Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2011

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [1].

---

List of Israeli football champions

Nominator(s): —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit}, HonorTheKing (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the raw data was already there before I started working on it, I've done a bit of work on the prose and on clarifying some issues, I've done some polishing and brought an untidy but informative list up to scratch. Now I think it's more or less ready. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 12:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: It is not anymore required (or even desired) in featured lists to boldface the article's title. Also for "Lists of X" writing a definition "X is..." at the start is not that popular anymore. You are pretty free in what you write, but it is probably a good idea to mention "Israel", "football" and "champion" somewhere close to the start. Alright. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Is "began play" proper English? (I am not a native speaker/writer.) Yes, it is. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) You might want to add something like "in the same year" to the key ("Champions also won the Israeli State Cup", "Champions also won the League Cup") Okay, fair point. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) "Full league standings and top scorer details not known at this time." Not known at all, or not known by the author of this list? Not sure whether such statement is common practice on wikipedia. It is, I have written numerous featured articles and lists and used these exact words. It's just to make clear that the section is incomplete due to lack of reliable sources rather than incompleteness that the author is unaware of. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) The second part of this list is very heavy on tables with no prose. Also many tables are narrowish due to the images placed on the right side of the page. I suggest to write short introductory paragraphs for each of the sections; to place the images next to those prose sections and to have the tables run over the full width of the page. Text for those paragraphs can be taken partially from the main intro or from the notes. It's a list, not an article. I don't think this is really necessary. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) I just thought that it might reduce empty space (below the images) and would make for a more pleasant view. I also like having the main points of the tables pointed out in prose. Alternatively the empty space could be filled with more images. bamse (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Hmmm... actually, I think you're right. My screen is very wide so I don't really notice this kind of thing, but making the window smaller makes me see what you mean... I'll write a few lines for the top of each section. — Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC) What do you think now? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Much better and the new prose sections also tell about regional diffferences. Could you do with one image in the "Israeli Premier League" section? This would allow the table to span the full width of the page. bamse (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC) The 1942–43 season was "not finished". Could a note be added as to the circumstances? Okay, done. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Why are Israeli League and Liga Alef joined in one table/section and not the other league names? Fair point. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Why have an empty "Notes" column for the "Israeli League and Liga Alef" table? For consistency with the other tables. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Remove the parentheses from "Top scorer" in the heading since it is confusing (in the table cells in fact the club and not the player's name is in parentheses.) You've misunderstood the parantheses. They are there because "Top scorer" is on the second line of the table, beneath "Player" and "Goals". It is done this way so that you can sort by player name and number of goals. It's common practice on featured lists. See some of the others I've written, such as Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent or List of New York Cosmos all-stars. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Still not sure I understand. Why would removing the parantheses not allow for sorting? bamse (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC) That's not the point; the parantheses show that "Top scorer" is something that comes before "Player" and "Goals", not the other way around; in other words, "Top scorer Player" not "Player Top scorer". —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC) So if "Top scorer" was in the first line, it would be without parantheses, correct? (In this case it would not be possible to have "Player" and "Goals" be sortable, correct?) bamse (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Correct. It is in parantheses on the second line to show that it would be the first line normally, but isn't so that the table can be sortable. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Is it possible to put "Top scorer" above "Player" and "Goals" or would that brake sortability? See above. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) "...club in this regard is Maccabi Tel Aviv, who have been..."; possibly "have"->"has"!? Oh God, not this again. In British English, clubs are referred to in the plural when named ("Maccabi Tel Aviv have been") but in the singular when not ("The club has been"). Hope this clears that up. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Why are two districts with zero title wins mentioned in the last table? To illustrate that there are districts in the country that have never had a title-winning side. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Possibly Israeli football could be linked to Football in Israel instead? As a compromise I'll link "Israeli" to Football in Israel and leave "football" as it is. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC) bamse (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Are "Total titles won by city" and "Total titles won by district" common statistics in sport contexts? Not sure what point theses lists want to make. After all it is a club which wins the title and the club has probably little connection to the city or district it is located in.
  • They are there to demonstrate regional dominance; Tel Aviv is only one city in Israel, and yet far more titles have been won by its clubs than anywhere else. Surely that is worth noting? Also consider the flipside, that certain smaller towns may have had success due to a more involved local fanbase, for example. I disagree very strongly, incidentally, that a club has little connection to where it is located, but that's beside the point here. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
    • With the new mini-intros, I can see the point of having such lists. Just one more question: are there any RS that discuss the reason for the dominance of certain districts/cities? bamse (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Not in any of the ones I've been using so far, but I'll have a look to see if I can find anything new. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Very good, well organized list. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was wondering whether we can arrange the notes in a little more organized manner. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

  I don't understand. More organised how? —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Just one from me: in the lead, Maccabi Tel Aviv being the only club never relegated could use a cite. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Done.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I like this good list, but I think somebody should revise the palestine issue in it, maybe move that part in a independient article.--Feroang (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like it, about the revise, there is an article about the Palestine League (1931–47), But if you referring the name "Palestine" in it - it is belong there, as it was founded by Eretz Israel FA (now Israel FA) and the PFA in the support of the British, FIFA and its sub-groups recognise it as predecessor of the Israeli league system and part of the champions.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments At the moment the table does not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see the data tables tutorial. ref 2 needs the format parameter added to it to indicate that it is a PDF. The symbols used are not ACCESS-compliant. Replace the dagger and double-dagger with the {{dagger}} and {{double-dagger}} templates (the symbols redirect there, so you can just put in the braces) and the corresponding alt text. Other than this it looks good. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Okay. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Cliftonian did the second and third, and I have done the first.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) There's no alt text for the daggers and the you need to align the years centrally as they are to the left. NapHit (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Okay, done. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 15:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support NapHit (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Would appreciate the addition of "association" in front of football in the opening sentence of the lead. "began play in" reads very USEng to me... " Since the first league season, 1931–32, only Maccabi Tel Aviv have not been relegated." this factoid seems oddly placed in the lead. I know it's a "since the first season" fact, but it's a little incongruous for me. I suspect it'd be better off in the next para. "Including all of these league seasons..." any reason why you shouldn't just say "In all.."? "13 and 12 victories respectively" - prefer titles to victories here. Or championships. " who finished the season unbeaten and also won the Palestine Cup during that season" repetitive... Not really convinced the double needs to be capitalised here. "On Israel's independence..." perhaps "Following" or "After" or even "Upon"... Third Place -> Third place. Ref for Steimach playing for Hapoel Petah Tikva in the image caption? "since the very first league season" no need for "very" "came top" would prefer "finished top of the league" or similar. "third places " shouldn't that be singular? thrice - I love it but it's archaic, three times is much more commonly used. "In the 1966–68 season, often referred to as the "double season", the sixteen teams played each other twice at home and twice away during a season lasting two years." is that referenced? particularly the quote? " six new names" strictly it was six new teams. "Due in part to this, these teams are sometimes known as the country's "Big Four"" copy-and-paste from the lead. I know the info is the same, but couldn't you rephrase it a little so it doesn't stick in my craw? I'm not sure how accessible that pie chart is. Do you think it should be removed?, the point in it was to show percentage. exemple that Hapoel and Maccai Tel Aviv almost won half of the titles. You use plainrowheaders in the titles table but not the preceding tables. Is there a reason for that? Yes because plainrowheaders doesn't bold and center the text. easier to read (seen it as one of the exemples in ACCESS page). I understand what it does, I'm just curious why you use it inconsistently in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) You are right, I have redid all now to include plainrowheaders, for consistently matter.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC) This is uber-anal but can you cite the cities/districts where the teams are stated to play? Ref 15, use pipeline to avoid the double full stop after F.C. External links dead for me (this could be me though). Should tell people the official Israel FA page is in Hebrew, the Soccerway page (is it RS?) links to this week of this season, is that the intention? Perhaps worth an explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Took Soccerway off and put "(Hebrew)" on the IFA one. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have changed the IFA to the english version, hope you don't mind.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Good stuff. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) This has "Ligat ha'Al" as a category. What's that? There's no mention of it in the article. Similar question about Liga Alef. My mistake about Liga Alef. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC) - The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Both me and Cliftonian done, I also moved the Ligat ha'Al category to Israeli Premier League.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC) All done now. I don't know about the pie chart, as you say it may be an issue. I didn't do the plainrowheaders, I can only presume that was Honor; I've taken it off in any case. Ligat ha'Al is the Israeli Premier League's name in Hebrew, I don't know why the category is called that. I have added the translation to the lead. Liga Alef is mentioned in the article, it has a whole section in fact; have I misunderstood your question? External links are fine for me. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 18:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have expanded on a couple of points while you were fixing up the other bits.. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC) We should also talk to User:RexxS about the accessibility of the pie chart. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I have commented on the above, in addion I sent RexxS a message and will see what he says.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) If there is a concern about the accessibility of any object in a webpage, ask yourself a question such as "Is that object conveying information visually that ought to be also available to those who cannot see it?" In the case of the pie chart, it has all of its essential information also presented as text below the chart, so it provides the information. Of course, the visually-impaired can't take in at a glance information like 'Hapoel and Maccai Tel Aviv won almost half of the titles', but we are not actually denying anyone that information, we are merely adding a convenience for the sighted – much the same as a photo does when we add one. In fact, it would be true to say that the pie chart only summarises the information in the table (which is accessible), so the author is due some praise for enriching the information provided in the article. Well done! This is all just my humble opinion, of course, but feel free to ping me if there's anything I've been unclear about. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for your opinion.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Lekker lekker. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment, close to Support

• The URL of reference 17 is causing it to break. I think there is a way around it, but can't for the life of me remember what it is. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, it is now working.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [2].

---

List of 1956 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Courcelles 22:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, Cortina. Originally scheduled to host the cancelled 1944 games, eventually hosted the Olympics 12 years later. This list of medal winners is, I hope, a nice compliment to the main FA on these Games. Courcelles 22:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Ref 1 has a date format different from the others. Why do some medal columns have a ref while others don't? What ref covers all medal winners? PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good catch on the date, fixed. Team events are cited by country, individual ones are cited by event (look under the event column). As to a ref to all the medal winners, there really isn't such a beast, unless you want to deal with a 700 page PDF (the third general ref). Courcelles 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I have an issue with File:Stig Sollander, Tony Sailer and Chiharu Chick Igaya 1956.jpg being in the article, for reasons I raised at commons:File talk:Stig Sollander, Tony Sailer and Chiharu Chick Igaya 1956.jpg. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Darn, the uploader Commonsside did us no favours by merely liking to the image as a source, either. Yeah, that's going to be worth a DR over there at some point, unless there's proof forthcoming. Removed... and there is nothing to relpace it with. Cortina was a bad games for free photos, unfortunately. Courcelles 04:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The lead image of Sixten Jernberg was uploaded by the same user, and with a similar link as the source (i.e., direct to image). As 1964 was in Austria and not Sweden, it may be worth investigating that photo too. That said, it does give an author on that image, and the company/news organisation does appear to be Swedish. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Bah. I have a feeling that per {{PD-Italy}}, we're arguing over semantics, and not over images that are actually under copyright. Nevertheless, there is an image on Commons of Jernberg that is unmistakably valid, if less dramatic, so changed. Courcelles 04:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably the first one (of the three of them) could be PD-Italy, I guess; the second one you removed wouldn't have been though as 1964 was in Austria. Anyway, I suppose it's better to err on the side of caution. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the second one never would be PD-Italy, but I'm fairly sure the first one would have been, but without a real source, not much can be done, and no one really wants to re-argue PD-Italy Commonsside. I think we're squared away on the images now, even by a very conservative approach. Courcelles 04:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: "For the first time, the Olympic Oath was taken by a female athlete, Italian alpine skier Giuliana Minuzzo." – I fail to see the relevance of this sentence in the context of this page. I would remove it. Okay, done. Courcelles 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) "Both medal totals were the most of any nation at the Games." – Replace nation by NOC. Same thing, really, as there were no NOC's for non-countries in Cortina, but so be it. Courcelles 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) True, but at least NOC is always correct, whatever the Games. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC) I would link in some way the sentences about Sixten Jernberg and Toni Sailer's medals. You could move the image of Sixteen Jernberg to the "Multiple medalists" section, and put the one of Veikko Hakulinen (File:Veikko hakulinen.jpg) in the cross-country skiing medal section. There are a couple of medalists with images that you can use freely: Chiharu Igaya → File:Chiharu Igaya.jpg What evidence is there this was published before 1956 was complete? The source makes no such claim. Courcelles 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) You're right, you better not use this one. Sorry, I usually fail to check on these license restriction details. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Sverre Stenersen → File:Sverre Stenersen.jpg (at the 1956 Games!) I was looking at the licensing of this image and I wondered if other images from the official report could be used for the same purpose? That would be very helpful for notable athletes for which we don't have freely usable photos, like Toni Sailer. I have doubts though, so one could put that question forward at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Parutakupiu (talk) Ref 2: it is a book source that is used only once. I'd say you provide here the full source info that it is instead displayed in the single-item "References" section. Done. Courcelles 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Ref. 37: this looks more like a footnote with a reference associated. I'd place this in a "Footnotes" section above the "Notes" section (which I'd rename to "References"). Done Courcelles 02:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The alt text of the Sixteen Jernberg image could be improved. For instance, the image does not say the guy on the left is called Sixteen (typo here) and that the photo was took at a Swedish Championships... — Parutakupiu (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Okay, everything has been handled. Courcelles 22:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC) One more thing: is the TOC going to stay like that or are you going to format it according to the other lists in this series? Parutakupiu (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Like this. Hard coded TOC's are hard to use, take up extra bytes, and offer zero utility over the standard one. Courcelles 02:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC) So you think all others should be changed back? Or just the ones that don't occupy a lot of vertical space? Parutakupiu (talk) They should all be changed back, IMO, as the utility is non-existent. Courcelles 09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC) I don't think there will be a problem with that. The idea was avoid a lot of blank space created by long TOC, but that was mostly for the more recent Games with many events. Parutakupiu (talk) Yeah, I actually like to look of the standard TOC's and the whitespace, but it would be excessive on the lists closer to the present. Courcelles 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – In the lead photo caption, could we say somewhere that the event Albright won gold in was in figure skating? It looks weird just seeing "the American gold medallist in the ladies' singles event". Sverre Stenersen: Comma needed after "the 1952 bronze medalist in Nordic combined". Also, why do we have "medalist" here and "medallist" elsewhere? Note a: Don't think the hyphen is needed in "first-place". Very minor, but ref 6 doesn't have a period after the pp; this is inconsistent with the other book cites. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Everything is taken care of. As to the "medalist vs. medallist" issue, blame my inability to keep various varieties of English straight. Courcelles 19:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "substantially identical " gah, either identical or not, it kind have partial identicalness...! Maybe just "similar"? "medallist" vs "meters" I would have thought for USEng that should be medalist. Bah, just easier to put it all in USEng, though I suck at remembering what is what these days Courcelles 03:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) "ladies' singles" - is "singles" strictly necessary here since there isn't a "ladies' pairs" is there? No, but women do compete in the pairs, and the ice dancing events, though there was not one of those in 1956. You almsot always write the gender and singles when referring to an event in figure skating, though. Courcelles 03:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) "medaliist " now that is an innovative spelling... Glass or Glaß? When sorting by number of bronze medals, what is the sorting mechanism? I get two athletes with just two bronzes followed by one with two bronzes and a gold... confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC) Safari, again, I imagine. Usual hack, I made the 2 with a gold sort like a 3, which seems to make things work on that browser. Everything else was simple, but handled, so no individual comments. Courcelles 03:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [3].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (N–O)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

My current nomination has two supports after 22 open days and no outstanding issues. This is the next in the series of Phillies lists; comments to be expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the policy on red links in FLs? Ideally there should not be any IMHO but what's the FL rule? PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Red links are acceptable (many of the other lists in this series have them). The criteria in question state that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing... a complete set of items" and that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". When this series of lists is considered as a whole, the proportion of redlinks is quite low. That said, once the FLCs are through and this (hopefully) passes FT, I will be using these lists as a link farm with the eventual goal of having all Phillies players with articles. I have ensured in the course of these nominations that the leads of each list have no redlinks by creating a number of player articles (see my recent DYKs). So there's no rush, and with only three redlinks, this is just fine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Personally I haven't put any redlinks in the two lists I've been working on, so that'll just be my personal rule. I also use only free images in them. Give me a little more time to look this over but at a glance it looks quite good. PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I don't particularly like redlinks either, but the list is "complete" and I think that's more important right now than having all the articles completed. All the images are free too, FWIW. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 02:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support I compared this to the FL Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A) as a starter for review and with the excuse that I'm pretty new at this, I can't find anything wrong here. Nice work. The only suggestion is to make the tables sections so that you don't have to open the whole article in edit mode to edit the tables. PumpkinSky talk 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the FLC for the "A" list, which was right at the time when the current ACCESS requirements were being implemented for the first time, the section headers were deemed unnecessary because they are duplicates of the table captions. The edit functionality is something I miss too but it's fine the way it is. — KV5 • Talk • 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment Greasy's caption: "as an American football layer " missing a p, although I suppose we'll have plenty of those in the next list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Su--ort. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

HA. Even better. — KV5 • Talk • 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Support (just to be clear!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "Nichols' 10 wins and Dickie Noles' 11 losses are best." I wouldn't say the pitcher losing the most games is "best". How about saying "highest" there? "He amassed an 1–7 pitching record...". "an" → "a". Lead photo caption could use a cite for the Boston info. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Done all. — KV5 • Talk • 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC) The postseason Baseball-Reference source doesn't seem to cover NL pennant winnners from before the 1900s. This looks better suited for the material; try substituting it for the current ref 2. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Ah, good call. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 23:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing to gripe about. Courcelles 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [4].

---

List of Faroe Islands national football team results

Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've been here, for a variety of reasons, but recently I have felt like doing something different and I believe that this article meets all relevant criteria to become a featured list. If anyone has any queries or spots a mistake then I'll endeavour to correct them as quickly as I can. Argyle 4 Life^talk 00:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "was formed in 1939" - comma after Done. Remove duplicate "Faroe Islands Football Association" link Done. "The Faroe Islands joined FIFA on 2 July 1988, and played its first official match, a 1–0 defeat against Iceland, on 24 August 1988." - lots of commas here, looks choppy. I suggest changing to parentheses or em-dashes for the latter broken phrase. Done. "first ever competitive match" Done. "Its heaviest loss" - this reads awkward, at least in US English. I suggest worst loss instead. Done. "to nil three times;" - semicolon here should be colon, and the listed items thereafter should be separated by semicolons instead of commas Done. Blank table cells need em-dashes, preferably centered. I did try before but it messes up the sort function. I'll add it to the goalscorers section if I must, I just think it looks ugly. To fix sorting, set the sortkey as "zzzzz" since you are sorting words. If it's numbers, set as -1. — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Ah, good stuff. All done. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Table does not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see the data tables tutorial. Can you be specific? The tables I create are always the same and I've never had a problem with them. The FL criteria have changed dramatically in regards to what WP:ACCESS requires. The tutorial covers most of it, but what is needed specifically in this case is at least a table caption and row headers, scopes added. There are no colors/symbols to worry about, and no nested tables. — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the information. I've amended the tables so that they meet the criteria. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Good job getting the headers in, but I think that since this is a list of results, the results (score column) should actually be the header. And yes, the header can be in the middle of the row. — KV5 • Talk • 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC) All sorted. I hope. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Lead image needs alt text. Done. One dablink; see toolbox. Done. Always one isn't there. Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• "and entered its first major international competition later that year; the qualifying rounds for the 1992 UEFA European Football Championship." Semi-colon would be better off as a colon.
  • Done.
• A bunch of references have hyphens that should be converted to en dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I've got them all.

Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Not blown away by the opening sentence. I know it's better than "This is a list..." but it's a little like stating the obvious to me...! The links are all important though, so perhaps a re-word? I have comments from previous FLCs ringing in my ears about considering the casual reader. Most that I've seen tend to state the obvious. I guess it could be spiced up a bit. What would you suggest? Perhaps link "friendly" for our US friends. Done. "The team won its first ... when they..." change from singular to plural mid-sentence. Changed. The team's largest victory came on 25 May 1995 when they defeated San Marino by three goals to nil.[4] Its worst..." Singular, plural, singular. The only reason this is standing out at all to me is that I would never use the singular. If it's fine with everyone else then just ignore me. Changed. I tried to not use British English all the way through because it's an international article but I see that I messed up in a few areas. Should be okay now, singular for country, plural for team. St. Jakob Park should be hyphenated. Done. The only place in the article that the hyphened version is used is in the title which seems odd to me. Why not have the relevant key with the relevant tables? I thought that was how it's done. I'll change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Couple of picky things is all.

• In the lead, suggest spelling out UEFA and FIFA the first time they're used, with the abbreviation in brackets. The non-football reader might possibly be thrown by the Faroes joining FIFA, which happens to share its initials with the Faroe Islands FA.
  • Done.
• In the Results Key, could you wikilink Own goal.
  • Done.
• In the Scorers column, would the dashes look better left-aligned with the scorers? this may be just a matter of personal taste.

Matter of interest, if anyone reading this who knows why empty cells have to contain a dash could point me towards the relevant guideline, I'd be grateful.

**I did have them blank initially and then added centred emdashes when KV5 said it would be preferable.

• In the Att column, could you display n/k rather than an emdash where the attendance figure is unknown? to me, the dash implies none, or inapplicable, rather than unknown.
  • Done.
• You won't like this one. Do you think the home/away/neutral code should have its own column, for sortability?
  • If the table wasn't so wide then I probably would have. Venues and competitions would be squashed into multiple rows and I'm not a fan of that.
• The 1996 Yugoslavia games should show the FR Yugoslavia flag, not the SFR, which wasn't used after 1992. {{fb|FR Yugoslavia}} works: FR Yugoslavia
  • Thanks for that. God bless flags. They met in 2001 as well so I've changed them too.

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, always appreciated. Argyle 4 Life^talk 13:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Support. Appears to meet criteria, and nominator has, as usual, been prompt and willing to respond to reviewers' valid concerns. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments "when they defeated San Marino by three goals to nil" any reason the score is written out? seems a little odd to have that one written out and then the one next to it in numerals. Variety. I can't remember which FLC it was but I remember being told that wording things differently makes it more enjoyable for the reader. Repeating the same things over and over is bland. when you set sort button in the descending mode in the attendance column the numbers are not in the correct order this needs fixing. It works fine for me. Unless you have clicked it more than a couple of times? It sorts differently but that is due to a few of the attendances not being available and I'm unaware of how to avoid it For me, it doesn't actually sort properly even on first click. Shows how thorough my review was... There may be better ways of working round it, but one way is to force what Help:Sorting#Sort modes calls "currency" mode, by using {{sort|$0|NK}} for the unknown ones. That makes the NK fields sort as zeroes and the numeric fields sort numerically as well. hope this helps, Struway2 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC) That works for me. Everyone else? No wonder the sorting looked fine to me because I was being lazy. The first 20 entries sorted fine and it screwed up further down the page, which I didn't scroll down to. It jumped from 1,000s to 10,000s to 100. Oops. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC) These were the only two faults I could find with the list, once they are rectified I'll be glad to support. NapHit (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support All my quandaries have been suitably addressed, great work. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment, close to Support: The sorting on the "Score" column seems a bit random. May I suggest using {{sort}} to sort by goal margin for (+1, +2) and against (-1, -2)? So for example a 1–0 win would be sorted as "+1" and a 2–3 loss as "–1". Just an idea. Otherwise looks great. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I like that. It'll take a while and I'm short of time tonight, but I'll have it done tomorrow. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. If it's a heavy load I'm happy to help you out. —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

All done, how does it look? Thanks for the offer of help. It didn't take too long. Argyle 4 Life^talk 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The sorting was still funny, but I fixed it. It uses letters now; 0=n, –1=o, +1=m and so on. I'm upgrading to support; well done! —Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [5].

---

List of Auburn Tigers head football coaches

Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria as it incorporates comments from previous lists on the same topic of SEC head football coaches (List of Alabama Crimson Tide head football coaches and List of Tennessee Volunteers head football coaches). Any and all comments are greatly appreciated and thanks in advance to all who take a peek at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Remove "the" from "represents the Auburn University"? Done "Seven coaches also won conference championships". The word "also" is a bit misleading, since some of these coaches are different than the ones in the last sentence. Better to just drop it. Removed Key: Second word of National Championships should be de-capitalized since it isn't a proper noun. Done Note 4: En dash needed in "win-loss percentage" to replace the hyphen. Done Note 6: Comma would be nice after "Bill Oliver served as interim head coach for the final five games of the season". Done In reference 13, spell out AL like you do in the general reference. Done Spot-checking note: If ref 14 is meant to be citing the date Terry Bowden resigned, it doesn't. It has the month, but I don't see the exact date. Would be nice to have another cite for that. Good call. Additional reference added. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this and please feel free to let me know if you see anything else needing attention. Patriarca12 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

• Table needs to be updated to meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see MOS:DTT for details.

Can you please clarify what you would like to see? I am not sure what exactly you are looking for as this is patterned exactly after the Alabama and Tennessee lists that were promoted to FL previously. Any help would be great! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Those lists were promoted before the ACCESS table standards were updated. The tutorial provides in-depth directions, but what is needed here are row headers, scope parameters, and table captions at minimum. — KV5 • Talk • 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to work on this and let you know when I think I have it correct in the next day or so. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I swapped the key altogether for the Template:List of college football program head coaches key that I have since been made aware of, and think I have updated the table accordingly to the new standards. If it needs more tweaking, please let me know. If it looks good, I will make the appropriate changes to previously FL's I have submitted on the same topic. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good except that there are no row headers yet. — KV5 • Talk • 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I finally got this down. Thank you for your patience and for taking a look at this again! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That's done it. Swell. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• One dead link.

Link fixed.

Can't find anything else to quibble with. — KV5 • Talk • 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support Well done. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments - very good, but is it "postseason" or "post-season"? Possibly need to check your other lists for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It is definitely "Postseason" and I have fixed that on all of the SEC lists. Can't believe I haven't caught that before! Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Conditional Support – I will support this on the following two conditions: Addition of a second image to the article I did add a Chizik image, but it did not look right as it pushed towards the table, so I did not include it. I am more that happy to include it if others in this discussion are alright with it. An explanation here on why coaches with no bowls are both listed as &dash-&dash-&dash and 0-0-0 at points in the article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC) Citation added to explain why &dash-&dash-&dash and 0-0-0 are both used in the table. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed. Changing to support Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support

• The key table looks horrible. Other than adding header scopes ( ! scope="col" | and ! scope="row" | ), I see no reason why the previous key would fail the new WP:ACCESS standards.

Ultimately I will defer to whatever consensus is reached, but I feel the template version does look better, presents the information in an easy to follow, uniform manner and will utilize it in both past and future coaches' lists I work on if this will work for FLs.

NThomas, the current key table looks horrible? Patriarca12 worked in Template:List of college football program head coaches key, which will standardize the tables for these kind of lists. Please take a look at the template and let me know if you have issues with it. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless the template can be rewritten to hide unused parameters, one of the things brought up over and over here with past FLCs, there's going to be a lot of lists with extraneous abbreviations for parameters not even used. Since this really doesn't pertain to this FLC though, I've started a new section on the template's talk page about my concerns about the template itself. NThomas (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• What happened to the section headers?

Not quite sure what happened there, but fixed now. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Template:Southeastern Conference football coach navbox needs to be included on this list since the template links to it and other SEC HC lists, not the program.

NThomas (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Added Patriarca12 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [6].

---

List of accolades received by Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. For the most part, I've attempted to double source the awards using one primary and one secondary citation (some were difficult to find one RS, let alone two). Hope everyone enjoys reading about the second best film of 2003! Ruby2010 comment! 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crystal Clear x3 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments Peter should be linked in the photo caption Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Instead of using the film a lot, trying referring to it by its title or the movie or the adaption Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Since you're focusing on the film's US box office, in the first sentence you should mentioned that it is an American movie Funny to think the film is indeed American, seeing as how the cast in British/Australian! Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) The b.o. numbers are too specific. Would you suggest I round the figures? I don't want to give inaccurate data Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) "Since then, the film grossed a total US box office gross of USD $93,927,920," needs some re-wording Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) "with an approval rating of 85 percent on the review aggregator" better off without the the imo Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) I think cinematography would be better off unlinked Which use of cinematography? Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Unlink film journal in ref 2 per overlink Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Same for 27 Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Ditto for ref 34 Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) And also 46 Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Ref 33 needs to be replaced as IMDb is not an RS Done Ruby2010 comment! 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) And 36 Done Ruby2010 comment! 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Same for 26 Done Ruby2010 comment! 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) And 44 In this case, the direct website said to use IMDb as a source. I indicated this in the refs (see #43) Ruby2010 comment! 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) And 53 Done Ruby2010 comment! 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Unlink Variety in ref 58 Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Also for 64 Done Ruby2010 comment! 23:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Unlink LA Times in 46 per overlink Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Why is NBoRoMP cited as the author of the press release but not also the publisher? It's because of the press release cite template (the publisher is always listed first, as with ref 61) Ruby2010 comment! 21:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Same for 61 See above Ruby2010 comment! 21:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Unlink NBoR in ref 49 Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Is there any other source you could use besides E! Online (ref 55) because I'm not aware of it being a RS E! is indeed a RS (it has its own editorial staff and is owned by NBCUniversal). Ruby2010 comment! 21:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Crystal Clear x3 04:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC) One more thing: NYTimes Company should not be added in the 'general references' since all the other source do not also cite publishers Crystal Clear x3 05:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Quite right. Done Ruby2010 comment! 21:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Support after some minor tweaks. Another great FL contribution from Ruby. Crystal Clear x3 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "directed by Peter Weir. Weir...". The repetition from one sentence to another isn't optimal. It isn't the most artful solution, but "He" is always an option for after the period. Added "He" Ruby2010 comment! 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) "the David Lean Award for Achievement in Directing: Weir's direction received...". Is the colon meant to be a period? Feels like it the way this is structured. I don't see a colon (..."Master and Commander received eight nominations, ultimately winning in four of them, including the David Lean Award for Achievement in Directing. Weir's direction received a total of eleven nominations, while he and Collee's screenwriting earned four.") is all I see. Ruby2010 comment! 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Why does the caption read "Peter Weir received over fifteen nominations for his direction of Master and Commander" when the lead gives his number of directing noms as eleven? Even if the screenwriting is included, that would only equal fifteen. You're right. Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Also in the infobox, I count 22 wins, not 23. Worth a double-check. You're right. Double-checked and fixed Ruby2010 comment! 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) While I'm talking about the infobox, can we make "Awards & Nominations" into "Awards & nominations"? The last word has no reason to be capitalized. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Check the Category column of the table for places with hyphens that should instead be en dashes; I see quite a few of them. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Legolas2186 directed by Peter Weir. Weir and screenwriter --> The consecutive Weirs look weird. Try to rephrase that part. Giants caught that too. Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany starred among a large ensemble cast --> Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany starred in the film, alongside a large ensemble cast Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) falling into second place behind Elf --> That's actually wrong since that was the movie's debut week so it cannot exactly fall into second place. Sorry, don't quite understand you here. Elf was on its second week, but still placed first over Master and Commander. Unless you mean something else? Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) What I mean is that Master & Commander debuted on the box office list at number two, so saying that it fell behind Elf is wrong, since that was its debut week. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Ah, I see. Fixed it to say the film debuted in second place. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 15:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) USD $93.9 million --> phrases like this make me wonder about their expansion, or readability. For eg: if I expand it, it will read United States dollar dollar 93.9 million. I would suggest a simple $93.9 million would suffice, with only one wikilink. Done (removed "USD", added one wikilink for $) Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Add the word website before Rotten Tomatoes as review aggregators are of different kind. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Performances by the cast were also recognized --> Second consecutive sentence to use the word recognition in verb form, try changing it to honor or something. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Have a summation line at the end of the lead sayinng how many awards the film won from how many nominations. Done (added "Overall, the film won twenty awards out of eight nominations") Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Also the last line of the lead needs a rephrasing. At present its pretty vague with "other media outlets". Note sure to make this less "vague". Changed media outlets to simply "media" (?) Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) American Film Institute Awards date should be December 2003, not 04. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) When you are using WP:CITEKILL like reference 15, please have a heading line to indicate what are the references about. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Reference 33 needs a language parameter Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Reference titles need en-dash, check throughout. This applies to the award category names too. Done Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC) These are some concerns I have. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks very much for the look-over. Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Reference 43, what is happening with the directing?

• You mean the direction to IMDb? The primary website for the actual award tells visitors to see the winners at IMDb. I thought the ref formatting I provided seemed the best way to indicate this (with Crystal's apparent agreement). Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure how reliable it would be if the source is asking us to look over to IMDB.

• Well it's the direct website for the Motion Picture Sound Editors, so the site is reliable. It looks like they're under construction, and are using IMDb until the website is finished. That's a good indicator of how reliable IMDb is in this case, if I ever saw one. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Have you archived the award lists in general? They tend to go red pretty fast. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Will do so soon Ruby2010 comment! 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• Just an update: am working on archiving, and will continue in coming days. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC) All done (with one or two exceptions that were unable or not allowed to be archived, like Empire Online). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 17:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the list is of fine quality now, and passes FLC? criterias. I am happy to support it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Quick question, what makes it an "American adventure film"? It has a multinational cast, multinational screening etc, is it solely funded by an American studio? It is set in Napoleonic times.. As funny as it sounds, I've only been able to find sources that call it an American film, probably because of the American studios. Do you think I should just remove the film's nationality altogether? Ruby2010 comment! 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) I wouldn't bother, what is the nationality of movie after all? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC) "place behind Elf.[5][6] Since then, the film reached a US box o" reiterate M&C as you've mentioned Elf in the meantime. Done Ruby2010 comment! 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) "twenty awards out of eighty nominations" - infobox says 22/80 Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Can we make the date of ceremony col a bit wider so it doesn't span two rows? Better? Ruby2010 comment! 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC) New Zealand Herald is The New Zealand Herald. Done Ruby2010 comment! 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) IMDB is not considered a WP:RS. I'll just repeat what I told the other two editors above: In this case, the direct website said to use IMDb as a source. I indicated this in the refs (see #43) Ruby2010 comment! 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Looks great, I see no further problems preventing FL status. Good job. DrNegative (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm I am surprised all the prior reviewers missed this, but the dates in "date of ceremony" column are not consistent; some are ymd, some dmy, etc, some have commas some don't, etc. They should all be consistent. PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Good catch. Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I was just wondering why the dates in the table are dmy, but the dates in the references (and lead) aren't in the same format? - JuneGloom Talk 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I recently converted all the table dates to DMY, but forgot to check the lead. Thanks for catching it. Ruby2010 comment! 15:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [7].

---

Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Female

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 05:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists that have bee promoted. Thank you for your time and feedback, reviewers. (This list is a companion to Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male, also currently listed at FLC. I hope two support votes is enough to allow a second nomination.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments Chaka Kahn ->Chaka Khan. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Any reason the nationality column isn't sortable? (I bet my mortgage I know the answer to this, by the way...!) Done. What was your guess? I am not sure I have a reason. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Copied from (the male?) list where no sorting was needed as no-one bar Americans won...? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Comment: In the table it says that Fitzgerald won the first award for A Perfect Match but in the lead it reads Digital III, is there any reason why?. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC) Most likely. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) 1986 work is notable but article doesn't exist (fine) but 1990 work is not notable enough for a red link? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Reorder cats so establishment comes before disestablishment. Done, though I thought categories were meant to be in ABC order (apart from one or two "anchor" categories). I love categories but I wish there were an established and enforced method to there madness. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) I have seen people putting categories into alphabetical order, but I haven't seen a guideline/policy to back up their actions... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Good to know! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, TRM! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Please let me know if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Remove periods/full stops from the end of alt texts that are fragments Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Some clarification needed on what things are italicized, what are in quotes, etc. Added "(songs or albums)" to the lead. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Remove commas from captions, I think they are all extraneous. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) N/A's don't sort properly. Not sure how to correct this (same with the Male Jazz Performance list). --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Done (see FLC review for similar male list). --Another Believer (Talk) 19:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Hope this helps. — KV5 • Talk • 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question Why is there a column for Nationality when they're all American and the award hasn't existed for 20 years? PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All of the Grammy lists that have been promoted to FL (as far as I can recall) display the Nationality column. I am not sure how the 20-year threshold comes into play; feel free to provide an explanation if there is a policy I am not familiar with. I did go ahead and remove the sort feature on the Nationality column since all entries are the same and so that the list is consistent with Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt there's a policy on this but it seemes odd to include it when they're all from the same country. As for 20 years, if they haven't ressurrected it by now, they probably won't for a long time. But eh. PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• SupportPumpkinSky talk 01:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: In the lead section it reads that Fitzgerald won the first award for Digital III at Montreux, but in the table says that it was for A Perfect Match. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Great catch! Corrected. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• After that correction, I support this nomination. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:03, 22 August 2011 [8].

---

List of De La Salle University people

Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it sufficiently lists DLSU people and I think it meets FL guidelines. Moray An Par (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Repetition in "DLSU traces its traces its founding" needs to be removed. Still see two "traces". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC) More repetition from sentence to sentence in "Jeremiah James Hardy. Hardy...". Could be fixed be changing the second name to "He" or something similar. In that same sentence, should "is instrumental" be "was instrumental"? Seems like that would be correct grammatical tense for an historic fact like this. "His request would be later endorsed in 1907 by the Pope Pius X." Flip the order of "be" and "later", and remove "the" before Pope. Sorting of the presidents isn't working properly for some reason. References 72 and 73 are showing up as bare links, without a title. All caps in references 60 and 95 should be removed. Still in 95 ("PROFILE"), though 60 is done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Publisher of reference 109 should be outside the link itself. If the Asian Journal (reference 113) is a printed publication, the publisher should be italicized. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Done. I made it unsortable. It seems that sorting doesn't work for multirow cells. Help:Table Moray An Par (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC) Done. Moray An Par (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments Five paras in the lead is a little overkill, especially given them being short paras. "University association" is a red link. Is that for real? Is it so insignificant that we don't have an appropriate article or section of another article? Not sure the heading of the column should be "relationship", reads odd to me. What is NA as a discipline? Needs explanation. What's PBA? The table is sortable so make sure everything is linked every time. Faculty and Alumni tables should have cols same width from section to section, on Safari they're not. Would prefer to see notes in numerical order (see the honorary table) Presidents table is unsortable, acting is sortable. Seems odd. I know why, but it still seems odd. It would be better to have individual lines for each stretch as president. You don't need Category:De La Salle University as you have a more refined category in Category:De La Salle University alumni. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC) The lead has been shortened. I know its so odd that university association doesn't have its own article. I raised this issue at WT:UNI sometime ago. What would like as an alternative for "relationship"? It seems to be the standard in university alumni lists. Other concerns have been addressed. Moray An Par (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Bill william comptonTalk 11:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments I think em dashes should be aligned at center. Cite the format of Ref 2, 10, 11, 25, 32, etc as they are in pdf format. In "Presidents" table dashes are in random fashion, correct them. Why there were two "acting presidents"? Term of Lucian Athanasius Reinhart extended from 1945–1950, but still there were two acting presidents in this period, I'm confused. Maybe it would be better if you add something there, I mean a prose before table. In my view, there should be a alt text for each image. What is this "Secondary" in the "Relationship" column? Tagalog: Pamantasang De La Salle → Tagalog: Pamantasang De La Salle, this is with lang template, don't know whether its use is mandatory or not. DLSU used to have a high school department. Are the alt text needed? Don't the pictures describe who is in it already? All other concerns have been addressed. Moray An Par (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure about the usage of Alt text, and honestly don't know whether they are compulsory to use in featured list, but I guess they are pretty much necessary in featured articles, so please check MOS for that. Please mention this fact that DLSU used to have a high school department and this "secondary" attribute is related to that, because every field in table [at least] should be described/understandable whether in accompanying prose or by using legend (key table). The alt text is used so that screen readers will read the actual description of the images as opposed to prose which are sometimes used as captions. In this list, all captions indicate who/what are in the photos so I think there won't be any need for alt texts. The lead has been expanded to accommodate info regarding the deprecated grade school and high school departments. Moray An Par (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Support: I've no more issues. — Bill william compton^Talk 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A support, after – are added to refs 154, 156, and 141. Albacore (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment several names redirect, either due to different capitalisation (del instead of Del), different name (Tommy instead of Tomas), missing diacritics (e.g. Yohei Kono), different spelling (Mundel redirects to Mundell). Can all these be resolved please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Alumnus Tomas Manotoc is not mentioned at all in the reference (ref 69) File:Yuchengco Hall1.jpg should not be used for this article. It is a non-free image, and I don't see how it meets criterion 8 (does the image significantly add to readers' understanding of the topic). Cecilia Muñoz-Palma: "First women Supreme Court of the Philippines justice" Change "women" to "female". What references the fact that Narciso S. Erguiza is the current president? I don't see anything in the source. Dead links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Ref 76 is still not working. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Replaced. Albacore (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Rafael Buenaventura's pic was deleted so that needs to be removed. I'm a bit concerned about the high level of redlinks as well, but given that the descriptions show clear notability, I'm not going to fret over them. Aside from that, I'll support when Dabomb's concerns are addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Nominator is on a wikibreak until October, so I've fixed all outstanding comments. Albacore (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support: This list looks like it meets the criteria and is well done overall.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:19, 21 August 2011 [9].

---

List of Square Enix video games

Nominator(s): PresN 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, another list for you guys! Presenting: a list of every game Square Enix has developed or published since its inception in 2003 in one big sortable list. With 256 citations, the reference list is longer than most articles, but it means that everything is cited. Have at it! --PresN 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• The history of Square Enix will need to be sourced, e.g. "The company was formed from the merger between Square and Enix on April 1, 2003."

• Done. --PresN 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Am I correct to assume that this list and the list of downloadable games do not share entries?

• Correct. --PresN 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• On the list, decide whether you are wikilinking all instances of "Arcade game", "Think Garage", etc. I believe the answer should be yes because this is a sortable table. The only exception might be "Square Enix", which I think is overlinked and should only appear in the prose.

• I always link everything in sortable tables; I'm open to dropping the links to Square Enix, though. --PresN 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I meant that the examples I listed have mixed linked/unlinked usage. You should be able to spot this easily by resorting each column. There may be others I missed. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oh, I see. Fixed. --PresN 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I did some thinking on Drilnoth's comment regarding the release date. I guess the important thing to consider is whether the first date of release is the only one that matters. I haven't checked, but it's possible one game could be released outside Japan first, but it's still a first release. However, listing out all the release dates can give the reader an indication of that video game's release schedule. I have no particular objection with leaving it this way though. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support, seems like a pretty good list. Meets WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 11:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nomader (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: The list should be renamed to "List of Square Enix video games" instead of just "List of Square Enix games", as the latter would have to include any spinoff actual physical games that Square Enix might have released based off of some video game property. Done. --PresN 18:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The lead needs to be expanded to include more about the merger of the company (to explain why all the entries are from 2003 and later) and any success the company has had or its reason for its success. Maybe make a mention of some of its larger franchises? We're really charting new territory here as this is the first time a company's games list has been nominated for WP:FL, so I think you should at least flesh out some of the basics of the company much as one would flesh out the basics of the video game series in something like List of Wario video games. Expanded the lead; is that what you had in mind? --PresN 18:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC) What makes Siliconera (ref #168) a reliable source? Used as a source by RS's 1UP.com1 1UP.com2 1UP.com3, Kotaku, Shack News1 Shack News2, Eurogamer, Arstechnica. I had something else written down about them, but I can't find it right now- I've used it in FAs and FLs before. --PresN 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC) This is an excellent list, and with the exception of a few problems, a job well done. Nomader (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: the lead was my main issue with the list, and I hadn't anticipated it being remedied so quickly. Well done. I have no other objections, and looking over it once more, I'm happy to lend my support. Nomader (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comment – All caps in reference 22 should be removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Done. --PresN 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:19, 21 August 2011 [10].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Japanese books)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the last of the set of featured lists of National Treasures of Japan. It covers among others poetry collections, prose works and historical chronicles written in Japan. The list has been modelled on other featured lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Basic comments Check the bibliography section like your previous nomination. There are full dates for some of the book sources, and in some there is just the year. Similar for accessdate. I presume this is because of using the reftag tool? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. All publication dates are now year only, and all have accessdates in the same style. bamse (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• More basic comments The lead feels a little too long, and goes beyond the scope and inclusion criteria in the list, but the information is good and I think will be engaging to readers. Could I suggest moving the second, large paragraph (After the introduction of writing from Korea...) to a new section below the lead, perhaps either before or after the Statistics section (I'm not sure where it would be more appropriate). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead does not feel too long for me. Its length is comparable to other long articles such as Seattle. Furthermore it agrees with the recommendation in the MOS. The second paragraph summarizes the development of Japanese literature and mentions the various genres that are discussed in more detail in later sections of the article. As such it summarizes the article and puts the various genres (or sections) in context; which I consider the purpose of a lead section. For these reasons, I would prefer not to move the second paragraph out of the lead section. bamse (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't know MOS made recommendation for lead length, so thanks for showing me that. You are right then, in that the section should remain in the lead. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Eisfbnore • talk 05:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books or not Fixed. Removed location from one reference. bamse (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Retrieval dates are not needed for convenience links (Google Books for instance) to print-based sources I thought so too, but in this FLC, Afro pointed me to {{Cite book}} which states: "accessdate: ... Should be used when url parameter is used." bamse (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Ref 199 and 207 are only citing Adolphson and Kamens as authors of the Heian Japan book, whilst the bibliographical entry also cites Matsumoto as author of the book Fixed. Added Matsumoto. bamse (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC) In the bibliography but with no citations: Brokaw & Chow (2005); Eliot & Rose (2009); Miner, Odagiri & Morrell (1988); Sansom & Sansom (1961) and Wedgeworth (1992) Fixed. Removed all of them. They only applied to another list which was at some point split off from this list of Japanese books. bamse (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC) The ISBNs ought to be hyphenated (I can do that for you) I read ISBN and added hyphens to the first entry in the bibliography (Addiss, Groemer, Rimer). It was hard work. Is there a (semi)-automatic method to do this? bamse (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC) There is a bit of WP:CITEKILL in this list. Have you considered bundling them? Will have a look at it. bamse (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks a lot for your edits/fixes in the bibliography already. I am slowly working my way through the article in order to reduce CITEKILL. Should be done with it by tomorrow. bamse (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Done. I reduced CITEKILL by joining related citations or removing some refs which said the same as others. bamse (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Otherwise it looks fine, and the research and work you have put into this list (and many others) is impressive Bamse. All the best, Eisfbnore • talk 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Close paraphrase check I do not have the time to check each sentence in this list for close paraphrasing, but I'll note the few I find below. A tip to avoid close paraphrasing is to write from muliple sources and move content between sentences. Article: "…the Engishiki, the greatest legal compendium of the ritsuryō age.[198][199] It was compiled from 905 to 927 by Tadahira and others under command of Emperor Daigo." Source: "The Engishiki was compiled between 905 and 927 under the command of Emperor Daigo." [11] To be honest, that was actually the only one I was able to find, and it does seem easy to get rid of. Well done! Eisfbnore • talk 18:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC) This issue has been addressed by Truthkeeper88 in this edit. bamse (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure if attribution of facts (opinion could be good) is the best thing to do here. The line David Lu's book is not an opinion or an analysis, merely a statement of fact. The better thing to do here would in my opinion be to move information from his sentence into others, i.e. convey the meaning but using our own words. Also, Lu does present an assessment of the Engishiki in his book which could be worth including. Perhaps "Compiled between 905 and 927 by Tadahira, the Engishiki is the most respected legal compendium of the ritsuryō age and an important resource for the study of the Heian period court system. Emperor Daigo commanded its compilation; the Engishiki is according to David Lu an "invaluable" resource and "one of the greatest compilations of laws and precedents". Or: "Compiled between 905 and 927 under the command of Emperor Daigo, the Engishiki is according to David Lu "one of the greatest compilations of laws and precedents" and "invaluable in the study of the court system in the Heian period". Or: "An important resource for the study of the Heian period court system is the Engishiki, combiled by Tadahira between 905 and 927. It is the most respected legal compendium of the ritsuryō age and, according to David Lu, "invaluable in the study of the court system in the Heian period". Hope this helps, --Eisfbnore • talk 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks. It did help indeed. I went with your first suggestion. bamse (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Done for now. Please see my comments above and let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. bamse (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Thanks, looks good. I tried to introduce WP:CITEBUNDLE in this list, but it didn't look nice and I reverted it. --Eisfbnore • talk 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Support - outstanding work, and amazingly accesible to a layman like me. Eisfbnore • talk 05:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Redlinks?

This is a minor point, but I noticed there were some redlinks in the bibilography (e.g. Ishikawa Prefectural Museum of Art, Seikadō Bunko Art Museum, Yōmei Bunko, Nabeshima Hōkōkai). I don't think it's necessarily bad to have red links, but are all these articles likely be to created in the future? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as locations/owners of National Treasures of Japan, these are relevant entities that will likely get an article in the future. In fact I am planning to have articles on all temples/shrines/museums that house or own National Treasures. Recently I wrote: Shōjō-ji, Hatakeyama Memorial Museum of Fine Art, Anraku-ji (Ueda), and Omura Shrine. There are other wikipedia users (e.g. User:663highland, User:Tenmei) creating such articles as well, so I am quite optimistic that this goal will be achieved in the not too distant future. bamse (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Heian period doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead. Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Still see two links, one in the second paragraph and one in the third. One is piped and shows up as Heian, if that helps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) You're right, I missed one. Removed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Usage: Add "by" to "sortable pressing the arrows symbols."? Done. Changed to "sortable by pressing the arrows symbols."bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) In a few of the notes here, remove the capitalization of the first words after semi-colons. Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Japanese literature: "The Tale of Genji is a work written in the early 11th century by noblewoman, (Murasaki Shikibu)." Remove the comma at the end and make a change to "by a noblewoman", I'd say. Also, who calls it "the single most impressive achievement of Heian civilization"? Sounds like a pretty strong declaration, especially when preceded by "Indeed". It's important the Murasaki Shikibu was a noblewoman - otherwise she wouldn't have been educated, so I'd be opposed to seeing it removed, fwiw. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I'd also prefer to keep the "nobelwoman". In addition to what Truthkeeper88 wrote, the word points out that Murasaki Shikibu is a woman which would be hard to guess from the name and which is relevant since the preceding sentence discusses male/female differences in Japanese literature. As for who uses such a strong declaration, that's Helen Craig McCullough. Re-checked the source, and the exact quote is: "...single most impressive accomplishment of Heian civilization, Murasaki Shikibu's The Tale of Genji" (not "achievement"). Do you think that this should be attributed to Helen Craig McCullough or do you think that it should be removed, because it is a too strong statement? bamse (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC) I attributed it: "The Tale of Genji written in the early 11th century by a noblewoman (Murasaki Shikibu) is according to Helen Craig McCullough the "single most impressive accomplishment of Heian civilization"." Other sources say basically the same, see here. Please let me know how you like it. bamse (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC) "were originally Buddhist influenced, and meant to be educational." Needs "were" before "meant". Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Waka: "In the late 9th century, Waka...". Why is Waka capitalized? Because of bad eyes. Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Remove comma after "renga" toward the end of the section? Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Monogatari, Japanese-Chinese poetry, setsuwa: "and, for its calligraphy". Remove comma here. Fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Add "a" to "has been designated as National Treasure" toward the end of the section. Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) History books and historical tales: "and four, Bungo (730s), Harima (circa 715), Hizen (730s) as fragments." That's three according to my count, unless one of them is meant to count twice. I had forgotton the Hitachi fudoki. Added. bamse (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC) One more thing related to this: "and" should be placed before Hizen. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Again, who says the Nihon Shoki is the most interesting thing in this category? That's a pretty big leap to be making without some form of attribution. Varley states: "All were written in Chinese and, with the exception of the Nihon Shoki, were notably dull, consisting as they did of a dry recitation of the facts and events of court government." Anyway, I removed that phrase, since it is not really relevant here and because one could argue whether it is really the most interesting of the histories. bamse (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC) "The Kojiki, long been neglected by scholars until the 18th century". Remove "been", or add "which had" after the comma. Tweaked but slightly differently Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Others: Another "has been designated as National Treasure" that needs an "a". Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Note 2: Flip the order of "blank two". Done. bamse (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Note 16: Should the first comma be a semi-colon? Yes! Changed. bamse (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC) A few of the notes (2, 6, and 8) need periods at the end. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Done. Added periods. bamse (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Four dab links are showing: kanshi, fascicles, kanshi and Toji. Fixed kanshi and Toji. There seems to be some disagreement where the concept of Fascicle (book) is to be explained. At some point it was a redirect to book which is what is meant here. However it does not seem to be explained in that article. At the moment Fascicle (book) points to the dab page Fascicle which explains the term at the bottom (A discrete section of a book issued or published separately). Not sure what to do about it. "(in the form of Chinese books) to Japan around 400 AD" put the parenthetical clause after "400 AD", don't split the sentence as you currently do. Moved parenthesis to after "400 AD". That sentence needs a little work - it has "writing", "writing" and "wrote" all in one hit. I've tweaked but now it has Chinese books, Chinese writing and Chinese scribes. Does it need another go? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks. If necessary, "Korean and Chinese" could be replaces by "mainland" (which is a common term used in references to refer to these two countries with which Japan had most exchange at the time). To make it understandable for non-expert, how about adding a footnote explaining what "mainland" means here? bamse (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Can you link "Classical Japan" to a specific section of the History of Japan rather than the whole article? (Like you have for Feudal Japan...) Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Last lead paragraph, can you pipelink those awkward list titles, e.g. just link "Chinese book National Treasures" instead of saying "Chinese book National Treasures of the List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Chinese books)" Good idea. Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "4000 pieces" -> "4,000 pieces". Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) You say tanka and then the second time you say tanka you explain what it is, perhaps you could put the explanation the first time. Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "31 syllable" hyphante. Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "century.[nb 4][42][20]" can you order references numerically please? Check others. Done. I used WP:AWB which does it automatically. bamse (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) What's an en-dash in "author" represent considering you have "various" and "unknown". Fixed. No more en-dashes in that column. bamse (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) How does Format sort? Alphabetically I guess, but it's not particularly helpful when you start some entries with numbers. 16 bound books sorts before One bound book, for example. Sorting is explained in the usage section. I think that sorting by the amount of items is not that useful, so I made it to sort by the type of objects: "scroll/book/other". bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "more than 1000 anecdotes" -> "1,000". Done. bamse (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) ""Inside Notes"" why is Notes capitalised? As the title of the work, I capitalised it. Is that not correct? "There are 18 National Treasures that do not ..." specifically of the Japanese book type right? Specified as "There are 18 Japanese book National Treasures..." bamse (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC) "1572-1662" en-dash required. Done. bamse (talk) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for your comments. All have been addressed. As far as I can see for three issues ("writing/writing/wrote", dab of fascicle, capitalization of "Inside Notes") your feedback is required. bamse (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support As my comments have been addressed and concerns were fairly rebutted, I am more than happy to support the FL nomination. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is one hell of a work. I had looked into it for quite some time, but did not find anything thwarting its promotion for me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:59, 17 August 2011 [12].

---

List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford)

Nominator(s): Glanis^Talk 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it now meets the FL criteria, and it would be nice to have a few more articles/lists of featured quality from the schools project. Glanis^Talk 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish that all school alumni sections or articles could be this good. However, to me, one thing that stops it from being featured list quality is the reliance on the school's own website for a large number of the references. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I've spent a little bit of time now, and found additional references for the majority of those listed, so the list is now down to 6 referenced solely by the school website (down from about 15) and I'm working on the rest. Glanis^Talk 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "The school dates its founding to the death of Robert Beckingham in 1509 who left provision in his will...". First, "a" should be added before "provision". Second, the ordering of "death of Robert Beckingham in 1509 who left" isn't logical; "who" comes after the date, not the person. For a fix consider "death in 1509 of Robert Beckingham". "Since the schools founding in 1509". "schools" → "school's". In the table headings, decapitalize the second word of Leaving Year, as it isn't a proper noun. Check the notes in the table to see if they need periods. Furse and Gristwood don't need them, but they'd be useful for longer ones like Allison and Bennett. Leonard Colebrook: "who introduced an number of measures...". "an" → "a". Watch for over-capitalization in the table notes. Some examples I see are "Film Director" for Jones, "Association Football" for multiple people, "Gold Medal" for Knight, "Rugby Union International" for Lambert, and "Cricket Captain: for Willis. Also in Bob Willis, I doubt Ian Bonham's first name needs to be repeated. Page range in ref 5 needs an en dash. Refs 1 and 49 have the YYYY-MM-DD style of date formatting, while the others are spelled out. This should be consistent throughout the article. If it were me I'd just switch those two since it's the easiest thing to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Those are all done now. Thanks, GlanisTalk 07:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments For ref 1, use first= and last= for the author name to be formatted correctly within a {{cite}} template. Prefer the hat note to be "See also the related category of Old Guildfordians" 'make a free scole at the Towne of Guldford'; -> should be in quotes and directly sourced. Count "the school" in the opening para, it's somewhat repetitive. Perhaps: "The school dates its founding " -> "Its foundation dates..." and "to purchase the school following" -> "to purchase it following"...? No major traumas though... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Not sure "sixth form" is entirely clear to non-UK readers. Repeating the year of foundation is unnecessary. You link "members of parliament" to the UK, perhaps make it clear this is what you mean in the lead because you then go on to talk a foreign politician. Don't forget, if you resort the table, note A won't necessarily be at the top. Perhaps worth making a general note rather than link this every line. Link BAFTA. Abbot needs an en-dash in his notes for a year separator. Air Chief Marshal has one l and has a list to link to. Lieutenant-General (United Kingdom) also worth linking. Need "full stop consistency" in the notes. "Star of..." POV, stick to the facts. Don't use MP without explaining it. Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom) is a useful link here. "who is currently (June 2011) England's second highest wicket " -> "who is, as of June 2011, Englands second-highest wicket..." Refs with PDFs should use the format=PDF parameter. Ref 11 needs an en-dash. So does 13 and 17, 24, 29, 30, 35 etc etc etc Ref 31 should be p not pp. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I think those are all addressed, except for point 4 as I cannot currently think of a way to re-word the first paragraph - so any suggestions you may have would be welcome! Thanks, GlanisTalk 20:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Responded above. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Done GlanisTalk 18:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment

• References 4, 6, 10, 23, 26, 42, 57, need access dates if they were taken from the internet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done, except for the last one, 57, as that is not actually taken from the online version of the book since the book is not freely available on Google Books. The link is just there for further reading purposes. Thanks, Glanis^Talk 21:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Images: Please review possible image policy issues with these files: [13], [14], [15]. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With images 1 & 3 (Geroge Abbot & Arthur Onslow) which are subject to the copyright claim from the NPG, I was of the opinion that the community has decided that until a successful case is brought against the defendant they were ok for use, as the images are hosted in the US where there is no copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art (since the US does not recognise the "sweat of the brow" doctrine that is present in UK copyright law). So I therefore assumed that using these two images was ok? Glanis^Talk 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the second image (Lloyd-Morgan) There is a good chance that the image is now in the public domain, but I will however email the University of Bristol to enquire as to its status and I have removed it from the article until this is cleared up. Thanks Glanis^Talk 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Parkhurst J: Please link 'marian' to the appropriate page (avoiding the DAB page). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Glanis^Talk 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Victor Willing: Expand. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Glanis^Talk 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support no glaring issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Impressive list and nicely formatted, but I have to ask if Simon Lazenby qualifies here? Being a Yank, I am not familiar with him, so he might be fine, though as a red link, he jumps out as possibly not meeting notability (I am pretty sure the other red link is fine). Just checking? LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, now I've had a proper look, I don't think he does. There are a few sources, but very little about him, more just his thoughts. I've taken him out for now. Glanis^Talk 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Has Kudpung been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just asked him now. Glanis^Talk 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in responding. Apart from the tag on File:Lloyd-Morgan.jpg which still appears to need attention, I have no further issues and will certainly support the FL when this has been resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear back from Bristol University re copyright on that (although i'm not hopeful), so as a result that image has been removed from the article. Glanis^Talk 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Any issues I was aware of or brought to attention have been resolved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2011 (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 Giants2008 23:06, 16 August 2011 [16].

---

Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists that have bee promoted. Thank you for your time and feedback, reviewers. Another Believer _(Talk) 15:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support – but one suggestion: I would add the link "Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Female" in the "See also" section. It allows to speedy navigate to the female award, as the navbox below doesn't do it properly.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and for the suggestion. However, the article is already linked in the lead, so I do not think it should be added to the See also section. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support can't find anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "In 1992, the two categories were combined and presented as the category Best Jazz Vocal Album. This category was later renamed to Best Jazz Vocal Album beginning in 2001." I don't get it. Looks like the same name to me.

Corrected. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• In the table's Work column, Round Midnight isn't sorting in the proper order. It's sorting before the As. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The song's title contains a "'", as in slang for "around". Certainly willing to remove the punctuation mark for sorting purposes if preferred or required by MoS. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The N/A template doesn't sort properly. How does one make it sort properly? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Adding {{sort}} around the template with "zzzzz" as the sortkey should do the trick to put it at the end. — KV5 • Talk • 21:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Hmm, I can't seem to get it to work with the regular "sort" template or the "Hs" (hidden sort) template. What am I doing wrong? --Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Any progress on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC) I requested a revisit on KV5's talk page. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC) I have tried everything I know on this without success. Because the {{n/a}} template is commonly used in comparison tables, and this is not a comparison table, I would remove the template and replace with centered em-dashes representing blanks. Same applies to the "Female" list. — KV5 • Talk • 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Done (both lists). --Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) The table needs a caption. Better? "Chronological list of award recipients and nominees along with all nominated works"... (Note: This is inconsistent with other Grammy FLs, but I am not sure of current table requirements.) --Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Some clarification should be made as to why some entries are italicized and some are in quotations (I know why but will the average reader?), preferably a key which also explains that the "years" link to that year's Grammys and not to a year article. Done. Added "(songs or albums)" to the lead. A note about the Grammy years already exists below the table. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) "1982 award winner, Al Jarreau" - I think the link to the 1982 Grammys is extraneous here, and remove the comma (see the other captions) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Be consistent in your references; you have some publishers and some papers linked and others not. Reference works and publishers should be linked at each occurrence of a term, not once and done, because there's no guarantee that a reader will see the linked term if they don't go to the first reference. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Toolbox indicates three paywalled references and one uncategorized redirect, please check and confirm. I think I fixed the link that changed paths, but I am not sure what is problematic with the three "truncated" links, as passwords are not required to view the material. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC) The last two images should have period removed from the end of their alt-texts as they are not complete sentences. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 17:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Much thanks, KV5. I did not address your concern about the N/A sorting (problem with template within template?) and I am not sure how to correct the three "paywalled" references. If they need to be replaced for any reason please let me know. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Support — KV5 • Talk • 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Another great job AB. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Legolas! The two Jazz Vocal Performance lists have been on my "to do" list for a while now, so I am glad to finally see them at FLC. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• SupportPumpkinSky talk 01:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [17].

---

2010 Asian Para Games medal table

Nominator(s): — Bill william compton^Talk 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive (in my opinion) and also fulfills other criteria. Thank you for your time and feedback. — Bill william compton^Talk 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Andrewstalk 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments " In athletics, bronzes were not awarded" in some events - is there a reason for this? Because there were only three athletes to participate in many events of the athletics. Why is there a dash in "−82.50 kg event of powerlifting"? Should it be a less than sign (<)? This is an official way of writing weight category, as per official website of the Games. MOS:COLOUR - do not use color alone to convey information Mon erreur, it was in color box, but don't know how I forgot to put it after China. —Andrewstalk 02:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The info in the captions is not mentioned in the body of the article, so you must add refs to the captions. —Andrewstalk 19:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) done

• Support Nice list —Andrew_stalk 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "17 world and 82 Asian records were broken...". Try not to have a sentence start with a number like this. done Same thing for the start of the second paragraph. done No need for a hyphen in "most successful" in the last sentence of the lead. done Medal table: En dashes needed in the eight no-bronze events, and another for the "shared silvers" event. done While on the subject, I doubt they actually shared the medal itself; "two silvers" would be more appropriate. done Am I crazy or is there nothing citing the table? A general reference is needed, or barring that a Source note above the table. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Did you miss Ref8? I saw ref 8, but it's not clear that that's supposed to be sourcing the table itself. It's citing the first paragraph of Medal table, which is about table conventions more than the table itself. There needs to be some indication that this ref is in fact meant to be sourcing the table. Many ways exist of doing this, but it needs to be done. A table without an apparent source is no good here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC) No worries, I've divided references into two (General and Specific). — Bill william comptonTalk 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Don't italicize online website names and check the en-dashing of reference titles. Otherwise the list looks fine. I will comment again. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC) This is a template ({{Cite web}}) which italicize the website names, and all the references have been checked for en-dashes. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC) You can actually eradicate it by adding work=''gzapg2010.cn (Official website of the Games)'' in the template, or you can include it within the publisher parameter in case the AWB and other bots come and removes that italicization. — Legolas (talk2me) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC) I've no problem in de-italicizing the work parameter, but the documentation of the template implies that it should be italicized. Legolas, as TRM said it's a moot point, so I've removed "work" parameter. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC) Remove Simplified Han from the alt parameter of the second image. You should really give the gist of the image not into technical details per WP:ALT. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support the promotion of the list now. Nice work Bill, hope to see more of those old Asian Games lists. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "earned medals at the Games; and athletes" - semicolon should be a comma done "shot put – F35/36,[11] 400 m – T12,[12] 200 m – T12[13] and 100 m – T12[14]) and the men's discus throw – F51/52/53,[15] long jump – F36,[16] 1500 m – T11[17] and 1500 m – T37" - what on earth do all these abbreviations mean? It's not clear at all to readers who aren't familiar with the subject matter (I'm really not).  Question: Well, these are the units of classifying the physical disabilities. Wouldn't it be out of scope if I add the details in an article dedicated to medal table only? Not necessarily, as it's difficult to understand what the medals were awarded for in this case. An explanatory footnote (or multiples thereof) would be sufficient; it doesn't have to be anything in-depth. — KV5 • Talk • 21:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC) done Table does not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; see MOS:DTT for details.  Question: Please specifically mention why it doesn't meet ACCESS? because there are so many medal tables of same type which have FL status, or I'm missing something? The data tables tutorial (MOS:DTT) explains the new table requirements for meeting WP:ACCESS requirements. The other medal tables were/may have been promoted before these requirements were added to the Manual of Style. At the very least, tables require row headers, scopes, and captions. — KV5 • Talk • 21:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC) Several medal tables were promoted after these "new requirements" (please check promotion log). Like all other medal tables this article also uses {{RankedMedalTable}} which doesn't follow these requirements of ACCESS, also it has full protection, so I'm unable to make any change in the template. If I had reviewed one of those other lists, my concerns would have been the same. I have not returned to active reviewing until recently. If the template doesn't meet access requirements, that needs to be raised with an admin with template experience. The template not conforming is a MOS issue, and MOS compliance falls under section 5 of the FL criteria. — KV5 • Talk • 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC) done Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 23:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support — KV5 • Talk • 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Should gzapg2010.cn (Official website of the Games) be written as such in the ref formatting? Wouldn't Guangzhou 2010 Asian Para Games be better? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

From the documentation of {{Cite web}} template:

• work: In most cases this is the name of the website (as usually given in the logo/banner area of the site), otherwise the site's domain name (without the leading "www." part). If the titled item being cited is part of some other larger work, such as a book, periodical or organizational sub-site (e.g., the law school's section of a university's website system), it is usually better to use the name of that more specific work than that of the entire site. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.
• publisher: The name of the entity that publishes (owns or controls) the website. Commonly, this is a government agency, educational institution, or business. For many websites, the author and publisher are the same, and only one needs to be included in the citation; prefer publisher for organizations, author (or first/last) for individuals. Please note that publisher is not the name of the website; that is the work, except in cases where the business name is identical to the site name. For example, the corporation Walmart is the publisher of the website at walmart.com, which is the work.

I hope you will know the answer.

I hope you weren't trying to insult me ;). I think this is one of cases where the business name is identical to the site name. And the banner does say the name of the games, which would be assumed to be the name of the site. But then again, I have no idea why walmart.com would be the "work=". So that means any site research is done from should should have the domain name? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I didn't have any such intention, I apologize if you feel that way. As the issue is contentious, I've removed work parameter. Does it look good to you now? — Bill william compton^Talk 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Naw, I didn't mean that in a serious way. As for the italics and parameters, it looks good now. Let me put in some consideration before I put in a vote though. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support: My dispute was resolved. Very well developed prose and other FL criteria. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 23:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
• Questions about the resolution of Killervogel5's comments about MOS:DTT above:
  1. Why is a table caption mandatory in this instance, when the entire article is about the table? It just looks silly to have "Medal table" appear as a caption, which appears in the "Medal table" section of the "2010 Asian Para Games medal table" article. How many times do we have to label the medal table?
  2. Why is a row header necessary? The whole point of {{RankedMedalTable}} is that you can sort by different criteria, so highlighting the "Rank" column with bold text and darker table cell colour is contrary to that. The "Good example of headers structure" in the MOS:DTT tutorial does not utilize row headers, so I don't think they're necessary here.

Note that I have added scope="col" to the column headers ot RankedMedalTable, so the thousands of transclusions of that template will be updated shortly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• A response to both. The short answer is that the caption and row-headers are necessary because MOS says so. The longer answers are slightly more complicated. The table caption currently labeling the table as "medal table" is poor; the caption should describe the table's content for a non-sighted reader. A better caption in this case would be "List of participating nations, showing the number of gold, silver, and bronze medals won". The row headers also provide for non-sighted readers, as a screen reader will then read the row in the correct order if the sorting is changed. The table cannot simply be considered in its initial state. The vast majority of FLs use sortable tables; indeed, the criteria state that a featured list is "easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities". Please do not see the headers as a highlight, as they are not. They are an indicator that this is the primary entry in the row. In this case, I actually believe that the country is the primary entry, not the rank, so that should probably be examined. If the bold is a problem, inserting the "plainrowheaders" attribute in the table class will remove the bold; I happen to think that it is much less obtrusive in cases like this. — KV5 • Talk • 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

done

Please reconsider your edit. It was bizzare to use <th> HTML markup (via the wikitable "!" syntax) for the Rank column; it is worse to use it for the second column. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You have consider what is the key element of data in each line, and without the country, the other items are irrelevant. So for screen reading software, the country is the most obvious choice. Perhaps we should ask User:RexxS to comment as he is usually quite clued up on this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrwsc, I've got no option left. TRM, do I need to ask RexxS? — Bill william compton^Talk 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a bad idea, getting someone who is very up on WP:ACCESS issues to have a look at it and perhaps explain more clearly where we're coming from. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The table at present is marked up about as well as it can be for accessibility - well done to the nominator for taking on board these issues.

@Andrwsc: modern screen readers provide the ability to navigate a table in different ways, for example a blind reader may want to go down the row of gold medals and hear how many were gained. If there is no row header marked up they will hear "Gold, 185"; "Gold, 32"; "Gold, 27", etc. as they move down the column; or the screen reader software may take a guess that the first column contains row header info, so they would hear "Gold, 1, 185"; "Gold, 2, 32"; "Gold, 3, 27", etc. However, if we mark up the 'Nation' column as a row header (i.e. <th> in html) and give it the row scope, then the blind reader can hear "Gold, China (CHN), 185"; "Gold, Japan (JPN), 32"; "Gold, South Korea (KOR), 27", etc. Surely you would agree that is far better accessibility for the visually-impaired? Have a look at HTML Tables with JAWS and MAGic for a good description of how a popular screen reader (JAWS) can be set to interact with properly marked-up tables.

For a screen reader to navigate by reading down a column as you describe, is a row header and row scope necessary? It really looks silly for these columns to have the darker background color (since the default CSS style for <th> is different from <td>). I note that the "Good example of headers structure" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Correct headers structure does not utilize row headers, so what makes this medal table different that it requires them? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You asked this question before. An answer was already provided. Regardless of whether the table tutorial (which is just an instructional guide, not an all-inclusive policy or guideline) contains this type of header structure, this table does require it, and that's because of the actual WP:ACCESS portion of the Manual of Style. Your question to RexxS leads me to believe that you are still viewing this header markup as a simple aesthetic change which you do not favor; I implore you not to think of it this way. I didn't like it either at first, but I volunteered to make an FLC for which I was responsible a testcase for the implementation of this standard, and I am now convinced of its worth. Some may cite WP:IAR as a reason not to implement these because they "look silly". However, it's not within the spirit of IAR because this is not "[preventing] you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"; indeed, not implementing it hinders Wikipedia's development into a tool as an encyclopedia that everyone (including non-sighted users) can use. — KV5 • Talk • 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. "Because MOS says so" is an utterly useless answer. The MOS gives "good" examples of tables without row headers, so it appears as though only column headers are necessary. But perhaps that's besides the point. I do understand the accessibility considerations described here, and I can see the utility to read the table column-wise per the example from RexxS. However, my question is whether or not the screen reader requirements depend on the <th> markup or is the scope declaration sufficient? I'm asking if the aesthetic effect of the table header can be decoupled from the semantic meaning. It really looks bad for a row header to appear in the middle of the table. Clearly the intent of the darker color for header cells is intended for the top-most row and the left-most column. Is there any way to satisfy the accessibility requirements without coloring the "Nation" column differently? Your suggestion to use the plainrowheaders class to remove the bold header text is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but with respect to cell color instead of font style. Should .wikitable.plainrowheaders in MediaWiki:Common.css also include background-color: #f9f9f9;? Or should we add style="background:#f9f9f9" to each nation entry in the table? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The only improvement I can think of would be to drop the use of {{flagIOC2team}} and separate the name of the country into its own cell, which would then be marked as the row header, since that would remove the repetition of the country abbreviation each time when spoken by the screen reader. However, that is a minor gain for considerable effort in this case, so I wouldn't bother to request it.

I'd be happy to Support this list as a good example of how accessibility can be implemented. I ought to mention that in the [[File:]] syntax, the parameter for alt-text has to be |alt= because the wikimedia software does not recognise |Alt= (I've fixed that for you) - hope that's ok. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Note C needs an en-dash. done Ref 5 - I don't see a publication date on the webpage. Date was after Rajab, and I thought it's a some Pakistani name (author name), but actually it's a month of Muslims, my bad. Ref 22 - space before 82.50kg in the title. Where? in between "–" and 82.50kg?? because there is already a single space in between "Women's" and –82.5kg. Forgot the word "needed" between "space" and "before"... is it indicating "up to 82.5kg"? otherwise it should be "– 82.5kg" like the other titles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC) done as per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Common mathematical symbols. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [18].

---

List of accolades received by True Grit (2010 film)

Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believer that it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: I am not going to be on here frequently so it will likely take some time for me to respond to comments from users here. Please do not close this nomination!!! Same applies for my 127 Hours FLC. Thanks you Crystal Clear x3 08:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ruby2010

Resolved comments from — Ruby2010 comment! 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

* "The Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards took a liking to True Grit, nominating it in eleven categories, including Best Makeup". "Took a liking" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Also, it's odd that you showcase Best Makeup over the others (considering it had better nominations at that particular award show, like Best Actor) Tweaked the former. I noted the Best Make-up nom out of all the others because it was one of, if not the only, nom it received in that category. I thought it'd be better to highlight the more uncommon noms. I could change it if you want. Crystal Clear x3 05:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC) "Ethan and Joel Coen's work on True Grit's screenplay scored them a nomination for the Writers Guild of America. However, they lost to Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network." Could probably be turned into one sentence done Formatting issue with ref 35 fixed Wikilink The New York Times in refs done MSNBC is not italicized done Why do you only have some publishers wikilinked? (i.e. IMDb Inc versus Time Warner etc) fixed Dallas Observer is italicized done Ref 29 needs publisher done Ref 38 needs access date done I count 123 nominations, not 121 done - Ruby2010 comment! 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC) The article is almost ready for my support. One last question: Why do some refs lack publishers? (Namely Dallas Observer, Awards Daily, and STV) Ruby2010 comment! 14:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC) I have corrected D.O. and STV, but am pretty sure Awards Daily is a self-publishing website. Crystal Clear x3 21:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Nice work, Ruby2010 comment! 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed the article is basically an orphan. Could you link it from a few other articles? Ruby2010 comment! 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

done Crystal Clear x3 12:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment – Just one quick one from me: try to avoid having a sentence start with a number, like in "14 year-old Steinfeld...". In this case you can bend WP:MOSNUM a bit and start it as "Fourteen-year-old Steinfeld...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

done Crystal Clear x3 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments I think the Coen brothers are better known as such, rather than by their first names, perhaps stick with "directed by the Coen brothers" in the lead. done "previously released in 1969 with John Wayne." - it wasn't released with John Wayne, it featured John Wayne, this needs a bit of rewording. done "This version stars ..." -> "The 2010 version stars..." (you've lost the focus on which "version" you're talking about, hence the definitive wording). done "The movie was released by Paramount Pictures in the United States and Canada on December 22, 2010. True Grit grossed over USD $25.6 million ..." would merge, and remove ". True Grit grossed" and replace with "grossing". done "It has received honors in " -> "True Grist has..." done " their best youth accolade. " is this the title of the award? Should it be in capitals? that is not the actual title of the award "– giving Bridges his sixth nomination – ," would be better as "(giving Bridges his sixth nomination)" done " in the show's" - what show? fixed Why the para split when you talk about Steinfeld winning awards in both the end of para 2 and beginning of para 3? Not a natural breakpoint. done "True Grit won its only nomination from the Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards," what do you mean? True Grit won plenty of noms, do you mean True Grit only received one nom from the KCFCC? Reword needed. I've instead decided to just remove it all together "than one dozen nominations" quaint, but perhaps just "more than ten nominations" done Ref 1 is missing "The" in the work field. done Ref 2 - who is the publisher, IMDB or Box Office Mojo? IMDb Inc but BOM is not in italics because it is an online source Ref 16 - en-dashes please. done Ref 18 - consistency with author name (last, first) please. Stuart Folb is not the author. He is the publisher of the Dallas Observer Refs 26, 27 - which is the work, which is the publisher? Same as BOM Ref 40 - Washington D.C. has periods. done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment In the general reference (the NYTIMES article), there is a nominationation listed that states "Best Picture - 2010 National Board of Review". I can't find it in this list. Is it included? --Cheetah (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Good call, Done Crystal Clear x3 09:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you positive that this list is complete? ...that all accolodates that were received by this film are included in this list?--Cheetah (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked over the movie's official website (where they have a section all about its reviews and noms/wins) and added two noms, both from the Motion Picture Sound Editors, that I missed. I now feel confident that I have included all of its noms/wins. Crystal Clear x3 09:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support --Cheetah (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Support made a couple of minor changes, and I have a general question about the award/nom infobox but I'll ask it centrally. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [19].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (M)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The next Phillies list, and also the largest, at 200 players. Cheers in advance. — KV5 • Talk • 21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments " in parts of the last three seasons" why not just "in the last three seasons"? Because he's never played a full season with the Phillies. I can change it if you prefer. — KV5 • Talk • 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Does every player for an MLB team play every game usually? In "soccer", even if someone made one appearance every season for three seasons, we'd refer to it as "in the last three seasons"... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC) No, it's impossible for all players to play all 162 games in one season. It was more a reference to the fact that he has had stints in the minors as well during the last three years, but it's easily rectified. — KV5 • Talk • 21:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC) "out 10 batters and walking 9." prefer "out ten and walking nine." Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) "a seven-year tour from 1883 to 1892, and a one-year stint in 1892." this is odd for me, why was the 1892 stint not just a continuation of the 1883 to 1892 tour? Because I'm dumb... Done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support no more issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Jose Mesa has diacritics in the photo caption and table, but not in the lead.
• Russ Meyer photo caption: Last word should be plural; make "season" into "seasons". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Both done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support very nice and surprised this hasn't become FL yet. PumpkinSky talk 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Noms usually last around a month on average right now. There's no rush. I'm patient :) — KV5 • Talk • 21:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [20].

---

Nadia Ali discography

Nominator(s): Hassan514 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list is comprehensive and meets FL criteria Hassan514 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Many issues.

• The first line in the lead should summarize the contents of the discography including how many studio albums, EPs, singles etc she has released.
  • done
• There's no alternate text.
  • done
• She released four singles from the album of which, "Love Story", charted at No. 1 on Billboard Hot Dance --> Grammatical error with commas
  • done
• There's no linkage of other appearances and writing credits in the infobox.
  • done
• Sometimes references for chart positions are along side the chart numbers, sometimes along side the chart. No consistency.
  • done
• Unreferenced content abundant.
• Messy references. Why would Billboard be published by Rovi? It was published by Nielsen Business Media uptill January 2010, from then its Prometheus Global Media.

I can go on and on and on. Fact is, this is nowhere close to FL class yet. I strongly suggest you go through a WP:PR and check recent discography FLs to get more points. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment I can see that Hassan has definitely done some good work on the discography. I would like to see further work in improving the lead. I am not opposing this submission now, just that I need a little time to see whether I find the article to be of FL quality. Delegates, when you are closing the nomination, if I haven't commented, please remind me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have made changes to the lead and expanded it further. Hopefully it is much more suitable now. Hassan514 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow, Hassan has really done a nice job expanding and cleaning up the article. I support this promotion now. Nice job. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Lead:
  • The first sentence should describe her discography. (one studio album, three compilation albums... etc.)
    • done fixed
  • You say she has a remix album, why isn't there a section farther down showing that?
    • Queen of clubs trilogy are the remix albums
  • Many writing issues. It needs a copy edit.
    • done Fixed as many as I could see
• Album sections:
  • According to the style guide, the format is incorrect. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Samples for the correct style.
    • done
  • Link CD and digital download.
    • done
  • Be consistent with dates. You have month, day and year in the studio albums section, but you only have the month and day in the compilation albums.
    • done
• Singles section
  • A discography shows releases, if a song hasn't been released, it shouldn't be here.
    • done Sorry, didn't realised that. I saw that in Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography a while back and that's why I did it.
  • The references should be in the top of the chart, not next to the peak.
    • done Didn't know how to compile them together as they were multiple links, hence I posted them there. Fixed that
• As featured artist section
  • The parentheses stuff should go underneath the song, according to the style guide.
    • done
  • Once again, the references should be in the top of the table.
    • done
• Music videos section
  • Need references saying Jelle directed the two videos.
    • not done There's no references to them available anywhere on YouTube or anywhere else I knew to look. I had to contact Armada Music, the label which released the tracks and they told me who directed the videos. I only have the email from their press point of contact to verify these details.
  • Re-format the table to look similar to the style guide.
    • done
• Other appearances section
  • the "a" in appearances should not be capitalized.
    • done
  • Is the notes section really needed?
    • Removed it, the only reason I did it was because of her uncredited appearance on "Deeper Underground" since I couldn't find any reference which mentions her vocals were sampled, I thought I should remove it.
• Is the writing credits important enough to be noted here? The style guide says "Releases by other artists as a tribute or cover." should not be included.
  • • The song is not a cover. It was a song written by her and performed by another artist on Tritonal's debut studio album.
• References section
  • I see this a lot. Incorrect formatting. Websites should not be italicized. Put two apostrophes before and after to cancel it out.
    • done
  • It shouldn't be "Billboard charts" nor is Billboard published by Rovi Corporation.
    • done. Sorry I got that confused, I went to look at it again and stupidly missed the part "content partly provided by Rovi"
  • The dates should be formatted the same in the article. Always stay consistent.
    • done

This is a long, long away from a FL. There are more issues in the article. Try doing a Peer Review. I will help with the article, if you want. Contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Michael Jester (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the issues mentioned here. As far as referencing some things are concerned, I can only think of the album and singles release dates. Her music is mostly not mentioned on allmusic and the only places I can link here is discogs, beatport and itunes, which as far as I know are WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Ideally, I would hope I can do as much now to get this nomination passed. But if there is a lot more than what you guys have suggested, I'll wait and get a peer review done. Thanks a lot for your feedback! Hassan514 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Congrats on fixing up the article, it looks nice. I think I'm going to have to say Support on this one. Everything that I've seen looks spot on.
—Michael Jester (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Commas needed in the lead after "singer-songwriter" at the start and after "Fantasy" in the second paragraph. done What makes muumuse (reference 3) a reliable source? Also, something appears off in the title ("prepares release for of"?). Did an extra word sneak in there? removed the link. Yeap, that was a typo Remove all caps from the title of ref 40 ("SAMPLER"). done In refs 4, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38, and 40, there are hyphens in the titles that should be en dashes. This isn't the biggest deal to me, but it will likely be brought up later, so you may as well look into it now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC) done Hassan514 (talk) 09:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Still see a few references with a faulty hyphen in the title which should be an en dash (current refs 4, 8, and 40; the numbers have changed since my original comments). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Fixed Hassan514 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments I would specify "New York-based band iiO" or similar since I've never heard of them and know nothing at all about them. done "Ali began her solo career"... when? added "and the Diamond Edition" why "the" here, the other two aren't the... fixed, didn't realise I had done that "The albums produced one single.." no, the compilation produced one single, or just one of the albums produced one single, all three albums couldn't have produced one single... fixed, "Rapture" has 3 remixes, 2 of which were on the Onyx and Diamond Edition. They were released together as a single, hence why I wrote albums. "As of November 2010..." still? It's virtually August 2011... Yeap, still working on it according to her Facebook status update last month. She started late last year. I have a source from February 2011, which I could use to replace it? "Smile in Bed Records" or just "Smile in Bed"? Be consistent. fixed "on an album by Nadia Ali:..." no need to repeat Nadia here. done " These songs were written by Nadia Ali a .... on a studio album by Nadia Ali:" ditto. done Hassan514 (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Comments Have you asked the other reviewers to return to this nom? Yes, I have Showing one dead link now. Replaced Are all of the non-charting efforts definitely non-charting or were some of them not actually released in those "non-charting" countries? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Yeap, Ali's success and fame is generally limited to the Electronic dance music genre so she doesn't receive a lot of attention outside of that. The only song she's known for in mainstream music is "Rapture". Also, her songs are released only digitally by her own label so they are definitely "released" in those countries. However, one of her collaborations, "Try" were not released out of Europe as far as I know. Hassan514 (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support (with a comment): Singles that haven't been released or charted in a country are tagged similarly (with a "—"). I don't know if this is common usage on this type of pages, but wouldn't this distinction be important to highlight? Parutakupiu (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Not so sure about that, this is a standard used by WikiProject Discographies so perhaps they're the best people who can talk more about it. I've simply followed their guidelines in creating this discography. Hassan514 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [21].

---

Simon & Garfunkel discography

Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 18:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The first nomination failed because Giants and Ramblin' Man were the only two reviewers. I removed the textfile ref, but left the other two, because they satisfy the reliability criteria.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 18:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

;Comments from Legolas2186 with the new version of "The Sound of Silence" --> the phrasing does not make it clear what TSOS is. Is it a single from the album or an included music? Consider rephrasing. done, but why if it is already in the singles section below? because a casual reader will be baffled, and has to go down to the singles table, then come back up. Its mis-directing. also done. You dont need to include RIAA within the wikilink. It should be outside it. done This album --> It done three-times multi-platinum what? of course certification, what else? Then please include that word. I did that before your revisit. What is the significance of "I Am a Rock" here in S&G discography? I believe it was Simon's solo release. because it was released one year later from the album Sounds of Silence again three-times multi-platinum. done The hit single --> POV? absolutely not... it was their first number-one single, and it is worth to be named like this. Good, but a song can be hit on many terms, it can be a critical success, or commercial success or both. You need to explain that how was it a "hit". ok I removed it. Consider changing phrases like "This album", does not make a good read. done comma after live album. ehm, this is grammatically incorrect... the first and last segments of this sentence is a main clause, which was split due to a subordinate clause in the middle. Can you use any other color for the box set thread in the infobox? IT just hits the eye too much. i like it like this, and I have always used this color for the box-set thread. Redirects like Swedish Albums Chart --> Sverigetopplistan should be corrected. I found some more in the chart declarations. done Remove bolding of the album names. no, it's a standard for discographies. Without it looks odd. Take your call, but its over-bolding. I know Generally the native chart of the singer/band comes in the first column of the table. The certifications should not be an exception. is this really mandatory? Yes, it breaks consistency. ok, done Redirect SNEP done The Concert in Central Park, first appearance of the words CD and CS, they should be appropriately wikilinked. What is CS anyways? Cassette single? done If you are using a bulleted list for the certifications for the albums, you need to use a bullet in singles too, for consistency. done The word "Non-albunm singles" does not need to be italicized, its not referring to any album. done Not done. You made it all small letters, instead of de-italicizing it. You missed it. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) done In references, all online sources are italicized which should not be. You need to correct them all. done Not done, check the Allmusic ones. done What is the Amazon.com reference validating? the sales? Sorry, not a reliable source for sales. why not? Because Amazon.com editorial reviews are not considered reliable and in high-esteem. There have been previous instances of plagiarizing from Allmusic, and Billboard, plus bull-shit sales news without any proof as to how they got it. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) removed For Australian certifications, you need to link to indivitual certification years, instead of linking to an overall certification page. what are you exactly trying to say? You are using an overall certification page, so when users open it, they cannot find that particular certification, they have to open each and every year, to look for it. So you need to replace that universal link, with links for the respective album/single certifications. Ah, now I understand. First I thought you meant the internal links. Done Why the em-dash in the Allmusic links? done Reference 43 needs an en-dash. mh, the title use a hyphen. Is this correct that it should be replaced with an en-dash? Further reading, does the book have an isbn? added Swedish, Norwegian certifications are by IFPI too. Also correct IFPI Finland to Musiikkituottajat – IFPI Finland. done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 19:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Ref 8, 38 Allmusic is the publisher? No, you need to de-italicize them as its an online source. Ah, you meant 7 and 37 (I usually check the comments below, and then go to the top, so I removed the amazon ref after this comment ;P). done. Ref 11, en-dash it is actually I corrected it. Studio albums, the first certification, country links to RIAA, a dab. done Another thing, the reference nos, under the chart names look a little cluttered, why don't you kill them? They would look so much more neat. A recent example I can give you is the FL Kesha discography, and how it has incorporated CITEKILL. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I think I've done it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 15:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Nah, its not done. For eg, below the Australian chart, there are two references. CITEKILL makes it a single reference, with both the urls present. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Check this edit I did to CIETKILL at the List of awards and nominations received by Madonna for an example of how to do it. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC) done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Where does the Chart-surfer link point to S&G discography? I see only the recent album chart with Adele on top. I can not replace the link; if you go to a chart, the url is everytime the same. You mean to say that from the page that is displayed there, you can go to the respective cchart its validating? yes Can you please guide me how can I reach the chart for S&G, I don't know German. You need to click on "Liedsuche" under "Musik" on the right side, then after "Nach was soll gesucht werden?" write the album, song, interpret, etc. and then choose the chart. Profit! Thank you. One thing, can you include that pathway within the reference as to how to find S&G's discography there? It will be easier for readers to find it, readers like me who were initially baffled. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Done. I used the parameter "quote=". Tales from New York: The Very Best of Simon & Garfunkel in the albums table has the first appearance of Australian certification. You need to link it to Australian Recording Industry Association. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC) done Reference 27, how and why is it being used? To fill the cells with lacking peak chart positions It just links along side the UK chart. So what exactly is it validating? One example: Old Friends: there is no peak chart position in [22] but in [23]. I'm not exactly satisfied with zobbel as a source. If you want, I have full access to Music Week archives, I can find you much reliable sources for the chart peaks. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yes please. This source contains about "Old Friends". {{cite journal|title=Simon & Garfunkel Old Friends: Live On Stage|last=Jones|first=Alan|date=November 13, 2004|work=[[Music Week]]|location=London|volume=47|issue=49}} Thank you. Have you got the chart for "The Best of Simon and Garfunkel"? I'm still searching it. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC) UKChartsPlus magazine has the annual list. {{cite journal|title=Top Selling Compilation Albums|date=2007-09-12|work=[[UKChartsPlus]]|publisher=Milton Keynes|volume=11|pages=9–12}}</ref>. Add it and we're good to go. — Legolas (talk2me) 08:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Added. Thank you very much for your excellent review!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 09:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC) There are lots more to do in this discography, and I don't believe it is close to being a FL yet. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC) --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 10:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Support – The article has improved greatly and can be promoted to FL now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Quick comments Box sets are compilation albums and book citations need page numbers. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

• merged with comp section; I asked the page number and I am waiting until User:Kai81's response.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 10:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Box sets are compilations, not necessarily compilation albums always. They can be kept separate I believe. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
    • fair enough. I reverted the edits.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power}^{[citation needed]} 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – "and two box set released since 1964." Of course, "set" should be plural. done "and was later also included on their fourth studio album Bookends". Here, the "also" is just an extraneous word. Removing it would tighten this bit somewhat without harming meaning. done The note at the bottom of many tables is "denotes releases that did not chart or were not released." From another recent FLC, I've become alerted to the fact that "releases" that "were not released" makes no sense. That FLC put it as "were not released in that country", which is why I didn't make a big deal of it there. Is that type of phrasing what is meant here? yeah, it is short for "were not released in that country". The sentence didn't make any sense, you are right, so I shortened it. The last table still has the old sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC) done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 12:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC) In reference 35, Allmusic shouldn't be italicized; this is inconsistent with the other cites from this website. done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 17:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Just so that other reviewers know, the references I questioned before are the current last two. Would be nice if another reviewer offered an opinion on them, as it would put my mind at ease. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

rcComments "The duo's third.." new para so reiterate Simon & Garfunkel. done Similarly in the fourth para of the lead. done "most notably " says who? done It says in the UK source that Parsley, Sage, Rosemary & Thyme was released in 1968. Perhaps the "release date" in these tables need a note to say exactly what it relates to (e.g. the US release date?). done BPI search page needs instructions, as it's not a direct link to the results I'm looking for. I don't think it needs an instruction. The search box is right beside the info. Ref 7 indicates a 2010 "best of" album, is that listed in this discog? no, it's nothing else than The Best of Simon and Garfunkel; the date is false, or it's the date of the re-release. The template used here indicates 17 compilation albums, you have listed only 15. the two others are the box sets I can't seem to find the Graduate soundtrack on link 17, is there a more direct link for it you can use? unfortunately not. The RIAA website was updated and the search is a mess... let's hope it gets updated soon! Penultimate ref (43 at the moment) gives me an HTTP 403 error. I would wait till tomorrow; if there is still an error, I will remove this ref and will find a better solution to cite the "Baby Driver" single. Still the error. I removed it. What makes this RCS discography (ref 44 at the moment) a reliable source? The sources are listed below, after "acknowledgments", including former producers of Simon & Garfunkel, magazines like "Rock & Roll Musik Magazin". Could add the number of pages total in the Further reading section. I don't have the book, but I'll try to find the page/s. I found the book at the Bavarian Library in Munich (I live in Germany), but I need a special agreement to borrow the books from Munich to another city as interlibrary loan.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 12:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC) --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 20:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support PumpkinSky talk 01:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support no major issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support no issues found. --PresN 21:19, 8 August 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:29, 7 August 2011 [24].

---

Family Guy (season 1)

Nominator(s): Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after the Peer Review it had, I believe that it's ready to become an FL Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it needs another copyedit. Just glancing at the article, I've found numerous grammar mistakes and a few spelling errors. Some of the stuff also needs to be reworded/rephrased, sometimes due to repetitiveness. Ωphois 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

User Ruhrfisch made a CE this afternoon. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Still has some grammar issues. As well, a lot of the prose is written in a passive voice and should be rewritten in an active voice to strengthen it. Ωphois 16:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I will ask a Copy editor to give it a check. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Still a few grammar/punctuation problems. Also, why are the episode titles in the prose now italicized? They should be in quotes. Likewise, series titles (like in the reception section) should be italicized. Ωphois 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Alright the episodes and shows concern is done. Could you specify some of the grammatical errors, since I believe the CE would have shorten the amount. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"While working on the series, Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian; the rest of the series characters were added later." - "series" should be "series'"

"After the pilot aired, the series was green-lighted." - should be "green-lit"

"The season was produced by Fuzzy Door Productions and 20th Century Fox Television; it aired on Fox Broadcasting Company in the US. The executive producers for the season were David Zuckerman and MacFarlane;[10] the latter acted as show runner.[11] The producer for the season was Sherry Gunther, with co-producers Mike Barker and Matthew Weitzman;[12] Other producers included Craig Hoffman, Danny Smith, Gary Janetti and John Riggi.[12]" - "US" should be spelled out as "United States". The second sentence is terribly phrased.

Stuff like that. Ωphois 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I fixed the I think I improved the second one. I will check over the artical to check anyother errors. If you find any yourself please list them. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have time to look through the article and point out every single error. That's the job for the copyeditors. Ωphois 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral. Ωphois 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

;Comments from Legolas2186, leaning towards oppose The starting line of the article somehow puts me off. The second line should have been the first one, with gradual flow into the first line. That way reader's would instantly have a say about the characters. Instead of just a bland "DVD cover art" as the photo caption, why not name the characters there? That way readers have a visual aid to the prose, and this also increases the rationale of using a non-free image. Avoid consecutive usage of "the season". In second para, WP:CITEKILL is needed for "[2][3][4][5]", the references. "I Never Met the Dead Man" was included in two IGN top tens related to the show. --> Needs to be rephrased. Using #33 does not look very encyclopedic, i would advice using number 33 instead. Larry shorts --> what does shorts mean here? Any wikilink? The summary of the second episode is just atrocious. A heavy ce is needed. Same follows for the last episode of the season. There is no need to separately include Book: Family Guy (season 1) in the see also section. It can be embedded with the season 1 episode template, that way it will be present in every article pertaining to season 1. What makes tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com a reliable source? Tv by the numbers is partnerd with Zap2it which is owned by Tribune Media Services. Pedro J. the rookie 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Plus after I checked, it can't be published by anyone you have to be in the group that created the page and that group is partnerd with zap2it so this is reliable. Pedro J. the rookie 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Please check the italicization of online versus printed sources, both in the prose and the references. For eg: IGN is an online source but it is appearing as an italicized source in the references, which is only reserved for printed media and books. Similar online sources should be corrected also. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Done. Pedro J. the rookie 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Be consistent in whether you are including publishers or not in the references. You need to either include publisher for all the references, or exclude them from all. Addition in some of them, while others being left out breaks consistency. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Done. Pedro J. the rookie 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) En-dash in 1998-99 ratings. Can you tell me the reliability of animatedtv.about.com and its author? It doesn't seem very reliable unlike Bill Lamb or Ron slomowicz. About.com sources cannot be exactly taken with a grain-of-salt now. Well about.com is owned by The New York Times Company. Pedro J. the rookie 18:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) That doesn't make About.com a reliable source. Any one can register and create articles in that website. Its the reliability of the author that determines the value of his/her article. Hence my questions, what is the reliability of this author? — Legolas (talk2me) 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Removed. Pedro J. the rookie 12:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Redirect correction needed. Done. Pedro J. the rookie 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I think much work is needed but I'm willing to wait and see if changes happen for good. :) — Legolas (talk2me) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC) I have done most requests you posted but I have doubts about two of them. Could you explain the En-dash and the italicization requests better. Pedro J. the rookie 18:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Done with all the requests. Pedro J. the rookie 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I did the en-dashes with GregU's dash script--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 18:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Another comment, one Yahoo link doesnot have url, also a lot of titles have em-dash in them, where it should have really been en-dash. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Both Done. Pedro J. the rookie 14:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC) You have a normal dash in the reference titles, instead of an en-dash. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Fixed. Pedro J. the rookie 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Reference 13 and 14, I think you have the opposite urls. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Actually no, they are like that. Pedro J. the rookie 16:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC) I didn't notice this before, how is Geocities a reliable source? — Legolas (talk2me) 12:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Removed. Pedro J. the rookie 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral for now. I'm still not sure about the prose, as has been indicated by Giants below. It still fails a little in terms of brilliance and feels pretty rushed out, especially in the summary of the episodes. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Reference inconsistency again. You are wikilinking IGN in some of them, and in some you are leaving it out. Same goes for all of them. Either you link all the reference parameters, or you leave them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 06:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

After another careful look-through of the article, I believe all the concerns have been addressed, I can now support the promotion of this list. Good job everyone. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: There are currently two real issues with the image. Firstly, a forward facing shot (like http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516KRQ21TQL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) would be preferred, as this current one has two copyrights- the box and the photograph, which is a whole can of worms we don't need to open. That one only has the box. Secondly, it has no rationale for this use. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In fact, looking again, you're using the volume 1 cover, not the season 1 cover, which would be preferable. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 14:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The new cover could do with having its whitespace cropped (and then being tagged with {{non-free reduced}} for good measure) but that solves the problems I raised. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose – I know there are likely to be more issues in a list of this type than in most lists that come to FLC, but this is full of little problems, including a bunch of grammatical bugs that shouldn't have made it to this point; a copy-edit beforehand would have been beneficial. The lead feels like it's missing the customary sentence or two at the start saying what the show is. I disagree with Legolas' comment on this, especially if it means removing the intro altogether. Now the beginning doesn't have sufficient context. Maybe start it as "The television series Family Guy follows..."? Now there's a "follows the series follows the..." repetition. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) "and the rest of the series's characters were soon added later." Why "soon" and "later" at the end? Also, I think "series's" should go without the final s. I actually thought one of the two words should have been kept. "the rest of the series characters were added" feels like it's missing something. How about adding "later" back to it? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) "The season was produced by Fuzzy Door Productions and 20th Century Fox Television, it aired on Fox Broadcasting in the United States." Comma should be a semi-colon, I think. The Crew section needs a similar edit. Episode 2: Redundancy in "Distracted, he crashes and knocks out the city's cable transmitter, knocking out reception for the entire town of Quahog." We have "knocks out" and "knocking out" in close proximity to each other. More variety, please. Now it says "Distracted, he crashes the city's cable transmitter". Missing "into". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) "and convinces Meg into taking the blame for the cable outage." Doesn't work well. How about "and convinces Meg to take the blame for the cable outage."? "But he is saved by Lois by giving a heartfelt speech to the community." Remove second "by". Or you could go with "saved when Lois gives a heartfelt speech to the community." Episode 4: "Peter becomes jealous and gets his friend's wives to drag them out out of the bar." Two things here. The first should be obvious: a repeated "out". The second is that "friend's" should be "friends'" "friends" needs the apostrophe at the end to be grammatically correct. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) The apostrophe should be at the end of the word, not in the middle like in "friend's". This means one friend, while the rest of the summary implies more than once. Hence why the apostrophe should be at the end. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Some of the links in the summaries, such as poisoned, teething, wheelchair, and addict, don't add much if anything to the page. They are all quite common, and links aren't required or even desirable for them. Conception: "Fox proposed McFarlane complete a 15-minute short". Missing "that" before McFarlane's name. Crew: Comma before "the latter also acted as show runner" should be a semi-colon. Remove "for" from "and the co-producers for were...". Reception: Capitalize second word of DVD talk in the second paragraph. I'll elaborate in response to the comment below. The sentence in question reads "Aaron Beierle of DVD talk...". Since talk is capitalized as part of the company's title (at least in our article), it should be capitalized here as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) No need for a second I Never Met the Dead Man link in this section. Still there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) "regarding 'The Son Also Draws' as the season's poorest. The episode 'The Son Also Draws'..." Try not to have the episode name repeat so soon from one sentence to another. Maybe something like "The latter episode" would be a good segway? Now the episode title in question isn't given at all. The segway is there, but the connection to the text before it has been lost. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) To clean this up a bit, I would make it "and regarded The Son Also Draws as the season's poorest." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Don't understand what "caused anger between Canadian viewers" means. Is it meant to be like "caused anger from Canadian viewers"? Also, was there a reason why Canadians were upset, like jokes at their expense? Ken Tucker gave the series a graded of D in Entertainment Weekly". "graded" → "grade". In the next sentence, Family Guy needs to be italicized. Still here as well. This is where the Ken Tucker review is discussed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC) Typo in the photo caption next to this section: "recived". Geocities (reference 5) isn't generally a reliable source. Also, what makes The Great Reporter (reference 8) reliable? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Fixed every request except the one about DVD Talk, please explain it better. Pedro J. the rookie 20:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Responded above in numerous places. In addition, there's a cite error for reference 7. Unfortunately, my oppose stands for now since more copy-editing is needed. Please consider bringing in someone new to the list to help you. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Left a few more responses above. In addition, please get rid of the bolding in the opening sentence. There's no need for it, and there's especially no need for a bolded link at the start, which violates the MoS. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments "The series premiere, "Death Has a Shadow", broadcast after Super Bowl XXXIII, had 22.01 million viewers." - Too many commas in this sentence makes it choppy. How about "... was broadcast after Super Bowl XXXIII and had 22.01 million viewers." "Stewie, grudgingly coming to realize his dependence on his parents, controls the judge's minds to reconsider their sentence." - Using 'controls' in this context makes me think of the supernatural. Is that the case? Or would 'influences' be more appropriate? "Youth Scouts" - is this an in-universe analogy for the boy scouts? If so, provide a short explanation saying as much in parentheses. "...when he runs over the troop leader" - with a car? Does he stumble over the leader? "David Zuckerman and MacFarlane the executive producers for the season;" missing word? "The staff writers were MacFarlane, Chris Sheridan, Neil Goldman, Garrett Donovan, Ricky Blitt, supervising producers Danny Smith and Gary Janetti, co-producers Matt Weitzman and Mike Barker." - review this sentence, it doesn't really make sense. "This season had a cast of four main actors" - try the season. "MacFarlane explained that he was a fan of 1930s and 1940s radio programs" - is a fan. I'll review the Reception and DVD release sections on a second pass. Jujutacular talk 23:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC) "Haque also named "Brian: Portrait of a Dog" and "I Never Met the Dead Man" as two of the "best in the series"" - "best in the series" is short enough that it probably doesn't need to be in quotations. "... saying that the first season did a well in introducing ... " typo. "Fans of the show should definitely pick up this terrific sets, ... " [sic] "The producers received hate mail from Canadian viewers, offended by a joke made at their expense in "The Son Also Draws"." - it would be nice to give some idea of what was offensive to them. That's it from me. Jujutacular talk 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) Done with every issue. Pedro J. the rookie 03:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now. Jujutacular ^talk 04:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Hello. I have looked this article over and believe it meets the criteria for FL, though I believe my active participation on improving related articles (about individual episodes) puts me too close to really put forward support. However, I am willing to make any last little improvements that anyone feels are necessary to get this article passed. Grammar and style issues, in particular. Bobnorwal (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support Pedro has done a good job improving the list, and it seems to meet the featured list criteria. Gage (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Regretful oppose (reviewing as someone who has seen a few FG episodes but isn't a regular) Image caption in infobox should not have a period. Could we be a little more prose-savvy and start with "The first season of" or something similar? And perhaps talk a little more about FG before you leap in with the dates of broadcast. To a newcomer, the most important thing to understand is what the heck FG is. It should take only a sentence or two to describe it (maybe just rearrange some of the lead) and then tell me when it was broadcast. " was broadcast after" do you mean it followed directly after the end of the Superbowl? Worth saying directly if it's true, otherwise its broadcast could (technically) have been any time since the Superbowl to now. "and had 22.01 million viewers" not keen on "and had" perhaps "and was watched by ..." or similar? First sentence "The series received praise from critics..." next sentence "While some critics praised the politically incorrect humor, others disliked...." reads poorly to me. There should be some kind of "however" or something there, perhaps a minor re-write of the prose. The first sentence says "all good" while the second sentence (repeats "praise") sort-of contradicts it. No need to repeat Seth on first line of third para of lead. "The season was produced by Fuzzy Door Productions and 20th Century Fox Television." - referenced? Big problem with the summaries is that the characters aren't introduced to us at all, besides Peter and Brian. Who is Lois? What's her relationship with anyone? Fixed every issue except the one above; The characters are explaind well in the cast section. But if it really is an issue I'll fix it. Pedro J. the rookie 20:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Since the episode section comes before the cast section, anyone reading the article would not find out this character information until later and thus may have trouble understanding the episode summaries. Ωphois 20:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Bingo. My thoughts exactly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Alright, added some info on the lead. Pedro J. the rookie 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) I'll leave it there for now, and if you'd be good enough to ping me when you've responded to the above, I'll continue the review. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Comments on synopses etc Not sure why you feel obliged to link "courthouse" or "womb" or "addict". And "heat wave", "dog show", "leash"... Don't feel obliged to link stuff just because there's nothing useful to link. You link Stewie and Stewie alone in these synopses. Why? " A cigarette starts a fire" really? Actually yeah, that is what happens in the episode. Pedro J. the rookie 20:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC) "Not having air conditioning, the Griffins ask Brian to enter a dog show, offering a top prize of $500, so they are able to buy one." rephrase perhaps, like "The Griffins ask Brian to enter a dog show, offering a top prize of $500, so they are able to buy air conditioning"? "three months before the premiere of the third season. " you linked second series, why not the third? Family Guy doesn't need to be a see also, it's already clearly linked in the lead. Consistent date formats required in references. Please explain to a more extent. Pedro J. the rookie 20:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC) En-dash required, not hyphen (see, for instance, ref 23) Refs 11, 12 etc have double periods. You can use pipe-links to stop this happening. Ref 35 title looks like it has a double space or something odd going on with the title Everything, except for the concerns with my comments are fixed. Pedro J. the rookie 17:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2011 (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 Giants2008 19:06, 7 August 2011 [25].

---

List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z)

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the last part of a three part set, the other two have been recently promoted. This builds on the reviews of the last two and I think it meets the FL criteria. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments Support

1. Sorting by unit Samuel Wassall 18th Foot comes between the 78th and 81st
2. Sorting by rank Bombardier seems to be in the wrong place amongst the privates.
3. Reginald Sartorius links to two ranks MajorSergeant

Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

All were rather stupid errors on my part, all fixed now thanks. I've put sorting for Bombardier as equivalent to Lance Corporal as it was at the time of the Crimean War/Indian Mutiny. Thanks for spotting these. Woody (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

They were my only concerns.Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comments

1. why is there no link to the first two list in the series? perhaps in see also? all three lists should link to the other two.
2. why is there no ref for each entry? this seems to be how the other lists are done (granted I'm new so I may not be aware of something here).

PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

In connection to number one there is a link at the bottom of the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the refs, in all the other FLs I've looked at either: a) each list row has its own ref or b) there is a generic ref at the top that says something like "all these entries are found at "source xyz". So how is that the first two lists got to FL status and this one doesn't have ref for the entries? Can someone explain what I'm missing here? If it's in article somewhere, I missed it and pls point me to it. I simply what to understand how this works better. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

As with a lot of FLs, this list uses a general reference. All of the information in this list can be found in about 10 pages in a table form at the end of Brazier's book as well another list in Arthur's book. These books are listed in the references section. If we put a reference for each cell into the table then we would have a reference used 100 times over (as the book has about 100 recipients per page). That wouldn't work very well. The references simply wouldn't be able to cope with it.

In terms of providing a links to the other two more prominently alongside the existing navbox, I can definitely see your point. Perhaps a hatnote at the top of the page with "This article is part of an alphabetical series, see (A-F) (G-M)" Thanks for your review, Woody (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Something linking the three articles besides a big template at the bottom is needed. As for the general refs, that's fine, but I recommend two things: listing the pages of the table and putting a note at the top of the list mentioning the ref. RIght now we can't even tell which of the general refs you're talking about. These two things should be done in the other two lists too. I saw this thing with the general ref listed at the top (it used an 'a' instead of a ref number) but I can't recall what list it was in so I can't show you how it was done right now. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added in a hatnote now, does that work for you? Personally, I think the referencing as it is is the most accurate. General references aren't a rarity and I don't think it will confuse anyone. Whilst the vast majority of the list is sourced specifically from the table at the end, some points have to be checked in the main body of the books (usually posthumous details). As such it wouldn't be entirely accurate to list the specific page numbers of the table/list at the head of the table as you suggest. We could however put something along the lines of "The data in the table is predominantly sourced from Arthur and Brazier." Woody (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a butthead or anything, I'm trying to learn. I'm still new. When I started on wiki I was beat up for "everything has to have a ref (some people virtually every sentence) and books must list the pages and the refs have to follow the material". But now you're saying that isn't necessarily so. So, I check the FLs (there are several) on the American equivalent of the VC, the Medal of Honor, and some have refs done like these VC ones, and some have refs at the column header for the notes column, such as List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_the_Vietnam_War. All of the Medal of Honor ones use a pretty info box in the upper right to link to the other FLs in the series. You may want to consider that but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Very nice work on this series. I now have no problem Supporting. PumpkinSky talk

I wasn't trying to badger you and I certainly understand your frustration in trying to learn all of the different quirks/rules/guidelines etc. Everything certainly has to be referenced, there are just various ways of going about doing that. That can be hard to comprehend even for those of us who have been around a while! Thanks for your review, Woody (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Comma would be nice after Andrew Fitzgibbon in the lead. "for saving his brother, Lieutenant Hugh Gough. Hugh Gough...". Would be better without the repetition from one sentence to the next. You could even combine the two sentences in the form of "Lieutenant Hugh Gough, who...", since that wouldn't be too long. Another comma would be good after John Gough in the next sentence. Get a dash into the section heading (N-Z). Comma before "this is reflected in this list" should be a semi-colon. The date of action column for Dighton Probyn is sorting oddly. It is sorting first in order, but there are quite a few earlier than 1857 to 1858. Stray bracket in the date of action column for Bill Speakman. Note F: Is Forces a proper noun when used in this way? If not, don't capitalize it. Some page numbers and ranges have a space between the period and number and some don't. This should be made consistent. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC) All done thanks apart from the last one. This came up in the last review and was sort of unresolved. The spaced ones are in {{London Gazette}}. Personally I'm a fan of unspaced ones but if it is a deal-breaker I'm happy to add a space to all of the book refs. Thanks as ever for your thorough review, regards. Woody (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC) I understand if the template doesn't let you do anything about it. Reference 20, however, doesn't have a template but has a space present. Might as well make that one consistent with the other book cites. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Sorted thanks, Woody (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support Nicely done again! You may want to consider changing the footnote syntax by using {{#tag:ref| text of footnote.<ref>citation of footnote</ref>|group="Note"}}. This makes it much easier to add another footnote at a later time without having to keep the ordering sequence in mind. Another suggestion, you explained the abbreviation of RAF (Royal Air Force) before the table but all the other abbreviations such as AIF, RAAF, NZEF are not explained, also maybe worth considering. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments Ref 17 is a note, not a ref. Ref 7, if it really is p. 6702, then it should be p. 6,702. Refs 4 and 6 are the same, so use ref name. Consistency in refs, is there a space after p. (or pp.) or not? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Sorted Ref 17 and 4 and 6 duplication thanks. For the other two, they are part of the functionality of {{London Gazette}}. The p./pp. is explained above with Giants2008's review: the template produces them with a space but I use no spaces for the book refs. As I said above, if it is a deal-breaker I can add spaces to the book refs, but I would prefer not to. In terms of 6702, rather surprisingly it is indeed page 6702. I can't add the comma as the page number is part of the web address, to add a comma would break the reference. Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

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