Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures

Commas added to numbers over 1000. I don't like the convert template because it makes the edit box difficult for new users.

All instances of "operationally" are revised for clarity. There were several, and were all equally unclear.

Category removed.

Not addressed

The two redlinks. I'll see if I can find enough to make articles for them.

I think that the bold text of storm formations, upgrades, and landfalls is standard throughout Tropical Cyclone timelines and I would like to discuss it at the WikiProject before changing it. Feel free to contribute.

Plasticup ^T/C 12:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to another FL with this level of bold text please? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As an FL director you know better than I do that there is no such article, but you also know that a lack of precedence is not an argument. I think that it is reasonable to allow the WikiProject have a full discussion on this matter. There is no sense in me making an arbitrary change now and then another change when the project develops a consensus. It might be prudent to revisit this particular issue in a couple days. Plasticup ^T/C 12:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as FL director I am not commensurate as to the content and style of all 880 featured lists. Yes, by all means discuss this with the wikiproject but take heed, articles in breach of the WP:MOS will not be promoted. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nor would I expect them to be. The wikiproject is very active; I expect that we shall have an alternative within a couple of days and implemented shortly thereafter. In the meantime I look forward to the continued improvements that always come with featured content reviews. Plasticup ^T/C 12:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also urge you to consider that you're using one method of identification for three different properties ("...all storm formations, upgrades, and landfalls are bolded...") and think about how accessible the emboldening really is when we also have WP:MOS#Colors ("...It is certainly desirable to use color as an aid for those who can see it, but the information should still be accessible without it....") and WP:BOLDTITLE#Bold title ("... Do not link words in the bold title..."). While not directly applicable here, the spirit of all this is that you can easily find another, more accessible and less aesthetically poor way of conveying this information. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the wikiproject discussion is going to turn up a solution, so I have gone ahead and stripped the bold text from the main text. Let me know what you think. Plasticup ^T/C 15:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a lot of attention here. Would you mind if I asked the Tropical Cyclones WikiProject for some feedback here? I know it might look like canvasing (which is why I am asking here first) but the guys there are honest and thorough reviewers who wouldn't hesitate to shoot down a Tropical Cyclone nominee if they thought it wasn't ready. Plasticup ^T/C 22:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Now that the boldings are removed, this sentence should be removed, as well: For convenience and clarity, all storm formations, upgrades, and landfalls are bolded in the timeline below. I'll take a look at the rest of the article later. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks, Plasticup ^T/C 13:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

There is no Referencing for the following dates

1) June 13th

2) July 8th

3) July 11th

4) July 13th

5) August 31st

6) September 26th

7) October 2nd

8) October 6th

9) December 1st

10) January 1st

Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

References added, except for December 1, which doesn't need a reference because it just states the ending of the season. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I found something to cite the season end, just to be thorough. Plasticup ^T/C 14:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

my Comments have now been resolved so Support Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - "The updates may be very significant, as was the case with an unnamed subtropical storm that went entirely unnoticed until the post-season review." Wouldn't it be better to say, "The updates in this case were very significant, as an unnamed subtropical storm that went entirely unnoticed was discovered during the post-season review."? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I like that a lot and have added something similar. Plasticup ^T/C 22:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Images and references check out. Support. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Images are all nice and free, article looks good. Well-referenced, seems to be MoS compliant, lead seems adequate. Meets all the FL criteria as far as I can see. Good job. Woody (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Support Probably a little nit-picky, but replace the hyphens between the time and descriptions to an en dash. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank god for AWB. Replacements all done. Plasticup ^T/C 18:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry to be frightfully dull but if your conversions are based on those used in the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season list, could you add the same footnote as there please? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Took me a while to figure out what you meant, but I have added a note about it. Plasticup ^T/C 18:47, 16 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 16:12, 18 August 2008 [36].

---

List of municipalities of the Brussels-Capital Region

I believe the list meets the requirements. Thank you! Malinaccier (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 01:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsNeutral
  • …1975.[3] although Several… - Were you trying to continue that sentence or you were just starting a new one?
    • Y Yeah, that was a typo.
  • What this article says is that in 1831 there already were 19 municipalities; later, it says that three municipalities were merged with the City of Brussels. The question now is how come there still are 19 municipalities. You need to explain this a little clearer.
    • Y Explained. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Haren is linked to a disamg. page
    • Y Fixed link. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Current Ref#5 should be cited in the "Population density (persons/km²)" column heading, since it only verifies the density.
    • Y Done. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I meant putting the citation in the heading; see List of counties in Wyoming for an example.--Crzycheetah 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Current Ref#6 should be cited in the "Postal code(s)" column heading, since it only verifies the postal codes.
    • Y Done. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • See above.--Crzycheetah 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Density figures are fine, but we need population and area figures, as well.
    • Y Added. Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • You should use {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates to indicate the English and German names of Brussels.
    • I don't understand how to use the templates. Could you explain? Malinaccier (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It's really a little hard for me to explain this, so I decided to do it myself. Hopefully, it will be more understandable when you see how they work.--Crzycheetah 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Where did you get population and area numbers from? Any sources that verify those numbers?--Crzycheetah 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Y
  • "Density" and "Area" columns do not sort properly.
    • Y Fixed.
  • The note should be separated from citations.
    • Y Fixed.

--Crzycheetah 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Why are the "French", "Dutch", and "ref." columns in boldface and in dark gray background?
    • Y
  • The first column must have the most important information: the names of the cities, not flags or CoAs.
    • Y
  • As for the page move, I still think this is a list of municipalities because none of the municipalities are described. This page only lists basic information about them.

--Crzycheetah 01:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• • • Y

Support Well done! Crzycheetah 20:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "the lowest number in any region" any region of what? Belgium I presume. Clarify it.
    • Y clarified.
  • Is there a list of regions of Belgium you can link to?
    • Y linked.
  • Ought "local level" be hyphenated?
    • No. this is one example.
  • I know it's the subject of the list but you have Municipalit(y/ies) mentioned nine times in the two (short) paras in the lead, which results in it reading really poorly.
    • YI've rephrased them and reduced the number.
  • "19 provinces in the " so province = municipality?
    • Y Province!=municipality. Now fixed.
  • "remained untouched " what do you mean by this?
    • Y explained
  • The last sentence of the lead is a monster (56 words, 4 x municipalities) - it needs considerable work.
    • Y Split into two sentences. Should be better now.
  • Interestingly, the City of Brussels article says its French name can be Bruxelles-Ville.
    • Y It makes more sense (having a slight knowledge of the French Language) for the name to be Bruxelles-Ville in the list, so I have changed it.
  • "The English and German names for the City of Brussels are also given." well, the English version is "City of Brussels", and what relevance does the German name have here?
    • Y
  • Consider right-aligning the columns with numbers in - this would line up the decimal places, commas etc.
    • Y Done.
  • Why is the (s) of Post code(s) on a separate line?
    • Y fixed.
  • Can you clarify where you reference the population and area of each municipality? They do not correlate with the density values.
    • I took the population and areas from the individual municipality articles, but they do not check out. After some digging on google, I found this site in French, and I can get the population data from there and calculate new density numbers on my own. (I'm assuming that the populations were different on the individual articles than what was used in the statistics from the other site, and that the areas are correct.)
      • Y
  • Can you put a date on when the values for population/area/density were derived (e.g. Census date or whatever)?
    • There's a date on the new site I mentioned above, and I can put this in the article.
      • Y
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Brussels-Capital Region -- both links point to Brussels, and per WP:OVERLINK, two words next to each other shouldn't be linked. I'd prefer simply Brussels-Capital Region which redirects to Brussels
  • Y
• Which country is Brussels in?
  • Y it was already in the first sentence of the lead that Brussels is in Belgium.
• "the lowest number in any region." of the world? Because you haven't mentioned Belgium, it's not clear.
  • Y clarified.
• Another paragraph in the Lede about the features of the municipalities would be good. Which is the largest, and which is the smallest in terms of area? Population?
  • Y Added.
• "Brussels-Capital Region" vs "Brussels-Capital region" -- be consistent
  • Y only one inconsistency
• to help the Americans, use {{convert}} in the Area column
  • Once I get correct numbers I can do this.
• "The English and German names for the City of Brussels are also given." I must have missed it, then
  • It uses {{ref label}} and {{note label}} in the Ville-Bruxelles row.
• Your reflabels don't click
  • All check out fine for me. Which ones?
    • The [a]s next to Bruxelles-Ville and Stad Brussel, and then the not label that coincides with it. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Still works fine with me. Something that has to do with your browser?
• Can you upload a new version of the map that isn't shaded in blue? It's making the numbers practically invisible
  • Y

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• per Edwards: Which country is Brussels in?
  • Y
• The lead image is irrelevant with the subject of the list. A map or a skyline of Brussels woul dbe more appropriate. Eklipse (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed, will look for another image.

• No bold links please.
  • Y removed.
• Caption/frame etc for the image.
  • Captions cannot be added to images using {{Image label begin}}

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Article begins "twelve", list contains nineteen? --Golbez (talk) 09:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Y fixed. Malinaccier (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Support from Killervogel5 – I have reviewed this list and am quite impressed. Well done!

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:12, 18 August 2008 [37].

---

List of Philadelphia Phillies managers

previous FLC (16:51, 3 August 2008)

I am re-nominating this list, because I believe that all of the issues that needed to be addressed from the last FLC have been fixed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...with 111 in..." - put this into context. Did they play 800 games or 111? One way or another it'll have a different impact. And most of us interested butWh non-US readers are amazed by the sheer volume of games that MLB teams get through!
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why link season on its 6th use?
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "in team history", "in team history" - team=franchise?
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The manager with the highest winning percentage over a full season or more was posted by ..." - no need for "posted by".
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • No need for bold in the key.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Also no need for the full stops in the key.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Left align the second column of the key.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Stick with one date range format for seasons, so XXXX-XXXY or XXXX-XY.
    • I don't see the second format anywhere; if you see one, could you point it out to me? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Check the image captions. Also check for en-dash there too! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth explaining the difference in role between manager and general manager. Oddly, your list is of "...Phillies managers", not general managers...
    • Yes, I do think that's necessary, now that I look at it. Should I write a mini-lede explaining the role of the manager and the general manager before each table? Should I move the list to include GMs? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think you just need to improve the lead to include a comprehensive discussion over the roles. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • How do those additions strike you (first ¶)? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • " this manager has appeared in the playoffs" - you mean the number of times he led the Phillies into the playoffs?
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why link WS in the table when it's already linked in the lead?
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • And I'd link PA in the key, or beforehand if possible, rather than in the table.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "b #49" - what is the relevance of 49?
    • Bowa is manager #49, but it's not really necessary. Removed.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The external link could have a bullet point in front of it.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- K. Annoyomous24

• Comments
  • Shouldn't this article be just about the managers?
    • Could be, I expanded this article from the base lists, which were both included when I started building it.
  • "The duties of the team manager include team strategy and leadership on and off the field." I think you should erase this sentence as it needs reference and there's already a wikilink for that.
    • This is copied directly from the Wikipedia article and was added in reference to an earlier FLC request. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • For most of the references, you wrote Baseball Reference instead of Baseball-Reference.com.
    • Baseball Reference is the official name of the organization; therefore, they are the publisher. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "they managed the team while still playing for it" should be "they managed the team while still being registered to play for the team".
    • That doesn't make any sense to me, there's no registration about it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • How about "they managed the team while still being signed to play for the team"? -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "In contrast, the general manager controls player transactions, hiring and firing of the coaching staff, and negotiates with players and agents regarding contracts." There should be a reference for this.
    • This is copied directly from the Wikipedia article and was added in reference to an earlier FLC request. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "After this time, he served as a team executive until 2003, and was inducted into the Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame in recognition of his services." Needs reference.
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "The manager" should be "The Phillies manager" because of a new paragraph.
    • Redundant, see the close of the sentence. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • I rather have you use this reference than Baseball-Reference.com because of the conflict I had on this FLC.
    • Per FA and FL guidelines and WP:N, independent sources are preferred and in fact required. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
      • But can you at least put on that reference since it is the "offical reference". -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I added it to General references
          • Sorry for mentioning this but if you go all the way down on the reference I gave you, you'll see that the second manager (sorry, forgot his name) had a tie. You should compare the two general references because there WILL be some differences. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 18:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
            • No big thing.  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
              • I think this reference could help you with the playoff stats. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
                • My playoff statistics already match that page, so no updates are needed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Bold the top 5 abbreviations on the key as it is bolded on the table.
    • See previous FLC. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • "by inaugural season manager Blondie Purcell..." should be "by the second inaugural season manager Blondie Purcell..."
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • There were no general managers from 1883 to 1944?
    • That's correct. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • This article should be split into List of Philadelphia Phillies managers and List of Philadelphia Phillies general managers.
    • See above.
  • Delete the "External Links" as it has nothing to do with the article.
    • See previous FLC. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
  • Add the category, [[Category:Major League Baseball lists]]
    •  Done KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

-- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 18:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 02:53, 18 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:59, 15 August 2008 [38].

---

List of Pearl Jam awards

I am nominating the l ist for featured status. I will make sure to address any concerns.-5- (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment – "Rockonthenet.com" is used as a reference for most of the article. I wouldn't consider that a reliable source. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, just one question before I go looking for better sources. Is it alright to use rockonthenet at all, or do you want it replaced altogether?-5- (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, the site shouldn't be used at all. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • It is used sparingly on List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards.-5- (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I noticed that on List of Linkin Park awards, thanks for pointing it out on List of The Killers awards. I would take it to WT:FLC, or wait for the other opinions here. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright, addressed.-5- (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Excellent. Support « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image is poor, nothing better available?
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Pearl Jam signed to Epic Records in 1991. The band's debut studio album, Ten, broke Pearl Jam into the mainstream, and became one of the best-selling alternative albums of the 1990s.[1] Pearl Jam received four awards at the 1993 MTV Video Music Awards for its video for the single "Jeremy", including Video of the Year and Best Group Video. Pearl Jam's second studio " count the "Pearl Jam"'s - four in a row, one per sentence.... too much, reword with imagination!
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "set the record for most copies of an album sold in a week" what record? World record? most copies in the world? in the US?
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Pearl Jam subsequently released No Code in 1996 and Yield in 1998. In 2000, Pearl Jam released its sixth studio ..." PJ overdose again...
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "seventy-two such live albums " - "72 live albums".
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "set a record for most albums to debut in the Billboard 200 at the same time" how many?
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "awarded for outstanding achievements in the record industry" is this a quote from the awards folks? If so, quote it, if not, "outstanding achievements" is POV/peacock.
    • It's worded the same way on List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards, two featured lists.-5- (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't care - it needs to be either a quote or toned down. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Same for "honor the finest achievements in filmmaking".
    • That's how it's worded in the Broadcast Film Critics Association article.-5- (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't care - it needs to be either a quote or toned down. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • and "acknowledge artistic and technical achievements "
    • That's how it's written in List of Nelly Furtado awards.-5- (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't care - it needs to be either a quote or toned down. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • and " celebrate the top music videos of the year".
    • It's worded the same way on List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards, two featured lists.-5- (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't care - it needs to be either a quote or toned down. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "college students" - what's the scope? In the US, in the World?
    • U.S.-5- (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "most successful songs on mainstream radio" POV/peacock - what makes it a "successful song"? rotations? sales?
    • It was taken from Radio Music Award, so you'll have to ask the editors of that article.-5- (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • No I won't. If you use the quote in this article you need to understand what it means. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is the EL to the official website called "Pearl Jam Ten Club"?
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Seattle, Washington per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 101#Linking City, State
• "The single "Jeremy" received Grammy nominations" --> "The single "Jeremy" received Grammy Award nominations"

Good otherwise. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Am i making trouble now. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work, can't find anything wrong at all. Drewcifer (talk) 03:37, 15 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 14 August 2008 [39].

---

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7)

previous FLC (17:06, 2 August 2008)

The first nomination ended up turning into a mostly peer review, so I agreed with The Rambling Man to archive it as it wasn't getting any consensus either way. However, I still feel it meets the criteria so here is its second nomination. Any comments are welcome and will be addressed. Thank you Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "2006–2007 school year" → "2006–07 school year"
    •  Done
  • "...between April 2007 and December 2007" → "...between April and December 2007" (?)
    •  Done
  • "...Mondays at 7:30 p.m." - What time zone are we talking about here?
    • It's all timezones as it is a national station. So whether one was watching on the east coast, the west coast, or in the middle, it was all 7:30.
      • Why not mention it in the article?--Crzycheetah 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
        •  Done. I put "Local time" because it was the less-goofiest of everything I could think of! Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "...Fridays at 8:00 p.m." - Again, what's the time zone?
    •  Done eastern and pacific
      • Done? I don't see it mentioned anywhere.--Crzycheetah 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Oops! now it's done! Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • US or U.S.?
    •  Done changed all to "US"  Done changed all to "U.S." to be consistent with the other season articles Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "…able purchase" → "…able to purchase"
    •  Done
  • [7][6] → [6][7]
    •  Done
  • "The N aired episode 718, "Another Brick in the Wall" before 717, "Talking in Your Sleep", and 721, "Everything She Wants" before 720, "Ladies Night". " - Is there any reason why they did that?
    • If there is they haven't said.
  • "CTV aired held back episode 703, "Love is a Battlefield," and broadcast it after episode 719, "Broken Wings"" - I don't understand this sentence, plus it's unsourced because the current ref#5 has "the N"'s schedule.
    •  Done
  • For current ref#2, "accessed" → "retrieved"
    •  Not done This appears to be a problem with {{cite podcast}}. I will try to fix the problem there.
      • I just looked at {{cite podcast}}. If you use the accessdate= field, it renders "Podcast accessed on <date>". I'm going to leave it because if you listen to a podcast, you access it, you don't retrieve it. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref#3 should have a format=PDF field.
    •  Done

--Crzycheetah 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support--Crzycheetah 23:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support since Crzycheetah's comments have been seen to, and this looks as good as its six counterparts to me. Nice work. Cliff smith ^talk 22:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The season was also nominated for a Teen Choice Award in the "Choice TV: Comedy" category. The winners will be announced on 4 August 2008." - thats in the past now and it didn't win so the second sentence can be scrapped. (PDF of winners)
    • Ah - I forgot about that.  Done
  • I know the current format is consistent with previous articles, but is there a reason not to have "WrittenBy=" and "DirectedBy=" as to me this would seem to make the list more encylopaedic?
    • Because I haven't figured out how to format it yet. Because some episodes in seasons 6 and 7 aired in the US before Canada I included all the US airdates for every season to be consistent. I could have just done one "Original airdate" column, but I preferred having the extra information. Because of the extra date column, adding directors and writers squishes the width of the existing columns. See User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Episodes#S3 and User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Episodes#S4. If I do change them, I'm thinking that the table in Season 4 is the way to go. Also, I haven't watched three episodes of this season so I don't know who the directors are yet! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

- Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral. Having those sandboxes has made me alot happier at all the options you are considering. Whilst agree that S4 looks the best it would mean the transclusion to List of episodes has two lines for each doubling the length of that article. I would still prefer to see the director & writer in somehow, but I appreciate it is a complicated problem which you are considering carefully and am confident you have the intent to add this information when a suitable method is found. However I cannot support as I feel the season is not fully comprehensive until that time. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For now the writers and directors are still included on the page in the "Crew" section, so it is comprehensive. As for having two lines at the list of episodes, I don't think it would look too ugly but I'll continue to work in my sandbox for now to get a visually appealing layout finalised. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that it is in fact comprehensive. The only thing is that I have read (in unreliable sources) that Yan Moore co-wrote the second part of Standing in the Dark, if this is true he needs to be tagged onto the writers list, so can you just double check that. Regardless you've done enough to convince me it meets the criteria.

Support - Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting, and for letting me know about Yan Moore. I just checked http://www.the-n.com/theclick/ but only James Hurst is given a writing credit on screen. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:33, 13 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 14 August 2008 [40].

---

List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington

I am nominating this list as a featured list because it is a well-referenced and informative article. The introduction and content is concise and clear. The categories are easy to navigate. It also gives readers links to the more notable buildings and also gives statistics to the less notable buildings, without any buildings left out of the list. The pictures are not excessive. Instead, it nicely shows the reader the overall landscape and the tallest structure in Bellevue. The quality of the article should achieve a featured list article status.Huang7776 (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "city's 450 ft (137 m) height limit" is there a need to repeat the conversion here right after the previous one?

    Done.

  • "The Bellevue Skyline" skyline doesn't need capitalising.

    Done.

  • " citys' 24 tallest ", "Bellevues'" apostrophe incorrectly located.

    Fixed.

  • "the city could double its highrise count within the next few years" a little speculative and not particularly encyclopaedic.

    Agree, removed.

  • " under construction, approved, and proposed " "...or proposed"?

    Changed it - using "or" and leaving out the comma is the standard for all other tallest building lists.

  • "Existing structures are included for ranking purposes based on present height." - what are these? Are there any?

    Done; I reworded it to read "Topped out structures are included for ranking purposes based on present height" - all of these topped out structures are clearly labeled as such.

  • Sentence fragments (i.e incomplete ones) don't take full stops.

    Done; all table cells now use full sentences.

  • "1990's" 1990s.

    Fixed.

• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and cheers, Rai•me 13:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• With all issues fixed, I think I can support now. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 05:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Rank in the first table doesn't work after 4 clicks
  • Fixed by User:Hydrogen Iodide. --Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Lincoln Tower One is ranked first, but has no notes.. does this mean it's not as notable?
  • I added "Tallest completed building in the city." Is this okay? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Please provide something in the notes column for the buildings without articles
  • It has been discussed multiple times that the only information in the notes should relate directly to the heights of the buildings. I did a quick look through the references for anything that can be considered notable. I only added a note to 989Elements that says that the building is the first rental apartments high-rise in Bellevue. Every other entry without notes and/or without an article are not notable and nothing of importance can be added to the notes column. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Even better, create some articles for them
  • Like I said above, most of them are not notable and will probably get deleted. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Oppose reluctantly. It seems my comments have gone ignored. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have been busy (but I now have some time on my hands). If there are any other concerns I will try to fix them as soon as possible. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment/Oppose A few comments before I support.

• "This lists ranks" grammar: This list ranks...
  • Done.
• "Table entry without text indicate that information regarding building height have not yet been released." have --> has
  • Done.
• "This lists buildings that are approved for construction in Bellevue and are planned to rise at least 150 feet (46 m)." This should be "...to rise to at least" or " to rise at least 150 feet from ground level. As it is, the sentence (repeated numerous times in the list) is unfinished.
  • Done.
• "Table entry without text indicate that information regarding building height have not yet been released." should be Table entries without text indicate that information regarding building height have not yet been released. or Table entry without text indicates that information regarding building height have not yet been released. As it is, the sentence is not grammatical correct.
  • Done.
• "The Bravern - Tower I" This should be an emdash per WP:DASH
  • Done, fixed all instances of this.
• Can you centre align the numbers in the columns: "floors" and "year." That looks better and is convention.
  • But doing so would make 2 out of 5 columns centered, leaving 3 out of 5 left-aligned, which would be awkward IMO. The convention for building lists, at least, is to leave all columns left-aligned. Cheers, Rai•me 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So, a few things to sort out before I can give it another look and support. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review and cheers, Rai•me 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks good, I fixed a typo, but other than that, looked good. After looking through the other tallest building lists, I see that left aligned number columns is the norm. I prefer them to be centre aligned as it looks neater, but that is personal preference. I don't think columns containing text should be. Either way, I now support. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:58, 13 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 16:33, 13 August 2008 [41].

---

Manchester United F.C. records and statistics

I believe this list is deserving of promotion to FL status as it meets the seven Featured List criteria. The prose exhibits a professional standard of writing. The lead is engaging and introduces the subject adequately, while also defining the scope and inclusion criteria for the list. The list then covers its entire scope comprehensively and is easy to navigate via the table of contents and its bullet pointed layout. There are also several images appropriate to the subject with captions tying the image in to the text. Finally, the list is fairly stable, being accurate as of the end of the last match played by Manchester United, and is subject to no more vandalism than can be expected of an article relating to such a high-profile football club. Finally, the list conforms to the style used in other lists of football clubs' records and statistics. – PeeJay 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jameboy (talk · contribs)

• The lead should not start with "this is a list of...". Instead it needs to introduce the list in a more interesting and imaginative way. Although some existing FLs start in this way, the bar has seemingly now been raised (I discovered this at the West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons FLC). I'm not sure if this is explicitly written as a policy or guideline, but I guess (FLC director) The Rambling Man could provide more detail on this.
  • Y I have removed the "this is a list of..." statement.
• ...based in Manchester. Really? According to the main club article they are based in Trafford, Greater Manchester. I think for FL it needs to be precise.
  • Y Changed to "Trafford, Greater Manchester".
• "They are also involved in European football on a regular basis" - a historical slant may be better eg. Since their first entry in the European Cup in 19xx they have regularly competed in European football.
  • Y Reworded.
• "The majority of Manchester United's success came in the 1990s" - I'm not sure this is accurate. How are you defining success - by number of trophies won? They won 19 trophies in the 1990s according to the prose, but they have won more than 38 trophies in their history. It is probably true that the 1990s was the club's most successful decade, but I think you need to be careful with PoV here. Probably easiest to remove the sentence entirely - by simply presenting the list of honours, the reader can decide when the club's most successful era(s) was/were.
  • Y Reworded.
• "Record transfer fees paid" is possibly a bit ambiguous as some of them (e.g. Rooney) weren't club records. "Highest transfer fees paid" may be better. You could maybe footnote or bold the ones that were club records.
  • Y I have changed the section title as you suggest, but I think that bolding the club record transfers would be unnecessary if I can find a progression of the record fee paid.
• Could you add "Progression of record fee paid"? (as per "Progression of record fee received")
  • Y I have commented out the progression of the record fee received until I can find a progression of the record fee paid.
    • I have compiled both progressions now.
• I would separate out footnotes from specific references (e.g. see West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons again)
  • Y Done.

Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to all of your concerns above. – PeeJay 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit

Comments from NapHit (talk · contribs)

• I think you should have an image in the lead, preferably a player who holds a record such as Ryan Giggs
  • Y Have moved the Ryan Giggs image to the lead and replaced the appearances section image with one of Paul Scholes.
• No need for season by season performance section at the bottom above the references when it is at the top of the page.
  • Y Done.
• I think the title should include "List of" as per over lists of this nature
  • N I don't think the title of the list is actually relevant to this nomination as it does not affect the content. In any event, it can be moved once it is promoted.
• Don't agree with bold being used to highlight figures
  • N I disagree.
• You need a full stop before every reference
  • N I think that as long as the reference comes at the end of a line or has another punctuation mark before it, that should be enough.
• "Premiership" and "Premier League" in the goals section choose and stick with it
  • Y Fixed.
• Where there are two players who have the same record put them on separate lines
  • Y Done.
• Link to the specific seasons for example in the goals section there are seasons that are unlinked
  • N Not sure that's actually necessary. In any case, what season article would I link to? xxxx-xx in English football or Manchester United F.C. season xxxx-xx?
• The red link for Jack Powell should be turned into a blue link
  • N That will be done in due course.
• The transfer section needs references and I would limit it to 5 transfers
  • I am currently referencing this section now, but I disagree that it should be limited to five transfers, as five seems like just as much of an arbitrary number as ten!
• ref 33 appears to be dead
  • Y Moved to correct link.
• Is manunitedzone.com a Reliable source?
  • I would say so, yes.
• The reference under ref 23 should be linked to an item or removed or put in the external links section
  • Y Removed.
• Is Spartacus Educational a reliable source?
  • I would say so, yes.
• ref 23 has no retrieved on date
  • Y Added one.

Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I have responded above. – PeeJay 20:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Just one more issue before I can support the record transferes in and progression of transfers in has a bit of writing before the table I feel the record transfers out needs more than one sentence, and that the progression of transfers out needs at least a paragraph or you could do away with the writing. Just as long as your consistent on all four tables. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • Why are there colons in front of all the footnotes? I think they should be removed.—Chris! _ct 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Done. I was simply copying the style from West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons and hardly noticed they were there. – PeeJay 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support —Chris! _ct 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

You may want to change "They have also been involved in European football ever since they became the first English club to do so in 1956." to something like "They have also been involved in European football ever since they became the first English club to enter the European Cup in 1956." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments why are these sources reliable?
  • manutdzone.com is maintained by one person only, most likely just a fan
  • mufcinfo.com - same as above
  • Football Club History Database looks like another personal website.

--Crzycheetah 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak for the Man Utd sites, but Football Club History Database is probably the best sourced, most complete and most accurate database of English club histories currently in existence; check out the bibiliography and sources page. Maintained by Wikipedia editor User:Richard Rundle, a person who takes accuracy rather more seriously than do the compilers of some media-run football stats sites. It's regarded as totally reliable by WP:FOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say that manutdzone.com and mufcinfo.com are two of the most comprehensive websites when it comes to Manchester United information, the latter in particular. Apart from being Man Utd sites, and therefore inherent with a slight United slant, I see no reason why these sites should not be used as reliable sources. – PeeJay 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the reason why these sites should not be used as reliable sources, though. They all violate WP:SPS. Each website is maintained by one person, who is not an established expert.--Crzycheetah 08:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, are you referring to all three sites mentioned, or just the Man Utd ones? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All three. User:Richard Rundle basically maintains his website as we all maintain Wikipedia; that is, he researches all the info and then places them on his website. Am I wrong?--Crzycheetah 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V#Reliable sources says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." FCHD is such a source and does have such a reputation; surely "research[ing] all the info" over a significant length of time is how reputations for fact-checking and accuracy are built up. What reason do you have for saying that Rundle "is not an established expert" in the field of football club history and statistics? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(→)The reason why I don't think Rundle "is not an established expert" is that I don't see any proof that he's one. Are there any third-party sources that prove that Rundle is an expert? ...because everyone's a non-expert until proven otherwise.--Crzycheetah 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that even relevant? FCHD has a proven background for fact-checking, as shown by their extensive bibliography. – PeeJay 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault for introducing the red herring. Please consider these football club official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in Senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". There are many more. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was looking for. --Crzycheetah 19:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

• Lead. Could do with citing never lower than second tier (FCHD would do for me) and first English club to enter European Cup (there's an RSSSF page, if you have nothing better).
  • Y Referenced.
• Giggs' 15-second goal: not doubting the fact, but I'd be happier with a more obviously-reliable source for a club record than the trivia section of a rather eulogistic profile.
  • Y Changed to referencing a book.
• Schmeichel's caps: the cited source doesn't mention 76 caps with United, and if you have a look at his Danish FA profile, it would appear to be 70, not 76 (caps nos. 43 to 112 inclusive, unless I've got his Man Utd dates horribly wrong).
  • Y I have changed the reference to use the link you provided, if you think that's suitable.
• Highest transfers paid: change Rooney's "currently" to "as of" somewhen.
  • Y I have removed the word "currently" altogether. That is, unless you think an "as of" date would be appropriate.
• In the top ten table, why are Anderson and Hargreaves listed as equal 5th, when the fees are different? Similarly Nani and Carrick.
  • Y I must have forgotten to change the ranks when I edited the fees.
• Progression of record fee paid. The Tommy Taylor anecdote cites a page which attributes its content to another source. Perhaps you should change the citation to "original-source, reproduced at source-you-currently-cite".
  •  Done
• The transfer tables don't seem to have a source.
  • Y I have added inline citations to the top of the fee column in each table.
• Streaks: dates need linking (for consistency).
  •  Done
• Images: MOS:IMAGES says that if an image "displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified", and images in portrait format (like Scholes and Ferdinand) should include the 'upright' parameter. On my browser/screen resolution, the Scholes image pushes the table down so there's quite a lot of white space between the youngest/oldest players bit and the Appearances table; if you moved him up to the top of the Players section the white space would be reduced significantly. Also, there's probably no need to wikilink Manchester United in the captions.
  •  Done
• (My obsession...) filling in citation templates. For featured content, please be more precise about work and publisher in cite-web templates. E.g. EvertonFC.com is the domain name of a work published by Everton F.C., it's not a publisher. And be consistent about whether you have authors' surname first or last.
  • Y Where possible, I have replaced "dotcom" publishers with proper companies/organisations.
• There's no need to repeat the whole detail every time you cite the same book, e.g. once you've fully cited The Definitive Newton Heath the first time it's referred to, you could have just cited Shury & Landamore, p. xx each subsequent time. I know it's too late to tell you that for this list, but for future reference...
  • I could replace the citations with "Shury & Landamore, p. xx" if you think it would harm this article's chances of reaching FL status if I didn't.
    • It won't make a blind bit of difference :-) just would have saved you some typing if you'd known... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It helped a lot. I didn't even know about that "upright" image parameter before today. – PeeJay 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'd probably expand a little in the lead on the more significant records (like European Cups, FA Cups, top appearances, top goal scorers) - so you get a nice rounded intro. It's a long list so a few chunky paras to lead into it would be A1.
    • Not sure exactly how much you're looking for, but I've added the main honours records as well as the record appearance maker and goalscorer to the lead. Might add record transfers too.
  • "All stats accurate as of match played May 21, 2008." - "All statistics correct as of May 22, 2008"
    • I don't see what difference that would make. The stats change on the day of a match, not the day after it's played.
  • Domestic league footnotes add confusion due to their placement...
    • I don't understand what that means, but I've consolidated the three domestic league footnotes into one now.
  • I think a footnote explaining how one shares the Charity Shield is a good idea.
    •  Done
  • Okay, so a personal pref, but I loathe "World War II" like a movie sequel - I prefer Second World War which redirects anyway.
    •  Done
  • Scholes' caption needs a full stop.
    •  Done
  • Is there a decent link for "international"?
    • Which instance are you referring to?
  • "(70 while with United)" - "with the club"?
    •  Done
  • A few red links which could do with being filled in?
    •  Done apart from Ashford F.C., which might be a bit difficult since I don't know which Ashford F.C. is being referred to.
  • There's some nice work on the progression of players bought, but not sold - could you expand on this section?
    • Can do, when I get some time.
  • Your tables aren't sortable and are quite short so avoid overlinking (e.g. Real is linked three times in five rows....)
    • N A bit of a non-issue, in my opinion, but if you, as head honcho of the FLC troupe think it's necessary, I shall remove some of the links.
  • " First Round" vs "preliminary round second leg" - be consistent with the capitalisation.
    •  Done
  • Any reason to bold the record results?
    • All of the record figures have been bolded in order to highlight the actual record figure. If this was to be done for some records and not others, it would look silly.
  • There's been a general move away from wikilinking dates - think about it since there are literally hundreds of dates here linked and you need to be sure it enriches the browsing experience.
  • Consider referencing your footnotes
    •  Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Responded above. – PeeJay 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Matt91486 (talk · contribs)

• In the lead, the footnote at the end of "The club currently holds the record for the most FA Cup triumphs with 11" should be moved to the end of the sentence, regardless of it being after a comma.
  • Not necessarily. According to WP:REFPUNC, "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after any punctuation, except for dashes".
• In the transfers section, it would nice to have the date column referenced as well as the fee. It looks like ref. 32 does both, so you could perhaps move that one over to the date section and leave 35 for referencing the transfer fees, assuming it does all of them. The page wouldn't load for me, so I couldn't verify that.
  • Unfortunately, ref 32 only has information from 1878 to 2004, while ref 35 has information from 1970 to the present day, so I thought it was best to use both references to cite the one column, and hence the whole table. By the way, if you're using Firefox to open ref 35, you should probably try using Internet Explorer. I have had a word with the author of the site about it, but I don't think he's done anything yet.

Those are the two things that I saw at first - I might have another look later. matt91486 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments, dude. I have responded above. – PeeJay 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Super-pedantic comments:
  • Manchester United's first trophy was the Manchester and District Challenge Cup, which they won in 1886. - anachronistic, as they won the competition as Newton Heath. Also, the competition is almost always referred to simply as the "Manchester Cup".
    • Changed to "Manchester United's first trophy was the Manchester Cup, which they won as Newton Heath L&YR in 1886."
  • While is probably is a club record, the ref for the four Solskjaer goals does not say that it is a club record but only that it is a Premier League record. It also seems odd that this is included but fastest hat-trick is not. If these four goals also included the fastest hat-trick, this should be mentioned.
    • Funnily enough, I couldn't actually find the club record for the fastest hat-trick. I could go through the list of hat-tricks at stretfordend.co.uk to find the fastest one, but I'm worried that might count as WP:OR.
    • Do you think I should remove the Solskjaer record from the list then?
  • Jack Powell and Tom Burke for Wales vs England - avoid "vs" in prose".
    • Changed to "against".
  • It might be worth indicating which of the transfer records were also national records at the time, there are several others in addition to the two mentioned in the text.
    • I've bolded the names of players and fees involved in British record transfers.
      • There's at least one more (Pallister) and possibly two or three if memory serves me right (Keane, van Nistlerooy?) Oldelpaso (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Pallister was signed for £2.3 million in August 1989, which is less than the £4.25 million that Marseille paid for Chris Waddle in July 1989, as is the £3.75 million that United paid for Roy Keane. It is possible, however, that Pallister and Keane's transfers were records for transfers involving only British clubs. Also, Van Nistelrooy was signed for £19 million, which is less than the £22.5 million that Real Madrid paid for Nicolas Anelka in 1999. – PeeJay 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
          • They were record fees paid by a British club, which when the list is of fees paid, not received, I think would br more appropriate. Its your call though. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Ah, I see. I was just going by the Progression of British football transfer fee record article. Now I just need to find references for the British records. – PeeJay 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It could be noted that the record attendance is also a League record. The reason for using "League" in the wording of the Old Trafford record is not immediately obvious. I know why you've put it like that - the ground record is a cup semi involving other clubs - but in a list of United records the attendances of other clubs are irrelevant.
    • I've reworded the record title, and noted that the attendance against Blackburn on 31 March 2007 is also a Premier League record.
  • Could really do with more solid refs than spartacus.schoolnet and manunitedzone. Is stretfordend.co.uk's claim to being the official club statistics site backed up anywhere else? More a matter of curiosity than disbelief. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • stretfordend.co.uk is linked to from the Manchester United website. If you click on "Fixtures & Results" in the menu on the left, and then the "Club Statistics" link (also on the left, under "Fixtures & Results"), it takes you to stretfordend.co.uk.

I've replaced the Spartacus ref with a print source. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for doing that. I've replied to the rest of your concerns above. – PeeJay 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments
  • 1990 FA Charity Shield can now be wikilinked.
    •  Done
  • With regards to the Ashford F.C. redlink, after having a look at the club's FCHD page, I see the furthest they reached in the FA Cup was the third qualifying round. Unsure if that meets the requirements for club notability though.
    • If their notability is doubtful, then it would probably be best not to create the article. I'm not sure what the notability criteria are for clubs either, but I'd say it's probably the First Round Proper for the FA Cup. – PeeJay 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you know the "Record FA Cup win"?
    •  Done

Nothing much really. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded above. – PeeJay 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comments dealt with suitably, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 10 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 16:33, 13 August 2008 [42].

---

List of Boston Red Sox managers

I am nominating this list becaue I believe it is featured list material. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 09:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I originally started and expanded this, before it was finished by K. A24. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – Ties aren't possible in Baseball, why is that section there in the playoffs? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If you see the playoff results, you'll see that they tied a game with the New York Giants at the World Series in 1912. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The title of general reference #3 should be in lower case per WP:MOS

Other than that, it looks good.—Chris! _ct 21:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 21:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 22:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image caption - " had led " - "has led"
  • " In baseball, the head coach of a team is called the manager, or more formally, the field manager. " this is more of a footnote than a piece of interesting and useful information about the Red Sox in the lead.

But readers will maybe be misunderstood by what a manager in baseball really means.

• • "of the Red Sox, managed the most " - "has managed the most..."
  • " playoff games and wins with 31 games and 22 playoff wins" "playoff games with 31 and playoff wins with 22"?
  • "both have two World Series championships. " "have both won two World Series championships"?
  • "... the AL Manager of the Year Award in .." comma before in here I think.
  • Collins (et al) image caption is a fragment so no full stop required.
  • Jack Barry points to a dab page.
  • So does Kevin Kennedy.
  • Two redlinked categories.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! except for the second bullet. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 20:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from KV5

• All season years in the lead link to "XXXX Major League Baseball season" except for 1912.
• "The Red Sox are members of the American League Eastern Division of the American League (AL) in Major League Baseball (MLB) and are the reigning World Series champions." - I don't think American League needs to be there twice; I think it could just be Eastern Division (or East Division, since that is the proper name) pipelinked to American League East.
• "Joe Cronin managed the most games with 1987 and wins with 1071 of any Red Sox manager." - The phrase "of any Red Sox manager" modifies the word "games"; it seems a bit broken with the two separated. Also, the numbers look like years unless you put commas in (i.e., 1,987 and 1,071). Same with "both categories with 1116 games and 560 wins", next sentence.
• "Terry Francona, the current manager of the Red Sox, has managed the most playoff games with 31 and wins with 22." - this should be referenced if the table is not sortable.
• "Bill Carrigan and Francona have both won two World Series championships." - "have each won" would be better.
• "...in 1915 and 1916 while Francona" - should have a comma after 1916.
• "...to be awarded the AL Manager of the Year Award" - award is redundant, "to win the AL Manager of the Year Award" would be better.
• The statistics would be better off restricted to completed seasons in a list like this, per FLC criterion #7, unless you plan on keeping it updated after every single game.
• If the table is not going to be sortable, I'm not sure that years need to be linked after their first appearance (I might be wrong on that count; The Rambling Man could probably provide clarification).
• Since you are using em-dashes in the playoffs for blanks, you should use them in the "#" column as well.
• Since the dagger symbol never occurs in bold text in the table, I don't believe it should be bold in the key.

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

• • DONE ALL!. The only tihng I need someone to do is to fix the sorting since I really don't know how. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 22:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I put in sorts for the numbers, but the colspans are messing with it. Either they have to be removed, or no sorting. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • To be honest, I don't get what you mean. I also sorted the # of coaches since I think I get how to sort numbers now. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
        • The colspans are the team names that go across the whole table. They are causing an issue with the sorting because they go across the whole table. So, either eliminate those rows (which I would recommend, since you explain the name change in the lead) or no sorting. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
          • DONE! btw, just call me K.A24 instead of K. Annoy. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
            • You got it, bud, didn't even think about how that could be misconstrued until I read it closely. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just one last thing, not a deal-breaker, but I think the name column should sort by last name. It can be done the same way as the other sorts (List of Philadelphia Phillies managers does it, if you need an example). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 18:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• • A note from the List of Toronto Blue Jays managers FLC: Unsort the number column or add a sortkey. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support – I put my full support behind this list. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Boston, Massachusetts, per Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 101#Linking City, State

So should I do Boston, Massachusetts or Boston, Massachusetts?

The second one. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 01:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please fix the huge amount of whitespace in the Managers section.

So what should I put on the huge whitespace?

Eh, I dunno how to fix it. Sorry :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by huge whitespace. Are you talking about the onw under the pictures since I don't see any huge whitespace. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nevermind. My wife had my text size set to medium. I prefer it smaller so when I shrank it it looks okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:14, 12 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 13 August 2008 [43].

---

List of parties to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty

I ran this by The Rambling Man (talk), and edited the page in reply to his comments on the talk page. I also submitted this for Peer Review and made edits in response to those suggestions as well. Believing in good faith this is at or near the criteria necessary for a featured list, I submit this for your suggestions and hopefully approval. Best, --Allstar86 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I saw this the other day and thought it was good. Here are a few nitpicks:
  • Placement of "Republic of Macedonia"
    • Fixed Now sorted under 'R'. --Allstar86 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Effect of sorting on Macedonia, São Tomé, and Micronesia
    • Fixed Resorted Macedonia as above, Sao Tome applied a sort hack, Micronesia sorted under 'F'. --Allstar86 (talk) 03:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • In the lead, "may become members of the Executive Council..." - clarify what "the Executive Council" refers to. Perhaps "may become members of an executive council that oversees implementation of, and compliance with, the treaty..." or something more general. --maclean 02:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Done , noted as "the principal decision-making body of the organization responsible for supervising its activities" with citation. Thanks for all the above notes! --Allstar86 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. But one last small question. It the lead, "most recently Barbados on 14 January 2008 and Colombia on 29 January 2008, respectively." - no Malaysia (17 January 2008)? --maclean 08:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm trying to say Barbados is the most recent to have signed, and Colombia most recent to have ratified. Malaysia is neither (but is the second most recent to have ratified). Perhaps the way it reads now is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure how best to improve it. --Allstar86 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I ended up clarifying this a bit in the edits to the second paragraph, below. Hopefully it's easier to understand now. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "encompasses the states who have signed and ratified " - however it should be worth pointing out in the lead that a number of nations have not signed/ratified the treaty because those nations are included in this list. Otherwise they should be removed from the list I guess. Or am I confused?
    • Done You're quite right that this list contains information about those not party to the treaty. I added a sentence to the first paragraph to explain that. I think this is a good title, though. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Second para reads a little clunky to me, four short choppy sentences... any chance of some merging and flow improvement?
    • Partially Done I've tried to edit this for flow a bit, and I think it's slightly better, but it's still not merged and I don't seem to be able to make it work any better than it is at the moment with the tweaking done to the end sentences of the paragraph. --Allstar86 (talk) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "instrument of ratification" - sounds cool, what exactly is it?
    • Basically, a document with signatures on it. I think this is common parlance in terms of every international treaty. But if you think it needs to be defined within the article, let me know. "The instrument of ratification is a document, which must be signed by an appropriate official of the respective national government, including the title of the person who has signed it and its date and place of issue. The instrument of ratification must be signed either by the Head of State, Head of Government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or an official with full powers to sign the instrument. This signature validates the instrument of ratification."[44] --Allstar86 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Cool, I get it but I think it's worth noting in this article. After all, we need to appeal to non-experts, so something describing what it is would be useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Done Alright; I didn't think it was necessary but I'll happily yield to your better judgment. Edited to "the instrument of ratification serves as the document binding the state to the international treaty and can be accepted…"
          • I'd never claim better judgement than anyone else, but I didn't know what it was so maybe others don't either. But thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There's been a general move away from wikilinked dates en-mass - any idea if the {{dts}} template allows for a "non-linked" version?
    • It does not appear to, no. What do you think should be done? --Allstar86 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about it for now. I think we should ask the nice template people to implement a non-linked version... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Update - I've got someone on the case...! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Table heading - States->states
    • Done --Allstar86 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I would have a look at forcing column widths in each table so you get a similar look-and-feel through each section.
    • Done Fixed same column widths across all tables. --Allstar86 (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • A sub category of "treaties" is "Nuclear weapon governance" which may well be suitable here.
    • Done Thanks for finding it. --Allstar86 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If you use it, remove the Arms control cat as that one is a supercat of the governance cat.
    • Done, per above --Allstar86 (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Support I resized the date columns so they are on one line. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support - nicely done. 72.83.143.33 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 13 August 2008 [45].

---

Screaming Trees discography

Nominating it again :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See previous FLC (06:53, 23 July 2008)

• Comments - a few openers.
  • As I pointed out several times before, the Tripwires linked to in the caption is a UK band. Is that correct? And don't just delete the caption either, if it's not. (YES, HE TOURED WITH THE BAND)
    • Sorry, don't believe it - the Tripwires article says the band are UK based, not Seattle based... Done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Caption is fragment so remove the full stop. Done
  • 8 (or more) uses of [1] in the lead? Really over the top. Done
  • Why isn't the compilation albums section called "Compilation albums"? Done
  • Some albums have release dates, some don't. Be consistent.' Done
  • The Zobbel links aren't correctly titled. Done
    •  Not done The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
    •  Done --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The Chart stats link "publisher" has "1 - 70" - why? Done
  • What were the contributions to the "Other appearances"? Done
    • Not referenced by [11]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      • The song(s) are not referenced by (now) [9] at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • What is "especific."? Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments II
  • http://home.comcast.net/~othastar/WhatsNew.html is not a WP:RS.
  • Nor is http://www.director-file.com/amv/archive3.html.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice. Cannibaloki 14:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Something else Rambling Man. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I did a bit of a c/e on the Lede
• What makes Zobbel.de a WP:RS? There are better, more reliable sites for UK chart statsTHEY USE THE UK CHART BOOK AS A SOURCE
  • Then why don't you use the same chart book? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• What makes clipland.com a WP:RS? Firefox blocked two pop-ups for me which I'm pleased about, but because it has pop ups, it shouldn't be used. I suspect it's only being used to reference the directors but because I also have YouTube blocked, and the clip is taken from YouTube (which also doesn't meet WP:RS) I can't watch it to find out. IS RELIABLE
  • According to who? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• What makes CKB a RS? Looks like a fansite to me. NOT A FANSITE
  • I said it looks like one. It may not be one, but who is the publisher if it is Reliable?

I have far too many referencing issues so I Oppose Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have decided to take the three pages to WP:RSN, along with one other. You can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_63#Query about four websites. If it comes back that they are Reliable I will change my oppose !vote. Right now I stand by it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Music videos this with tons of references taken from fansites.
  • Fansite = non-reliable source.

Cannibaloki 16:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• My reference concerns have been addressed. I now support this list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:10, 13 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 13 August 2008 [46].

---

List of Soundgarden awards

Ready for nomination :). --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I got much help from -5-.

• Comments
  • The LA times link you use in ref [3] doesn't cover all the awards listed. It also says "Pretty Noose" was nominated for the 1996 Grammy's, not 1997.
    • It would be impossible for "Pretty Noose" to have been nominated in 1996. The 1996 Grammys took place in February of that year, while the song wasn't released until May of that year. So, it has to be 1997. Here is footage of Cornell at the 1997 ceremony.-5- (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I found a source for the missing awards that covers both. One was Best Rock Album for Superunknown and the other was Best Rock Song for "Black Hole Sun".-5- (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As The Rambling Man said to me regarding references on The White Stripes discography, can you find more direct links for refs [1] and [2] instead of search engines? Red157(talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't understand, these are the primary sources for these certifications/awards. There's no better place to get RIAA certifications than the official RIAA website, and likewise for the Clio Awards there's no better place than the official website.-5- (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
    • It just needs a direct link like this (For RIAA). And what's happened to the infobox? Red157(talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I changed the RIAA link to the link that you provided, and added an additional reference for the Clio Award.-5- (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Looks good to me. Will hold off supporting it pending more comments, as I'm kind of new to this reviewing thing. Red157(talk • contribs) 11:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No image? Shame.
    • That's out of our control. There's no free images on the internet currently available. It doesn't help that the band broke up over ten years ago.-5- (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Didn't say it was in your control, it would be nice to have an image, that's all. Have you tried Flickr and Commons as well? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Yes, they have been checked, and nothing is currently available for use.-5- (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "The album would be nominated" - it "was" nominated.
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not impressed by the lead. It's basically a list of facts (which could be a bullet point list) with full stops instead of bullet points. There's no real flow to the prose.
    • Well, at least its factual. That's a good thing, right? Would you point us in the direction of a good "List of awards by..." lead, This lead doesn't seem to be better or worse than the leads for List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards.-5- (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • No point in referring to other lists, I'm reviewing this one and I'm saying the lead fails criteria 1 and 2 of WP:WIAFL, namely "Prose. It features professional standards of writing. " and "Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list." note "professional standards" and "engaging lead".
        • I had a look over it, should be a little better now. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Platinum or platinum?
    • In all of the album articles that I've worked on that were eventually elected to good article status, platinum was changed to "Platinum". See Ten (Pearl Jam album) or Vitalogy.-5- (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • So be consistent within this article - you have both varities of p/Platinum. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • All capitalised now. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Where does the 1984 formation get referenced?
    • Comprehensive histories of the band added as refs. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Same for the rest of the first paragraph.
    • See above. Skomorokh 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "They are awarded in a number of fields, including: TV, Print, Outdoor, Radio, Integrated Campaign, Innovative Media, Design, Internet, Content & Contact, and Student work. " - what relevance to this list? At the very, very most, this is a footnote. Nothing more.
    • Addressed.-5- (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "to celebrate the top music videos of the year" - is this a quote from the award organisers? If so then it needs to be in quotes, otherwise its POV/peacock nonsense.
    • How come this wasn't an issue for List of Linkin Park awards and List of The Killers awards? Those are two featured lists and it says the same exact thing.-5- (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Things change - it should be an issue for those lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • It's just a little strange that those were made featured lists within the past month, and you were involved in the review process for both lists. How is someone supposed to know what makes a featured list for this type of article when those that have reached featured-status aren't even worthy of that status? Just curious, that's all...-5- (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
          • It's down to evolving (and improving) standards. It shouldn't be difficult to solve. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Addressed.-5- (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 6 doesn't mention Soundgarden at all.
    • Yes it does. You have to click on "Winners". There's no way to direct link to the Winners section, but Soundgarden is definately there.-5- (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • You had to tell me how to get that information so the citation is not adequate. Find another citation where I don't need to click around. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Addressed.-5- (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Pretty Noose Grammy isn't referenced by [4] or [5]. Not even sure of the point of [5].
    • It certainly is referenced in [4]. In fact, it's the very first thing shown. It says "1996", but that's only when the nomination was given. The ceremony took place in 1997. It would have been impossible for a song released in May 1996 to have been nominated for the 1996 awards, held in February 1996.-5- (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, I found another reference for the "Pretty Noose" Grammy nomination that clearly says "1997 Grammy Awards" and spells the song correctly.-5- (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Clio awards, the reference says "Soundgarden's "Black Hole Sun" and Hole's "Violet" videos have won silver Clio Awards in the alternative category, " - so Silver, not Gold? Doesn't sound the same as "Won" to me.
    • I changed it to "Silver Award - Alternative Music Video", if that's preferable. The reference agrees with them having "won" that award.-5- (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 2 just links to a search page which is of no use.
    • Okay, it's been removed.-5- (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looks really good. My only complaint is that the year columns should be centered. And yeah, it would be nice to get a picture in there, but if not that's fine too. Drewcifer (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• I think I addressed your concern about the years being centered, but I'm not entirely sure.-5- (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, what about stuff like this? Seems pretty important. I recommend something a la List of Nine Inch Nails awards. Drewcifer (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• The only question I have is what are the notable publications to include and what should be excluded?-5- (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Good question. I would say that if a good indication would be whether the publication has an article. If it's notable enough to have it's own article, then it's probably notable if they give such an acclaim. And vice versa. I think it's fair to say that a list like this will never be complete (since we can never include all of the lesser-known awards in the world), so I think it's okay to cherry pick the most notable miscellaneous awards and such. Drewcifer (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, thanks for the response.-5- (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, addressed.-5- (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Cool, looks great. One more complaint: I'm not sure what the mentions of the album's going platinum have to do with the actual list, since certifications aren't mentioned at all here. I think you should keep the lead focused on the awards. And now that you have an extra section, you need to mention some of those in the lead as well. Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Addressed.-5- (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 05:27, 12 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 13 August 2008 [47].

---

List of Toronto Blue Jays managers

previous FLC (20:17, 30 July 2008)
FLC before previous FLC

I am nominating this article for the third time and I trully believe that it's ready for promotion to a featured list status. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 08:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Killervogel5

Comments from Killervogel5

• I would use the formatting from the opening line of List of Boston Red Sox managers here too... "The Blue Jays are members of the American League (AL) East Division in Major League Baseball (MLB)."

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've fixed some grammar and copyediting mistakes, but I would give this a thorough check-over and close reading.

I'll try to find some more grammar and copyediting mistakes if there is anymore.

• • I didn't see any copyediting done, so I did it myself. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• General manager does not need to be capitalized.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Harry Warner needs to be linked in the table.

There's no wikilink for that article. There is one with the same name but they're both different people. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Then it should be a redlink or, preferably, you should create a stub for him.
• No space before the [b] footnote (Warner).

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is a [d] footnote at the bottom for Rojas, but no link to it in the table.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Make the "#" column unsortable or add a sortkey so that it sorts in the right order (I would just take it out because the year column will sort it the way you want).

It does sort in the right order. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 04:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• • No, when you sort it, it puts managers who have served more than one term together. When you sort the number column, it should sort the same way as the year column, essentially, so it puts them back in the correct order. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

Review by KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

If you look at my other FLC, List of Boston Red Sox managers, you'll see that is it sorted that way, but since you want it to be unsortable, I unsorted the column. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 21:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that one should be unsorted too, because I just checked it, and you are right, it doesn't sort properly. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 03:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Support KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm interested -- Where did you find the references that date back to 1979 and 1980?

You'd have to ask maclean on that. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Through Canadian Newsstand database accessed (remotely) through a library. I can email any of the articles to you. maclean 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No need, I'll trust you on it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 18 needs typing out in normal writing instead of ALL CAPS. It's in one of the Mos subpages.

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please link The New York Times, Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail etc in the references

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please make sure that the names of the newspapers used in references are entered under the "work=" field, rather than "publisher=" or "id=" fields of {{cite news}}. This will italicize them. As well as that, dates should be entered using the ISO 8601 format. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Done the cite news problem. I don't see any ISO 8601 problems on the reference. Tell me if I'm blind. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 00:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was only one publication date that I saw that was in ISO 8601 format. The dates should match. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE! Sorry for the misunderstanding. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 02:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Refs 2–16 in the "date=" fields should all be ISOs, per the documentation at {{cite news}}. I did it myself, so it's ok now Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:38, 12 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 12 August 2008 [48].

---

NBA All-Defensive Team

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Since I finished copyediting, the only things you need to is:
  • unlinked the relinked on the table
  • if you're going to put Player (X) on the key, you should put it on the table (e.g. Jerry West (#))
  • and finally, put the marks beside the players. (e.g. Jerry West*)
  • if all the NBA Defensive Player of the Year awardees are on the table, add that on the lead and on the table or make it on a note like the NBA Rookie of the Year Award
  • put the notes on the nationality since the notes are talking about their nationality
  • Why does Tim Duncan have a note for his nationality while Raja Bell doesn't. They're both from the same country. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 22:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed —Chris! _ct 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• • if done all, i'll support.

-- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 08:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 20:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice job! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 23:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The team is generally composed of two five-man teams, a first and a second team" team team team!

reword—Chris! _ct 04:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "first-team " or "first team"?

Should be no hyphen—Chris! _ct 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Ditto for second team.

Same here—Chris! _ct 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "forwards, one center, and one guard " probably should wikilink these positions for the benefit of people who don't understand those roles aren't necessarily defensive.

Got it—Chris! _ct 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • "selected successively since " I get you mean each successive season but it just reads a little strangely to me.

It sounds ok to me. I don't really know how to reword it. Do you have any suggestion?—Chris! _ct 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• • First Team or first team? e.g. "made the First Team eight times each" vs "The top five players with the highest point total make the first team"

Should be in lower case, I believe—Chris! _ct 04:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see an External Links section, and maybe even a navbox. You could use the "general" NBA reference in the EL section

Don't think this is a good idea. All other award pages don't have an External Links section.—Chris! _ct 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps in the Key you should put "Player (in bold text)" or something to make it a bit more clear

DONE! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed you didn't overlink players names in the table, but the teams are. Why?

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 20:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sort these out and I'll support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, Support - Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:52, 11 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:57, 12 August 2008 [49].

---

List of Nine Inch Nails awards

Another (and probably the last I can think of) NIN-list from me. Pretty much followed Gary King's lead on this one, with a few of my own adjustments. So if it sucks I guess you know who to blame. =) Any comments and suggestions are appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Axe the full stop in the caption. FIXED
  • Be consistent with repeated linking, e.g. you don't relink Wish in the MTV music awards but you do relink Starfuckers, Inc. in the Grammys (for example). FIXED
  • And you could link the band as well, it's the nominated work after all. FIXED
  • "awarded for outstanding achievements " is this a direct quote from the Awards organisers? If so it should be in quotations, if not it's a little peacock. REWORDED
  • Same for "to celebrate the top music videos of the year". REWORDED
  • Not happy with (#17) etc. Can you not put "17th in..."? Certainly no need to bold it.
    • I'm not 100% on the bold either, but I'm nit sure if I'm happy with "14th of" either. I'd like to get some more opinions on this, since this is one of the adjustments I made from Gary King's examples. Drewcifer (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• [[Grammy Awards]] --> [[Grammy Award]]s
• Italicize the "Kerrang!" in "Kerrang! Awards" as it is the name of a magazine
• No need to wikilink Nine Inch Nails in the awards table for American Music Awards
• Consider putting ==Billboard== as a Level 2 heading, and Billboard Music Awards and Billboard Music Video Awards as Level 3 subheadings

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Took care of them all. Drewcifer (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support I made minor fixes in some links, I think is all done. Cannibaloki 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help and the support. Drewcifer (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I reordered the sections so they follow the order in the infobox. Now I can support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:14, 11 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 13:52, 8 August 2008 [50].

---

2008 WWE Draft

previous FLC (18:11, 27 July 2008)

Self nom. I am renominating this list that I and User:iMatthew expanded for FLC because the previous FLC failed due to lack of reviews/comments and no votes. Previous concerns were addressed and fixed but no objections or support was given. Like always, any more concerns will be addressed.--S_RX 02:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This probably doesn't normally happen, but I'd like to co-nominate this article. Like SRX said, the other FLC failed due to lack of comments, so hopefully we will get more comments here. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the original FLC, and all the comments made there seem to have been addressed. I have nothing to add since then, so I support. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:57, 4 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 13:52, 8 August 2008 [51].

---

List of Ontario birds

This is a list I've built from scratch over the past few days. It's modeled after List of birds in Canada and the United States (which was the first FL promoted). It is fully sourced and any concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

:*TOC doesn't work as a link to sections because the original non-MOS capitalisation has been fixed, but not the hidden link. For example, the original [[#Ducks, Geese and Swans|Ducks, Geese and Swans]] has been changed to [[#Ducks, Geese and Swans|Ducks, geese and swans]] which looks right, but doesn't work, should be [[#Ducks, geese and swans|Ducks, geese and swans]]

• New World Vultures is still incorrect, should be New World vultures also Caracaras and Falcons should be Caracaras and falcons
• One of the factors in this diversity are the size and range of environments in Ontario as well as the Great Lakes, many birds use the shores as a stopping point during migration. One...are, also second clause doesn't fit grammatically

I've fixed a few other bits and pieces, AOU ref, repetition in lead etc

jimfbleak (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support and further comments I'm happy to support this now, just two things

• Earlier, I put the author (the committee) for the AOU list so that it didn't begin with (1998) - must have an author. This seemed to have disappeared, but I can't see where. Assume removal was a mistake, since no ref can begin with a date. Removed retrieval date since not needed for a paper publication even though you linked to the on-line version. No action needed unless you disagree with this.
• Ontario is known for its diversity of bird species. This is meaningless - known by whom? Compared to where - Peru? the Amazon basin? Thailand? The Gambia (800 species in a country 200 miles long and 20 wide.)? needs to go

• I changed it to "has a diverse amount of bird species". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can have a diverse amount, but my change to that may not be better

I scrapped the references section. AOU was also in notes, and ABA appears not to be used

Good luck, jimfbleak (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't wikilink as of 2008 as it's a stand alone year
• "This list of Ontario birds is a comprehensive listing" do we need to say it's comprehensive? That's automatically implied through its FL status
• "There are 32 species, world-wide" comma isn't needed
• What are "lobed toes"?
• "There are 8 species world wide" MOS:NUM says eight. There's a few of these. 2, 5, 8,
• "world wide" and "world-wide" --> "worldwide" (there's a few of these)

A very interesting list. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed all the above except the toes, not sure how to access the template used for that jimfbleak (talk) 06:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good, everything checks out. Couple things though: 'Crested Caracara', 'Mew Gull' and 'migration' lead to disambig pages. There are a number of redirect, but I don't know how you would want to deal with them (eg. pipetrick or rename or not bother at all), like, Gray Partridge→Grey Partridge, Ring-necked Pheasant→Common Pheasant, Willow Ptarmigan→Willow Grouse, Rock Ptarmigan→Ptarmigan, Northern Bobwhite→Bobwhite Quail, etc. --maclean 03:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

done jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Very good list. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:15, 6 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 13:52, 8 August 2008 [52].

---

List of UEFA Cup winners

I'm nominating this list for featured list status as I believe that the list meets all the necessary requirements to become a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - in the key, "Champion won by after extra time on a penalty shootout" is grammatical gibberish. It should probably be "Champion won by a penalty shootout after extra time" - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out fixed now NapHit (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • See my comment re:Primary sources in the European Cup list. I'm guessing there's a couple more of these lists to come so please address these comments on those too.
  • Don't like the "pictured here" - it's pretty clear what that image is.
  • I'd like to understand the scope of the competition as early as possible in the lead rather than the inaugural winners.
  • Shouldn't the heading "Two-legs " be "Two-legged finals" or "Finals over two legs"?
  • Since the first table is unsortable you have a load of overlinking going on.
  • Not sure I'm keen on the different table types being used.
  • Be consistent with headings e.g. Country in first table, nothing in the second.
  • In the first table, "Home Team" could just be "Home team". Same for away.
  • "most successful teams" table = "Runners-Up" - just "Runners-up" please.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all these, thanks for the comments NapHit (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I brought this up at peer review but I see it's still there. In the two-legged section, the venue of the second leg, should just be in the row for the second leg, and not also in the aggregate row. Peanut4 (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

fixed NapHit (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment

I'm a bit confused by this list. It says it's a list of UEFA Cup winners, but the tables appear to contain a list of finals, where much more width is given to the name of the stadium, the city and the country where the final was held than is given to the winner. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The list is similar to List of Super Bowl champions where the venue and the location of the venue are included, essentially it is still a list of winners as the finals are a match, therefore having a list of winners without the scores and runners-up in my opinion would make the list incomplete, I could remove the venue and location if you wished but I feel it would be to the etriment of the list. Also there is more width given to the venue and city, as they are generally longer than team names. NapHit (talk) 17:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the other information being there; it ought to be there. I just think 1) too much width is devoted to the venue, and 2) the actual winner isn't highlighted in any way. For instance, do the stadium and the city/country need to be in separate columns? they used not to be when this table was on the main UEFA Cup article. Or if you think they ought to be separate, could a line break be added between the city and the country? (Afterthought: not sure how much that'd help with Monchengladbach...) The Superbowl article is different, in that the teams are coloured by Conference and there's no need for flag/country columns, so it's easy to pick out the important items on each row. Not that I'm advocating colouring the table in, you understand, how the Superbowl list does it runs counter to MoS for a start, but perhaps each winner could be bolded to make it more noticeable? See what you think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• More comments (separated from above to avoid confusion)

• • Not sure how much the 2nd and 3rd sentences would mean to readers who didn't already know how the UEFA Cup works.
  • As you're calling them Internazionale in the table, perhaps you should in the lead as well.
  • Move the Fairs Cup disclaimer to the end of the lead.
  • You've changed the page title to "winners" but still use "champions" in the key and the by-country table.
  • Bit of a stutter over penalty shootout in key :-)
  • Would it look tidier if the individual column widths in the two finals tables were fixed, so the single-final table followed on cleanly from the first one?
  • And, would it be clearer if the flag/country column for the second-named club came after the club name column rather than before? so you got club: score: club in the middle without flags interfering with the match result.
  • 1979 and 1980 have got themselves messed up.
  • Why does the Single finals table need to be sortable?
  • Typos at 1993 winner line, 1994 Salazburg.
  • In 2001, Liverpool won on golden goal, not aet.
  • Don't think you say anywhere what the numbers in brackets after the club names mean.
  • In Most successful clubs table, Red Star Belgrade has a Serbian flag and Casino Salzburg is called Red Bull Salzburg.
  • Why do we need flags in that table at all?
  • In By country table, for consistency Nation column should be called Country.
  • I appreciate why you've sought out a variety of sources, but perhaps the UEFA page for the 1989 final would be better than an unofficial Napoli site.
  • Newspaper references should have the name of the paper as a work rather than a publisher. And ref #26 should be BBC Sport rather than BBC, for consistency with the other BBC Sport refs.

Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• In 1995, could use a note as to why Juventus played their home leg at the San Siro.
  • You may not be aware that citations can be attached to footnotes in the same way as to anywhere else in an article (I wasn't until recently). See for example West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons footnotes F & G. Seeing as you've found out why they didn't play at their own ground, seems a shame not to prove it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok added the reference to the end of the note. Cheers NapHit (talk) 17:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Done all except for sorting which I feel should be included as it features on the other lists of this nature which have single match finals NapHit (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "that was" in the opening sentence is redundant
• Widen the "nat" columns so the flags and ISO-3 names are on one line.
• You've used the emdash in this list for "empty" cells, but the endash in the Champions League list. Assuming you're going for a WP:FT (or even just because they're similar lists), they should be consistent.
• "years won" and "years runners up" columns don't need to be sortable as they only sort by the first year given
• There's a typo in the website name on reference 33

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank for the comments Matthew I've dealt with them all now NapHit (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I added 1% to the column widths of NAT, because they still weren't on one line. I haven't tried it on different screen sizes or anything; it may be worth doing {{nowrap|{{flag|ENG}}}}, or {{nowrap|{{sort|{{flag|ITA}}}} or whatever. I'm not too sure how to do it exactly. Anyway, I can support without it. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Mattythewhite

• Comments
• Paris needs wikilinking.
• "...losing the final"... - "in" needed.
• "Italy has provided..." - this sentence seems a bit repetitive and could do with rewording.

Otherwise, looking good. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Now comments have been dealt with. Don't feel there's anything left to comment on. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:09, 7 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:00, 7 August 2008 [53].

---

30 Rock (season 2)

I've been working on this article since around when this season of 30 Rock ended in May 2008 and I believe it has met the criteria. I've used the structure of 30 Rock (season 1), which is already a featured list, in this article. I'll be happy to fix any problems anyone finds in the article. -- Jamie jca (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

question Why are there two cast photos? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

One is the DVD cover. The other is just a promotional photo. The cover was released after i'd already added the promotional photo. Should the promotional photo be removed or replaced? -- Jamie jca (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be removed per WP:NFCC 3a. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Jamie jca (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • An idea - instead of introducing this list with date facts, why not tell me what 30 Rock is about? Only one or two sentences and then head into the major facts?
    •  Done
  • "The first eight episodes aired on Thursdays at 8:30 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST),[2][4] the ninth episode aired at 9:00 pm EST on Thursday December 13, 2007,[5] episode ten through twelve aired at 8:30 pm EST on Thursday[6] and episode thirteen through fifteen aired at 9:30 pm EST on Thursdays.[7] " - this is a really bland sentence. I know it's factually correct and cited etc, but it's not making me want to read on...
    •  Done
  • "Throughout the season, 30 Rock aired under NBC's promotional banner "Comedy Night Done Right."" doesn't appear to have a reference?
    •  Done
  • I'd move [8] to be next to [9] - we can probably allow a few words between citation and material.
    •  Done
  • You say Fey is a show runner in the lead but not in her image caption.
    •  Done
  • Never happy with inconsistency - the article title (30 Rock (season 2)) vs infobox (30 Rock Season 2) vs article material (30 Rock season two)...
    •  Done
  • "Engler[16] and Beth McCarthy.[16] " no need to use [16] twice here - just at the end of the sentence is fine. Same with [17]. In fact, I'd move [17] and [18] to the end of the last sentence entirely.
    •  Done
  • "The TGS cast consists of three actors. They are the..." - first sentence is too short, makes reading choppy, so merge with following.
    •  Done
  • "played the Harvard University alumni " - if he's singular, wouldn't he be an alumnus?
    •  Done
  • Recurring characters aren't cited.
    •  Done
  • "all 15 original episodes" - not sure why "original" needs to be here? I might be missing something though...
    •  Done I ment for their original broadcast, i've tried to explain that better in the article.
  • "While reviewing the season, Robert Canning " - "In his review of the season, Robert Canning..."
    •  Done
  • "Robert Bianco of USA Today thought that towards.." - didn't just think it - presumably he wrote it too?
    •  Done
  • "He thought that" - he suggested that?
    •  Done
  • "Both Tina Fey..." - remove Tina here (unless there's another Fey I've overlooked)
    •  Done
  • "17 emmy " I'm guessing it should be Emmy.
    •  Done
  • "honoured" - is that US English? I'm BritEng so I love it but I think it should be "honored".
    •  Done I'm BritEng as well, I spelt it like that without thinking.
  • Episode 209 is redlinked, some episodes aren't linked at all - what's the difference here?
    •  Done Another editor (User:JustPhil) added the red link for an unknown reason. Some aren't linked because they don't have articles, the linked articles do have articles.
  • The Code of Prod. Code doesn't need to be capitalised.
    •  Done
  • You abbreviate General Electric - why? I can't seem to find it being used anywhere..
    •  Not done See the section on the list for episode 13 "Succession".
  • "he makes a friend in Kenneth" - "he befriends Kenneth"?
    •  Done
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed the points raised. -- Jamie jca (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The bold title seems forced as it is separated by five other wikilinked/plain text words. Why not "The second season of 30 Rock, an American television comedy series..."?
  •  Done
• "and its head writer Liz Lemon, who is portrayed by Tina Fey." --> "and its head writer Liz Lemon portrayed by Tina Fey."
  •  Done
• You could wikilink timeslot
  •  Done
• ""Comedy Night Done Right."[8]" Move the period outside of the quote
  •  Done
• Don't overlink real person or character names. Tina Fey is linked twice in the Lede alone
  •  Done
• A two or three word description of NBC would be good for non-US readers in the Crew section
  •  Done
• "The TGS cast consists of three actors who are the loose cannon movie star" That bit sounds odd, and the entire sentence is really long. Try to split it, and rework it and stuff
  •  Done
• Southern-born NBC page, Kenneth Parcell. Per WP:CONTEXT, don't use wikilinks for words next to each other, otherwise it looks like Southern-born NBC page, or NBC page, Kenneth Parcell. The six-pixel comma does nothing to separate them either
  •  Done
• ""Episode 210," caught the attention of 6 million viewers." does this mean they watched the entire episode, or it caught their attention for mere seconds?
  •  Done
• Don't use Amazon as a reference site where possible, as its a sales site
  •  Done

Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • I have seen to the points that you raised. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, cool. I wikilinked a couple of words, otherwise I can support. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. -- Jɑɱǐε Jcɑ 10:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As good as 30 Rock (season 1), as far as I can see. Nice work. Cliff smith ^talk 17:35, 6 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:00, 7 August 2008 [54].

---

NBA Executive of the Year Award

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why did you put nationality when all of the awardees are americans? -- K. Annoyomous24 23:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since all other award pages have the nationality column, I think this one should, too. It is good to keep them consistent.—Chris! _ct 00:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support -- K. Annoyomous24 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • What's a "front office executive"?
  • ". Unlike other National Basketball Association (NBA) awards, the Executive of the Year is not presented by the NBA. Though it is presented annually by Sporting News, it is officially recognized by the NBA.[1]" merge these I think somehow.
  • "The person with the highest votes..." - most number of votes...?
  • "The most recent award winner" - put a year on it and make it the last thing you say in the lead.
  • "the biggest single-season turnaround in league history" - sounds great. Can you expand on it for us non-NBAers?
  • No need to allow sorting on references col.
  • Link each name - the table is sortable so who knows which row will come first? You've done it for nationality and team.
  • Is there a basketball lists or NBA lists category this can be added to?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done all.—Chris! _ct 19:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• CommentSupport Why do you use that SI page so many times over when you can use this page as a general reference instead?--Crzycheetah 07:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 02:07, 7 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:48, 6 August 2008 [55].

---

List of Dream Theater band members

I have personally overhauled the list and feel it meets the FL requirements. Thank you for your comments, I will address them to the best of my ability. Blackngold29 04:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment on list style

One of the first things that one will notice about this list is that it does differ slightly from other band list members. To my knowlede the only other band member lists of high quality are: Nine Inch Nails, which has passed it's FL review, and Slipknot which is still in it's FLC stage. The two previous include a prose descrption (one or two sentences) about each member. Though it is usually suggested to follow the precedent of other similar lists, I made a conscious decision when creating this list to not include a similar description for various reasons. First, one will quickly notice that NIN does not have "band members" in the traditional sense. In addition to one true member, the band has toured with 18 other members for live concerts only. Obviously it would be difficult to descibe all of these people in a lead paragraph, so an explination for each was created. Slipknot's former members do not have their own articles, and it was therefore necessary to expand their descriptions as it was the only one that they have on Wikipedia. I was able to explain each member's involvement in the band in the lead and I have done so. Second, when a sports team has a List of head coaches each coach does not recieve a prose recap of his involement with the team, similarly when a band's discography is shown each album isn't given it's own prose recap, only a breif overview in the intro and it's charting statistics (if any). I have explained each member's involvement in Dream Theater in the lead of this list, to repeat the same info later seems overkill. If one would like to expand their knowledge on any member (present or former), each one has his own article which is easily accessed. This may seem long, but I felt it would help reviewers to realize that I am well aware of the traditional style of "band member lists", and these are my reasons for slightly altering that style. Blackngold29 13:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as nominator. Blackngold29 04:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I would read a little history of musicians, see:
  • List of Slipknot band members
  • List of Nine Inch Nails live-band members

...without much grace. Cannibaloki 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific? I helped with the Slipknot one. This list covers everything they do, I just added all the prose to the intro, no info has been omitted. Blackngold29 05:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

"If one would like to expand their knowledge on any member (present or former), each one has his own article which is easily accessed." I knew you would talk something... Okay, I removed my opposition because after his explanation, became redundant. Cannibaloki 14:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work, so far all my questions were explained by the nominator. Cannibaloki 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: great band and good list. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Dream Theater performing at Rio de Janeiro in 2008" - presumably "in" Rio, not "at".
  • "shared similar interest" - shared, or similar, but not both.
  • "Wanting to complete the band's lineup, the threesome" -avoid repeating "the threesome".
  • Chris Collins leads to a dab page.
  • " who both grew up with Petrucci.[6][7]" - "both of whom had grown up with..."
  • "the band realized he was not the right singer for what they were looking for." - reads badly - suggest a copyedit.
  • "The band began to audition new vocalists,[10] while continuing to write music.[11] Majesty hired Charlie Dominici as their new vocalist in November of 1987.[9] The band signed with Mechanic Records and recorded their first studio album, When Dream and Day Unite in 1988" - really choppy prose. Not meeting criterion 1 by a mile.
  • "Soon after, the band was forced to change their name due to another band named Majesty" - presumably there was a reason why the other band had precedence. This needs more detailed explanation.
  • "After the release of the album" - what album? By now I've lost the thread.
  • "year and a half," - "18 months"
  • "After flying LaBrie to practice with the band, he quickly joined." - not good reading for me.
  • "The band remained until Moore decided to " - remained what?
  • "in support of Awake; and six months" - semi colon?
  • "In 1999, Sherinian was replaced by ..." - why?
    • I have three sources that basically say, "He was let go and replaced" I assume it's kept private for whatever reason.
  • Chapman Stick should be capitalised.
  • Is there a "List" category this can be added to?
    • As far as I know there are no "List of band-members" catagories
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Unless otherwise noted all issues have been addressed. Blackngold29 18:22, 30 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:48, 6 August 2008 [56].

---

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners

I'm nominating this list for featured status as I believe that after a peer review which addresses many issues this list is now meets all the criteria necessary to become a featured list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • ...however, this was changed in 1997 to allow the runners-up of the stronger leagues to compete as well. - should be sourced
  • The image caption seems like it's a fragment.
  • The table in the Champions section should have class=wikitable sortable
  • The columns with flags should have a title; can be an abbreviation.
  • Rather than putting "R" under the "year" column, why not put a note in the "notes" column? Just like you did for the games that finished in a penalty shootout. It took me a while to find that "R" you mentioned in the 'Key.
  • Since you're using a common name for Real Madrid, Ajax, etc., I suggest using "Monaco" instead of "AS Monaco" and "Partizan" instead of "FK Partizan". This helps when sorting.
  • The current ref#2 states that the publisher is "Uefa.com" while others state "UEFA". Change it for consistency.
  • Refs #2 and #3 are pdf files, so you should add format=PDF field to {{cite web}}.

--Crzycheetah 03:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments I've dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Just change "F.C. Porto" and "FC Porto" to just "Porto".--Crzycheetah 21:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think the opening sentence should define the scope of the contest, not who the inaugural winners were.
  • Too much reliance on primary sources (i.e. UEFA) - citations for these finals should be easy to find at reliable sources which aren't the UEFA website.
  • "Champion won after Extra time" no need for capital E here.
  • Same for capital "Times Won" (i.e. won) and "Times Runner-up" (runner-up).
  • When sorting by "Won", Ajax sorts before Bayern Munich but BM have been runners-up one more time than Ajax so I'd expect them be above Ajax in the table when sorted like that.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done all, except the Ajax sorting problem which I am unsure how to fix, help would be welcomed NapHit (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I think the list should be called List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners. Champions just sounds wrong to me. "Champions of Europe" or "European champions" sounds OK, but "European Cup champions" or "Champions League Champions" doesn't sound right. --Jameboy (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Done NapHit (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment
  • I think all the note labels for the penalty shootout should be placed next to the score, not in the notes column.—Chris! _ct 02:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree the notes column is where the notes should go the colouring and sign indicate the penalty shootout, thus all the reader has to do is look across to the notes column and click on the note to see the penalty shootout score NapHit (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "UEFA Champions league" --> "UEFA Champions League"
• I think you should start the Lede using "The UEFA Champions League is a seasonal association football competition established in 1956.", rather than European Cup, and then with the sentence "In the 1992–93 season, the tournament was renamed UEFA Champions League.", reword it to "prior to the 1992–93 season, the tournament was named the European Cup."
• "Previously, only the champions of their respective national league could participate in the competition;" --> "Originally, only the champions of their respective national league could participate in the competition;"
• Pipelink 1956 in the opening sentence to 1956 European Cup Final rather than the one that currently does it
• "Real Madrid, Ajax, Bayern Munich, Milan, and Liverpool." Don't use the serial comma in British English
• Provide the cities and/or countries for teams such as Ajax, Benfica and Juventus, where it isn't clear in the name where they come from.
• "The current champions are Manchester United who beat Chelsea 6–5 on penalties" Please reword and link to penalty shootout, and also link to extra time. You can then delink these terms in the Key section.
• 2008 final should be 2008 Final
• Is it possible to extend the widths of the Nat columns so both the flag and ISO-3 codes appear on the same line?
• There isn't any real point in making the "Years won" and "Years runners up" columns sortable in the "Most successful teams" section, as only the first year is sorted

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've dealt with everything except for the cities of teams such as Ajax, which I feel is unnecesary, if people want to know the city the team is from they can click on the article link to find out. NapHit (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. And I now Support Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:28, 6 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:05, 5 August 2008 [57].

---

List of Toronto Maple Leafs head coaches

Finally I have a FLC for my favourite NHL team. This is modelled after the List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches. All concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

You can not match the size of the following fields for the same size?

• Regular season (-W–L %)
• Playoffs

Cannibaloki 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I center aligned all of the columns too (pre-emptive strike). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Find "Red Wings" and replace it with "Maple Leafs".
    • Done.
  • The "current coach" sentence can be merged with the second paragraph.
    • Done.
  • "Statistics are up to date as of the end of the 2007-2008 NHL season." should be a note in italics in the Coaches section.
    • Done.
  • Don't link Charles Querrie twice.
    • Done.
  • There are several names that are linked to disamg. pages. Fix them.
    • Done.
      • Armstrong and Brophy remain.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Whoops, missed those. Fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The "A" note along with the "The Win-Loss percentage" note should be in the notes section.
    • Done.
      • I don't see a notes section.--Crzycheetah 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I decided to just move the note to the key section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Get rid of See also section; that link is in the template below.
    • Done.
  • For the citations, nhl.com publishes the work of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Make the necessary fixes.
    • Done.

--Crzycheetah 20:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Toronto Maple Leafs are a professional...
  • Could you widen the Key table?
  • Silver font on a blue background is hard to see, maybe you should change silver to white?
  • References in PDF format should have a |format=PDF field.

--Crzycheetah 20:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• All concerns addressed. Resolute 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• En dashes for year ranges (such as the links to season pages)
• Merge the last two paragraphs of the lead somewhere as they are short.

Gary King (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the year ranges already use en dashes. The paragraphs have been merged. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "from 1999 to present" should be "since 1999".
    • Done.
  • "There have been 36 head coaches in franchise history" should be "There have been 36 head coaches in their franchise history".
    • Done.
  • link all the years to its NHL season
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • link Toronto Arenas and Toronto St. Patricks.
    • I linked the Arenas, but there is no page for the St. Pats
  • "while three others have been inducted as builders: Conn Smythe, Hap Day, Punch Imlach and Roger Neilson..." you listed four.
    • Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • don't you think there should be points on the table?
    • Fixed.
  • site reference for Pat Burns having a Jack Adams Award.
    • It is, in the next sentence.
  • can't you find a picture of any of the coaches instad of Air Canada Centre?
    • Nope.
  • Make all terms have a "####–##" form.
    • Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you also add Overtime Losses with Ties because there both one point and also because when Ties are on, Overtimes Losses weren't and vice-versa.
    • Actually, OTLs were counted before the abolition of ties. You mean shoot out losses. I disagree with that, because in the end a loss is a loss.
      • I thought in the NHL, OTLs and SOLs are counted as 1 point which is the same as ties. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 07:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If all is done, I'll support.

-- K. Annoyomous24 00:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support
  • To make it a little bit better, just link the years to its NHL season. I'll do the ####–## problem after I sleep. -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks.} 09:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "coaches–A running " - why capital A?
    • Fixed.
  • "has two separate terms " two or more.
    • Done.
  • "1923–24" probably should be "1923–1924" to be consistent with the others.
    • It already has an endash
  • "Joe Primeau *" remove the space before the asterisk.
    • Done.
  • The two 1980s are centrally aligned while other single year reigns are not.
    • Fixed
  • While it's factually correct to say two coaches had .000 %, they only served for four games between them so it's not that statistically significant. Could you caveat it and perhaps mention % worst coach who served for a season?
    • Done.
  • What makes a coach interim vs one who only serves for two games?
    • The difference as I see it is that an interim coach is one who coaches as a temporary replacement for another coach who they know will come back. For example, King Clancy coached 15 games while John McLellan was away for health reasons. McLellan was still the head coach, but Clancy just took over on an interim basis. Someone like Dick Duff on the other hand was brought in as a potential permanent coach but was just let go.
  • "Although Pat Quinn won the award with two different teams prior to coaching the Maple Leafs.[4]" ... this is not a complete sentence.
    • Fixed.
  • Is the W/L% calculated like that officially? If so, it should be cited, otherwise it could be assumed to be WP:OR.
    • I'll look into it.
  • Ref 4 is nhl.com but you have publisher = NHL. At the same time you have the first and third general ref and ref 1 as publisher = nhl.com. Be consistent.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Some of my numbers aren't adding up. For Imlach (1959–69) I keep getting 365 wins, but the list says 358. Same with McLellan (1969–73). Also, it appears two of the references don't agree with how many games Art Duncan coached: cdn.nhl.com says 49 games but hockey-reference.com says 47. How can we find out how many games he really coached? --maclean 19:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  • For McLellan and Imlach, the numbers you're seeing also include the games that were coached by an interim coach. However, there was a small error with Imlach's total, and I believe I have fixed it. As for Art Duncan, the hockey database backs up the NHL numbers, so that's the total I used. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The team is singular when not talking about the members, so "The Toronto Maple Leafs is a professional ice hockey team based in Toronto, Ontario."
  • Done.
    • Heh, CrzyCheetah pointed this http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/words/plurals.html out to me, so it might be worth changing it back to "are". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• "There have been 36 head coaches in franchise history" --> In the franchise history
  • Done.
• "and Dick Duff.[2] while four others have been inducted as builders" Change the period to a comma, or recast the beginning of the new sentence
  • Done.
• "Mike Rodden, who coached the team in 1927 and Dick Duff, who was the head coach in 1980 both only coached two games and neither won one." "Both only coached" sounds odd. Consider recasting this sentence as "Neither Mike Rodden nor Dick Duff, who coached only two games each in 1927 and 1980 respectively, led the team to a winning match." Or something else entirely!
  • Done.
• Can we get a more formal term than "fired" re Paul Maurice?
  • Done.
• Could you resize the second column of the Key box, so that the # explaination doesn't take up 5 lines?
  • Done.
• I think {{tl|reflist|2} is recommended for more than 20 references
  • Done.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing else objectionable. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:53, 4 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:21, 5 August 2008 [58].

---

List of Principals and Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford

List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford was given its FL star last August. Since then, many more names have been added (see the current version) and so this section was split off into its own page to save space. When the "people associated list" got its star, there were just 25 names of fellows and principals; there are now 118 names (if I can count correctly) all with references. Let me address "comprehensiveness", since this is always of interest with lists of this sort. As well as, of course, including all names in Category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford the list includes:

• every Principal of the college;
• the eight founding fellows of 1571;
• all fellows who have entries in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography;
• all fellows who have entries in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography (given that Jesus College is the most "Welsh college" at Oxford);
• all fellows who had an obituary in The Times between 1785 and 1985 (the extent of the free-access archive);
• at least one fellow for every year from 1571 onwards.

Comments welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 08:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - quick run-through from a tab on a Saturday evening...!
  • • You poor thing...
  • Thumbnails should not be forced in size per WP:MOS#Images, the lead one isn't so important but memorial images are just too small.
    • Ah-ha, I'd tried various sizes on different monitors to get it to flow nicely - needn't have bothered!
  • "marked with (OM)" - no they're not, they're not bold, so unbold this one!
    • Done.
  • "1571–1595" vs "1553–59" in the same row - I'd be consistent throughout.
    • Done.
  • I despise centrally aligned notes.
    • Done.
  • Order refs numerically unless there's a real good reason not to.
    • Done.
  • What's Emeritus? (I know, but readers may not)
    • Wikilinked in the lead with a brief explanation.
  • First Thomas Ellis links to Thomas Ellis (clergyman died 1673) but this list says he was a fellow until 1677 - what gives? First dead fellow?!
    • First of many... Fixed, good catch.
  • "Professor of Zoology" - no full stop? Check other entries for consistency.
    • Done (<-- wot no full stop?.)
  • "1905, 1909, 1913, 1917" odd tenure. Reason?
    • Welsh Supernumerary Fellow (WSF), held on a rotating basis as explained in the lead.
  • Pity poor Eubule Thelwall who hath no notes... nothing at all to say about him?
    • Very little, but found something.
  • "College records do not show when his fellowship terminated." - this note ought to be applied to all ? entries (if applicable and if not, other reasons given).
    • Other reasons given for the other two "?"s - it's where they're WSFs and it's unclear from the obituary when their successor was appointed.
  • 116–7 vs 53–54 in the refs for page ranges - be consistent.
    • Now consistent.
  • Is fellow capitalised or not? Seems to be inconsistent...
    • Now Consistent.
  • Looks like that photograph is slightly tilted top left to bottom right...!
    • Hadn't noticed that, clearly college is built at a slight angle! Uploaded two new images for the lead.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Anything else from anybody? Bencherlite^Talk 20:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - under IE7, unless I look at the list with a horizontal resolution of at least 1600 pixels, all the images push the list to the bottom. Check it out. I think it's related to you forcing the table width, but I'm not 100% sure. It's probably fine under Firefox and Safari, but, it needs to be okay under IE7 really. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Try now, I've stopped forcing the table width and the column widths. Bencherlite^Talk 10:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Works much better for me now. Found "(1689–1701). Bishop of Hereford (1701–12)." by the way - just double-check you caught all those inconsistent year things. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Pesky, aren't they? Last two (I hope) are gone. Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 11:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment The following are some things I {Eustress (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)} would suggest to improve the list:

• Why do all phrases under the Notes column end in a period when not all are complete sentences? Similarly, some of the picture captions (e.g., "The college crest above the Ship Street entrance gate.") should not end with a period either per Wikipedia:MOS#Captions
  • See above (groan!) TRM picked out that "Professor of Zoology" (Paul Harvey's note) didn't have a full-stop, and asked for consistency. I took him to mean that that particular entry should have a full stop, and so should similar entries, so I added full stops throughout. What's the official line to follow here, please? As for the full-stop after "gate", it's gone. Any others? (James Howell's caption feels like a sentence to me, hence the full stop).
    • Yeah, I would completely disagree with TRM. No full stop (or period, in this case) is needed if there is no complete sentence per MOS. Moreover, The James Howell caption is a participle phrase; it has no preceding subject and verb and is thus not a complete sentence. This is consistent with other WP Universities FLs. --Eustress (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Great!</sarcasm> I'm caught between the devil and the deep-blue sea here. The FL Director wants one thing, the next reviewer says that the FL Director himself is wrong. Fantastic. Whose lead am I meant to follow - whoever speaks last? I've reworded the James Howell caption, to make it a proper sentence with a verb and everything, but I'm not going to be caught in a ping-pong battle over full-stops in notes without someone pointing to specific passages in MOS. (Pointing to other FLs gets us nowhere fast, since I can point to another similar FL with plenty of full stops in the notes.) In any case, I have a question: when there are two incomplete sentences (e.g. William Aubrey: Regius Professor of Civil Law (1553–1559). One of the eight original Fellows of the college.) should there be 0, 1 or 2 full-stops? Or should such notes be reworded into one sentence or one note (thus risking losing the whole snappiness of the notes section in the first place)? Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • "Regius Professor of Civil Law (1553–1559), one of the eight original Fellows of the college" ta-da! If you need to separate phrases beyond a comma insert a semi-colon (e.g., "I have three red, blue, and yellow hats; five orange, green, and blue sticks; and two black shoes."). Maybe you just misunderstood TRM? Perhaps he can help clarify the full stop issue, but I think the list looks pretty cluttered with all the periods now. --Eustress (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I have already asked TRM to pop back. Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • TRM has popped back (see my talk page if anyone is interested) and I have now removed the full stops. Bencherlite^Talk 08:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Can a description or link to an explanation of what Old Members are be supplied?
  • I've created a redirect from "Old Member" to "Alumnus#Related terms". Anything else? Bencherlite^Talk 00:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
    • That link helps a lot, but it brings up another question: why is "Old Member" a proper noun (i.e., why is it capitalized)? --Eustress (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Because that's how the college itself uses the term e.g. here and here. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Perhaps it should be linked instead to Old Member (Jesus College, Oxford) then, if it's a proper noun and not just another way of saying alumnus. --Eustress (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Err, no - it's not just a Jesus College thing: see various other colleges using "Old Member" (Exeter, Balliol, Univ, and that's just page 1 of the Google search). See also Cambridge. Describing former students as "alumni" is a comparatively new thing – "comparatively new", at any rate, in the context of a university that's been teaching since the 11th century... Bencherlite^Talk 00:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
            • What do the English really know about English anyway :-) (j/k) Thanks for the clarification. --Eustress (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Support: After responding to all suggestions (from me and others) I believe list now meets all FL criteria --Eustress (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Suggest you unbold the opening sentence, then link the first occurrences of Jesus College and Fellows and delink the ones in the second paragraph.
  • OK, no bold anywhere. Is this what you wanted? (If only we were allowed links in bold type...) Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• A comma somewhere suitable in the Seth Ward sentence might make it easier to read.
  • Used a colon instead. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• The last two occurrences of Principal in the first paragraph are uncapitalised.
• Do you think separating Powell's and Hazel's election dates with commas rather than parentheses might make them look less like asides?
• Why does Governing Body need capitals?
  • Because that's its proper title: see the college statutes (e.g. Statute 2, clause 2). Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Suggest restructuring the Celtic section; it's rather repetitive, and the second sentence doesn't really say what you mean. Something like "Holders of the position since its creation in 1877 include Celtic scholars such as John Rhys, Ellis Evans and current Professor Thomas Charles-Edwards." Though "current" should be avoided; see MOS:DATE#Precise language.
  • Reworded, without a current, even though there isn't exactly a high turnover in this job... Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• "musiclogist"'s lost an "o".
• That sentence would be clearer if each person's reference immediately followed his name rather than having a string of five at the end.
  • OK - but actually since these are the same references as in the main list, I've just removed the references. No point in adding extra noise to the lead. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• Leoline Jenkins being a former Principal should definitely come out of the brackets.
• Delink the King Charles I in "King Charles I Fellows" and link it when you refer to him as founder. Maybe referring to him as Charles I rather than King Charles would sound better?
• The third John Lloyd's notes are still centred. Also Thelwall's.
• Change Strawson's note from "now Prof at Reading" to "since 20xx ...".
• Reference #10 needs a publisher.
• You need some consistency in reference formatting. Your publication dates currently use at least three different formats, see notes 11, 12 and 15 for example; please pick one (international format, as 29 July 2008, is most frequently used in English articles) and stick to it.
• Occasionally you have a newspaper as publisher rather than work, I've spotted notes 67 and 72, there may be others.
• Some references to Hardy have no "p." before the page number. Notes 92, 101, maybe others.

Hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thank you very much indeed for your thorough review. Unless mentioned otherwise, all your comments have been actioned. Bencherlite^Talk 00:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

They have, and I hope enough nits have been picked. Avoiding the use of "current" can be taken too far; the introduction to this list would hardly have been complete without mention of the current Principal, for instance :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Note

As the above is getting a bit tl;dr, I'll just note that there are no outstanding issues from the above comments. Bencherlite^Talk 00:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Think procedurally it's probably up to the reviewer(s) to say whether there are issues outstanding, which I thought I had, and certainly Eustress had if he/she is supporting, however that's by the by.

I do have a question on comprehensiveness, provoked by the arrival of several more fellows overnight. The scope of this list appears to be well-defined and finite: either someone was a principal or fellow or he wasn't, just as in a list of footballers who played more than a certain number of games for a club, either he did or he didn't. In each case there may be no one definitive source from which to take the information, so research has to be done. If I submitted such a footballer list and said, "Well, it's not complete, but there are a lot of them, and I'll add the rest if and when...", that list would fail. Why should a different standard apply to this list? Actually, I don't expect you to be able to answer this; maybe the director can explain the difference? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would point you at criterion 3 of WP:WIAFL - "It comprehensively covers the defined scope" - so, as long as the scope is adequately defined, and then the list meets the definition and the community are satisfied that the criterion 3 (and the others, of course) are met then the list can be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So it is purely subjective, then :-) thanks for clearing that up... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's subjective subject to a consensual agreement. We've had this debate a few times (witness List of Arsenal F.C. players) and there's never been a 100% agreement on the best approach. At least criterion 3 makes an attempt to suggest there should be a "defined scope" which is better than nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

← Apologies if I trod on anyone's toes by my note earlier - I was just trying to improve general readability, but didn't want to put comments made by others into collapsing boxes.

As for the fellows that arrived overnight, it occurred to me late yesterday that some of the Welsh Supernumerary Fellows of recent years might have articles about them that didn't mention Jesus College, and so wouldn't have shown up in a "what links here" search for Jesus College (needless to say, that's a route I've been down as well to find additional names for this list and the alumni list). So I looked in my back issues of the College Record and found a few more names, and they've been added, (each with a one or two year period of Fellowship) plus a college chaplain I found lurking in the shadows without any mention of his time at JC (Graham Tomlin). In terms of existing articles on Wikipedia, I really believe that that's now it. Of course I'm not relying on the inclusion of every article on Wikipedia as being sufficient to pass FLC: if I thought that, I would have nominated a list with about 30 or 40 names (and would have saved myself a lot of work in the process, seeing as I wrote 90+ of the 125 biographies on the list, to make it as comprehensive as possible before coming to FLC).

As for more articles that could be written? Well, I've cleaned out the three major reference sources mentioned above, and ensured every Principal and every founding Fellow is included as well, and so I think the list is comprehensive, even though I can't of course put my hand on my heart and say that no notable Fellow has been omitted. Hardy's history of the College, published at the end of the 19th century, listed 369 Fellows between 1571 and 1898, but the majority aren't notable at all in Wikipedia terms. Whilst all professional footballers playing for Arsenal pass WP:ATHLETE and so meet notability standards on WP, not all Fellows of an Oxbridge college (past or present) pass WP:PROF, and certainly don't pass that standard just by being an Oxbridge Fellow. So it could never be a "complete list of all Fellows", or even "a complete list of all notable Fellows", but I've done my very best to ensure that it's a "comprehensive list of notable Fellows". Hope this helps. Bencherlite^Talk 16:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support A pleasure to deal with a nominator prepared to put a significant amount of work in before nominating their list and with enough knowledge of their subject to discuss and justify it afterwards. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For Thomas Charles Edwards, the date for the fellow is "1997 onwards".. Is he still a fellow? Perhaps "1997–present" would be better. Same for others that use "year onwards".
• I think it would be a good idea to add {{WPBiography}} and/or {{Blp}} to the talk page, and look into using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} as well.

Otherwise it looks good. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• • Both comments actioned. Thank you, Matthew. Bencherlite^Talk 18:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome, and I Support. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:45, 4 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:21, 5 August 2008 [59].

---

List of Korean War Medal of Honor recipients

I have done a lot of work to this article since the last time it was submitted and I think that it meets the requirements to be a featured list.--Kumioko (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why does a list of recipients need an entire paragraph explaining the name of the war in three languages? --Golbez (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Done

I removed this paragraph entirely. It didn't really add anything to the article.--Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No bold links in the lead. done
  • Avoid starting with "This is a list..." featured articles don't start with "This is an article..." so we shouldn't either, be more imaginative.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I did this because this is how most of the other lists start.--Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I know. But it doesn't make it right. Please try to rephrase (some of the more recently promoted lists may help inspire you) so we capture the imagination of the reader from the word go! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...external powers, with each trying to topple ..." this "each" is confused, is it the Koreans or the external powers? Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "In a very narrow sense, some may refer to it as a civil war, though many other factors were at play" not sure about this sentence at all - it's a little WP:OR, a little WP:POV. Perhaps it should be something like "The conflict has been referred to as a civil war..." plus citations to back it up "... while other factors ..." plus citations to back it up...Iremoved this sentence completely. Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Link North Korea the first time, not the second. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "After failing to strengthen their cause in the free elections held in South Korea during May 1950[2] and the refusal of South Korea to hold new elections per North Korean demands, the communist North Korean Army moved south on June 25, 1950 to attempt to reunite the Korean peninsula, which had been formally divided since 1948." several run-on clauses makes this confused.
  • Why link just the date for "June 25, 1950" and the whole thing for " July 27, 1953."? I can see the armistice date is important, so linking it all is acceptable but the first date, why? No good reason so I fixed it. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't put (ceasefire agreement) after armistice - wikilinks take care of that. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "— the Korean Conflict — " no spaces when using em-dashes here. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Echo Golbez, a large part of the lead seems to be related just to the name of the conflict rather than further details on the recipients of the medal. Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Medal of Honor is linked four times (incl the infobox) ... a bit over the top. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you can't find images for everyone but just placing the medal there is a little odd.
  • A key would be useful for people who don't know what USMCR, USMC mean. In fact, you could talk a little about this in the lead, maybe going into how many of each branch recieved the medal.
  • Not sure how useful sorting on "Place of action" is, when you have free text like "along..." and "near..."
    • Removed near and along. If they are near the city or the river simply stating the name of the city should be adaquate. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Numbers below 10 are written as text. Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't see where this is, could you tell me where the problem here is?--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • In the entries like "attacking 3 enemy "... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sudut's entry "Although wouned " - typo. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Bleak's entry "admister " typo. Done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Porter's entry "Was killed " - others just say stuff like "Killed..." without the Was.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "George W. Bush March 3, 2008 [1]" link this properly with a {{cite web}} please.
  • "enemy MiG's" needs linking.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " occupied hill, Millett led" replace Millett with he for consistency.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The first Medal of Honor to be classified Top Secret" needs a citation/explanation.
  • Link POW.Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "to silence an enemy gun emplacement" what did he actually do to "silence" it?
  • "single handedly " should be hyphenated.
  • "Sacrificed his life to defeat an enemy bunker." no full stop. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Medical corpsman; aided many fallen soldiers under heavy fire." ditto. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Although wounded he refused medical care to fight the enemy until all his men and casualties had been taken care of." ditto. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "For falling on a grenade to save his squad." ditto. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And that should probably be "Killed after falling..."
  • "Served in WWII, Korea and Vietnam War; In addition to the Medal of Honor he received 5 purple hearts." why is Korea linked here? and why capital I after semi-colon? and I would link to Purple Heart (and capitalise appropriately).
  • "For leading the rescue of a trapped rifle company." no full stop. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "raging combat " is this a quote? Otherwise it's peacock. Done--Kumioko (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "after single handedly covering " hyphenate again.
  • He was reported KIA, September 5, 1950." what makes this more significant than all the other entries? Surely the ones who were killed were reported KIA at some point too?
  • "to place demolitoin charges" typo.Done--Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • " finish their objective" complete their objective?
  • Ref 5 needs correct formatting, pref using {{cite web}} Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 4, China's Peoples Daily is a work rather than a publisher, isn't it? Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 2, is "2,6,9." referring to page numbers? If so, I'd say "pp. 2, 6, 9" Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen " are they all really proper nouns?
    • Yes--Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Medal Of Honor Statistics" no need to capitalise statistics here. done--Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment about full stop - it's called full stop in Brit-Eng, period in US-eng and it's what goes at the end of complete sentences. You have a mixture of whether you put these "full stops" in or not. Be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Broader issue: Could we have a link to the previous nomination. This is standard procedure for some other Featured X discussions, is it not here as well? Rmhermen (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you go Previous submission

• Comment: Thanks for that link. I have a few issues:
  • The first paragraph is too short. The lead should say more about the subject of the list.
  • The actual village names are mostly unlinked. I couldn't determine why some were linked and others weren't. Even if there are red I think they should be linked
  • The word Korea is linked ever time it appears in the list (unlike other terms which are only linked on first occurence).
  • A broader issue, however, is since the list is sortable should every linked term be linked every time since the "first occurance" of the term will usually change for each sort order?
• Rmhermen (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support with a further comment
  • Looks very good overall. But when I sort by rank, John K. Koelsch, USN, Lieutenant, Junior Grade appears at the top of the list with the apparent lowest rank even though he is an officer. The "O-2" in his rank may have a zero instead of the letter O. Skeet Shooter (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I fixedit. Let me know if you have any more suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 4 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [60].

---

List of actors nominated for Academy Awards for foreign language performances

Bringing another Academy Awards list to FLC. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment bah, tried hard but it may be possible that list nomination is pretty good (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great job!--Crzycheetah 19:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support Comment - For an actor or actress to be eligible for any of the Academy Awards for Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, or Best Supporting Actress for a foreign language performance in a film produced outside the United States, the film must have been commercially released in Los Angeles County. Actors or actresses that have foreign language performances in films released in the United States are not subject to this requirement. - this doesn't appear to make sense. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• A foreign language performance is not speaking English in whatever role. The film itself can be produced inside the United States or outside of it. This simply notes for films produced outside the United States, they need a release in LA County for the actors or actresses to be considered eligible for any Academy Award. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that it seems to read as: "foreign language performances in films produced outside the US must be released in LA. Films released in the US are not subject to this requirement." I'd advise changing "in films released in the United States" to "films produced in". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And while I haven't seen those particular films, I'm fairly certain that Liv Ullman speaks Swedish and Marion Cotillard speaks French. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed as well. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Any chance of having a lighter yellow for "Won Academy Award" cells? It seems strange to have such a vivid yellow in opposition to the light color of the "Nominee" cells. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the same yellow used in the template could be used for consistency. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• That would be superb, actually. Looks like it warrants replacing #FFD800 with #FAEB86. Any takers? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BomBom

Comment: The list in its current form contains a number of factual errors:

1) The opening sentence is misleading. It gives the impression that prior to 1961, Acaddemy rules did not allow awards to be handed to foreign language performances. It should be rephrased to make it clear that 1961 was simply the first occurrence of such an event.

• Fixed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

2) "Actors or actresses that have foreign language performances in films produced in the United States are not subject to this requirement." This is absolutely wrong. ALL films, regardless of their language or nationality, must be released in Los Angeles County in order to be eligible for an Acting Award (or any other "regular" Academy Award for that matter). This has always been the case throughout the Academy's history and is made clear in the current rules (Rule Two, § 2): "All eligible motion picture [...], must be: [...] c) for paid admission in a commercial motion picture theater in Los Angeles County".[61] Foreign language performances and English-language performances are treated exactly the same way. The only additional requirement for a foreign language performance is that it must contain English subtitles in order to be eligible for competition (Rule Two, § 8). [62]

• Cut out entirely. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• You still do not mention the need for English subtitles. It's an important eligibility requirement.BomBom (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Added. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

3) Ida Kaminska's performance in The Shop on Main Street was in Slovak, not in Czech.

• Source says Czech. I would need a contrary source to say otherwise. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, your source is simply wrong, even though it's the official Academy website. All of the film's dialogue is in Slovak. See [63] and [64].

• Changed. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

4) It is debatable whether sign languages should be considered as foreign languages. The source you cite does list them as such. However, this had previously caused controversy in another Wikipedia article. In any case, if you really wish to include such performances, then you must mention all of them. The list currently has several omissions, such as Holly Hunter's British sign language performance in The Piano.

• Again, I'm going off the list the Academy is providing, which is what they consider a foreign language performance. I would assume Hunter's performance was not considered a "foreign language performance" for whatever reason. The rule of thumb is verifiability, not truth. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I personally think that it would be better to make a distinction between foreign language performances in foreign language films, and foreign language performances in predominantly English-speaking American films such as The Godfather Part II or Dances with Wolves. I believe the latter should be listed in a separate section of the article. I'm really sorry for being so picky, but a featured list is supposed to represent the very best Wikipedia has to offer. Apart from that, I have nothing to say about the general layout of the article. Great work! Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There's five films that would fall under that description. If half the list fell under that description, I would be more inclined, but in this case, I don't think a whole section is necessary. And don't worry about being picky - it's what FLC is for :p sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not an entire section then. But it would be useful if you had at least a footnote or a sentence in the lead section explaining why these five films are distinct from all the others on the list. The casual uninformed reader is very likely to think that all of the films listed are foreign language films, which is not the case. BomBom (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Added. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Thanks for taking into account all of my remarks! BomBom (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good, I have one quibble though and that's that Sophia Loren's screenshot is from Five miles to Midnight, not Two Women or Marriage Italian-Style. It's a little misleading. Is there an image from either of those two movies or one that is clearly not a screenshot so there is no possible confusion? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Both movies would be copyrighted, and thus the images would be fair use. I can stick the infobox picture for Robert De Niro (although he looks way different in The Godfather Part II) if you want. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• No, it's no big deal. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support since BomBom's comments have been seen to. Good lead, good layout—good list. Cliff smith ^talk 00:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support this excellent list per addressing my comment and others' comments. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:29, 4 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [65].

---

List of Phoenix Suns head coaches

I am nominating this article for featured list status because I believe it is featured list criteria. Annoyomous24 08:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "most amount of regular-season and playoff games." – "most regular season and playoff games."
• "by a Basketball Hall of Famer. " → "by a Basketball Hall of Fame inductee. "

DONE ALL! K. Annoyomous24 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • First sentence of lead is dull and needs to flow a bit with the next one. Start by explaining what the Phoenix Suns is and then say they've had 12 head coaches in their franchise history.
  • In general I would expand the lead a bit more.
  • You need a note to explain why second stints have a dash in the # column.
  • "Awards Won" can be "Awards won"
  • en-dash should separate the years in the link to the 07/08 season.
  • MacLeod and Johnson link to disambiguation pages.

DONE ALL! K. Annoyomous24 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good —Chris! _ct 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from NapHit (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• "Found in 1968," should be founded
• "The Suns currently play their home games in the US Airways Center." - I think this should say "at the US Airways Center" instead of in
• "There have been 13 head coaches for the Phoenix Suns franchise" this sentence does not make grammatical sense change it to "The Phoenix Suns have had 13 head coaches."
• When clicking on the note a in the notes section, it does not jump to the corresponding ref, which suggests you have not placed the reference label to accompany the note label

Not far off FL standard just address these iisues and you'll have my support NapHit (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 22:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good NapHit (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Suns are an American professional basketball team" -- Give the team's full name on first use
• Could say in the Lede that D'Antoni left at the end of the season, or that Terry Porter is yet to coach the team in a game.
• Image caption needs a full stop
• The sentence starting "Founded in 1968,..." is a bit too long and clunky. Can it be made less wordy and/or shorter/split into two?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

DONE ALL! -- K. Annoyomous24 _{GO LAKERS!} 07:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can support this one too, now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:34, 4 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 06:50, 4 August 2008 [66].

---

Amateur radio frequency bands in India

I'm back creating featured lists after three long years. :) I managed to raise this article from nothing to a feature list candidate in less than a day. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please use wikitables (like at Help:Table#Using_the_toolbar) as it standardizes the format of the tables; it also adds lines to divide columns and rows for clarity. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Added wikitable sortable class. Something new for me! =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Terrestrial service only." – period is not needed since this is not a full sentence
• What does the custom blue color for the table headers represent?
• Lowercase the header titles like "BAND" → "Band"

Gary King (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed #1. For #2 and #3, the colours and upper case are for stylistic purposes. Do all the tables need to be a dull shade of grey? =Nichalp «Talk»= 20:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the wikitable gray to be soothing. Also, I usually prefer that the color mean something; for instance, the table colors in a team list with the team's colors would be appropriate. The uppercase titles, I think it's easier to read if they are lowercased. Gary King (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The colours are WikiProject India theme, after the national colours of India (sky blue). This is more of style and formatting, so am leaving it as is. Personally, I find the grey to be very bland. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I know very less about this area and so read it. My opinion it is very good list. But, two widely used terms radio telegraphy and radio telephony are not linked in the article. Had to put them manually in the search box to understand them. --gppande «talk» 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks, I've linked the two terms and added what they are at the first instance where they appear. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The sorting for "Wavelength" and "freq" columns do not work properly.--Crzycheetah 01:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks for spotting it. I'm not sure how to fix them, so have placed a request on WP:VP. If nothing works, I'll probably remove them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "licensed" vs "Licences" vs "License"....
  • "allots" - would allocates be better? That whole sentence is a little jargony, can you clarify for non-experts?
  • "clear the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate exam" do you mean pass it?
  • exam is a little casual - perhaps examination?
  • "(sending and receiving)." I'd unparathensise this and say ", both sending and receiving."
  • "Each class " what class? First mention of class - is this the same as the licence?
  • " The Short Wave Listener's Amateur Wireless Telegraph Station License allows listening on all amateur radio frequency bands, but prohibits transmission" but you don't say what privileges the others have - so either say "for example the Short Wave...", or go into further details on the other licence types.
  • Decapitalise the headings in the table and use Frequency rather than FREQ - no need to abbreviate.
  • I'd check out the {{sort}} and {{nts}} templates for help sorting your columns. If all else fails give me a shout and I'll fiddle around for you.
  • Wavelength col is very wide but the contents are very narrow!
  • Remove the capitalisation for EMISSION and BAND.
  • No need to relink AM in that table as it's non-sortable
  • "(Still images)" no need for that cap S, check the rest of those instances in the table.
  • "An emission designation is of the form BBBB 123 45" but in the table you have, e.g. A2A - I don't see how that fits the scheme. Am I missing something?
  • If you abbreviate Amplitude modulation, presumably you should do the same with Frequency modulation.
  • "12 years" + old.
  • All those headings, decap - and look at col widths again.
  • "50 W." - link to Watt.
  • I would expect sub band to be hyphenated.
  • "Authorization on non-interference and non-protection basis." what does that mean?!
• The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll look at resolving it tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I've done just about all. Some comments:

• Wavelength column is wide because the header text "Wavelength" takes up all the space. I could use the symbol 'λ, but that would not be useful for a non technical audience.
• Adding the word "old" would be redundant. (12 years)
• Authorization on non-interference and non-protection basis lol, I have no idea what that means. I have asked amateur radio experts outside wikipedia to clarify.
• For emissions, I added an example. Let me know if this is sufficient to explain it.
• Was not able to sort the columns. Not sure if I was doing it right. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Sorting of table columns is inhibited by the fact that numbers are commingled with letters and symbols (such as dashes).
  • The main problem I see for the "Wavelength" columns is that columns including numerical values in both m and cm do not sort in the order that one would wish for. That could be fixed by converting all values to m (for example 80 cm would be 0.8 m), but I wonder if that is contrary to standard usage in this field.
  • Another issue is that the "50 W/25 W" in the Power column does not sort correctly. A possible resolution for that (which would be a nice improvement in general and also could help with sorting of the wavelengths) is to move the units to the heading (i.e., "Power (W)").
  • In the Frequency column, I think you are using full stops ("dots") as separators for the thousands column. This is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Large numbers, and the effect is that the dots are being interpreted as decimal points.
  • Also in the Frequency column, does sorting improve if you add a space before and after each of the dashes?
• I don't like the way the "notes" appear in the tables. At some monitor resolutions, the entries in the "Power" column are forced onto a second line, with the word "note" on the first line and the note number on the second line. Appearance would be far better (and there would be less potential for confusion) if these notes were identified with letters instead (e.g., change "note 1" to "A"). If this cannot be done with a notation template that you are using, find a different template. (I know it can be done, as letters are used for notes in List of cities and towns in Tennessee.)
• Like some earlier commenters, I want to see more internal links in this article. Terms I see that might be candidates for linking include Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, aural telegraphy and electronic telegraphy, radioteletype, telemetry, remote control, facsimile, shortwave, satellite communication, and electronics. (I think some of these might be linked late in the article rather than the first time they are used. I suppose a case could be argued for linking some technical terms more than once...)
• Be consistent in spelling of licence/license. --Orlady (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review:

• I've linked up the terms as you have siggested
• Shortened the word "note" to "nb"
• Reduced the column "Type" to abbreviations
• Added W to the header
• In the frequency column, spaces are not recommended around an ndash as per WP:DASH
• Removed the lisense inconsistency
• No, the values in the frequency column are correct. The values are from 1 Mhz to 5 Ghz
• I've tried to use {{Ntsh}} now, but still the columns do not sort! :(

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, why are the 5 licenses linked in their own sections? Do they not need to be linked in the header where they first occur? Like - Amateur Wireless Telegraph Station Licence --gppande «talk» 19:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

  They should. I've wikified the first instance. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Alert: In this edit, which apparently was intended to remove the dysfunctional sorting, you made several other changes, including undoing some changes that you had made in response to comments here. The edit also made factual changes to the article. Were those changes intentional, or did you accidentally revert some edits you didn't intend to revert?
• Seeing those factual changes to the information about licencing exams alerted me to the lack of sourcing on the entire passage about licencing exams in the current version ("To obtain a licence in the first four categories, candidates must pass the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate examination, held monthly ... then have a police interview. After clearance, the WPC grants the licence along with the user-chosen call sign.") Can a source be added here? --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

• The change was a copy-paste from parent article Amateur radio in India. This FLC was a spinoff from that article which is coincidently on FAC. That article was copyedited by User:Tony1 diff, and so I pasted the new text here. With regards to references, the whole article is referenced by the 1978 rules (there is a table in the source, and I've only expanded on it). I've anyways gone ahead and added a citation for each licence category. I have also restored the wikilinks that were removed accidently. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I am still concerned about unsourced text in the introductory section. That whole paragraph about when and where exams are given, what they consist of, etc., is sourced only to a Times of India article that doesn't appear to support any of the facts in the paragraph. Wikipedia articles can't be sources for other Wikipedia articles, so the borrowing from another article does not constitute proper sourcing. If this information is from the regulations, I think they need to be cited inline; the reader has no way of knowing that this is where the information is from. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please make sure that the improvements made to these same passages in Amateur radio in India, in response to FAC discussion of that article, are also made in the list article. --Orlady (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, see below. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• You may be annoyed at me but, no links in header for Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai. --gppande «talk» 08:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. They were here earlier, but they got deleted. --Orlady (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also how is REF3 from ToI related to the information for which it is used as ref? REF3 states how HAM operators help authorities in emergency but it is used on how to clear the exam and obtain license. --gppande «talk» 08:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 3 states that a licence can take 1 year to be obtained. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not too familiar with the topic so please forgive the odd question:
  • What does the number in the Band column refer to? 6 what?
  • "...over 16,000 licenced users in India" - the reference indicates the number should be lower.
  • "...must pass the Amateur Station Operator's Certificate examination, held monthly in..." - kind of sounds like someone has to take an examination monthly. If I understand the ref correctly, the licenses are only valid for 2 or 5 years before they have to be renewed.
  • The ref appears to give A2A to all "Grade II" frequencies, but the list here only gives it to 2.
  • "F2A" is listed, should it be F2B? -- maclean 01:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for reviewing and coming up with suggestions: I've put up a global response.

Global response

1. Linked Mumbai, Delhi and the other cities in the lead/
2. Add further inline citations to the lead.
3. Fixed the reference on "1 year to get the licence"
4. In an early draft it was 15,000. I think it got updated in a copy-paste. I have updated the reference to reflect 16,000 operators
5. Band is now mentioned in a small legend before the table in the "Alotted Spectrum" section. (ITU Radio Bands)
6. Split the sentences on held monthly as suggested
7. maclean, I would need some time to figure out those emission categories. (the last two comments) I had sourced that information from ABC of Amateur and Citizens Band by Rajesh Verma. There seems to be a few discrepancies in the two sources, and I would need to clarify them. For example, the WPC also lists A3X instead of A3C. A3X is meaningless as far as Types of radio emissions is concerned. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Update 2008-08-03

• Clarified and fixed those emissions that were raised by Maclean. Now made sure that they follow the 1978 documentation only. I had to consult four sources, as they all differed.
• Split the references in the text to include the Annexures/Appendices

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Everything looks good now. --maclean 19:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment All of my concerns have been resolved. --Orlady (talk) 20:23, 3 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 11:26, 3 August 2008 [67].

---

The O.C. (season 1)

I have tried to bring this list up to featured standard and I feel it now matches the standard of other similar featured lists. This is my first attempt at featured content so hope I have missed anything really obvious that would fail it. Thanks to Matthewedwards for his input at the recent peer review. --Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Further to my peer review, I have done a copy edit:
  • Full dates are not required by the MOS to be wikilinked any more, so I removed them
  • There was one reference with a retrieval date of 1989, so I updated that
  • I also converted all the references to {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}
  • Some of the publishers in the references were itallicised, so I removed those by moving them from work= to publisher=.
  • Made a few minor changes to some words, using AmEn instead of BrEn, such as "harbour" → "harbor", "whilst" → "while", etc and date format on "26 October 2004" → "October 26, 2004"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

question - Image:The_O.C._the_complete_first_season.jpg appears to be decorative, how does this image meet WP:NFCC? Fasach Nua (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am by no means an expert on image policies so if this image violates policy or consensus requires it's removal I will not hesitate in doing so. Correct me if I'm wrong but I guess the criteria you think it fails is "8. Significance". This is my interpretation of why it doens't violate policy but if I am wrong please let me know:

• The image accompanies it's relevant DVD section and quickly allows readers to identify and verify various facts about the DVD, such as name, number of discs. It also shows how the DVD is packaged and distributed. Digipak is an incorrect general word often used and refers to a very specific method. It is difficult to describe exactly a seven disk set is packaged & distributed in words and an image does this very well. On that note would you be more in favour of and image like this [68] which perhaps portrays some of those aspects better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I would keep this image, move it to the infobox and lose the other two. It serves to identify the series and the characters WP:NFCC#3 Fasach Nua (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I would oppose promotion while the three non-free images are included Fasach Nua (talk) 12:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not in favour of moving the image in question to the infobox as Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines#Image prefers a poster or intertitles. Given this could you clarify you opposition, is purely based on the number of fair-use images, or on a specific picture violating a WP:NFCC, because you said you were in favour of keeping the DVD image. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The DVD image at the bottom needs to go. There is no critical commentary on said image (Critical commentary does not constitute listing the features on the DVD set). The image of the cast is a little more borderline. My question is, are we going to be looking at the same people for each succeeding season page (Appears that way on the next two season pages)? If so, then it should go, as there is nothing special about the look of any of these characters, thus standard free images of all these "living" people can be attained if images are even necessary. The only image I don't have a problem with is the infobox image, as general consensus has always been that the infobox is fair-game for the universal "identifier" image of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, but i'm not sure about consensus always having existed. I feel a valid point to make under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, is that earlier this year this article was promoted with seperate fair-use DVD images for the infoboxes of three different releases. Was this wrong? I think establishing a clear consensus could be useful.

Additionally although not really an issue here I will try to address your concerns with cast photos for subsequent seasons. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The image of the DVD boxset served to fulfill the function of both remaining images, it illustrated the programme, and it illustrated the cast. WP:NFCC minimal uses would indicate that if one image can perform the function of multiple ones, then the single image should be used in preference to the multiple images Fasach Nua (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. From WP:NFCC minimal usage applies when one image conveys "equivalent significant information". This is clearly not the case as the poster confirms additional significant info. like the date, time network of release none of which are information that can be obtained from the DVD image. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine the date, times and network could all be conveyed using GFDL text, therefore I oppose promotion Fasach Nua (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Being unsure of the fair-image minefield I consulted The Rambling Man, and have done what he suggested. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one solution. You could have also just put the DVD cover in the infobox, and satisfied many elements: The cast, the name of the show, the identifier that it is the first season. It's also the image the studio deemed to represent the first season. Though, if you choose to take that route, I would crop the discs out of the picture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, I would prefer the DVD cover in the infobox, as it's the official designation of the season, but I won't stake an oppose on it. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "from the wrong side of the tracks" doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. It doesn't tell us much and sounds more appropriate for a fictional novel. Use something more concrete, like "a troubled teen who grew up as an alcoholic and drug user" as an example Gary King (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply, I agree that as it stands it doesn't sound entirely encyclopedic, however it was an official description used by FOX in their show description. The FOX website has since been removed however it is used on the official Warner Bros. page (OC Insider), and has also been used as a description numerous times in the news [69], [70], [71]. You may feel your original comment still stands but I just thought i'd raise this point incase you feel it is better kept (and possible referenced). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall that it was indeed used to describe the series; if that is the case, then I suggest getting the exact quote, putting it in quotes, and then referencing the quote. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, the quote is split and referenced at the end of the sentence, which hopefully should suffice. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, it looks better now. Gary King (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

• Did Network Ten air the entire season, including those already aired by Seven Nine, or did they just pick it up from where Seven Nine left off? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember reading (sometime last week), they aired the other three (previously aired on Nine) before showing the rest. I am annoyed however as I can't find a reference or something to verify this. But this wouldn't be suprising as I recall Channel 4 repeating the first few episodes after their long summer hiatus. The only facts I could find were that there were six months in between the channel Nine & Ten airing The O.C., with Ten purchased all the rights.^[72]. This by no means proves my claim, and assuming no proof can be found, should I change the wording to something along the line of "with Network Ten airing the remaining episodes"? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Support I provided a Peer Review, and my concerns there and here have been taken care of. Looks good. Everyone else's comments look to have been addressed, and it appears to meet the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:52, 2 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 17:31, 2 August 2008 [73].

---

List of Naruto characters

The result of months of merging and whatnot. Here is WP:ANIME's first prospective FL character list. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "who can utilize" → "who can use"
• logical quotation issues such as ""cool genius,"" → ""cool genius"," and ""the archetypal rival character."" → ""the archetypal rival character"." per WP:PUNC, where the punctuations only belong in the quotes if it should logically belong there, such as if it's a full sentence and could use a period

Gary King (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Both fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "This is a list of characters ..." start with something more interesting like "The Naruto anime and manga series feature a number of ..." perhaps?
  • "two and a half" I fancy this should be hyphenated?
  • "progress as ninja in skill and character." reads awkwardly to me.
  • "ninja of Konohagakure " not really necessary to repeat where he's from since that point was made in the previous paragraph. Especially as you have Konohagakure again at the end of this sentence.
  • as a base for " as a basis?
  • the actual manga " is actual required here?
  • "he utilizes occasionally changes.[10] For instance, he utilized " can we change one of the utilized to, say, used, for some variety?
  • "After an encounter with his brother in Part I, Sasuke is beaten physically and mentally" wasn't he beaten in the encounter? Or perhaps you could say Sasuke is left beaten...
  • "After an incident " - probably needs a little expanding.
  • "double team opponents " double-team?
  • "traveling with his arms and legs " I know what you mean but this reads oddly - we all travel with our arms and legs!
  • "things actual dogs " never sure of the need for actual here.
  • "twenty-three and twenty-four" 23 and 24.
  • Just be careful about overlinking. Naruto Uzumaki, for instance, is linked in four consecutive sections...
  • Shame that Ikuko Tani doesn't have an article - the only red link!
  • Page ranges in the references should use the en-dash, not the hyphen to separate them.
• Otherwise, a really really good piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Think I got everything. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This looks good. I think Gary and TRM have found everything, so I have nothing to do but support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:16, 2 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:40, 2 August 2008 [74].

---

Isobel Campbell discography

Okay, it's crazy. I've never nominated a list before, and I'm nominating this one after creating it without making a second edit. But still, it could make it. Red157(talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I just saw you made a second edit. Well, there goes that achievement :)
• "Isobel Campbell performing in Bologna in 2007." – remove period. This is not a full sentence

Gary King (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice. Cannibaloki 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments

• "In 2003 she released her first album under her own name, Amorino, which recieved mixed reviews from critics." The album title should be in italic, Amorino;
• Whom was nominated for the Mercury Music Prize? Ballad of the Broken Seas or Mark Lanegan?;
• Music videos=1 or 2? - Infobox says that she only has 1;
• '''''[[Swansong for You]]{{Ref label|The Gentle Waves|I|}} or '''''[[Swansong for You]]'''''{{Ref label|The Gentle Waves|I|}}, What is the difference?
• Why using the 0 on the dates? (April 05, 1999);
• It has no link to the record labels?
• ^ I "As The Gentle Waves.", You can not be more specific?
• In the singles table should be written below: "—" denotes a release that did not chart.

Cannibaloki 03:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: fixed some mistakes. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Be Black Hole Sun has fixed most of those problems, and I've made The Gentle Waves note more specific. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Other appearances is missing from the infobox, such as her work with Lanegan and Wells.
  • "part time " is hyphenated.
  • " (see Belle & Sebastian discography). " nah, make it a See also if you want, but don't have that awful "(see...)" in the lead.
  • Refs 9 to 14 all point to Mark Lanegan, not Isobel Campbell. Ensure you find correct references for all claims.
  • "Despite limited commercial success,[1] they have been called the greatest Scottish band ever.[2]" clarify you're talking about Belle and Sebastian and not Campbell.
  • Ref 3 has a badly formatted date issue.
  • "under her own name, Amorino, " her own name is not Amorino, perhaps you mean, "her first album, Amorino, under her own name."?
  • "with Mark Lanegan, the album was " this reads like two sentences so either put a full stop in or improve the flow to sound like the second clause is a continuation of the first.
  • "before another collaboration with Lanegan, Sunday at Devil Dirt, released on May 13, 2008.[6]" ditto.
  • There should be at least one EP in the infobox (as you've said she released at least one in the lead).
  • 1999 note [I] is not italics, 2000 note [I] is in italics. Pick one way of display.
  • What is the purpose of ref 15?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I think it's all done. Oddly enough, many of those Mark Lanegan references still actually verify the chart claims, except the last one. Changed them all anyway. Red157(talk • contribs) 11:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see "Extended plays" in the infobox... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Cannibaloki 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• What it currently is like is what I tried, the infobox doesn't link to the EP section if you click on the little thingy (I'm terrible at describing). Why is that? Red157(talk • contribs) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I still cannot see Extended plays in the infobox - you state quite clearly in the lead "This was followed by a solo album and EP in the same year" so there should be an EP in the infobox and a section describing EPs she has released. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Ah, now I'm no longer confused. That was originally an EP (Time Is Just the Same), when I originally wrote the list (Alongside a couple of others in the singles table). Be Black Hole Sun did the simple thing and moved them all together, as they are all in fact singles (In a way). So that's just a thing that was left over that nobody spotted (besides yourself) and has now been fixed. Red157(talk • contribs) 10:24, 31 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:40, 2 August 2008 [75].

---

List of Chicago Bulls head coaches

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 21:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No image of any of the coaches for the article?
• "coaches of the Chicago Bulls franchise" → "coaches for the Chicago Bulls franchise" perhaps?
• "They currently play" should be something like "As of July 2008, they play"
• "33-48" – en dash needed (WP:DASH)

Gary King (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix everything except the first point. I can't find free images for any coaches. The only possible one I could use is a Phil Jackson image. But that image shows Jackson coaching the Lakers team. I don't know if it work or not.—Chris! _ct 21:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You could crop one of the images here. Gary King (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you upload one of these to commons:

1. http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/71083432/
2. http://www.flickr.com/photos/compujeramey/71085230/ --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If worse comes to worse you can use http://www.flickr.com/photos/swanksalot/517528414/

Skiles and Cartwright (and of course Jackson) have a lot of images on flicr. You should join and send flicrmails to people to change the licensing. If you send 10 for each person I bet you get at least one permission each.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But I don't know how to that.—Chris! _ct 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Jackson is the only coach not only member in the HOF, I believe. You may want to say either currently in the central division or have been in the central division since YYYY. Since you make it clear about the stadium, you might want to make this just as clear. You may want to also say played in the United Center since YYYY, but I am not sure what is common for NBA coaches.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Right -- Nate Thurmond, George Gervin, and Robert Parish were all briefly members of the Bulls. (I've corrected the error.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• It should probably be clearer. Right now a person who played for the Bulls and coached elsewhere seems to be in the group you are describing.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• However, there's no one in the Hall of Fame who meets those criteria. There are only four Hall of Famers who have any connection to the Bulls: Jackson, and the three guys I mentioned above. The sentence in the article is accurate. Zagalejo^^^ 21:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support My questions have been answered although I think a better picture can be obtained from flickr.com as noted above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • link all the years to its NBA season.
    • Done—Chris! _ct 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...for the Chicago Bulls franchise" should be "in the Chicago Bulls franchise".
    • Try read the sentence out loud. I think "for" is a better preposition here.—Chris! _ct 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • link "basketball".
    • Done—Chris! _ct 05:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "As of July 2008, they play their home games in the United Center." reference please. Also, the sentence should be "They currently play their home games in the United Center as of the 2008–09 NBA season."
    • Not everything needs a ref. A quick Google search will confirm that the Bulls play at the United Center. And I'd get rid of the "as of..." phrase entirely, since 1) there's no evidence that they plan to move out anytime soon and 2) if/when they do move, all we need to do is remove United Center from the lead. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Coached by Johnny Kerr, the team finished its first season with a 33–48 record, the best record achieved by an expansion team in its first year of play, and secured a playoff berth. " needs reference please.
    • Already did.—Chris! _ct 05:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Kerr won NBA Coach of the Year that year." should be "Kerr won the NBA Coach of the Year Award that year."
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The franchise..." in the second paragraph should be "The Bulls..." because of new paragraph.
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...only member..." should be "...only coach..."
  • I think you should write more about the other coaches beside Phil Jackson (even if he is really good).
    • I did write briefly about Johnny Kerr and Jerry Sloan. Is there any specific you think I should add.—Chris! _ct 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • How about that four of the head coaches never won in their coaching careers with the Bulls. -- K. Annoyomous24 07:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Nah. They were just interim coaches, so they never had a chance to accomplish anything. (BTW, there are just three - Pete Myers had two interim stints.) On the other hand, I know Tim Floyd holds some sort of futility record -- like, most losses in a three-year period, or something like that. That might be worth mentioning, if someone can find a source. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Three coaches, Jerry Sloan, Bill Cartwright, and Pete Myers, formerly played for the Bulls" should be "Jerry Sloan, Bill Cartwright, and Pete Myers formerly played for the Bulls."
    • Done. Zagalejo^^^ 04:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • make the thumb picture bigger.
    • Done.—Chris! _ct 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If done all, I'll support. -- K. Annoyomous24 01:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- K. Annoyomous24 20:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Have you verified all the term dates? I know that the dates for Tim Floyd, Bill Berry and Bill Cartwright are wrong. Floyd resigned on December 24, 2001, so his term should read "1998-2001". (source: "Losing, feuding finally push Floyd over edge"; KC Johnson, Tribune staff reporter. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Dec 25, 2001. pg. 1). And Bill Cartwright took over by the end of 2001, so his and Bill Berry's dates should be changed. (source: "Nearly perfect debut ; Bulls deliver on Cartwright's defensive vow; BULLS 103, CAVALIERS 80"; KC Johnson, Tribune staff reporter. Chicago Tribune. Chicago, Ill.: Dec 30, 2001. pg. 8) Zagalejo^^^ 05:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I based the term dates on basketball-reference.com, so I don't know. Anyway, I fixed those dates.—Chris! _ct 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll look into the other dates. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Most of the dates look OK. But Cartwright was actually relieved in Nov. 2003 [76], so I had to move a few dates up a year. Zagalejo^^^ 02:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: "The team is owned by Jerry Reinsdorf and coached by Vinny Del Negro, with John Paxson as the general manager." This whole statement needs to be dated. I don't know why the coach is mentioned at all - as that is the point of the whole list. If he is mentioned some other details should be added about him than what is already mentioned in the list. Rmhermen (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I dated the sentence. The reason I mentioned the current coach is because every other head coach pages do that including FLs like List of Boston Celtics head coaches. I can removed it but I don't think that is a good idea.—Chris! _ct 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why must we date the sentence? Shouldn't readers assume the information is current? Zagalejo^^^ 02:15, 28 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:40, 2 August 2008 [77].

---

J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award

I am nominating this article because I believe it should be promoted to a featured list.—Chris! _ct 20:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• ""outstanding service and dedication to the community."" → ""outstanding service and dedication to the community"." per WP:PUNC
• "It was the oldest citizenship and community service award in the NBA " – it was, or it still is?
• "(then president[a])" → "(then president)[a]"
• "who represents writers for newspapers, magazines and internet services who cover" – "who [...] who"? change a word?

Gary King (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all.—Chris! _ct 21:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "Members of the organization..." which one? PBWA or NBA? --Dem393 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.—Chris! _ct 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Odd formatting issues in IE7 with a reasonable width screen, lots of whitespace under the Winners heading and the key. Presumably down to the template on the right-hand-side.
  • "and then a vote is taken by approximately 150 members" which members? Sounds like an odd way of running a vote.
  • "joint J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award winners" just "joint-winners" would suffice.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Done the last two point. I try to fix the formatting, and I don't know if it works. Let me know if it didn't.—Chris! _ct 19:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • If this is going to be a featured list, I would expect it to include more information than is available in the raw list obtained from the nba.com website. Why were the various recipients selected for the award? Why was it named for J. Walter Kennedy?
  • The article says that O'Toole was the first sport trainer to win. Was he also the only sport trainer to win? Is he the only non-player ever to receive this award?
  • The placement of the legend to the right of the table looks fine on a wide screen display in Firefox, but I think it could become problematic on a narrower display. Have you considered moving it below the table? (It also possibly could go above the table, but I suggest below because I think the items in the legend are essentially footnotes. ADDED: I see that you had it above the table earlier, but The Rambling Man was concerned about whitespace in IE...) --Orlady (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add more info, but reliable source is hard to find. As to the last point, I don't know if placing the legend below the table is a good idea since all the award pages have the legend on top and they should be consistent. Let's wait and see what The Rambling Man is going to say first before making any change.—Chris! _ct 18:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info additions you have made so far. They add information value to the article (and I bet you will be finding and adding more informative details before long). I'm particularly pleased to see that my question about non-players getting the award is now resolved. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Current layout is fine in Safari. I don't have IE at home so I can't tell you until tomorrow morning (it's nearly 8pm where I am) if it's resolved there as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's unusual to have the legend to the right of the table, between the table and the infobox/images. With a wide display, there's a huge gap between the table on the left and the infobox/images on the right, so it's OK to use the space for the legend. However, with a smaller monitor and/or a larger font size, the table contents look squeezed, but the legend creates a wide gap between the table and the images. --Orlady (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is good to just keep the legend on top. I don't think the white space The Rambling Man mentioned is really a problem. With that said, I am open to make any change to improve the layout of the page.—Chris! _ct 20:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was a problem in IE7 (but I have no sympathy for IE7 users)... it may still be. I'll let you know tomorrow morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just peeked at the article in IE7 (eek!). With some display settings, the current version has a large area of white space between the bottom of the article text and the top of the table -- this extra space is due to the NBA Awards template (which I was mistakenly calling an infobox in my comments above). I actually thought it looked better in IE7 when the legend was above the table instead of to the right of the table, but YMMV. --Orlady (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing wrong so great job! -- K. Annoyomous24 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support All of my concerns have been resolved satisfactorily (albeit not ideally, but not all ideals are achievable). I see no reason not to support it. --Orlady (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why is there {{col-start}}{{col-break|width=70%}} in front of the table? I wanted to remove it, but I want to know why it was there in the first place.--Crzycheetah 22:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why it is there either. So, I remove it.—Chris! _ct 23:43, 1 August 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:03, 2 August 2008 [78].

---

List of No Doubt awards

I think that this is a decent list. Hopefully you agree ;) Gary King (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Question why are nominating so many pages at the same time? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  I like the music. Also, I'm reviewing articles while I nominate some of my own, so I think the universe balances out :) Gary King (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Refs [6] to [9] are most definitely not specific references, they point to the home page of those various chart websites. They don't reference the claims at all.
  • "minus lead singer " would prefer without, a little less mathematical!
  • "3x Platinum " any reason why that can't be written out in English, ie. three-times Platinum?
  • Any reason why you re-link the albums/singles in each section? The list isn't that long so, in my humblest of humble opinions, this may be overlinking. Especially when Hey Baby, Don't Speak and Underneath It All aren't linked in the second table. Further, curious anomaly - you link the albums and singles but not the band...I'd look at the linking all over again.
  • Shouldn't ref 5 be "Featured artist: No Doubt" for the title? A little more descriptive than "Billboard 200".
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 07:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs 6 to 9, not 6 and 9! Can you fix 7 and 8 too please? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah right; done Gary King (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Seeing they've had so few awards, I'm surprised you've used so many references. Can't find any real fault with it, so a late support. Red157(talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 10:03, 2 August 2008 [79].

---

List of Brigham Young University alumni

previous FLC (08:36, 17 July 2008)

This list didn't really get a fair look last FLC, as few editors commented. Thanks for your (re-)consideration! --Eustress (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• WP:LAYOUT: "See also" goes before "References"
  • Fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• I don't think links to categories are usually placed in "See also"? People can click on the categories at the bottom to reach those.
  • Good point--fixed. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
• Every time B.A., M.A., Ph.D., etc. is mentioned it doesn't need to be linked. Just link the first mention, otherwise the page is a sea of blue. Same goes for BYU and other links that are linked more than once, especially in the same section.
  • In our last FLC we were told to link them all since they are part of a sortable list. --Eustress (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, makes sense Gary King (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

question Does this univerity only have the graduates listed? If there are other graduates, why were they excluded? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question, but in the article's lead it explains that this list "includes notable graduates, non-graduate former students, and current students." --Eustress (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it a comlplete list of alumni? If alumni have been excluded why have they been excluded? Where does the notability crieria come from? Fasach Nua (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is a complete list of BYU's notable alumni. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is "What is the definition of 'notable' in this instance?" The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For this context, I feel that "Notable" = "Having a wikipedia article" Bluap (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All notable alumni, as determined per Wikipedia's notable people guidelines, have been listed in order to ensure "a complete set of items [i.e., alumni] where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items" (FL criterion #3). The only place in the list where it seemed impractical to list a complete set was for Football alumni: BYU lists 146 alumni who have played professional football; the FLC includes 24 of them (which accounts for more alumni than any of the other subcategories in the list, and which were not subjectively chosen but were included because they already had articles—perhaps because these 24 alumni had done something more unique than simply playing in the pros, like winning a Super Bowl, being a Pro Bowler, or being a Head Coach). So I believe this criterion is covered in that all of the major items have been covered since it would be impractical to list them all. Such an exception is not only built into the FLC process but is also already apparent in current FLs. For example, List of Dartmouth College alumni#Football only lists 19 alumni while Dartmouth lists 39.

Hope this helps clarify. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If this article is about all "Brigham Young University alumni that meet wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion", the it should be called "Brigham Young University alumni that meet wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion" per WP:NAME. There is an OR problem here, you need an off wiki definition of notable, or it is just someone point of view of what is notable. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) We've had this argument before when List of Arsenal F.C. players was listed for demotion as incomplete. The demotion attempte failed and since then we've adjusted the FL criteria. In particular, number 3, the comprehensiveness criterion states "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries." - so once a scope is defined, and once we are certain the list contains everything within the scope, it meets the criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The scope of this list is "Brigham Young University alumni", is it not? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the title of the list - if the scope is better defined in the lead then so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Weak support Support Seems to be exhaustive, well-referenced, and consistent list with a substantial introduction and accompanying content. There seems to be booster-cruft ("best-selling", "acclaimed", "award-winning", "renowned") which always rubs me the wrong way because these terms (1) they convey no actual information and (2) are inappropriate in an encyclopedia which is clearly not a marketing brochure. These terms should be stripped out and more information provided on what they're specifically acclaimed for, what awards they won, etc. Full support once that is done. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch...I believe I have fixed the booster-cruft issues. Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add that it unabashedly lists alumni that are quite anti-booster (is that a word?) Wrad (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Well-referenced, covers its defined scope very well, nice lead. All the little things were fixed in the last FLC. Wrad (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the look of it, in general, but would prefer that the explanation of what BYU is was in the first paragraph of the lead, not the last. I'd also prefer the term "notes" instead of "notability" for each table - "notability" sounds a little too Wikipedia-orientated. Bencherlite^Talk 00:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved the BYU explanation in the lead accordingly. However, four of the five alumni FLs under WikiProject Universities display the word "Notability" for the brief bio blurb, so that might be personal preference (me, at least, preferring "notability"), but the majority of the WPU FLs use "notability" as well. If other editors preferred "notes", however, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to the change. Best --Eustress (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Support. Bencherlite^Talk 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support It looks good. Well referenced, the couple of weasel words I saw a couple days ago isn't here anymore. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:10, 28 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [80].

---

West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons

I am nominating this list for Featured List status as I believe it has reached the standard set by other featured football club seasons lists, as well as meeting the FLC criteria. --Jameboy (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Peanut4 (talk · contribs)

• I would remove the brackets from the first sentence, and replace them with commas. If it's important enough to mention, it's important enough to do so without looking like an aside.
• I would change top-flight to top division. Top flight is probably jargon.
• Again, I'd remove the brackets around the lowest league position, and also replace Division 3 with Division Three and 7th with seventh. Probably best as "... recording their lowest ever league finish of seventh in Division Three in 1991–92."
• Remove the brackets again around the sharing of the charity shield.
• "The club was founded as West Bromwich Strollers in 1878 by workers from George Salter's Spring Works and turned professional in 1885." It's not exactly controversial but it made need a reference.
• "In the 1900–01 season, the club moved to its current home ground, The Hawthorns." Ditto to the above.

Everything else looks fine. Peanut4 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Think I've addressed everything above. Still not quite happy with the opening sentence and the self reference ("the list below") but getting there. --Jameboy (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't the Key be above the table so we know what everything is before we look at the table? Gary King (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point and one that I agree with. However given that existing seasons FLs seem to have the key at the bottom, I'd like to have some modicum of consensus before making the change. Do we have any guideline or policy on this? What are people's thoughts? --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that a key should normally go above the table, but the problem is that the key on these lists is huge. The aggravation to the reader who actually wants to read the key, of having to click on Key in the table of contents and then to click on the Back button to get back, is in my view much less than the aggravation caused to the general reader, who generally doesn't, of being confronted with so much key to scroll past before they get to the table. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The key is still much smaller than the list, and helps to prep the reader for what the table contains. I'd rather scroll by the key and then read the table rather than read the table then realize that the key is at the bottom. I don't usually look at the table of contents; I just scroll and see what there actually is in the content. Gary King (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Quick question - how did the club come to win the league title and Charity Shield in the same season (1919-20)? Surely they would have been in the following season's Shield after winning the title.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The match took place on 15 May 1920, which would be the end of the 1919–20 season. I can see how this would probably appear strange to those familiar with it as the "traditional curtain raiser". I'll do some digging around (as I'm not sure if this was a one-off or if it was always at the end of the season in those days) and add an explanatory footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, see here [81] for evidence that the shield was played at the end of the season during the early days. I have expanded the Charity Shield footnote. --Jameboy (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Please avoid starting the list with "This is a list of..." we're trying to be more imaginative and compelling now.

Really? :-P OK, I've changed it - it's better but still not brilliant. I'll give it some more thought tomorrow. I'm struggling with the self-referencing aspect somewhat. Can you clarify this for me? Can we mention the list at all, and if not, how do we introduce it without mentioning it? Are there any really good FLs that you could recommend as examples to draw inspiration from in this regard? --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Caption appears to be the only place where you do year ranges by XXXX–XXXY instead of XXXX–XY. I'd be consistent.

Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • "In Europe, Albion" - perhaps expand a touch, maybe European competitions? Just for the non-expert.

Fixed --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Aren't [23] and [24] specific references rather than footnotes?

Yeah fair point, although I'm not sure how best to separate them as I've always lumped them together before now. Should I create a footnotes section similar to that in Norwich City F.C. and then split the references into specific and general?

OK, now done. Footnotes section contains only footnotes. References section divided into General and Specific references. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• • For the sake of consistency, link Ipswich Town in the footnote about Kevan.

Ipswich Town don't deserve a link! Oh alright then, done. --Jameboy (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead. In the first sentence, perhaps link 'English' and 'European' to something helpful.

'English' now linked to Football in England. Strangely, I couldn't find a similar general article on European football to link 'European' to. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• In "first team competitions", think first team should be hyphenated.

Think you're right - a very quick Google Search seemed to show the hyphen being used by the more reliable sources and no hyphen by the unofficial/fan sites, generally speaking. Fixed. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• You don't actually say explicitly that the list is supposed to include only completed seasons, which presumably is the case for stability reasons?

That is the reason, indeed. I've added a hidden comment to the bottom of the list, advising would-be editors not to add stats while the current season is still in progress. I'm thinking about the best way to phrase the lead so that this list criterion is clear. --Jameboy (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• According to Matthews, BCFC Encyclopedia (ISBN 978-0-9539288-0-4), and Tony Jordan, the Birmingham Senior Cup admitted reserve sides from 1905-06, not 06-07. Only mentioned this in case yours was a typo, on the basis there's no reason why my Matthews reference should be more reliable than yours :)

Matthews (1987) p202 says "...in 1906-07 the Birmingham FA decreed that local clubs could field their reserve sides in the Birmingham Cup."

Matthews (1987) p205 says "In 1906-07 the Staffordshire FA decreed that reserve teams could take part [in the Staffordshire Cup]"

Possibly a typo or misprint at source? Not sure what to suggest. --Jameboy (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Table. Would the goalscorer column look tidier left-aligned?

Yes it would. Have now done so. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Repeated links of the same goalscorer. I know overlinking should be avoided in prose, but I think a long list like this is different. The reader shouldn't be expected to chase up and down looking for the single linked occurrence. Especially as you have repeatedly linked names of cup competitions.

Now that you've pointed out the discrepancy, I've actually linked less of the competitions, only repeating the links where they are relatively distant (as advised by WP:MOSLINK). I'm also looking into increasing the linking to the divisons, as this column is arguably underlinked. With the goalscorers, I think W. G. Richardson has the greatest spread, something like seven or eight rows, which is the equivalent to a decent sized paragraph, so not really much chasing up and down required. It's tricky knowing where to draw the line though, as with lists there is often a lot more repetition of linkable terms than in articles. Could almost do with a WP:MOSLINKLISTS or whatever, assuming something like that doesn't exist already. Couldn't find anything in WP:STAND about link frequency. --Jameboy (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Notes and references. Consider separating the footnotes from the references as done on Bradford City A.F.C. seasons, using {{ref label}} and {{note}}/{{note label}}. This also allows footnotes to be referenced without the source information getting tangled up with the note. Then you could divide the References section into general and specific.

Done. --Jameboy (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• And one or two notes could do with inline refs, #10, #11, #16. And #16, League Cup started in 1961 but Albion didn't join in until 1965 begs the question "why not?", perhaps just add something like "like a number of First Division clubs" and a reference.

Done. Can't find the reason they didn't enter from the start, but have footnoted the (probable) reason they did finally enter in 1965-66. --Jameboy (talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Do you use FCHD as a source to anything in the list? if so, it should go in with the other general refs. Either way, I'd credit Mr Rundle by including him in the publisher param :)

I'd already checked all the stats up to 2002 against the McOwan 2002 and Matthews 2007 books. From 2002 I checked against Matthews and soccerbase. So the FCHD was really an afterthought and I haven't verified all the stats against it. If I do so in the future I'll move it into the References section. Have added the publisher param as you suggested though. --Jameboy (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you add |Seasons into Category:West Bromwich Albion F.C., it will sort more usefully under S on the category page rather than under W.

Good point. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

hope some of this helps. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• Local cups. Leave as is, on the basis you have a reliable source; or change it to since the 1900s. Either would be acceptable.

I've gone for 1900s. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Now you've gone to a separate notes section, it would be easy to add sources for those notes mentioned above, which could do with them, now notes F (the RSSSF page you cited in response to Chris above would be good), G and L. And any others you think might benefit from a specific source.

I already did that :) [F][5], [G][6], [L][7]. Is that how you envisaged it? Or did you mean put the reference actually within the footnote? --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see now. Didn't realise it was possible to reference a footnote like that. I'm learning every day. Done. --Jameboy (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note O should be third rather than 3rd place play-off.

Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd put the general refs back to normal font size.

Done. --Jameboy (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've left a suggestion about the lead on your talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've re-written the lead per your comments. Reads much better now IMO. Many thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Satisfies the criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support - I am happy that this meets the criteria and is of a similar standard to existing "seasons" FLs. And what a shame it is that we don't have top-flight players with names like "Chippy" Simmons any more :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 29 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [82].

---

List of Nickelback awards

Gary King (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Support P.S.: Nickelback Rocks! Annoyomous24 00:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, thanks! Gary King (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Can we avoid the "This is a list of" intros (here and on your other nominations where applicable) please? We can use some imagination now!
  • First para seems to be about their releases while this article is about their awards. I know some context is useful but I'd imagine most of that first para would be in the lead of the discog.
  • Any chance of references we can check for 1-4, 8, 9, 11 and 14? I know paper references are perfectly acceptable but with a list about a modern band I'd have thought reliable references can be found on the web?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. Yeah, it is somewhat discography-related information, but I think it helps to give a background as to which albums, singles etc. the band had success with, since those are often the ones that receive awards. As for the references, I will look around, but for musicians, I find it's easier (and the sources more useful) to find references offline from music magazines and such, which do not always have online mirrors. Gary King (talk) 18:17, 22 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [83].

---

Queens of the Stone Age discography

Nomiated again. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a novel way to do some canvassing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good work. Cannibaloki 22:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

• Comments:
  • Remove the link to Gamma Ray; (DONE)
  • The references on certifications are just for search data, then you should explain to the reader how it should proceed to look for results; (DONE)
    • See Garbage discography;
  • In the CRIA website there is nothing written about GOLD for Era Vulgaris. Then remove it; (DONE)
  • Change the area of 4em to 3em on the singles table, that's very deformed. (DONE)
  • Other appearances table all albums have the same reference, then leave only a reference to the side of Song [28], since it does not need to repeat them. (DONE)
  • Remove the links to yyyy in music; (DONE)

Cannibaloki 19:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - Other appearances should list original material not released on any QOTSA albums singles etc. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does that include unreleased tracks not present on any released CD? As there was a huge list of them which was deleted a week or so ago. Red157(talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't released then it isn't discography. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Image could use an informative caption.(DONE)
  • The E of Extended play can just be e. It's not a proper noun.(DONE)
  • You use ref 1 8 times in a row in the lead. This is overeferencing in the extreme. One per para if you're 100% sure everything in each para is cited in the reference.(DONE)
  • "Queens of the Stone Age found itself amidst the sudden popularity and attention" poor grammar and somewhat peacock.(DONE)
  • " The band's next album was Lullabies to Paralyze, released in 2005, peaked at number five on the Billboard 200 and launched several successful singles, including "Little Sister" and "In My Head"." copyedit please.(DONE)
  • "emulate the precedent " what precedent? It's not clear.(DONE)
  • Ref 1 has incorrect title. And it doesn't back up most of the claims in the lead (like the precedent comment, "Kyuss/Queens of the Stone Age EP in 1997.[1]" , Interscope isn't mentioned in this article at all, Rated R first album to chart isn't mentioned at all, "new level of commercial success", "popularity and attention" not mentioned at all in the ref)(DONE)
  • Ref 1 also refers to the label as Loosegroove, not Loose Groove.(DONE)
  • Ref 2 does not have any singles information at all so you can't use it for the Singles table.(DONE)
  • Ref 3 does not have any singles information at all so you can't use it for the Singles table.(DONE)
  • In fact, refs 4 to 9 and 12 to 18 are album charts only so you can't use them to references the singles.(DONE)
  • Ref 16 has a typo.(DONE)
  • Burn One Up isn't in ref 32, The Hard + the Heavy, Vol. 1 is in ref 32 but not in this list.(DONE)
  • In fact, ref 32 and your table using ref 32 only don't match up at all really.(DONE)
  • Ref 27 does not have any director information whatsoever.(DONE)
• Please ensure you have checked all references are accurate and correctly defined. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Many of the referencing issues were ones Be Black Hole Sun had on the Mark Lanegan discography as well. Trying to fix them... Red157(talk • contribs) 10:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I prefer people to not nominate many of the same type of list at once, the same problems exist across them all. Good luck with the fixes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• When you say (DONE) please make sure you really have done it. I'll give you one example - where is "The Hard + the Heavy, vol 1" in your list? I will not chase all the other issues, but right now this list will not be promoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done that. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Refs 30 and 31 point to the same URL. So does 35. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"didn't sell as much as its predecessor." prove it, and don't use contractions - "did not"... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard and the Heavy was 1999, not 1997 according to your source. Why is "Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows [Soundtrack] " in the reference but not in the list? Check all the relevant entries in the reference are also included in this list. This list is currently incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Added two reliable sources. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ref 32 = Ref 36. Other appearances still is not the same as the reference, there are works missing. Fix the year for Hard and the Heavy (second time I've asked). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Loose Groove " in the lead - the refs called it "Loosegroove" The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it, all the missing other appearances and the other stuff. I'm sure of it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read my comments carefully. Ref 32 is the same as Ref 36. You need to check that you have fixed every one of the issues I've told you before you tell me you've done them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. Sometimes i suprise myself. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"In 2007, the band released its fifth studio album, Era Vulgaris which, the album sold more copies then its predecessor in the United States and sold approximately 149,000 copies worldwide in its first week, while Lullabies to Paralyze sold approximately 97,000 in its first week.[3]" - not English - copyedit please. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"released Era Vulgaris the album sold more approximately 149,000 copies " is not much better. Please get a native English speaker to copyedit it for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tried one more time, if it doesn't work i'll get an english user okay. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still missing punctuation and, more importantly, missing the point that it more successful than the previous album. But was the most successful of their career? I know the figures are there but without some kind of context they are a little bland. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And really, saying " fifth effort " isn't wise - they've had plenty more efforts than that, state the fact, it was their fifth studio album. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now changed it to fifth studio effort if its okay and added more about the Era Vulgaris chart positions. Another thing whats does punctuation mean, never in my life heard that word.--Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Read punctuation. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support As one of the editors who brought Era Vulgaris to GA, I feel qualified to say that this article is both comprehensive and accurate in its listings of releases. One minor suggestion is to include the track names in the "Other appearances" section, as the tracks are common knowledge. Regards, Skomorokh 11:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Skomorokh. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:08, 31 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [84].

---

Nile discography

After few days of work, I think this discography is ready to be a FL. Cannibaloki 04:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support: Nice. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cannibaloki 06:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • " along with Chris Lollis since 2007" - no, you've already said "As of 2008, " so this becomes a bit too much.
  • Check you're not using en-dash where hyphen should be used, e.g. self-titled is correct, self–titled is not etc..
  • "seminal classical work" - POV - just stick with "classical work"
  • " In 1997 "Ramses" demo " presumably Ramses should be in italics without quotes here?
  • "Relapse Records was responsible for Nile's debut studio album " incorrect. They may have paid for it but the band and the studio were responsible... reword.
  • "After a extensive touring due to large success of first album" - nowhere close to English.
  • "released on same year" ditto.
  • "In mid 2004 guitarist Karl Sanders, working and his solo album entitled Saurian Meditation. It was released on October through Relapse Records. In 2005 Nile released the fourth studio album Annihilation of the Wicked, that debuted on Swedish charts at number 27. In 2007 they released Ithyphallic, the most sucessfull effort debuting on Billboard charts at number 162." - just not English - suggest you get a copyeditor to sort this all out - at least half a dozen problems here alone.
  • "two of their rare previous releases" - rare? Context?
  • "the first three music videos." - which "first three"?
  • "digital only" - hyphenate.
  • What makes Zobbel a WP:RS?
• The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Doing... Starting the pilgrimage in search of a copy editor. Cannibaloki 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Cannibaloki 14:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The order of sections in the infobox should match the order of sections in the article.
• I've never seen any other page lay out the sections the way this one does. Check out WP:LAYOUT and WP:BETTER#Layout, or ask at the talk pages to make sure this is okay. It just looks really odd to me.
• Try to link to discography in the Lede somehow. You could do it by giving an overview at the beginning of the second paragraph in the LS: The discography of Nile consists of # studio albums, # compilations, etc etc.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

•  Done thank you for advice... Cannibaloki 20:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comments II
  • None of the lead is cited, e.g. where the band are from, who the members are, " After extensive touring to support ..." etc.
  • The lead doesn't mention the single Papyrus. And the list doesn't mention how it charted.
    • This single didn't any chart;
  • "Chris Lollis playing bass, vocals in live performances" reads strangely to me - do you mean he always plays bass and then vocals in live performances, or do you mean he only plays in live performances, both bass and vocals?
    • I think it's supposed to say that he is only part of the group in live performances, playing both bass and vocals. Additionally, the "along" is unnecessary. Simply "with" would suffice. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "the most successful effort " why not "their most successful album..."?
  • Also not sure about the easter egg-style link to the Mars ogg file. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
• The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done "...easter egg-style..." —hahaha!!! Cannibaloki 16:03, 28 July 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 by User:The Rambling Man 07:15, 1 August 2008 [85].

---

List of Slipknot band members

I am nominating the for featured list status because I believe it's comprehensive in it's coverage and is well sourced and accurate and I believe it meets all the criteria of a featured list. REZTER ^TALK ø 06:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks great to me. But my main concern is with the prose. Most of it needs a thorough copyedit for misspellings, grammar, and run-on sentences. I did a quick one myself in the lead, but it still needs alot of work throughout. Also, what do the black lines in the timeline denote? I think they need a legend. Drewcifer (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

They are to represent the bands' releases, they should be labelled but the legend isn't showing it and I'm not sure why, maybe because there are too many labels to fit in the small image. REZTER ^TALK ø 13:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

After some experimenting I think the best thing to do is to add another image for the legend, my proposal is at my sandbox. If you think this is OK I will add it. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, if somebody can highlight the problems you mention with the prose then we can fix them. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I like what I see in your sandbox, go for it! Like a said above, the prose needs a copyedit based on spelling (it's vs its for example), grammar, and run on sentences. I'd highly recommend asking someone uninvolved to help you out, since a pair of fresh eyes will do the list alot of good. Also, I just realized that the list should be renamed to "List of Slipknot members" per list naming conventions. Drewcifer (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

OK I have added the additional timeline legend. Is there anywhere specifically I can request for help with the copyeditting? And regarding the moving of the page, I'm OK with it, I'm just unsure of how we would do that. REZTER ^TALK ø 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Move the page by hitting the Move button at the top of the page, next to History :) Gary King (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it was done five days ago by Drewcifer. REZTER ^TALK ø 04:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The language is much better, but with a quick search I found a few typos and a little bit of poor grammar. Unfortunately I don't have time to help long-term, so I'll regretfully abstain. Good luck though. Drewcifer (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see the second paragraph in the lead split up as it's pretty ginormous.
• "band, his replacement " needs either a semicolon or a conjunction
• "Shortly after this" – either "Shortly after" or "Shortly after this change"
• "Jones fitted the" – "Jones fit the"
• "couldn't provide" – "could not provide"
• I definitely agree with Drewcifer that the article needs a thorough copyedit, per what I found above. The contraction was particularly troubling as those are easy to find and resolve.

Gary King (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• All done. I have made several other revisions to the intro, but any other comments are welcome. Blackngold29 04:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• How is the list of members ordered? It's not by number (which is how it is in the template at the bottom of the page), it's not alphabetically, and it's not by the year they became a band member
  • They are ordered as such; vocalist, guitarists, bassist, drummer, additional percussion, electronics. They can obviously be reordered if you think there's a more adequate order. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Prose issues:
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Joey Jordison was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a drummer." They were all drummers?
    • For every one of the original members should it list what each of them did? REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • No, but the use of "alongside" with a list of people infers that they were all drummers. Each of the sentences that do this should be re-written for clarity. It's fine to say that he's a drummer, but not to have people think that they're all drummers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I have removed all of the "as a (instrument)", it's mentioned just above there and is kind of unnecessary. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison and Paul Gray, Shawn Crahan was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a percussionist and backup vocalist." They were all percussionists and backup vocalists?
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison and Shawn Crahan, Paul Gray was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a bass guitarist and backup vocalist." They were all bass guitarists?
  • "He replaced the spot left on guitar" he should use some furniture polish on that
    • Ahaha I like your humour, changed. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Taylor was recruited from fellow local band Stone Sour in 1997, the band's music required more melodic singing" should be a semi-colon, I think, and then "the band's" is confusing - which band do you refer to?
    • Fixed. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "...vocalist Anders Colsefini struggled to accomplish." I understand that current members come before previous members, so Colsefini won't be listed before Taylor, so how about a Self link
    • I'm not sure a self link is appropriate, the changes were mentioned chronologically in the intro and the prose for each member is just an extension of that information. This is a list not an article. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Shortly after Jones entered the band as a guitarist" -- who is Jones? Self link again, I think. And why give his surname only, whereas in the previous entry, you give Anders Colsefini's full name
    • I gave his full name but not a self link. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "He replaced the spot left on guitar since Brainard's departure" Who?
    • Fixed. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Donnie Steele was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as a guitarist." Were they all guitarists?
  • "Alongside Donnie Steele, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan, Anders Colsefini was a member of the original band formed in 1995 as lead vocalist and percussionist." Were they all etc etc?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• You should explain what the numbers mean. I think someone unfamiliar with the band won't know that each member is given a number, and without mentioning it in the article, it looks a bit WP:OR
  • It is explaiend in the main Slipknot article, does this list really need it? I mean what do you propose, that theres a new section of prose about them? A mention in the lead? REZTER ^TALK ø 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
    • A one or two sentence mention of it wouldn't hurt, would it? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
      • OK I added a sentence in the lead. REZTER ^TALK ø

• Comments
  • Image in the lead is really dark, no better ones available?
    • I uploaded a brighter image. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "metal band " in lead probably should be linked to the relevant genre otherwise you could be referring to a wedding ring.
    • Done
  • "which peaked and has since remained at nine members" doesn't make sense.
    • Reworded
  • Ought to link "sampler" and "turntablist" really since they're quite specialist terms.
    • Done
  • "the band realized" collective consciousness? Reword.
    • Done. I double checked and it was Joey Jordison who came up with the idea... reworded. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Jones fit the position as " fitted?
    • Gary King disagrees above
  • "the band decided a new vocalist was needed" again, collective consciousness working?
    • Reworded. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "could not provide vocal melody which the band considered integral to the material they were writing. " needs reference.
    • Done. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Wanting to retain their percussive edge, Greg Welts joined the band as Colsefini's replacement." how does the second clause logically follow the first here? It's not clear.
    • They wanted to remain strong in the percussion area, so they replaced the drummer who left.
  • "In 1998, Welts became the only member who was asked to leave " try "who has been asked to leave"...
    • Done
  • "have the vocalists trade-off, " jargon.
    • Done
  • "Jim Root" then you call him "James Root" - be consistent.
    • Done - Keeping it "Jim"
  • "Mick Thomson was brought ..." just "Thomson was brought ..." is fine - this goes for all other entries, no need to repeat the first name.
    • Done
  • What particular order are the members in? It's not alpahebtical, not chronlogical, not numerical - is it just random?
    • As Rezter said above: "They are ordered as such; vocalist, guitarists, bassist, drummer, additional percussion, electronics. They can obviously be reordered if you think there's a more adequate order."
  • "head butted " needs to be hyphenated.
    • Done
  • "1997-1998 " needs en-dash.
    • Done
  • "realised " if this is US-English then surely it should be "realized"?
    • Done
  • "Alongside Anders Colsefini, Josh Brainard, Joey Jordison, Paul Gray and Shawn Crahan..." boring repeat of the line-up time-after-time. Just say "Member of original line-up" (or similar).
    • Done REZTER ^TALK ø 11:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Page ranges need en-dash.
    • I'm unclear what you mean by this, can you elaborate? REZTER ^TALK ø 11:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Done Like the references with page x–y. Blackngold29 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
• A lot more work to do, 3 days overdue and currently no supports. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe no supports, but all comments addressed and each reviewer has been notified on their talk page, that's all we can do. Drewcifer appears to be on a Wikibreak, but I have just left a quick reminder to him, Gary King, and Matthewedwards. Blackngold29 03:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Support Much improvement since the nomination opened. All my concerns have been resolved, and it meets the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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