Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2009

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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [1].

---

In Flames discography

I'm working on this list quite a time, and finally this discography is ready to receive your comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance! Cannibaloki 03:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose Comment Cannibaloki, I have been impressed with your ability to bring discographies to quality standards. However, the fact that English is not your native language (please don't take offense) has a negative effect on the prose. I am not going to tell you to withdraw, but in the future, please consider getting a native speaker to copy-edit before FLC. A couple examples before I sign off:

• "Following the same blueprint, Come Clarity (2006), topped the Finnish and Swedish charts, and reached the number 2 on the Billboard Top Independent Album" The second comma is not necessary, and neither is the article "the" before "number 2".
  • Done.
• "The album was backed by the single "Come Clarity", that even released in a limited edition, reached the number 52 in their home country." Not a grammatical sentence.
  • Hmm...
• "Their newest full-length" "full-length" what? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Their newest full-length album..."

I don't have time to do a full review, I have many other things to do. Ask User:Indopug to copy-edit the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The following year appeared their second EP, Black-Ash Inheritance, and the full-length album Whoracle. - comm after year and add the word "they" after that new comma
  • "The following year, they appeared their second EP...[?]"
    • Are you trying to say "They released their second EP the following year?"--TRUCO 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • "The following year, appeared their second EP..." Cannibaloki 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Do you mean The following year, they appeared on their second EP?--TRUCO 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
          • "The following year, they issued their second EP, Black-Ash Inheritance, and the full-length album Whoracle."--Cannibaloki 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Perfect.--TRUCO 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Done.--Cannibaloki 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Clayman followed in the same vein the next year, reaching the top 20 on the same countries. - "in" not on"
  • Done.
• The tour to promote it, was released as the live album, The Tokyo Showdown (2001), again charted on Sweden and Finland, this time reaching the top 40. - --> The tour to promote it was released as The Tokyo Showdown (2001) live album, which also charted in Sweden and Finland; the album reached the top 40.
  • Done.
• In many of these sentences, you say "on Sweden and Finland" which sounds incorrect, if you want to word it like that, it should be "on the Swedish and Finnish charts"
  • Whats your response on this?--TRUCO 16:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah, done. Cannibaloki 17:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Reroute to Remain (2002), peaked at number 5 on Sweden and Finland,[1][2] and number 10 on the Billboard Top Heatseekers chart. - no need for the first comma, take my word about the "on" and the countries comment above
  • Done
• The album was backed by the single "Come Clarity", that even released in a limited edition, reached the number 52 in their home country. - do you mean ..which was released is a limited edition that reached number 52 in their home country?
  • Done.
    • I'm trying to explain, which same released in a limited edition, it reached number 52 in their home country. (or something like) Cannibaloki 16:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Tables/listed content/sources check out fine.--TRUCO 15:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - problems fixed to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments Looks pretty solid. Only a few minor complaints:

• Some of the chart positions say just "Peak". I would say that "Peak chart positions" is still preferable, even though the text is too big for the space allotted. A good compromise might be to make the font slightly smaller. As it is, "Peak" is too vague.
  • Reduced size to 90% (using "Peak chart positions")
• Some of the wikilinking in the citations is a little scattered. For instance MTV and MTV networks is wikilinked in the last two citations, but not the two before that. In general, try and wikilink it only in the first instance, or across the board, whichever you prefer.
  • Done. ("...wikilink it only in the first instance...")
• I would also recommend making the catalog numbers small font, so as to not confuse them with the label names.
  • Done.
• The year columns should be center-aligned.
  • Done.
• The Nuclear Blast link seems like spam to me.
  • Removed.

And that's it. Take care of the above and I'd be happy to support. Drewcifer (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for take a look. Cannibaloki 20:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I copyedited the lead a little bit, so now I'm happy to support. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [2].

---

List of Atlanta Braves Opening Day starting pitchers

I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, consistent with List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, List of San Francisco Giants Opening Day starting pitchers and others. Rlendog (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• There is too much extra space between the disambiguation link at the top and with the lead.
• They played in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and Boston, Massachusetts before moving to Atlanta for the 1966 season. - "They played" was used in the previous sentence, it sounds repetitive, switch the sentence up for more diversity.
• The 17 starters have a combined Opening Day record of 11 wins, 19 losses and 13 no decisions.[2]. - remove the extra period
• Hall of Famer Phil Niekro holds the Atlanta Braves' record for most Opening Day starts with eight. - comma before "with"
• He has a record in Opening Day starts for the Atlanta Braves of no wins and six losses with two no decisions. - too much use of "Atlanta Braves", you can just use either or when referring to them later in the prose because the reader by now knows who the team is. In addition, the last part of the sentence should be "..of not wins, six losses, and two no decisions."
• Current Braves Tom Glavine and John Smoltz have each made four Opening Day starts for the team.' - current "Braves" what? pitchesrs?
• Mahler has the best winning percentage in Opening Day starts, with four wins and no losses (4–0) with one no decision. - "best" is POV, how about using "highest" In addition, shouldn't the last part of the sentence be "..with four win, no losses, and one no decision."?
• Niekro has the record for most losses in Atlanta Braves Opening Day starts with six - comma before "with"
• Their starting pitchers had a record in those games of no wins and six losses (0–6) with three no decisions. - my comment above about the last part of the sentence also applies here, correct me if I am wrong
• This gives the Atlanta Braves' Opening Day starting pitchers' combined home record 6–8 with five no decisions. - add "a" before "combined" and add "of" before "6-8"
• They had a combined Opening Day record of 3–2 in years that the Atlanta Braves played in the World Series - "in" should be "during the"
• When I sort the final score, the 1988 season isn't sorting properly in numerical order.
• The "Reference" column should be called "Reference(s)" since more than one is being used.--TRUCO 18:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them, except the following:
    • In the paragraph where there was too much use of the term "Atlanta Braves", I removed the word "Atlanta" a couple of times, but I needed to leave in the reference to this specific team, since several of the pitchers mentioned (Niekro, Glavine, Maddux) did make Opening Day starts for other teams (Yankees, Mets and Cubs, resepctively).
    • I left the phrase "x wins and y losses with z no decisions" for Mahler, although I changed the other instances. I left the phrase the way it was for Mahler because I believe that it is a correct way of stating the record, and in Mahler's case the record is given in the context of his winning percentage. Since the no decisions are ancillary to the winning percentage, it seemed proper to use the structure referring to the no decisions as "with".
    • I think "They had a combined Opening Day record of 3–2 in years that the Atlanta Braves played in the World Series" is correct. "During" makes it sound like the particular games in question were ongoing during those seasons, and by definition, these games were done the first day of the season. Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Followup comments

  • • The reference column comment was not resolved.
    • Merge the second and third paragraphs, they are too short to stand alone as a paragraph.--TRUCO 00:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • • Done. I left off the parentheses around the "s" in References since, at least on my setup, it caused the (s) to go to a 2nd row by itself, which looked very odd. Rlendog (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 02:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Check the image captions, those that are complete sentences should have periods at the end (for example the lead image)
• "Their starting pitchers had a record in those games of"-->In those games, their starting pitchers had a record of...
• "Morton, Gary Gentry and Andy Messersmith all had no decisions" Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

*The dates that are linked at the end of the lead should be linked to the appropriate World Series since that is what is being discussed; no other dates in the lead are linked, and should stay that way at this time.

• I'm not on board with splitting this list into two lists, because it may fail Cr.3; however, the Giants' list is the same way, and the scope is defined, so I won't pitch a fit about it.

Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for your comments. I fixed the World Series Links. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:43, 31 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [3].

---

List of Bleach episodes

Another episode list. The last FL needed for my Seasons of Bleach FT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• They are directed by Noriyuki Abe and produced by TV Tokyo, Dentsu, and Studio Pierrot.[1]. - remove extra period

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The episodes started airing on October 5, 2004 on TV Tokyo in Japan and have been airing since. - comma before "and"

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• It was replaced with another Viz Media series, Death Note to provide Studiopolis more time to dub additional episodes of the series. The series returned from hiatus on March 2, 2008 - comma after Death Note

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The show went on hiatus on October 20, 2007 after airing the first 52 episodes of the series. It was replaced with another Viz Media series, Death Note to provide Studiopolis more time to dub additional episodes of the series. The series returned from hiatus on March 2, 2008. - I don't know, but to me, this sentence doesn't make it clear that this is the English version

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a different, one episode version of episodes eight to nine, this special focuses more on Ichigo's feelings regarding his mother's death. - the beginning of the sentence doesn't make sense, needs rewording.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• other than that, tables check out fine.--TRUCO 18:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues were fixed to meet the FL Criteria.--TRUCO 14:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The episodes started airing on October 5, 2004 on TV Tokyo in Japan and have been airing since." Why not just "The episodes have aired since October 5, 2004 on TV Tokyo in Japan."?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Several CDs containing "-->Several CDs that contain

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "two DVD collection boxes have been released containing" "containing"-->that contain.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "one episode version"-->one-episode version
• "episodes eight to nine" Why not "episodes eight and nine"?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "prior to"-->before.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• The episode ranges need en dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed it myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://cal.syoboi.jp/tid/491/subtitle a reliable source?
• The second general ref needs its page title to be converted to sentence case; per MOS, web page titles should not be in all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Switched up the refs. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Goodraise

Comments

• Some of the dates in the Region 2 tables wrap. (At least they do in my browser.)

• Not sure what you mean by that. The dates look fine to me. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, for me they wrap: [4] (First time I upload something there, so tell me if the link doesn't work.) -- Goodraise (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. Nothing I can do about that. Make your resolution bigger. That's pretty small. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The tables in the DVD releases section look a bit crammed in general.

• I'm not going to extend them. Wasted space. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about renaming the list to List of Bleach seasons?

• No. It's a list of episodes. A rather overwhelming precedent is present also. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. Just out of curiosity, what "overwhelming precedent" are you refering to? The only one I can think of right now is List of Naruto manga volumes. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• List of D.Gray-man episodes, List of The Simpsons episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of The O.C. episodes... — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Goodraise (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Though it's news to me that 1024x768 is a "pretty small" resolution. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 08:49, 19 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [5].

---

List of FA Amateur Cup winners

I am nominating this article for FL status as I feel it meets all the criteria. Feel free to agree/disagree/send cakes :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - prose problems and appearance problems per WP:WIAFL.

• The Football Association Amateur Cup, commonly known as the FA Amateur Cup, was a national knockout cup competition for English amateur football clubs, organised by and named after The Football Association (the FA). - 1)is knockout the proper term for the cup? Isn't a "single elimination tournament? 2)I don't know if this is an English variation or not, but in American english its "organized", but if its a variant, it can stay as is 3)to the last part of the sentence it should be : ".., which was organized by, and named, after the FA." (you already mentioned their acronym, no need to spell it again.
  • The term "single-elimination" is completely unknown in UK English, where "knockout" is the standard term. Also, in UK English all words ending in "-ised" are spelt with an S, not a Z. And I've removed the double mention of "the FA"
• You mention the final winner in the lead, why not mention the first winner?
  • Done
• In the history section, I would mention once more that the country is indeed England.
  • Done
• By the start of the Second World War, Bishop Auckland had won the Amateur Cup seven times and Clapton five times. - comma before "and"
  • Done
• Interest in the competition peaked soon after the war and the final was moved to Wembley Stadium, attracting crowds of up to 100,000. - comma before "and"/ reword the last part of the sentence to ", which attracted crowds of up to 100,000"
  • Done
• In 1954 Crook Town defeated Bishop Auckland to win the Amateur Cup for the second time, over fifty years after the club's previous victory, but the "Bishops" won the final for the next three seasons, the only hat-trick of wins in the competition's history. - comma after "1954"/ full-stop needed after "previous victory" and make a new sentence out of the proceeding wording
  • Done
• In the 1960s interest in the Amateur Cup declined and crowds for the final dropped to less than half the level of the early Wembley finals. - comma after "1960s"
  • Done
• The last ever Amateur Cup final was held on 20 April 1974 and Bishop's Stortford became the last tournament winners, defeating Ilford 4–1. - comma before "and"
  • Done
• The prose never states why the tournament was abolished? Was it due to the decline in popularity, if so, it needs to be elaborated more clearly
  • Done - it was already in the lead but I forgot to put it in the body too
• The competition was not staged during the First or Second World Wars other than in the 1914–15 season. - comma before "other"
  • Done
• Where the venue is shown in italics, only the town where the final took place is recorded, rather than the name of the specific stadium. - this makes no sense, why are only some names of the venues used? In addition, in the table, the proper name of the stadium should be used, if it has the word "Stadium" in its name, it needs to be added.
  • It seems clear enough to me, personally, but I'm open to suggestion as to how to reword it. The issue is that, for some of the early finals, all available sources list only the town where the final was held rather than a specific stadium name e.g. for 1901 all that is known is that the final was held in Dovercourt, no further details are recorded. All stadium names (where available) are correctly used. The only one that is piped is Crystal Palace National Sports Centre, which didn't have that name at the time.
• The notes column should not be sortable.
  • Done
• Some of the row widths can be decreased, there is no need for all the extra white space in the table.
  • Done

--TRUCO 18:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Phew! Thanks for all your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Followup

• For the comment about the stadium name: I would make a footnote stating what you just told me, that per official sources, only the town name is available.--TRUCO 15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is that in addition to, or instead of, the note at the top?

• In addition to, because it leaves the reader wondering why only some entries have the town name. So just add a footnote to explain why.--TRUCO 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done

• Since you decreased some of the row widths, it is possible to add a few images (1-3) on the side, just so there won't be any white space there as well.
  • The only relevant free images I've found so far are already in the article. I'll have a look round for any more, failing that would it be acceptable to just make the overall table a bit wider.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• If those are the only free ones available, then it is best to just to re-increase the table widths.--TRUCO 15:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I found one more, but it looks a bit silly with just one image alongside the table, so I'll put it somewhere else and make the table wider again...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Stockton is a disambiguation link. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• "after, FA" I thought it was "The FA".
  • Done - typo
• "newly-created" No hyphens after -ly adverbs.
  • Done
• Some image captions that are complete sentences are missing periods.
  • The only caption which is a complete sentence, as far as I can see, is the Wycombe one, which already has a full stop (as we call it over here :-) )
• "who beat Casuals " Shouldn't it be "which beat Casuals"?
  • No. In UK English, sports team names take "who", not "which". See, for example, this BBC report which uses "it was Manchester United who created the first clear-cut chance", or this one which uses "But Arsenal, who had struggled since the resumption...."
• "Bishop's Stortford, who" Same here.
  • Same response :-)
• "winning the tournament fifteen times in nineteen seasons"-->winning the tournament 15 times in 19 seasons
  • Done
• "a figure which was never surpassed." "which"-->that.
  • Done
• "The last ever Amateur Cup final"
  • Done
• "In the same year" Comma after this phrase. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done
    • Many thanks for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk · contribs) from moist Cusco...
  • It seems picky and perhaps tautalogical, but I´d expand the first use of "The FA" to "The Football Association (The FA)", just so we´re all 100% sure what FA means when you go on to use it ... you get my drift?
  • Score sorts really oddly from low to high - try it. I get 0-0 then 1-1 then 2-2 then 0-0 again... it doesn´t seem right. The asterisks certainly play a part in the oddness...
  • Depot Bn. Royal Engineers or Depot Bn., Royal Engineers - just call me eagle eyes...
• Sort the sort stuff and you get unequivocal Support, at the moment it´s just a Weak support. So it depends how conscientious you´re feeling! All the best, The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • All points super strongly addressed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• ´Support all my points addressed, coolio. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JKbb02bg6zYC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=%22fa+amateur+cup%22&source=web&ots=pHEX_y3tcP&sig=MRflCJ0gM55jaW_nGD8kp1bMpN4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result does not show the results. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why would it need to? That source is only being used to reference two sentences within the "history" section, both of which it does show quite clearly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. The link did not work when I posted this comment; however, it seems to have fixed itself, so everything is fine :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoops - apologies for the confusion! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [6].

---

Natalie Imbruglia discography

I think this discography about the Australian singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The album reached number one[2] and went platinum five times in Australia. - reached number one on what chart? In the UK, it reached number five[4] and was certified triple platinum. - reached number five on what chart? certified platinum by what industry? Her second album White Lilies Island was released in November 2001. - comma after and before the album name In reached number three in Australia[2] and was certified gold. - typo on the word "it", once again, what chart/industry? The album reached number fifteen in the UK and sold 185,171 copies. - what chart? It reached number twelve in Australia[2] and number one in the UK - what chart? It reached number five in the UK[4] and was certified gold. - what chart? It would be best to flag the reader earlier on as to what industry certified the albums and what chart the albums ranked on, or if they are different, the reader should be made aware of that. Tables check out fine.--Truco 00:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) I added wikilinks to charts, etc. I believe the lead to be quite obvious and the same format has been used in other featured discographies, including my recently passed effort (Dido discography). -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Followup comments Linking "certified" to the respective industries is wrong, per other FLs. It should be "..was certified platinum five times by the Australia Recording Industry (ARA).." (just an example). Having "certified" link over and over makes it look like the link is WP:OVERLINK (overlinked) In the UK, it reached number five[4] and was certified triple platinum. - UK is linked to the chart, which is wrong because it makes it seem like the link is for the country itself. The chart should be spelled out.--TRUCO 02:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 22:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "went platinum five times."-->certified platinum five times.
• The rest of the prose in the lead looks good, but can you summarize other aspects of the discography as well (singles, EPs, music videos)? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• Refs 26 and 27 need format=PDF added to their citation templates. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I fixed everything. I have added more info about her singles to the lead. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Very nice work. I can happily support. My only comment (a very minor one), is that in the charts the United States is abbreviated as "US", but in the certifications column(s) it's abbreviated as "U.S.". Great job! Drewcifer (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [7].

---

List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing

Modelled after the recently promoted List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing. All concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list! I'm very happy to see you continuing to work on Olympics articles. Just why do so many gray cells need to be in the Medals by year category; can't we just leave out the years it wasn't contested? Also, why is the Medals by nation table listed here but not List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing? Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to the first comment, I will probably eventually reformat it eventually, in response to the second, I was going to move it but I forgot. Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included nordic skiing and alpine skiing was added in 1936, but the first official freestyle skiing events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France. - I would change the "was" to , which was (notice the addition of the comma). I would also split this sentence since it has a lot of punctuation.
  • Done, and the sentence was split too.
• Table check out fine, but I would add more to the prose, like a more thorough summary of the lists, like who was the first/last in each category, or more about the other medalists, not just the gold ones.--Truco 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll see what I can do. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • When this is done, I can support.--TRUCO 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Prior to"-->Before.
  • Done.
• "No freestyle skier has ever won more"
  • Done.
• "is the youngest to win a medal "-->is the youngest to have won a medal
  • Done.
• "A total of 44 medals"—"A total of" is redundant, but remember that sentences should not be started with numerals. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• One dab needs fixing (I wasn't sure which link to fix it with). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 6, add format=PDF to the citation template.
  • Done.
• Ref 7 has a retrieval date but is not a web reference. Maybe you meant to put the publication date? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the publication date is in there, it just didn't have date=. Aren't all sources supposed to have a retrievel date? Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No, only web citations need last access dates (for the purpose of fixing dead links). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I´d like to see a caption for the lead image.
    • It wouldn't add anything, it would just be "a pictogram depicting Freestyle skiing"
  • "Freestyle skiing is an Olympic sport that is contested at the Winter Olympic Games." Now, Freestyle skiing is more than an Olympic sport, it isn´t necessarily competed for in the Olympics. Perhaps just drop the first "Olympic"?
    • Well, Olympic sports is an article, but Done.
  • "The first Winter Olympics, held in 1924, included nordic skiing, and alpine skiing was added in 1936, but the first official freestyle skiing events were not held until the 1992 Winter Olympics in Albertville, France" call me fussy but this sentence is a little clunky. It has, after all, five commas, so perhaps consider splitting it a bit so there aren´t so many clauses?
    • Done.
  • "...are not considered official..." is there a citation for this?
    • It's mentioned in the IOC ref provided.
  • " Yelizaveta Kozhevnikova, who won a medal when she was 18, is the youngest to have won a medal in ..." - "...won a medal..." x 2 in one sentence makes it dull prose here.
    • Fixed.
  • "44 medals (18 of each color) " perhaps my maths isn´t working at altitude but 18 of each color would make 54 wouldn´t it?
    • Yeah, you're correct.
  • "As of the 2006 Winter Olympics, 44 medals (18 of each color) have been awarded since 1992..." that´s two timeframes, are both necessary?
    • Done.
  • "...at every Olympics that freestyle skiing has been held at...." poor English, perhaps "..at every Olympics in which freestyle skiing has been held."?
    • Done.
  • I think it´s worth a footnote explaining Yelizaveta Kozhevnikova´s dual nationality.
    • I don't know about that one.
  • "bolded numbers " I´d prefer "Numbers in bold..."
  • In Specific references, you link BBC Sports and CBC Sports but not International Olympic Committee. Any reason why?
    • Because the IOC is already linked in the article.
• Hope those comments are of use. Take it easy. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • They are. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: merge the columns for 24-88 in the medals per year table like you did in List of Olympic medalists in short track speed skating. Reywas92^Talk 16:08, 28 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [8].

---

2008 Summer Olympics venues

Previous FLC (16:02, 24 August 2008)

This is one I did not do the majority of the work on, it was mostly done by Le comte de monte christo. However, he disappeared during the nomination and has not been seen since. I actually thought that this one had passed, but it was failed due to some minor issues that were not addressed due to his disappearance. So, I have fixed those concerns (and some other things) and am willing to address all conerns (just in case somebody thinks I am only doing this for the WikiCup, I will not include this list in my submissions). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support It's a little boring but I see nothing that should be improved. Reywas92^Talk 19:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Question Is "The 2008 Summer Olympics were held" grammatically correct? I am not saying it is wrong, but for some reason, it doesn't sound right to me.—Chris! _ct 19:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Changed to "The 2008 Summer Olympic Games were held" to circumvent that problem. —kurykh 05:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Consistency with the way dates are formatted in the prose.
  • Done.
• The refs in the tables should not be sortable, there is no need for it.
  • Whoops, I thought I had already done that.
• In the first table, it should be made clear which sport applies to which capacity in the Beijing National Stadium, the one where it has a capacity in parenthesis.
  • In that case, 80,000 refers to the capacity after the Games. It has been cut.
• Some of the images, IMO, should be cut down in size because on my screen and on FF (2++) are passing over the division lines of the headers.--Truco 00:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks fot taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup comments

• Some of the dates are still not consistent, some are in "Month Day, Year" others are in "Day Month, Year" format (this is also true with the first footnote).
• Something is wrong with the sortability of the capacity in the "Competition venues outside Beijing" it does not sort properly, it could be due to the "n/a" entry.--Truco 02:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done on the first one, but the sortability works for me. I use Explorer, maybe it's a Firefox thing? Thanks again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nevermind, it is sorting correctly.--Truco 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 03:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "24 August, 2008" Dates in this format do not have commas after the month.
  • I don't normally use that format. Done.
• "11,028 athletes from 204 NOCs participated in 302 events in 28 sports held in 37 competition venues." MOS breach, don't start sentences with numbers.
  • Fixed.
• "outside of Beijing hosted events"
  • Fixed.
• "A total of RMB¥13 billion"—"A total of" is redundant here, although keep in mind that sentences should not start with numerals.
  • Fixed.
• "seating for only 2,000 "
  • Fixed.
• "Several of the venues were located at the Olympic Green Olympic Park." This sentence is rather random; does it signify something (had more venues than any other location)?
  • Fixed.
• Note 1 needs a reference. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [9].

---

Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York

Just written, theme is pretty rare, but hey, I like it. It should meet all-criteria and is probably exempt from the 10-item rule, as shown in previous FLCs of this kind. Again, open to all comments.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 03:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just of note, I did some copyediting. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Can you alternate the images?
• "federally-maintained" -ly adverbs should not have hyphens after them. (multiple occurences)
• "The entire route system was in place by 1989, with the creation of County Route 81." Comma not necessary.
• "The highway system remained primarily stable"-->The highway system has remained primarily stable
• "Begin/end concurrency (44-22)" I don't understand the notation inside the parenthesis.
• "cemetary " Misspelled.
• "he highway was extended in the 1940s[4] and remained there since."-->he highway was extended in the 1940s[4] and has remained there since. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unlink the accessdates in {{cite map}}.
• The citation date format for ref 9 is different from the others; add format=PDF to the cite template. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All done except for the unlinking. That happens to be a problem in Template:Cite map, I can't figure its code out to fix it.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would fix this myself, except I am not an admin. Go to the edit screen of the template. You will see code like the below. Remove the brackets in red.

{{ #if: {{{accessdate|}}} | Retrieved on <font color=red>[[</font>{{{accessdate}}}<font color=red>]]</font>. | {{ #if: {{{accessyear|}}} | Retrieved {{ #if: {{{accessmonth|}}} | on <font color=red>[[</font>{{{accessmonth}}} {{{accessyear}}}<font color=red>]]</font>. | during <font color=red>[[</font>{{{accessyear}}}<font color=red>]]</font>.

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

All done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The two state routes are New York State Route 22, a north–south highway traversing eastern New York, and New York State Route 343, an 18-mile (29 km) east–west highway in Dutchess County. - no need for the comma after "New York"
• There was a realignment of the concurrency between NY 22 and 343, producing CR 81, designated as Old Route 22. - should be "..which was designated as Old Route 22."
• If there are no notes for CR 81, there is no need for the empty column to be there
• There is a spelling mistake with "cemetery"
• Fix DaBomb's sourcing and prose issues.--TRUCO 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Followup: You added a note to the CR 81 column, but it says, literally, that CR 81 is the northern terminus of CR 81, I know this can't be correct.--TRUCO 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the chart a little more carefully. Its self-explanatory.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So "Dutchess" is the northern terminus? Also, no full stop needed for that note.--TRUCO 02:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The intersection charts apply to the highway within the CDP of Amenia, so the northern terminus is CR 81 at the border of the CDP. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:05, 20 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [10].

---

List of Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium

This list has been comprehensively referenced and I believe is now ready for promotion. As per the vexed issue of sortability, that has been debated and the final conclusion appears to be that there is little practicality in creating a list 25 fields wide and 5 fields long. Please see Ling.Nut's prototype and Nergaal's test for an idea of what a sortable list would look like, and keep in mind that any future list would likely be wider than either of them. Serendi^podous 18:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I forgot; User:Ruslik0, User:Nergaal and User:Dojarca all made indispensable contributions to this list, so I would like them listed as conominators. Thanks. Serendi^podous 02:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list! I like sortability, but this is still great and less cluttered without. My only concerns are:
  • A thorough but short meaning of hydrostatic equilibrium should be given in the lead rather than just a link, especially if it's in the title.
  • The See also section belongs before the references, though I would delete the whole thing; the links are already in the article.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by (unless otherwise cited) in the refs; I don't see anything cited otherwise elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 02:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. The citation for this list is very complicated, and actually operates in two dimensions. :-) For instance, the main citation above the name for each planet gives the planet's axial tilt, but the main citation above the name for each satellite (except the Moon) does not. However, the citation for the axial tilts of all the moons is given in the Moon-Axial tilt reference along the side. Also, sometimes an accurate value for a moon's axial tilt is known (see Ganymede) and in that case the citation overrides the "blanket citation". I hope that made sense. Serendi^podous 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Can't see any problem. Though I fix some links in the lead for you.—Chris! _ct 06:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "electromagnetic forces binding its substance"-->electromagnetic forces that binds its substance
• "there are eight planets in our Solar System" Don't use first-person language, "our"-->the.
• "with those objects in orbit around the Sun that had achieved hydrostatic equilibrium but had not cleared their neighborhoods classified as dwarf planets and the remainder termed small Solar System bodies." Make this a separate sentence.
• "Planets are both large enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium, and have cleared their neighborhoods of similar objects." Delete the comma.
• "Ceres is situated in the"
• "The others all lie"' Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The citation dates are inconsistent, some use ISO format and others use day-month year format.
• Ref 29 needs format=PDF added to it.
• Web titles in all caps should be converted to sentence case (ref 63).
• Many refs are missing publisher info: Refs 53–61 and 6–15 as examples.
• Authors need to be listed consistently; some are listed "first name last name" and others are listed "last, first". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sorted most of your issues, but for some reason a number of citations, though their dates are written in IPO, appear as day/month on the screen. Serendi^podous 18:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I will sort those out manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is general problem of all Cite XXX templates. They do not use consistent format of dates. Ruslik (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support The list is well written and is scientifically sound. All information is supported by reliable sources. This list is the key list for the Solar System Project and its promotion to FL status is long overdue. (Disclosure: I participated in writing this list, but my involvement was only minor). Ruslik (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sweet support nicely put together, comprehensive and pretty! (Disclaimer: I also contributed to the list although I would say in a relatively minor amount.) Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to all: a new large KBO has just been announced, and it has had to be inserted into the lower table. It will be a short while before all the necessary calculations are completed. Serendi^podous 15:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Issue resolved. Serendi^podous 18:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - very nice indeed... but...
  • IAU should be placed in parentheses after the first use of the expanded version to avoid ambiguity.
  • Call me picky but I think "However, many other objects in the Solar System, including the Sun itself, 19 known natural satellites, and potentially scores of minor planets, are also massive enough to have achieved hydrostatic equilibrium." needs citation, in particular a quote like "potentially scores of...."
  • Why abbreviate temperature to temp. where nothing else is abbreviated?
  • Surface area for the Sun says [[km2]]:E[f] - I assume that should be a proper wikilink?
  • Photospheric composition is a list of element abbreviations which is not obvious to a non expert. Consider linking, e.g. Fe to Iron, etc...
  • Galactic Center or Galactic center? Be consistent.
  • Remove the space after the asterisk in the second table, to be consistent with the use of the dagger in the same table.
  • Maybe worth clarifying that most of the round satellites don´t have astronomical symbols.

Issues resolved. Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• • All rotation periods appear to be (sync) - what does this mean and if they are all that way, is it worth just making a general note to that effect (and explaining what it means for a non-expert)?

Only the moons are sync, and it is explained; the first "(sync)" has a footnote after it.Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops. Wrong note. Subbed. Serendi^podous 13:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Perhaps it´s just IE7 but the notes don´t seem to work for me. I can´t find a [n] or a [bb] for example. The links (I think) work but it´s odd that I can´t see those footnotes in the list at the bottom.

They work for me. Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• • What does " (unless otherwise cited) " mean in your references? Is it a get-out clause in case the reference retrieval dates change? And any reason why some references have this caveat and others don´t, even when they´re from the same source?

Basically, "unless otherwise cited" means that the note holds for the entire line or column unless another citation says otherwise. It saves me having to cite every single field individually. Serendi^podous 00:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Added a note explaining what it means. Serendi^podous 13:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

issue solved 100%. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• These are minor points but there are quite a few of them. Should these be addressed and I don´t get a chance to get back online, I´m happy for the FL directors to overlook my minor oppose. Good work. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [11].

---

List of number-one singles from the 1990s (UK)

I am nominating this article for Featured List status as I feel it meets all the criteria, I hope you feel the same way :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Change instances of "number 1" to number one per WP:MOSNUM
  • Done
• The longest spell at the top was achieved by Bryan Adams's song "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You", which spent 16 weeks at number 1 in 1991, beating the record for the longest unbroken run at the top of the charts which had stood since 1955. - why not tell the reader what song that was?
  • Done
• If this is a list about songs from the 90s, why is "Do They Know It's Christmas?" from 1989 on this list?
  • Because it was number 1 for the first six days of the 1990s. I can remove it if required......
    • I say yeah, because technically it debuted on the chart during the 80s not the 90s.--Truco 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You could mention the Band Aid song in the prose as being a number one song. 03md (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Good idea, done that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Since ref # 8 is being used as the main ref to source the entire table, use it as a general reference, as used in this FL here
  • Done
• The following artists scored three or more number one hits during the 1990s. - instead of "scored" how about achieved?
  • Done
• The see also section needs to come before the references section, per WP:SEEALSO.
  • Done
• Can the lead be expanded a bit more, maybe add other significant tracks, like which one was the first one to reach #1 and the final one to reach #1?
  • Done

--Truco 00:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, all addressed now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues resolved to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Note that Eternal links to a disambiguation page.
• "Prior to"-->before.
• "Unlike in the USA" USA is rather outdated. Use US or United States instead.
• "As a result, the number of singles entering"-->As a result, the number of singles that entered.
• "a total of 207 singles"
• "sold over 5 million copies to become the biggest-selling single in UK history"-->sold over 5 million copies, becoming the biggest-selling single in UK history. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Cheers for your comments, all addressed now I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "The UK Singles Chart is a record chart compiled by The Official UK Charts Company (OCC) on behalf of the British record industry. The chart week runs from Sunday to Saturday, and the new chart is first revealed each Sunday on BBC Radio 1." In the 1990s, it was compiled by CIN, and I think for a couple of years, the chart was revealed on Radio 1 on Wednesday lunchtimes. Also, only the Top 40 is revealed first on Radio 1, not the entire top 200
  • Changed
    • Also, for info, page 8 of the 2005 edition of British Hit Singles states that the change from the chart being revealed on a Tuesday to it being revealed at Sunday teatime occurred in October 1987, so it doesn't affect this list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Before the advent of music downloads, the chart was based entirely on sales of physical singles from retail outlets." -- does this even apply to 1990s singles?
  • Changed
• "Unlike in the United States, airplay statistics are not used in compiling the official UK Singles Chart." -- Remove the ref to US; it distracts from the UK-ness of the subject, and why pick only the US as an example?
  • Changed
• There are 69 Redirects in this article; fix those that can be.. For those that can't/shouldn't (such as S Club 7/S Club), don't bother
  • All replaced
• Why is the appearance on "Perfect Day" not counted in the By Artist section?
  • My thinking was because none of the artists received label credit on the single, which was billed only as by "various artists". I've now added them in, which takes Bono into the table separate from the rest of U2 - does this look odd at all.....?
• Question to source reviewers: the Sunday Mirror is a tabloid - is this a Reliable source?
  • Replaced

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cheers for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• One nagging problem - can you create the redlinks? I mean, if they've had number-one hits they must be notable... Garden :  Chat  23:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Although it's not a requirement that a FL have no redlinsk whatsoever, I've created articles on the four redlinked songs. The one redlinked artist was due to a typo..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Ok, good enough for me now. I fixed the list so that there isn't as much wrapping, and it's a support from me now. Good job! Garden :  Chat  21:03, 27 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [12].

---

Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States)

I am listing this for FLC because I feel it meets the criteria. Peer reviewed. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Rapper Flo Rida's 2007-released single "Low" is the longest-running in 2008, staying at number one for 10 consecutive weeks, longer than any single had achieved in 2007 since R&B singer Beyoncé Knowles' single "Irreplaceable" charted for 10 straight weeks starting in late 2006. - is there a consensus whether the genres shouldn't be linked? In addition, the word which and a comma before it should be added before "charter for 10..." Also, how about replacing "staying" with remaining?

• No concensus but should only be linked if there is a reason. I don't see any which in this line. I prefer stay, checked in dictionary.com. Will not change it unless there is grammatical objection. --Efe (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Other artists who had singles in multiple chart run include Katy Perry's "I Kissed a Girl", which stayed at the top spot for seven straight weeks,[1] and T.I.'s "Whatever You Like", which topped the chart for seven non-consecutive weeks. - wouldn't it be multiple chart runs? or in a multiple chart run? Or is it correct as is?

• No idea but I did a copy edit. --Efe (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• In 2008, seven acts had gained first U.S. number-one single, namely Flo Rida, Leona Lewis, Lil Wayne, Coldplay, and Perry, all of whom as lead artist,[6][7][8][9][10] and Young Jeezy and Static Major as featured guest. 1)Wouldn't it be had gained first U.S. number-one singles? or adding the word a before "first U.S..."? 2)Shouldn't it be all of whom were lead artists? 3)The "and Young Jeezy and Static Major as featured guest" is out of place, it should be moved somewhere else or should be in a separate sentence.

• I think not because if the clause were to be removed, its a continuation of the sentence. Other comments have been addressed. --Efe (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• T.I. earned his first number-one single as lead artist with "Whatever You Like". - wouldn't it be as a lead artist?
• "Bleeding Love", which is nominated for Record of the Year at the 2009 Grammy Awards alongside "Viva la Vida",[16] emerged as 2008's top-selling single in both the United States and the United Kingdom. - comma before "alongside"

• I think its superfluous? --Efe (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• There should be an overall count of how many songs were ranked on the chart, which is included in all FLs.

• Sorry, I don't get your point. Could your clarify it, please? If you mean the chart ranks songs up to 100, the name Hot 100 itself is the answer. --Efe (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• He also had the most weeks on top with 13, combining his two singles "Whatever You Like" and "Live Your Life", which charted at number one for six non-consecutive weeks.[12][1] - in this sentence, the refs should be in order.--Truco 00:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Arranged. --Efe (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me}
  • To be consistent with other FLs, can you changed the article name to List of Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008 (United States). Please and thank you! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, thank you for the comment. This had to be a massive change. Lists included in List of number-one hits (United States) do not start with "list". Better consult with Wikipedia:WikiProject Record Charts. --Efe (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Eee...ahh...I'll contact them ASAP. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The first two sentences are a bit choppy. See List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 1996, 1997 and 1998 for a better construction at the beginning.

• I think its enough to give readers a background of what the chart is all about. --Efe (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say add more, I said reword. Actually, I see what was bothering me, it was "The data are". I don't know if this a regional variation, but I am used to "The data is". Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Uhm. That's not what bothered you prior to my comments. Originally, that was "The data is". I changed it to are. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Hot 100 number-one hits of 2003 (United States)/archive1. --Efe (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification, I fixed that on the offending Latin chart FLs. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In 2008, there were 14 singles that topped the chart, in 52 issue dates." The comma is not needed.

• Which comma? --Efe (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Second one. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I made a minor change based on the above's PR. "In 2008, there were 14 singles that topped the chart, in 52 issues of the magazine." --Efe (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Still bothers me, but I won't pursue. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Rapper Flo Rida's 2007-released single "Low" is the longest-running in 2008, staying at number one for 10 consecutive weeks, longer"-->Rapper Flo Rida's single "Low" (2007) is the longest-running in 2008; it stayed at number one for 10 consecutive weeks, longer Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Using parenthesis is sloppy, IMO. --Efe (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• So is "2007-released"; I was trying to suggest something that conveys the meaning with less words. Maybe "Rapper Flo Rida's single "Low", which was released in 2007,..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed 2007-released. I see little significance. Changed to "Rapper Flo Rida's "Low" is the longest-running single in 2008". --Efe (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "R&B singer Rihanna appeared in three number-one singles in 2008, while T.I. in two." "while"-->and.

• Fixed. --Efe (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "96-1" Can you be more clear? Maybe "noted for its record-breaking jump from 96 to 1 on the chart."

• Dash changed into word. --Efe (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "This is the first time Spears" Insert "that" after "time".

• I'm OK with it, unless there is a grammatical objection. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "rock era" Define the "rock era" for those of us who less educated in music.

• Defining the word, IMO, is too much. I'll try to find a link to it, instead. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Link is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is, Billboard Hot 100 provides little or no info about this era. No idea where to link that word yet. Haven't scoured WP entirely. Anyway, I have added that the era began in 1955. --Efe (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "third-ever female British act to top"-->third female British act to have topped

• Changed as suggested. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" became the 1,000th number-one song of the rock era, of which counting began in 1955." What do you mean by "of which counting began in 1955"? Is that when the chart started?

• The era started. Maybe I have to replace a clearer word to counting? Any suggestion? --Efe (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Perry's "I Kissed a Girl" became the 1,000th number-one song of the rock era, which began in 1955."? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is "which began in 1955" sloppy or ungrammatical? --Efe (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think so. It is definitely not ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Although it occupied seven of summer's 13 weeks," Comparable numbers should be written out the same ("seven"-->7 or "13"-->thirteen). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• MOS, numbers 10 above should be written as figures, as far as I know. --Efe (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• MOS also says that comparable quantities should be written out the same way. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• But that's how others format numbers. FA precedent. --Efe (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• So then, we fix it on other FAs. Reviewers miss these things sometimes. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I went ahead and fixed this myself. WP:MOSNUM says that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Here, the comparable quantities were seven weeks and thirteen weeks. I figure it is a small enough issue that it doesn't really warrant discussion. Anyway, I support now. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 4 and 65 have different retrieval date formats from the rest; make them all consistent.

• Ref 65 have been fixed. For ref 4, I am using {{cite web}}, the rest {{cite news}}. I believe that's the reason why its inconsistent. --Efe (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I will fix that one manually. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• It can't be fixed unless we change {{cite web}}. --Efe (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, I fixed it. Ever since they unlinked the dates (thank goodness!), you can use whatever format you want. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't know how to fix it myself. --Efe (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 22, add format=PDF. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Added. --Efe (talk) 06:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment The name of this article seems odd to me. Why not just "Hot 100 number-one hits of 2008" (are there other Hot 100s?). Also, shouldn't Billboard be at the start of the title? indopug (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems this is a general comment. I suggest you post a comment here Indopug. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments The lead isn't written brilliantly, some of it is a real mouth full, so to speak.

• There are inconsistencies with the usage of United States/US.

• I am using United States as a noun and US as an adjective. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why is UK chart info relevant to this article?

• Which line? --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• You got it :D — R² 05:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is Grammy info relevant? They have nothing to do with sales (or so we are lead to believe), and they are technically an international award (or so we are lead to believe).

• Removed Grammy. I was carried out. Some FLs do include it. But as you have said, it has nothing to do with the chart performance. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Will add more if I see it. — R² 03:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments Realist. --Efe (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Did a bit of work on the lead. Very good. — R² 05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [13].

---

List of actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year

previous FLC (10:21, 31 July 2008)

Meh, thought about this after the last FLC and realized that it's not really trivial if the Academy is going out of their way to record an official list of occurrences of this stuff. If someone disagrees, that's for AfD and not for FLC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Concern

• Whilst I believe the list meets criteria 1–7, that last FLC was withdrawn due to a concern about the lists notability. You state that establishing notability is something for AfD, however as nothing has changed since the last FLC to establish the notability of the list. It needs to be determined if the list is indeed notable because that is part of WP:WIAFL – "meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia content". This includes WP:N, and if this needs an AfD that should be done before an FLC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, it's been specifically (and emphatically) declared in the past that featured review processes are not AfD. Take the article to AfD if there is a notability concern (and FYI, the application of NOTE to lists is up in the air. 99% of lists on real world content are kept unless they fail some other policy in any case). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 11:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I never said that featured review processes were AfD. I said that if notablilty was questionable that an AfD should take place before an FLC. For now I'll wait to see what other reviewers think about this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me lax, but I consider an article notable when its topic is covered by multiple third-party reliable sources, as our policies say. This article meets that criteria; therefore, it can and should exist and this FLC should go on. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree anything "covered by multiple third-party reliable sources" is notable. However the only sources that cover the topic—"nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year"—are effectively self-published by Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. WP:RS notes that "if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so". I am of no doubt that actors nominated for Academy Awards is a notable subject, however I question if the notablility of being "nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year" has been established in any independent reliable sources. I only brought this up as Crzycheetah brought it up at the previous FLC, and he/she not is currently active. If no-one else has a problem with this, I will not oppose on it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For all practical purposes, 99% of lists that cover real-world content are kept in practically all circumstances at AfD unless they fail say WP:NOT#INFO (hopelessly artificial grouping, too broad of a grouping, excessive data, etc.), WP:NOT#DIRECTORY (phone numbers, streets, etc.), or similar. NOTE is rarely applied in practice to lists in this case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the actual list, it is very good. The only comment there I have is should "none have two Academy" -> none have won? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The sole rule in regards to"-->The sole rule with regard to

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "This rule was introduced in 1944" Comma after this phrase.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "As of 2008, eleven actors and actresses" Numbers over nine should be written numerically.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• This image caption is a bit ambiguous: "Al Pacino received an Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in Scent of a Woman and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Glengarry Glen Ross at the 65th Academy Awards." Try: "At the 65th Academy Awards, Al Pacino received an Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in Scent of a Woman and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Glengarry Glen Ross.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Content looks good and I can't fault it on any of the criteria. Seems fairly solid. PC78 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) This rule was introduced in 1944, when Barry Fitzgerald received a Best Actor nomination and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance in Going My Way. - the when should be "after" Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC) The lead should state who was the first person and most recent to receive two AA in the same year.--TRUCO 20:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 22:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per criterion 3 the list needs to either be defined in name and scope to limit it just to actors nominated for more than one acting award or it needs to be expanded to include actors who have been nominated in non-acting categories, such as Warren Beatty (nominated for Best Actor and Best Director for Reds and technically also for Best Picture as the producer) and Kevin Costner (nominated in all the same categories for Dances with Wolves, winner for Director and Picture). Otto4711 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Added a note to the lead. The official Academy list is just for Academy Awards in acting categories. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:13, 29 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [14].

---

List of Vampire Knight episodes

Another episode list. Co-nom with Collectonian. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Yuki Cross' earliest memories are being attacked by a vampire, and saved by the pureblood vampire Kaname Kuran." Time-lapse issue: Are these events simultaneous or does one happen after the other?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Yuki attempts to stop them, and they only retreat after Zero arrives and threatens them with his anti-vampire gun, Bloody Rose. " "only" should be as late in the sentence as possible: "only retreat"-->retreat only.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, Zero ponders shooting himself with his anti-vampire gun, and he is stopped by Yuki."

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Yuki goes to Zero, and he explains a previous incident he had with a Level E" "explains"-->describes. One cannot "have" an incident.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Yuki convinces Yagari to leave, and he tells Zero that Shizuka Hio is still alive. "

• Yagari is the one that's telling this to Zero. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Zero awakens and greets Shizuka's servant, realizing he is Ichiru. " Add "that" after "realizing".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "who claims he "-->who claims that he

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Shizuka goes to Kaname's room, and he pierces her heart with his hand."

• Isn't the "he" necessary to indicate the change in subject (as Kaname is doing the heart-piercing)? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Probably. In these anime articles, I don't understand what is going on half the time! :/ Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "However, she was in love with a human that turned into a vampire" "that"-->who. Comma after "vampire".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Ichiru leaves with Shizuka's body and when he meets Zero, relates the hatred he feels for him." Missing subject pronoun before "relates".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "and later confides her guilt concerning Zero's pain to Kaname." "concerning"-->about.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Yuki claims she will not speak to him"-->Yuki claims that she will not speak to him

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "He kisses her as thanks"-->He kisses her in gratitude

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "He lies down beside her, and asks her"

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Kaname claims he would never do anything of the sort to her. " What wouldn't he do?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "a scene Hanabusa witnesses."-->a scene witnessed by Hanabusa. or a scene that Hanabusa witnesses.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Yuki claims she could never hate him"-->Yuki claims that she could never hate him

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Ichiru reveals that he was injured attempting"-->Ichiru reveals that he was injured from (during?) attempting

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "however, Ichijo kills him."-->Ichijo kills him instead.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "ultimately will kill Yuki"-->will ultimately kill Yuki

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile Senri and Rima are looking for Takuma. " Comma after "Meanwhile".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The first DVD compilation for the second season episodes is schedule for January 28, 2009." Wrong tense of "schedule".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Dabomb got all my prose comments, but the only thing is that the article should be update because (at the time of this review) its is the 28th of January, the day the DVD is to be released, so did they release or what. An update is needed.TRUCO 20:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 22:48, 29 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [15].

---

United States congressional delegations from Indiana

I have added a lead, section leads, links, and references to this list, and I hope that it can become featured. All 50 states have tables like this but this is the first to be expanded. I would like to note that, after receiving comments on the Peer Review, this list does not go in-depth enough to include information such as partial terms and reasons; this list is too long and that info goes on the subarticle List of United States Senators from Indiana. I will address all concerns. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I never thought of these ever getting to featured quality (I made most of them, then regrettably abandoned them some years ago), but you've done a great job with this. A few comments:
  1. Some of these lists have gone to having a separate table for each apportionment; i.e. "19xx-19xx: 4 seats" "19xx-19xx: 5 seats", etc, which eliminates the huge table and gives a little more context; it also has the benefit of not having congressmen constantly shifting seats in a growing or shrinking state. Has that been considered for this one? I'm not sure if I'm wanting it, per se, but I'd like to mention it. It does have its merits, but having the huge table has its merits as well.
  2. The governor lists have gone from having the whole cell colored to just a tiny cell; however, for a large list like these, I can definitely see why it's better to have the whole cell. Cuts down on clutter, and allows for a very quick visual aid of which party was in control at which time.
  3. The delegate table sticks out. These are still members of the House of Representatives, and served for specific congresses; it should use the same format as the congressman table.
  4. I almost want to say "There's room here for a notes, i.e. people who died in office, resignations, etc.", but the article is not about the people, it's about the delegations. (Which does bring me back to point 1, which could make it easier to figure out who is in what delegation) A properly done list of representatives could fill that hole.
• So in the end I guess I have no real complaints, just a few process questions. Except for the delegate table. That needs fixing. --Golbez (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, Golbez! For 1, I have seen that type as on other lists as well, and I agree with what you said, though I didn't consider it because it's a lot more work, and I think that with an intro to reapportionment one table with blank columns is enough. I will work on a delegate table, though that creates more vertical length. I would like to create a list of representatives at some point, but with 313 of them I'm a bit apprehensive. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 01:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A list would best be done by district, I think; that way it becomes very easy to indicate which ones were moved during reapportionment. --Golbez (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but that's a later story. I converted the territorial delegate list into a table like the others, though I can't get the table syntax to work right. Can you get it to show that Parke and Thomas each served for half of the 10th Congress? Reywas92^Talk 01:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, tables don't want to display complex rowspans like this. I don't know of any way to really get past it. :( --Golbez (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And I mean by that, in the list of reps, do it by district; i.e. "here is a chart of people who served in district 1", etc. It's better than an alphabetical list, IMO. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the charts and the pictures are way too big especially the map of the Indiana districts next to the lead. It would look nicer if the pictures and even the charts were smaller. It is too big.    World   ^tcs 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On a second look, the charts are fine, but I still think the pictures are way too big. Also, is the key supposed to have its own section and be located at the bottom of the page?    World   ^tcs 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is standard not to force a certain size of images. They should be the default size of 250px (I think) or whatever is set in your preferences. The tables list all members from Indiana; they should not be too big. Yes, I believe the key normally has its own section at the bottom, where it is not distracting. To Golbez, now I see what you mean, though there's always sortable lists that can combine everyone! Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sortable lists would make it difficult to show who was shifted between congresses; and if people want a purely alphabetical list, that's what categories are for. But this is an entirely other topic. :) --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• It makes more sense to have the key above the table.
• "Each state elects two Senators statewide to serve for six years, and Indiana elects them to Classes I and III." This sentence doesn't do a good job of explaining the class system.
• "Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, and Indiana currently elects nine Representatives, one from each of its congressional districts." Split this sentence up. What does the term length has little to do with Indiana's current number of representatives?
• "A total of 342 people have represented Indiana in Congress, 17 of which in both houses, with an average term of seven years" "A total of" is redundant. Reword "17 of which in both houses", that is awkward and doesn't make much sense.
• "Of the 44 men"-->Of the forty-four men (comparative quantities should be written out the same)
• "Indiana has nine congressional disricts, the number of which a state has is reapportioned based on the state's population, determined every ten years by a census."-->Indiana has nine congressional disricts—this number is reapportioned based on the state's population, determined every ten years by a census.
• "This gives Indiana the fourteenth-largest delegation, though from 1853 to 1873 the state had the fifth-largest." "though"-->although.
• "313 people have represented Indiana in the House" Don't start sentences with numbers. I understand that it would be awkward to write out the entire number, you may need to rewrite the sentence.
• "Indiana's current House delegation incudes" Typo. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Two more dabs need fixing. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • On that, however, Progressive_Party_(United_States) is not an actual link on the page. It is from the transcluded legend template. That link should be left ambiguous. Fix the other one. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Reywas92^Talk 17:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All Done, though I think the key is a little distracting at the top. Thanks for your comments! Reywas92^Talk 01:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that John H. Baker links to a disambiguation page. There does not seem to be an article, so you may need to unlink, redlink or write a stub article for him. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was John Harris Baker, which is hidden in the dab. Reywas92^Talk 02:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better, I support for featured status. I see nothing else in need of improvemnet. Great Work!    World   ^tcs 18:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yah, 1 thing I forgot to mention. Most articles (I think 99%) of articles have a bolded word or phrase showing the articles main idea within the intro. Is this required for lists?    World   ^tcs 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. It would be akin to starting an article on Mexico with "This is an article about Mexico." --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have moved away from that boring verbatim repetition of the title. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about just bolding the title, lists have different guidelines from articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 08:17, 31 January 2009 [16].

---

List of Governors of Bombay

I am nominating this List because I think this List satisfies FL criteria. Thanks, Kensplanet^T_C 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list. Most of my concerns have been addressed in the PR. "India consisted of regions referred to as British India that were directly administered by the British, and other regions, the Princely States, that were ruled by Indian rulers" should be rephrased/clarified. Reywas92^Talk 03:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure, it's confusing. I think it's very clear. Can you suggest anything.

Largely resolved issues. Will re-review later this week. Abecedare (talk)

Comment This article has been on my watchlist and I have seen Kensplanet put a tremondous amount of work in improving it steadily over the past few weeks. A few comments/suggestions: Lead: They also served ... by the crown: I think, this content is applicable only for 1858-1947 and may be better placed in that section. Also clarify what is the Council and what two members of the Indian Civil Service for 12 years standing means. Please check Crown Governors section now. Everyting has been clarified. I got some data on council [17] received possession of the islands in 1661 as the dowry: Was this the whole dowry or part of the dowry ? Check source. It was part of the dowry ([18]) and subsequent expansions into the city: Into ? Completely rewritten Subsequently the territory kept on expanding: Subsequently is redundant; kept on colloquial (use continued) Completely rewritten became the Bombay Presidency, which included four commissionerships with 26 districts. When did it become Bombay Presidency and at what point did it include our commissionerships with 26 districts ? Completely rewritten In 1782, William Hornby ... completed in 1784.: I think this sentence is not needed, at least in the lead, since the project is significant in the history of Bombay but does not affect the governorships per se. → Removed Hornby Vellard Project. It was added based on a PR suggestion. But since we speak only of Bombay Presidency and not Bombay City, the project is not significant enough to appear. After India's independence ... After the state ...: Rephrase to avoid repetition. Rephrased the British Crown took formal possession : Possession or repossession ? Reposession Royal governors: the Portuguese governor: Was this a governor of Bombay ? If so, he and his predecessors should be in the list. → For this List, the term Bombay is very confusing. Bombay can mean 3 things here. You can also check File:Sevenislandsofbombay.png → Isle of Bombay: A small island named Bombay → Bombay City: This includes the Seven islands of Bombay alongwith the Isle of Bombay → Bombay Presidency: Much larger than Bombay City → Yes, there was a Portuguese Governor for Bombay. But he was the Governor of only Bombaim (Portuguese name for Bombay). Bombaim meant only the Isle of Bombay and not Bombay City with its seven islands. You can check [19] (not reliable but works). That way we had many Governors related to the city. For example, Malik-us-Sharq was the Governor Mahim, a village in Bombay when Bombay was under the Gujarat Sultanate. There may be many many more. It's better we do not include Governors of villages and islands of Bombay in this list. and on the ground of some alleged irregularity in the form of the letters or patent, he refused to give up even Bombay. Simplify and maintain active voice. alledging irregularities in the forms or patents, he refused ... Simplified and maintained Active Voice. Viceroy: Can this be wikilinked to some article/list of Portuguese viceroys of India ? → Yes, linked to List of colonial heads of Portuguese India The Portuguese Viceroy declined ... in October 1664. Break into two sentences ? Broke into two Terms column in tables: usually terms denotes the number of terms of office rather than number of years. Why not simply use "Years in office" ? Done Company Governors The island was: The islands were ? → Done For the next nineteen years (1668–687), except for occasional visits, and during three years (1672–1675) of Governor Aungier's rule, the Governors of Bombay spent almost the whole of their time in Surat, of which factory they were Presidents: Several issues: Simplify qualifiers. Surat was a factory ? of which factory they were, is awkward construction. Why were 1672-75 an exception; was Bombay the HQ during that time ? Essentially rephrase and clarify (I know this is an exact quote from [20], but we can do better :) ) Modified sentence During 1668–87, the Governors of Bombay, who were also Presidents of Surat Council, spent most of their time in Surat. - Do you have anything better than this? In 1687, the Company shifted: Start new para. → Done from Surat to Bombay, which had become the administrative centre of all the west coast settlements. Had become or became ? My reading of the references is that the transfer of the Company HQ is the cause of Bombay becoming the administrative centre. Corrected. If you check the citation [21], it clearly says that Governor John Child attempted to withdraw the HQ from Surat to Bombay, because Bombay had become the administrative centre of all west coast settlements. It doesn't say the HQ was moved then. So, this was the reason for the future shift of holdings of the Company from Surat to Bombay. The Bombay Presidency article says (perhaps from EB 1911) that "In 1687 Bombay was placed at the head of all the Company's possessions in India; but in 1753 the government of Bombay became subordinate to that of Calcutta." It verifiable this is certainly worth mentioning here. Mentioned. It can be verified. [22] Can we find out the start date of John Wyborne's term ? I tried a lot but I can't. There are a few Governors whose exact date cannot be found easily. Thanks for the effort. This is a minor issue and I didn't mean to impose on your time searching for this! Crown Governors Bombay reverted to the British crown : possession of Bombay Presidency reverted ? crown or Crown ? Done Following the Indian Rebellion of 1857 ... Bombay reverted to the British crown. India was thereafter directly ruled by the Crown: Clarify timeline. British Raj started in 1858, while Bombay continued to have a Company Governor till 1862. On 2 August 1858, the British Parliament began abolition of the Company and asserted full, direct Crown authority over India. The execution was slow. The Company for purposes of liquidation maintained its formal existence until 1874 - The only reason is liquidation of assets. For Bombay, it may be till 1862. For other territories of India, some other date. There seems to be a 1 year gap between the terms of Michael Knatchbull and Lawrence Lumley. Check. As per [23], there is a 1 year gap I think the source is incorrect. See note below. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Post independence Before independence: Vague. Clarify during what period exactly. If I am reading the description correctly, Sind separated in 1936, which would leave the Presidency with 3 commissionerships at the time of Indian Independence. I have added During the early 20th century. Will it work? Let me think about this. Will edit the paragraph myself if I can think of something better after consulting the references. Abecedare (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC) I have simplified it. I made it 1906. That was the year, when Khandesh was patitioned and East Khandesh and West Khandesh were formed. the northern province Gujarat: Use the northern province of Gujarat, or the northern Province, Gujarat,. Done four commissionerships included: included implies that you are giving a partial listing. Use were instead. Done the northwestern province Sind after 1843 (separated from Bombay Presidency in 1936). use a separate sentence to clarify the comings and goings of Sind. Mentioned it as a seperate sentence. The 26 districts were: I count only 24 districts in the list! → I have added the Bombay Island. As per Imperial Gazetteer of India, even Bombay Island was treated as a seperate province. For 24, you may have considered Khandesh as a single entity. The 26 districts include East Khandesh and West Khandesh. After India's independence in 1947: Next para. → Done The territory: What territory (since previous sentence refers to both Bombay Presidency and Sind) ? Use The Indian territory, or better still The territory retained by India. → Mentioned it as The territory retained by India like Kolhapur (Deccan) and Baroda, Dang (Gujarat) : misplaced and ? → Removed which included princely states like Kolhapur (Deccan) and Baroda, Dang (Gujarat) which were : Too many which'es spoil the prose :) Break up into two sentences. → Splitted In the 1957 elections, when the State of Bombay was being re-organised along linguistic lines into the states of Maharashtra and Gujarat, there was a demand from the Congress that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state. The sentence suggests that the state of Bombay was being reorganized in the 1957 elections, which is not true. The Congress' suggestion also preceded the elections. (See [24]). Rephrase for clarity. Done. Please have a glance at this In the 1955 Lok Sabha discussions, there was a demand from the Congress that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state. In 1956, the States Reorganisation Committee recommended a bi-lingual state for Maharashtra-Gujarat with Bombay as its capital. In the 1957 elections, the Samyukta Maharashtra movement opposed this, and insisted that Bombay be declared the capital of Maharashtra State of Bombay = Bombay State. Avoid unnecessary variation of names and wikilinking both → Done The actual Maharashtra-Gujurat split is mentioned only passingly when discussing the proposed (but rejected) autonomous status of Bombay. I think the emphasis should be reversed. Added a lot of details about partiton. Please check it now. In 1960 the designation of the Governor of Bombay changed into Governor of Maharashtra. Is this true or did the position simply become defunct, being replaced by Governor of Maharashtra and Governor of Gujurat ? → This may be true as per [25].Anyway, I have modified it. We need to mention how Governor of Bombay was appointed post-independence and what his main functions were (compared with the CM), especially since these were vastly different from the executive functions of Crown Governors who preceded them. Very difficult to find the functions and how they were appointed. Do you have any Source for this? Need a footnote for Sri Prakasa in the table, noting that he served as Governor of Bombay only till 1 May 1960 (?) and was the Governor of Maharashtra thereafter. → Added a Note Citations and references What is the difference between references included in the Citation and in the Reference section ? Cunha is included in the Reference section but doesn't seem to be cited inline anywhere. After working for a lot of time on this, Citations and references has been fixed. General The article is pretty comprehensive and the above issues should be relatively easy to handle. However I think the article needs some greater discussion on the variation in extent of Bombay/Bombay Presidency at different points in time. The lead mentions this but is pretty vague (kept on expanding); there is some greater discussion at Post independence section, but it too doesn't nail down the time-line, and the pre-independence stuff would be better discussed in the corresponding section anyway. Bombay presidency (which seems to be based on EB 1911) and some of the sources you already cite should have useful information on this subject, which should be added. I have mentioned the details of territorial expansion. Please do have a glance. Let me know if any of my comment is incorrect or unclear. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Some additional comments: Even though google book says that The India List and India Office List was published in 1819, that is impossible, since the book contains information about Bombay Governors upto 1903 ! :) The correct year of publication is 1905 (see front cover). You are right. Some omissions and possible error in Crown Governors: We are missing the post-1903 acting governors (since Raj Bhavan (Maharashtra) source does not list them.). However Oxford Dictionary of National Biography does contain acting Governors along with their month and year of service. I have added all the missing Acting Governors from the Oxford DNB The wikipedia list says that John Ernest Buttery Hotson was an acting governor in 1931, which is right in the middle of Frederick Sykes term of office. What is the source for this, since neither of the above listed sources not the pretty well-developed wikipedia article on John Ernest Buttery Hotson include this claim ? The John Ernest Buttery Hotson article does include this claim. I found that John Ernest Buttery Hotson was the Member of the Executive Council of Bombay (1926-31). When Frederick Sykes had departed for a short period, Hotson took charge of the Post. There are several Good books in the article which source this claim. Even Time seems to support the claim. We have no other option but to beleive. You are right! The contemporary Time source is compelling evidence; sorry I missed the mention in the John Ernest Buttery Hotson article. The silver lining is that wikipedia will have a more comprehensive list of goversors than Raj Bhavan or ONB themselves! Abecedare (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC) The Raj Bhavan (Maharashtra) website says that Lord Brabourne's term ended on 18 December 1936. I think this is incorrect. See Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which says that he was a governor till (presumably, May) 1937 + several other sources ([26], [27]) that list his tenure as 1933-37. Fixed. Even Reliable Sources like Raj bhavan are sometimes inaccurate Abecedare (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

• Comment Please fix the dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Part One:

• "Till 1996" Too informal, use "Until".
• "The date of foundation of the city"-->The date of city's founding
• "It was located in"
• "being bordered"-->it was bordered
• Why have you linked to Bombay when you already linked to Mumbai at the top?
• "now Pakistani"-->now-Pakistani
• "The area of Bombay state increased, after several erstwhile princely states who " "who"-->that.
• "The marriage treaty of Charles II of England and Catherine of Braganza concluded on 8 May 1661" Add that before "concluded".
• "under British rule–the territory was part of Catherine's dowry" wrong dash, use an em dash.
• "In 1753, Bombay was made subordinate to that of Calcutta." What do you mean by "that of"?
• "the British by the Treaty of Salbai signed on 17 May 1782. "-->the British by the Treaty of Salbai, which was signed on 17 May 1782. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed all your comments. Some minor prose issues, like the ones you just mentioned, may crop up since the contents of the article has been developed recently during the FLC. I'll try to fix everything soon. Kensplanet^T_C 15:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Between 1803 and 1827, the framework of the Presidency took shape." "took shape"-->formed.
• "The Gujarat districts of Ahmadabad, Bharuch and Kaira" Wouldn't it be "The Gujarati districts..."?
• "Between 1818 and 1858, certain princely states lke Mandvi in Surat, and Satara were lapsed to the Presidency." Typo, and comma is not necessary.
• "the title continued for many years to be borne by the second member of the Executive Council of the Governor."
• "Aden separated from Bombay Presidency in 1932[19] while Sind separated in 1936." "while"-->and.
• "In 1906, Bombay Presidency had four commissionerships and 26 districts with Bombay City as its capital." Comparable quantities should be written the same; i.e. four commissionerships and twenty-six districts or 4 commissionerships and 26 districts.
• "After India's independence in 1947, Bombay Presidency became part of India while Sind province became part of Pakistan."-->After India's gained independence in 1947, Bombay Presidency became part of India, and Sind province became part of Pakistan.
• "It included princely states like"-->It included princely states such as...
• "the Kannada speaking districts"-->the Kannada-speaking districts
• "In the 1955 Lok Sabha discussions, there was a demand from the Congress that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state."-->In the 1955 Lok Sabha discussions, Congress demanded that the city be constituted as an autonomous city-state. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Publications should be in italics (ref 54, Time).
• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as CUP Archive (Cambridge University Press?) Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with all comments related to Prose. I'll check the Images. Kensplanet^T_C 07:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image issues need to be checked and resolved. For example, File:SirEvanNepean.JPG is missing an author. Contact User:Awadewit. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• • All Image issues have been resolved. Kensplanet^T_C 14:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review As requested by Dabomb87, I did an image review. The following images are problematic:
  • File:British dominion of India(1783).jpg, File:India 1804 map.jpg, File:Bombay Presidency (1832).jpg, File:Mountstuart-Elphinstone.jpg, File:Bombay, Berar, Aden (1893).jpg, File:Maj Gen Frederick Sykes.jpg In order to be hosted on Commons, an image has to be in the public domain in its source country AND in the United States because our servers are located in Florida. The images' description pages do not give any indication whatsoever about their copyright status in the US. Unless a tag is added explaining why the images are in the public domain in the US, they may not be used in the article.

• I have tagged the 4 maps File:British dominion of India(1783).jpg, File:India 1804 map.jpg, File:Bombay Presidency (1832).jpg, File:Bombay, Berar, Aden (1893).jpg with {{PD-1923}} since they all were published before 1923 (see publication details included in image descriptions). Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Pict0016WilliamMedows.jpg The link given is dead. The painter's name is not indicated. It is currently not possible to verify whether the work was indeed made "before 1841" as the description page claims.
    • What is alive today will be dead tomorrow. There's no gurantee that all URL's will work tomorrow. Does that mean we go on deleting all PD Images obtained on the Net
      • I didn't say that. I am just saying that there is nothing whatsoever on the image's description page that proves the claim that it was indeed made "before 1841". Information on Wikipedia should be verifiable, including that provided for images. BomBom (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • File:SirEvanNepean.JPG, File:2ndEarlOfClare.jpeg Nothing on the websites indicates that these are contemporary portraits as the images' description pages claim. Unless the date of creation and/or the painter's death date are given, PD-Art may not be used.
  • File:SirRobertGrant.jpg The web link is dead. There is absolutely no way whatsoever to check whether the image was indeed created "before 1900" as is claimed.
  • File:Major-General Sir George Arthur.jpg The image is not available on the Archives of Ontario website. I tried looking for it using the reference code given on the image's description page, but couldn't find it.
  • File:Baron Lamington.jpg Anonymous works are in the public domain in the US only if created before 1888, which is not the case of this image. Since the photograph was taken in 1897, it is mathematically possible for the author to have been still alive in 1940, rendering the PD-old tag inappropriate. Information about the image's publication history is needed in order to determine its copyright status in the US.
  • File:Sir Leslie Wilson.jpg The link provided refers to a totally different photograph. The information on the description page is thus inaccurate.

All the other images used are OK. BomBom (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All Images removed. There is no way I can make dead URL's alive and prove it for you. So better not to have it. Kensplanet^T_C 07:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support this excellent article for promotion to FL ! I just finished re-reviewing it, and while I had a few quibbles about the previous version (see collapsed comments above), I was greatly impressed by the new version's organization, content, references and (as far as I could tell) adherence to MOS. To take an example, the lead may look a bit long at first glance (4 paras instead of the "recommended" 3), but it is clearly organized to outline (1) the relevant history, geography, and importance of Bombay city; (2) the history and geographical extent(s) of Bombay Presidency; (3) role of the Governor; and (4) landmark Governors and the demise of the office. Similarly, the lead-in paragraphs of each section provide good context for the reader to understand the role/position of the Governor (in relation with both their subjects as well as the Viceroy/EIC etc) and the extent/condition of the region they ruled, during each period. And of course, the "list" of Governors itself is the single best such compilation of the data - among all online and offline resources (believe me; I've checked and the list corrects some errors made by the Government of Maharashtra itself!). In short, kudos to User:Kensplanet and I hope to see this list on the Featured List soon. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 19:20, 27 January 2009 [28].

---

List of World Series of Poker Main Event champions

On behalf of the Poker Wikiproject I present to you my first attempt at a FL. It is a complete list of the WSOP Main Event Champions. I've done everything that I can see to make it an FL based upon what I see from other lists. I am looking for ideas and ways to improve this if it isn't up to standards, but I believe it is. ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Oppose Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Prose is way too short for this kind of material. I suggest you make the prose at least 1500 characters (this will also allow you to nominate this article for T:TDYK).

• I haven't read it yet, but in general three paragraphs is plenty for a list (it's not an article, after all). Giggy (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an experienced user with featured lists, I'm sure 1000 characters is way below the minimum of my standards. This is also the WSOP, and all paragraphs can be expanded. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 03:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• As a more experienced user with less featured list activity (for it is tough to have more - well done) I think we should examine each case on each individual merits rather than having a hard and fast rule. That said I know nothing about the subject. If you have ideas as to how the paragraphs can be expanded I'm sure Balloonman would love to hear them! Giggy (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an experienced featured list reviewer, I think that that the lead is a perfect overview of the subject, it just needs to summarize the list more—see my comments below. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the lead is a perfect overview" No, no, no, no, no, I just really can't take 1000 characters in a featured list prose. I never supported something less than 10 sentences. Add more of an overview for the WSOP, and that will be fine. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 05:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Expanded significantly.

• Nicknames are not referenced. I suggest you remove that column.

done I didn't remove them, but I added references. Nicknames in Poker are fairly important. For example, nobody knows Sailor Roberts as Brian Roberts, or Amarillo Slim as Thomas Preston, or Puggy Pearson as Walter Pearson. Similarly, Texas Dolly, the Poker Brat, Jesus, Fossilman, the Prince of Poker are almost synonymous with the player. IMO omitting their nicknames would be negligent in a list of this nature.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• WSOP logo is non-free used.

done Removed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I guarantee you that most of the images have false licenses. I suggest you do an image review.

done See note below.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reference column needs to be center aligned (use align=center. examples are in more than half of the FLs edit pages).

done

• Column headings can be shortened. (ie. Total bracelets --> Bracelets; Tournament Entrants --> Entrants; Tournament Prize (US$) --> Prize (US$)) For the examples I can show you, you can explain it briefly in the key.

done

• On the Tournament Prize (US$) column, put a "$" before all of the numbers. Also with Lifetime Winnings.

done

More to come... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 07:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SRE, I'll work on these over the weekend. Please post your other comments as well and I'll see if I can address them.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I get really pissed when people call me SRE. Call me SREKAL, Annoyomous, or my full username and that's it. :D -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 07:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies... no offense intended.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded many of the images on commons and I assure you they are not false licenses, many of the images are from lasvegasvegas.com, if you read the bottom of the page it reads "All material © LasVegasVegas.com under the creative commons license unless materials are under existing copyright and said materials are the property of of their respective copyright holders. LasVegasVegas.com expressly disclaims any warranty relating to any content of any pages or any links provided on these pages. Please read our terms and conditions and privacy policy for more information on this site." and this is the link of their terms [29] which states that This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. The site permits the images from their photographer known as flipchip who allows his images from the site to be licences this way, please read what he has said about it here and here which reads "Thanks for all the positive comments over the years, that's what keeps me coming back. As always, photos on LasVegasVegas.com are covered under a Creative Commons Licensing Agreement requiring only a credit tag line if you use them. I'm a firm believer in paying it forward." I had one administrator on Commons misunderstand the license, and had to take it to have the matter re-reviewed at Commons:Undeletion requests to have the mistake corrected. I've worked hours on end finding freeuse images, most of the time finding nothing at all, there are still five Main Event World Champions that have no images even though they can be found easily on the internet but without freeuse licenses, which is why they are not there. Other images came from Flickr and were searched for using the filters:

1. Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content
2. Find content to use commercially
3. Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon

Such as this image of Jerry Yang [30] Other older images uploaded by User:CryptoDerk who recieved permission so that the images have a GFDL license as seen in this note: "This image is part of the University of Nevada at Las Vegas Special Collections on the World Series of Poker. Permission was given by David Schwartz, coordinator of the Gaming Studies Research Center, to use any materials from this site in accordance with the GFDL."▪◦▪≡SiREX≡^Talk 10:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Note I asked Giggy, who is a 'crat on commons to check out the images, and he says that everything appears kosher.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• More Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24_[c]

• "It took 11 years before the event drew 52 participants in 1982." On the list, it has 104.

comment 104 is correct, the ESPN article that talked about the growth, was in error.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• What cites the column "Entrants"?

Added a link to the WSOP cite for various tournaments. Each event can be found there, I'd rather not have to link each and every single event to a specific page we are on the verge of link excess---especially if I have to have multiple links for each item on the table.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The last two sentences on the first paragraph needs refs.

Added a link to the Harrah's reference, but won't add one for the fact that amateurs and professionals can play if they ante the buy-in. This is basic knowledge of the WSOP and everybody who knows about the WSOP know that this distinguishes the WSOP from other world championship events---in other words, this is so common of knowledge, that it doesn't warrant a source.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The last two sentences on the second paragraph needs refs.

Removed the last sentence about how over half the events are Hold'em, while it is obvious that is the case by looking at the events, I don't think I can find a source that says that. As for the other sentence about counting victories prior to 1976 as bracelets, this is basic knowledge. I mean if you look at the bio for Johnny Moss that is linked in the article, it will show that Johnny Moss has 9 bracelets. 5 of his 9 titles were earned prior to 1976, or before the first bracelet was issued. Calling them bracelets is basic knowledge, asking for a reference to this fact is like asking for a reference that water is compromised of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Johnny Chan's second victory in 1988 was featured on the 1998 film Rounders." ref?

Done added ref.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Phil Hellmuth holds multiple WSOP records, including those for most bracelets (11), WSOP cashes (68) and most WSOP final tables (41)." What does this got to do with the article?

Done Added note that he was the 1989 champion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The current bracelet winner, Peter Eastgate, is the youngest person to win the Main Event."
  • The current... --> The most recent....

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Could tell how old was he when he won the tournament.

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you have to denote players who are dead?

Why is this a bad thing?—Chris! _ct 21:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, people often wonder if these players are still alive or dead as many of them are truly legends/poker hall of famers.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I didn't say it was a bad thing. It's just that the column wasn't related to the article, and I was wondering. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Many poker players have nicknames; sometimes they are better known by their nickname than their real name." sounds like original research.

Removed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The number of entrants in the Main Event has increased significantly over the years." no need.

Removed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that the list is correct as of (date).

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Annette Obrestad note should be noted on her name, not her nickname.

Done moved---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Make the columns on World Series of Poker Europe Main Event the same as the World Series of Poker Main Event table.

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article isn't wikilinked on the Major poker tournaments navbox.

Response Nor should it be, it is not an article on the tournaments, those are already linked, this is a list of winners.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• No categories? Impossible.

Done added---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 07:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Also, check your talk page for something shiny... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support looks good —Chris! _ct 03:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Chrishomingtang

OpposeComments

• Well, I am pretty much satisfied with the list. But there is one more thing left before I can support. I think the lead should mention that the WSOP is purchased by Harrah's and now held at Rio Casino.—Chris! _ct 23:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

---

• How is thehendonmob.com a reliable source?

done Changed all links to PokerPages.com, which actually has a lot more information, but I don't think the coverage is quite as good.

• Some refs are missing info (eg. publisher and access date) and not format correctly.

done I think I got them all. It was mostly a problem with formatting. Accessed rather than accessdate, Title instead of title. If I missed any let me know.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 09:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Almost every items in Notes section have no citation

done References added.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the nickname column

done See comment above, removing column would not be appropriate here, but added references.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prose is too short. Consider adding info about who is the first winner, winners with multiple championships or the most recent winner.

Done Expanded significantly---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Further review

• The "Winnings" and "Prize" columns do not sort correctly

HELP any idea of what I am doing wrong?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done figured it out.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Terms used in the list should be consistent
  • N/A or n/a

Done08:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• • main event or Main Event

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• • WSOP Bracelet or WSOP bracelet

NOTE I did a search on bracelet, and the only time I found it capitalized was in a title of an article and the table header.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Add an emdash to blank cells in the nickname column—Chris! _ct 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done from what I can see—Chris! _ct 18:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now it's done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed comments related to FLC formatting

P.S. No graphics allowed in FLCs. Remove this message when done please and thank you. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by no graphics?---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards replaced it with the alternate ones. Next time, use {{done-t}} or no graphics at all. This is because graphics will slow down loading time. REMOVE NOW. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 09:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I replaced {{done-t}} with "done"'s, becuase we also have to consider template limits. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For the civil comment, I don't think it was rude in any way to be honest, I just made it bold to make it more clearer. Sorry if you guys have intended it in a wrong way. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 08:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. You should add a caption to the lead image. Eklipse (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done I had done it before, but the formatting didn't take.

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The lead needs inline citations.

Donecitations added.

• "Even if the victory occurred before 1976, WSOP championships are now counted as "bracelets"."-->Even WSOP victories that occured before 1976 are now counted as "bracelets".
  • Done Reworded a bit differently, let me know what you think. Giggy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• "with the victor receiving a multi-million dollar prize." This kind of sentence construction (noun + -ing) is awkward and ungrammatical. I suggest making it a separate sentence.
  • Done Giggy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• I echo the comments above about exapanding the lead more. Generally, the lead of a Featured List should provide two main features: an overview of the subject (which you did) and a summary of the list. The summary should include things like how many unique winners there were, who was the first, who was the most recent, who has won the most times, who has earned the most winnings, who won the most bracelets, things like that.

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 07:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:ACCESS, the color coding for electees to the Poker Hall of Fame needs an accompanying symbol, such as * or †. See List of Washington Wizards head coaches for an example.
  • Done using a *. Balloonman is welcome to change this if he wants to. Giggy (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Is there a reason that the suits are not provided for the 1971 and 1972 winners?

yes in 71 there was no hand, in 72 the exact cards were not recorded.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The World Series of Poker Europe (WSOPE) is the first expansion effort of World Series of Poker-branded poker tournaments outside of the United States"
  • Done Giggy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• "outside of Las Vegas."
  • Done Giggy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• "This made her the youngest person ever to win a WSOP bracelet"-->This made her the youngest person to have won a WSOP bracelet
  • DoneReworded a bit differently, let me know what you think. Giggy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Jamie Gold (2006) is number one on that list. Joe Hachem(2005) is number 3" Make the numbering consistent (number one and number three, or number 1 and number 3). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done Giggy (talk) 05:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Could you add an inline citation to this paragraph: "The series culminates with the $10,000 no-limit hold'em "Main Event", which since 2004 has attracted entrants numbering in the thousands. The victor receives a multi-million dollar prize. The winner of World Series of Poker Main Event is considered to be the World Champion of Poker."
  • Done I almost gave up on this, I could find a lot where it called the winner world champion, but nothing that said they were world champion because they won the title... the two are often synonymous. But after looking at about 20 pages, I found one where it explicitly stated that winning the event means winning the title.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved sourcing issues

Sources

• Newspapers' or magazines' titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}, use the work field for the title of the publication, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes it.

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://stonecoldbluff.co.uk/articles/chip-and-a-chair/ is not a reliable source; it is a Wikipedia mirror.
  • • done removed
• What makes the following sites reliable sources?
  • http://www.pokerpages.com/
    • Response Pokerpages is a major online source for poker news. [http://www.pokerpages.com/ads/---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.fossilmanpoker.com/
    • Response For what it is being used for, to verify the nickname of Greg Raymer, it would be. I wouldn't use it for other information, but going to first hand information is acceptable in this case.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with WSOP link---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• • http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=27493
    • Done Replaced
  • http://www.pokerlistings.com/
    • 'response' PokerListings is a well recognized website in the poker arena.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• Web titles should not be in all caps. If that is how they were from the source, change them to sentence case. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the official WSOP website is a good place to find references for each winner. For example, this can be used as reference for Peter Eastgate's profile and this as a general ref.—Chris! _ct 21:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Response The WSOP page will give you the players WSOP earnings only, it doesn't include other tournaments such as WPT, EPT, Aussie Millions, US Poker Championships, National Heads Up Champion, or any of the other major tournaments. PokerPages.com won a court case defending their DataBase of Tournament winnings (Other cites, namely the Hendon Mob, were sued for using their data.)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 05:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, info about other tournaments like WPT are irrelevant for the purpose of this list since this is only about WSOP. And I am not so sure if we need to even worry about getting sue for using the WSOP website as a source since Wikipedia are not a commercial entity.—Chris! _ct 06:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That actually makes sense, I'll go through and try to make those changes this evening... which will get rid of most of the Pokerpages entries.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 17:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 37 ("[Harrington Dan Harrington]") and 40 ("You must specify title=and url=when using {{cite web}}") are missing info. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 15:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) The first WSOP occurred in 1971 was an invitational wherein Benny Binion invited six of the most best known poker players to The Horseshoe Casino. - add " and" before was Also, add a comma after "1971". Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Done and Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Participation peaked in 2006, with 8,773 participants. - remove the comma, its not required in this context Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) In 2005, Harrah's Entertainment purchased the rights to the WSOP and have been played at Rio All Suite Hotel and Casino. - this needs rewording to make it clearer that the WSOP is held at the Rio All Suite Hotel Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The first World Series of Poker was not a freeze-out tournament, but rather an event with a set start and stop time with the winner determined by secret ballot - link/explanation to freeze-out tournament? done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) In 1973, five-card stud was added. - link/explanation to five-card stud per WP:JARGON done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Since 2007, the WSOP has consisted of 55 events, of which all but the "Main Event" are finished in about a month. - this is in past tense so the are should be "have" Not sure this should be done, the events are still existing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but the tense the sentence is in needs to be consistent throughout, and are is in present tense, "have" says the same thing, its not like "were" is being used. "Have" still says the events are still existing.--TRUCO 01:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Went ahead and changed it, while they still exist, and presumably that statement will continue to be true, you never know what will happen next year. We can only speak with certainity of past events.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The World Series of Poker (WSOP) bracelet is considered the most coveted non-monetary prize a poker player can win. - it is already made known what the acronym means so need to spell it out again Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, I mean't no need to spell it out again.--TRUCO 01:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC) My apologies, I knew what you were asking for, I thought I fixed it, but must have missed it. I knew what you were saying.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC) WSOP victories prior to 1976 are also known as "bracelets". - reword this to "Victories in the WSOP prior to 1976...." because the previous sentence ends in WSOP, which is repetitve Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The second to last paragraph should be merged with the last paragraph or the paragraph that comes before it because it is not long enough to stand alone as a paragraph Done---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC) The summary paragraph (last one) should state who was the first champion and the most recent one--TRUCO 00:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Done Current winner was already in there.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - problems resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.TRUCO 02:17, 25 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 19:20, 27 January 2009 [31].

---

List of 500cc/MotoGP Motorcycle World Champions

I believe this list meets all the criteria, it is topic which is under-represented with quality lists and articles so hopefully this can be the first of may motorcycle racing featured lists. NapHit (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Grand Prix motorcycle racing is the premier championship of motorcycle road racing, which has been divided into three classes since 1990; 125cc, 250cc and MotoGP. - the semicolon should just be a normal colon
• The Grand Prix Road-Racing World Championship was established in 1949 by the sport's governing body the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), and is the oldest motorsport World Championship in existence. - comma before "the"
• The motorcycles used in MotoGP are purpose built for the sport, and are unavailable for purchase by the general public: they cannot be legally ridden on public roads. - this should be a semicolon versus a normal colon
• MotoGP, the premier class of GP motorcycle racing, has changed dramatically in recent years. - "has changed dramatically" is WP:POV, the "dramatically" is throwing the sentence off into a POV, reword or remove that word.
• From the mid-1970s until 2002 the top class of GP racing allowed 500cc with a maximum of four cylinders, regardless of whether the engine was a two-stroke or four-stroke. - 1)comm after 2002, and the dash should be an emdash (the short dash located in the toolbox)

No tsure if I should use a dash, as I thought it was not used on words, I've done it anyway see what others think. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The second paragraph should be merged with the first or third one, its too short to be by itself.
• Giacomo Agostini has won the most titles, he won eight during his career, which included a record seven titles in a from 1966 to 1972. - I don't think "in a" is needed
• The prose should be expanded a bit by summarizing the list a bit more, like stating who was the first winner and most recent winner

recent winner is in there and so is first winner now NapHit (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The "Poles" "Wins" "Fastest Laps" and "Points" system should be explained in the prose, for a better understanding of them in the tables.
• I recommend renaming the "Notes" column to "Refs" since only References are in that column.

Notes is fine in my opinion, it doesn't mke much difference to be honest. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the "Poles" column not sorting in order of numeral?--Truco 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

• Some of my suggestions I think were misread..

• The Grand Prix Road-Racing World Championship was established in 1949 by the sport's governing body the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), and is, the oldest motorsport World Championship in existence. - the comma should go before the word "the" in the phrase "the Federation", and not after the word "is"
• The motorcycles used in MotoGP are purpose built for the sport, and are unavailable for purchase by the general public; they cannot be legally ridden on public roads. - I would change the semicolon to ..because they cannont be...
• I didn't mean add the emdashes to the words "four stroke", I meant it for the "mid-1970s"
• Results in all Grands Prix count towards the championships, historically though only a certain number of results counted. - either a comma after "though" or a comma before and after "though"
• I don't see the "poles" "fastest laps" explained in the prose, or am I misreading something?--Truco 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

They can click on the link for those they don't need to be explained. NapHit (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't just have WP:JARGON (jargon) in the list and expect the reader to know it, clicking the links should be unnecessary if it were explained in the lead, since the lead is suppose to summarize the list itself. Are the other comments resolved?--Truco 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's overkill if you explain it in the lead, the wikilinks are there for a reason fr the reader to cluck on the link and find out the info. They are not pertinent to the list, they are there to provide an overview of the champion's season that he had. I have addressed the other comments. NapHit (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not overkill, the poles link does little to help the reader understand what it means in the context of this list.--TRUCO 02:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - some of my issues were fixed, but the WP:JARGON (Jargon) terms in the list make it hard for the reader to comprehend what they mean in the context of this list, the link does little to explain it better.--TRUCO 02:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Take a look at Wikipedia:Layout#Images.
  • In IE7, the images are in an empty space, in the Firefox 2 are over the table, and Firefox 3 the same as IE7. Cannibaloki 21:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what I can do to be honest, there is no way I can make the images smaller. NapHit (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "MotoGP, the premier class of GP motorcycle racing, has changed in recent years." Suggest deleting this sentence, doesn't really add anything.
• "From the mid–1970s until 2002"-->From the mid-1970s to 2002
• "Each season normally consists of 12 to 16 Grands Prix contested" Why only "normally"? Has there been an instance when this is not the case?
• "top 15 riders that qualify"-->top 15 qualifying riders
• "Results in all Grands Prix count towards the championships, historically, though only a certain number of results counted."-->. Results from all Grands Prix count towards the championships; historically, only a certain number of results counted.
• "Giacomo Agostini has won the most titles, he won eight during his career, which included a record seven titles in succession from 1966 to 1972. "-->Giacomo Agostini has won the most titles; he won eight during his career, including a record seven titles in succession from 1966 to 1972.
• "Freddie Spencer is the youngest champion," Comma should be a semicolon.
• "Italian riders have won the most titles, with 19 titles between six drivers"-->Italian riders have won the most titles; six drivers have won a total of nineteen titles.
• "Great Britain is second; six riders have won a total of 17 championships."-->Great Britain is second; six riders have won a total of seventeen championships.
• "The United States is third with 15 titles won by seven drivers." "seven"-->7 or "15"-->fifteen.
• Images need checking, ping User:Awadewit. For example, File:2005 0409 Valentino Rossi.jpg – How do we know that the site gave permission? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all your comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.motogp.com/en/MotoGP+Legends/profiles/Freddie+Spencer deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

replaced dead link NapHit (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 19:20, 27 January 2009 [32].

---

List of First Ladies of the United States

Fully referenced list of the official First Ladies, according to the White House and National First Ladies' Library. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Tables could be sortable.

• I had considered this, but then figured that the numbered column and the tenure date would be in the same order, as would the names of the First Lady and President if sorted by last name. Some had more than one religion, such as when they took on their husbands -- sorting wouldn't work well on that column because it would only sort the first one. So I thought that in this case it probably wouldn't work well on this list.

• Protestant on Michelle Obama's row should be linked.

• Done

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 04:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Big problem: both Helen Taft and Ellen Wilson are listed as number 28, so everyone after that should be one higher. And in the lead it should say there are 44 first ladies and 45 first ladyships, with Michelle Obama being number 46.

done

• It doesn't need to be removed, but I do not see the reason to include religion in the table.

Religion is a big thing in the US. The religious beliefs of their leaders seems to be a big deal. The White House and First Ladies' Library also gives the religion of each First Lady, too.. it just seemed appropriate.

• The table needs to be reconfigured to be sortable. This includes listing the two presidents with two wifes twice in different cells and modifying the headings.

I don't think sorting would work well for this list. See my reasoning above, at my reply to SRE.K.A.L.24. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have centered the tables, but you need to remove style="text-align:center"| from the dates within the cells.

done

• Explain or link what nee means.

done

• • Overall a very good and well-referenced list. Reywas92^Talk 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list. Reywas92^Talk 18:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait! You fixed the numbering in the table, but not in the lead. It should say "there have been 44 First Ladies and 45 First Ladyships...his wife Michelle Obama will become the forty-sixth First Lady" Reywas92^Talk 21:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks for spotting that! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

And the written-out number: "Michelle Obama will become the forty-sixth First Lady" Reywas92^Talk 22:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to thank MatthewEdwards for his dedication over the last few days to improving this list. I created the article a few months back and I'm happy to see it up for FL. Just a quick comment on the images, some of the first ladies are represented by their official painted portraits and some are represented by photographs. In my opinion, it should be standardized. I had a discussion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States where they recommended using portraits because the early first ladies could not have photographs taken. Happyme22 (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the images. Thanks for your comments, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I see there was a lengthy discussion about the images. I'm satisfied if others are satisifed, however. Nice work, Matthewedwards! Best, Happyme22 (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support good job —Chris! _ct 20:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It would be nice if a picture of Martha Skelton Jefferson could be found and added to article to ensure that a picture of every first lady is presented. Not necessary for FL but it would be nice. Remember (talk) 14:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it would, but neither the White House or the First Ladies Library have images of her. She was married to him 19 years before he became President. As far as I am aware there are no sketches, paintings or engravings of her. Findagrave.com has a picture, http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6654871, but I don't know if that's based off another bona fide image or just the artist's impression. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's cool then. I support this list (but we should all be on the lookout for a image of Martha Skelton Jefferson so we could include it in the future). Remember (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by BomBom

Comments A nice list overall, but:

• The religion column should definitely be removed. It is totally irrelevant and takes up too much space. Just because the White House mentions religion doesn't mean Wikipedia should follow suit. The List of Presidents doesn't mention religion, and I'm not aware of any other politics-related FL that currently features a "Religion" column so prominently. There are individual articles about each first lady precisely in order to include such secondary information. Moreover, the information in the column isn't useful either. It's not as if there's been a lot of religious diversity in the White House. All of the first ladies have been Protestants, with the exception of one Catholic. I think this can be easily summarized in the lead. If you really want to keep the info, then you can create a new Religious affiliations of United States First Ladies article, similar to the Religious affiliations of United States Presidents article. The current list should contain general info, and not delve into such irrelevant detail.

• Well, there were other religions too, but I've removed it because almost every reviewer has said its not necessary. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• The first and third paragraphs of the lead definitely need inline citations.

• I'll see what I can find. I don't think most of the third will, because it's just going over what the body of the article (the table) says. WP:LEDE says that sort of stuff doesn't need citing. The rest I'll get started on. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• In the infobox, the term length is highly misleading. It gives the impression that no woman can serve as first lady more than 8 years, when in fact there is nothing that theoretically prevents a woman from marrying several presidents and thus serving as first lady several times. Try to rephrase this, or even remove the "term of length" field altogether.

• Removed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• The "Tenure" column should be divided into 2 columns. It would make things much clearer. Try to change the term "tenure" too, since it's not an official post. Something like "Entered the White House" or "Became First Lady" and "Left the White House" or "Ceased to Be First Lady" would be much better.

• Changed to "Entered/Left White House" Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• I think it should be mentioned in the lead that Michelle Obama will become the first African-American first lady, and that Hillary Clinton is the only First Lady to have had a significant political career of her own. This information is far more important and relevant than their respective religions.

• OK Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• Try to have someone do an image review. Although most of these images are probably PD in the US, many of them simply cite the White House as their source without providing a specific link. This is needed to allow for confirmation that an image is indeed available on the website.
• There's a formatting error in reference 3.

• I'll go over them myself, too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

That's it for now. Regards. BomBom (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Even though you haven't added the info about Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. I definitely think that a former First Lady becoming Secretary of State and an African-American entering the White House in the same week are notable events that should be mentioned in the lead. BomBom (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Images - Now resolved, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to throw a spanner in the works but it is unclear whether the portraits of the First Ladies are infact free. On commons two have been tagged for deletion 1, 2. There has been an unresolved lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/US government portraits about if such portraits are free. Hillary's portrait has infact previously been deleted after discussion at her articles FAC. Since this discussion on my talk page, I am no longer sure that the Hillary Clinton portrait (which I uploaded) is free. Similar reasonings may apply to the other portraits. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Update: The two portraits I mentioned above have both been deleted from commons. To be the safest you can with the images I would suggest removing all the portraits of First Ladies who died after January 1, 1923 or who's portraits were painted after that (if the date is known) and replace them with PD images where possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go over the images myself and then I'll ask an image person, too. Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the pictures for deletion. Why not just use their official photos? Those are PD. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that because they appear at the First Lady entries at http://www.whitehouse.gov that they were official portraits. Not to worry. Could you help me in locating actual official portrait paintings or photos, please? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I request that the nominator be permitted a little extra time to solve the problems of the deleted images. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I was becoming a little disheartened! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I have update the images. Hopefully they are all okay now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with how the image issue has been resolved. I will not cap the discussion so any unaware reviewers can see why portraits are no longer used. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Due to an extensive image review below by BomBom, I have reconsidered my position. Due to my lack of experience with images, I should have originally waited and let someone else review them thoroughly. Apologies, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, I am now happy with all aspects of the list. This FLC generated a fair bit of work for Matthew, but instead of removing the images with issues he fixed or sought out replacement images instead. Good job! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "First Lady is not an elected position, carries no official duties, and receives no salary."-->First Lady is not an elected position; it carries no official duties, and receives no salary.

• Done

• "There is a strong tradition against the First Lady holding outside employment while occupying the office." The noun + -ing sentence structure is grammatically awkward. This is my suggestion, although it may change the sentence's meaning: "Traditionally, First Lady does not hold outside employment while occupying the office.

• Done

• "The Office of the First Lady of the United States is accountable to the First Lady of the United States for her to carry out her duties as hostess of the White House and is also in charge of all social and ceremonial events of the White House." Long and very confusing sentence.

• Done

• "The First Lady has her own staff that includes"-->The First Lady has her own staff, including...

• Done

• "There have been 43 First Ladies and 44 First Ladyships, according to the White House and the National First Ladies' Library.-->According to the White House and the National First Ladies' Library, there have been 43 First Ladies and 44 First Ladyships.

• Done

• "both remarried while being the incumbent President-->"both remarried during their presidential tenures" or something like that.

• Done

• "a gold coin is issued bearing"-->a gold coin is issued that bears

• Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. All cocerns have been addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with condition - can you change the prose of President James Buchanan was a lifelong bachelor whose niece, Harriet Lane, served as First Lady. She is the only person not married to a President who is considered an official First Lady. by combining sentences? miranda 00:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you! I did change it somewhat. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review by BomBom

Image review The image issue certainly hasn't been resolved. I have thus decided to do an extensive review myself. The following images are still problematic:

• • File:Abigail Adams.jpg No source is provided. There is thus no way to verify whether the information provided on the image's description page is accurate.

• Replaced with File:AAdamsstuart184.jpg Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Dmadison.jpeg, File:Frances Folsom Cleveland.jpg, File:Louhenryhoover.jpg The digital ID is incorrect. It is thus not possible to verify whether the image is indeed available on the Library of Congress website.

• Done, done and done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Elizabeth Monroe.jpg, File:Letitia Tyler.jpg Are you really sure the images were created by a National Park Service employee? Just because they're available on their website doesn't mean they have been created by them. Moreover, in the absence of a specific link, how should we know if the images are indeed available on their website? Try to find who the painter was, and use PD-Art instead.

• Done Monroe's. I had to remove Tyler's picture from the list. I can't find any information about the creation date or artist, and no other image to replace it. :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Louisa Adams.jpg, File:JanePierceSeated.jpg, File:Harriet Lane cropped.jpg, File:MaryToddLincoln.jpeg Unless the name of the author or the date of creation is provided, neither PD-Old nor PD-Art can be used. Without such information, there is no way to determine the images' copyright status.

• Replaced with File:First Lady Louisa Adams.jpg, Replaced with File:Jane Pierce.jpg, Replaced with File:Harriet Lane by John Henry Brown.jpg and done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Demott-rachel.jpg No explanation as to why PD-Art is being used. A reliable source and the painter's death date are needed.

• Replaced with File:Rachel Jackson.jpg Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Julia Tyler.gif, File:Polk sarah.jpg, File:Lucy Hayes.gif, File:Edith Roosevelt.gif, File:Anna Eleanor Roosevelt.gif Again, no author and no source. The tag used (PD-USGov-POTUS) is very likely inappropriate. Moreover, the White House links do not point to specific pages related to the images.

• Replaced all: File:Julia Tyler.jpg, File:Sarah Polk.jpg, File:Lucy Hayes.jpg, File:Edith Roosevelt.jpg. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• • File:Margaret Taylor.gif SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE ARTICLE AND IMMEDIATELY DELETED FROM COMMONS. The website from which it was taken explicitly states that "This image of Margaret Taylor is privately owned; it is not public domain. It may not be copied, adapted, altered or in any other way used, or it will be found to be in violation of U.S. copyright law. Violaters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent by law."
    • Note: It is claimed the source exhibits copyfraud, due to the mathematical impossibilities of the author not being deceased already for 70 years. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
      • This claim was added to the image's description page after I marked it for deletion on Commons. The problem is that the website in question is that of the National First Ladies' Library, i.e. a reliable source. The people working there aren't a bunch of Flickr users, i.e. they are unlikely to be illiterate when it comes to copyright issues. If they say the image is copyrighted, they probably know what they're talking about. Their claim seems all the more credible since it isn't made for every single image on the website, but only for this particular one. The mere fact that the author died more than 70 years ago does not automatically render the image PD in the US, and it is for this very reason that the PD-Old template is to be deprecated soon on Commons. I would thus suggest removing this image from the article and replacing it with a free one if available. BomBom (talk) 01:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
        • According to the Library of Congress, " No authentic portrait is known of Margaret Mackall Smith Taylor."^[33] I have removed it from the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • File:Edith Wilson cropped 2.jpg, File:Beth Truman cropped.jpg Again, no author and no source. No explanation as to why PD-USGov is being used.

• done and done

• • File:Mamie Eisenhower color photo portrait, White House, May 1954.jpg Broken link. Information cannot be verified.

• Replaced with File:Mamie Eisenhower no border.jpg

• • File:Barbara Bush post presidential portrait.jpg Unclear copyright status. The link says it is a post-presidential portrait, which means that PD-USGov is probably an incorrect tag. Moreover, the website of the George Bush Presidential Library has a copyright notice in the lower right-hand corner. Therefore, it is not clear if images hosted on the website are free.

• Replaced with File:Barbara Bush black and white 1989.jpg

All other images are OK. Sorry for being so picky, but extra care should be taken when using over 40 images in a single article so as to avoid legal problems. Regards. BomBom (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'd rather it be perfect than not. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

All images should have been taken care of now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment All image issues have been resolved. All images used are now confirmed to be free. BomBom (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The White House has kindly redesigned their site; the ref links to the First Ladies no longer work. I am working to get them all back. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:15, 20 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 00:41, 25 January 2009 [34].

---

List of UAAP Final Four results

I believe this is ready for FL - don't let the article history fool you, it has been sitting at UAAP Final Four until I decided to bring it into its own article since the parent article is getting long already. I hope the quirkiness of the playoff format is understood well. –Howard the Duck 09:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Note that we do not start lists as "This is a list of..." Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Oppose/Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - lacking prose

• This is a list of the University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) men's basketball Final Four results. - FL's are discouraged to begin with "This is a list of ____"
  • Done, see above. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• The list includes UAAP men's basketball games played under the Final Four format since the 1994 season, a year after the format was instituted. - This not "the" In addition, move it towards the end of the prose.
  • Done, see above. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• The results include one-game playoffs where teams tied after the elimination round for a Final Four berth played an extra game to determine which team clinches the higher seed in the playoffs. - This is a run-on/fragment, and needs revision. In addition, it needs to be moved later into the article.
  • I've joined with the first paragraph since in effect there are 5, not 4 teams in the postseason. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Since the UAAP is not a home-and-away league, the position of season host rotates among member universities, and the host pays for the arena rental and other facilities. - link to "home-and-away league" or an explanation to what it means? In addition, source for this statement?
  • Done, see above. Most Filipino leagues do not employ the home-and-away system. In quick inspection of the references they tell you that the games are not played in the home arenas of the teams but in a neutral venue; even all teams play in Ateneo's home gym so it is not really exclusively theirs.–Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• The league uses a modified Shaughnessy playoff system: the top four teams enter the playoffs, while the he top two seeds are given the "twice-to-beat" advantage, that is, in order for them to be eliminated in the semifinals, they have to be beaten twice by the #3 and #4 seed, with them needing to win only once in order to advance. - another fragment/run-on, needs revision.
  • I've split them into multiple shorter sentences. The reason I placed them in a long sentence is that the thought/process of the tournament should be explained in one sentence, but it got too long. I could say "it is a de facto best-of-three series, with the higher seed having an automatic 1-0 lead" but I thought it was too jargon-y, with the concept of the "best-of-x" series not readily used in tournaments outside North America. –Howard the Duck 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• There is a lot of WP:JARGON, and some of the statements a reader that is unfamiliar with, like "the sweep" "UST"
  • Sweep is linked. I'll be de-jargonizing the acronyms. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • For some reason, there is satisfactorily way of flagging the reader right away on what definition of "sweep" should be read on the Sweep#sports article. However, the meaning has been explained even before it is linked so I don't think it should be that big of a problem. –Howard the Duck 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Starting 2001, each game was played with four 10 minute quarters and a 24 second shot clock. Games before 2001 were played with two 20 minute halves and a 30 second shot clock. - add in before "2001"
  • Done. –Howard the Duck 05:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• The notes (1-3) need verification by sources
  • Huh? This is a newspaper. This is a reliable source. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • He meant the notes right under the table, not the references.—Chris! _ct 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah. That's what I meant.--Truco 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I can't nest a referenced footnote within a explanatory note -- the 2005 and 2007 notes are explained in the lead, however. The 2001 is pretty easy to find references since FIBA changed the rules from 2 halves to 4 quarters in 2000. –Howard the Duck 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• The reference section needs to be in a {{reflist}} format, not a format.
  • I'll be doing this shortly. –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• The table may also need a key for better understanding of the content.
  • What key? The acronyms? –Howard the Duck 03:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I added a legend about the shortened names, and the meaning of "(OT)" and the strikethroughs. –Howard the Duck 06:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• I strongly recommend seeking a copy-edit, because the prose is lacking and fails FL Cr 1 and 2--Truco 03:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

• The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) men's basketball Final Four is the postseason of the men's tournament of the UAAP Basketball Championship. - the bold is not the title of the list, so it shouldn't be linked. It can, however, be wikilinked. Its not mandatory to bold the title, per WP:LEAD.
• Other divisions of UAAP basketball, the women's and juniors', also have their own versions of the Final Four. - if you take the above suggestion, linking Final Four in this sentence will be unnecessary.
• Other venues were the Cuneta Astrodome in Pasay, Blue Eagle Gym in Quezon City, Ninoy Aquino Stadium in Manila, and the PhilSports Arena in Pasig. - remove the repetitive "the"
• The third and second paragraph can be made into one
  • Wouldn't that make the paragraph very long? The 4th one is a special provision of the 3rd so it can stand on its own.
• The advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds is in order for them to be eliminated in the semifinals, they have to be beaten twice by the #4 and #3 seeds respectively. - the comma should be a semi-colon
• As a result, the "step-ladder" format was used from 1994 to 2007 if a team sweeps the elimination round – the sweeping team advances outright to the best-of-three finals, while the #3 and #4 seeds figure in a playoff to face the #2 seed still possessing the twice-to-beat advantage. - semi colon after 2007
• In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their won games (elimination round and playoffs) in the 2003 to the 2005 seasons when two of their players were found to have falsified papers in order to enroll at the school, causing them to be ineligible. - "in the" should be from the 2003 to 2005 seasons... In addition, comma before "when"--Truco 22:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done all except the comma before "when" I don't think it is necessary. Is this an English variation or something? The absence of a comma doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. –Howard the Duck 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I misread that sentence, so no need for the comma. However, the citations still should be added to the notes section. In addition, an image should be added in the lead.--Truco 02:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Is there a way to flag the reader that the notes had already been explained at the lead? The 2007 is different since Ateneo is mentioned twice in the semifnals since there were three rounds due to the sweep.
      • As for images, choose which is more appropriate: this or this? Or both? –Howard the Duck 09:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I like the second one better. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent)The second and third paragraphs still need to be merged as one. The second image is better. By flagging, do you mean letting them know that the ref is already cited above, well not really, it will just be best to verify it again in the notes with the reference. --Truco 22:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

For the nth time, there is no satisfactorily way of nesting a footnote inside a another footnote. Unless someone shows me how to do this, this can't be done. Maybe another footnoting mechanism? –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down sir. I don't think you are understand what I mean here, I mean add a source to the notes in the notes section, as seen here.--Truco 15:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into how you did the references w/in a note. Other wise, I'd just bring the the 2005 paragraph at the bottom of the notes section. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way this footnoting procedure be done on multiple occasions? I was going to apply it but I realized it should be repeated everytime La Salle's wins were overturned. –Howard the Duck 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You can read {{note}} and {{ref}} on how to do that, there are also other templates that do that, which you can find in the links I gave you.--TRUCO 14:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You know what? This is getting stupid. A reader can still verify the facts stated in the footnotes by reading the rest of the article. Invoking WP:VERIFY assumes the reader is awfully moronic. If this fails solely because of this, this process is nuts. –Howard the Duck 06:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee man, don't start a riot. You have done it correctly by sourcing the note.--TRUCO 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all issues fixed to meet the Featured list criteria.--TRUCO 15:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "in order to" (multiple occurences)

• Done. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The league uses a modified Shaughnessy playoff system: the top four teams enter the playoffs, while the top two seeds are given the "twice-to-beat" advantage. The advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds is in order for them to be eliminated in the semifinals; they have to be beaten twice by the #4 and #3 seeds respectively. Meanwhile, they need to win only once in order to advance."-->The league uses a modified Shaughnessy playoff system: the top four teams enter the playoffs, and the top two seeds are given the "twice-to-beat" advantage. The advantage for the #1 and #2 seeds is that for them to be eliminated in the semifinals, they have to be beaten twice by the #4 and #3 seeds respectively; however, they need to win only once in order to advance.

  I split this into shorter sentences as said by Truco said above, Now, you're telling me to merge them. Which is which? –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  I tweaked the sentence, but it is fine as is. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In its institution in 1993;" What does this mean? Do you mean "Since its institution..."? The semicolon should be a comma.
• "while the #3 and #4 seeds figure in a playoff" Unclear, what does "figure in" mean?

• Play another game. "Play in a playoff" sounds silly. I could have some more suggestions. Face off? –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Changed it to "face off". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their won games"-->In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their wins...

• I dunno about this, even if they lost the game, if their games were forfeited, the scores will be turned into 20-0 whether they were won or lost. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• So then, would it not be "In 2005, La Salle had to forfeit all of their games..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• When you forfeit a basketball game, the "final score" would be 20-0 (in soccer it's 3-0). The results prior to forfeiture are given to show what were the final score prior to the forfeiture, –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I understand that. But what does "won games" signify then? I follow basketball, but there must be something else that I missed. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• That means games that are won are reversed; games that are lost can't be reversed since they are counted already. In essense all games that a team participated was forfeited, but the act only takes place on won games. –Howard the Duck 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• And now it clicks. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• "This led to the league suspending all of La Salle's varsity teams and awarding Far Eastern University (FEU), their finals opponent, the 2004 trophy."-->This led to the league's suspension of La Salle's varsity teams; Far Eastern University (FEU), their finals opponent, was awarded the 2004 trophy

• See the splitting of run-on sentences comment above. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say to make it into two sentences. My suggestion is just to improve the flow. Also, the noun + -ing sentence construction ("league suspending") is awkward. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's a better idea to split this into 2. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• I changed it to "league suspending" to "suspension" as only the league can suspend teams. –Howard the Duck 11:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• "one-game playoffs where"-->one-game playoffs in which.

• Done. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Add a note to the "Year" column about how each year is linked to an article about the UAAP tournament for that year—see List of Washington Wizards head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Like is this even necessary? I don't see this in Aston Villa F.C. seasons, for example. A reader can hover his mouse pointer to the linked year. This assumes the reader is very stupid; it's like he hasn't seen a similar Wikipedia list. I'll still have to be convinced on this part, although I don't like this article to be hostaged by this single "comment." –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Aston Villa article was promoted almost a year and a half ago, standards have risen a lot since then. There has been consensus that piped year links are sometimes misleading because they look like they lead to irrelevant year links rather than highly germane season links. If you don't want to add the note, change the header from "Year" to "Season". Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a good idea. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.ubelt.com/index.aspx a reliable source?

  Currently, this the only website in the internet that has UAAP results from 1988 to 2008. The UAAP once had an official website but it only listed games since 2002, and closed down several years ago after allegations it was plagiarizing content, from guess what, UBelt.

  Trusting you on this one. I will leave this source unstruck for other reviewers to evaluate. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  You can cross-reference them with the Philippine Daily Inquirer references provided and they are correct. Only the 56-all game was in doubt.

  As I said, I am trusting you. I will not let this stop me from supporting when the other issues are resolved, this is just so that other reviewers can weigh in also. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

  If its anything UBelt is like basketball-reference.com. –Howard the Duck 01:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Likewise http://thelasalliansports.blogspot.com/2008/11/victory-march.html, a blog post?

• If you'd notice, the UBelt reference for that game lists the result as 56-56. I've searched far and wide to find out the final score of the game, and I stumbled on that blog. I'll trust it since the game was participated by La Salle, hence their score must be correct. It must had been published in The LaSallian but I'm not sure. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The thing is, how do we know that the person/site that posted the material was accurate in their posting? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• If you;d notice, the results of the games on that blog and UBelt are the same, except of course for the 56-all game. –Howard the Duck 01:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Web titles should not be in all caps.

"That's how they appear in the titles; I'd just change them to sentence caps. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Publications should be in italics. This can be accomplished by putting the publication's name in the work= parameter, and the company that owns the publication in the publisher parameter. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just ditch the "work" parameter and change it with "publication". It'll be redundant to see two similar items in the references. –Howard the Duck 03:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 03:50, 23 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 00:41, 25 January 2009 [35].

---

Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award

This is a list that can be found in any self-respecting sports almanac, but it won't be as good as you'll find here (at least I hope not). After a mad dash to get this ready, I believe it meets the FLC standards. It's had a peer review, where the reviewers seemed to think highly of it. As usual, I will be here to address comments and suggestions. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - although their could be some stability problems due to the Super Bowl right around the corner, I don't think it will get much attention that stability will be a problem. I also peer reviewed the article and it is up to WP:WIAFL standards. Go Ravens!--Truco 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I also peer reviewed the article, and can vouch for the strength of the prose. Stability shouldn't be a problem, as the list is good enough that a single row with the next MVP should be added. Go whichever of the Australian punters makes the Super Bowl! Apterygial 00:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Excellent list, PR comment addressed, though is there any photo better than that low-quality one of Montana? Maybe a photo of the Pete Rozelle Trophy? Reywas92^Talk 02:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we have a free photo of the Rozelle Trophy. If we did, that would be in the lead, but without one, I thought the only three-time winner should be pictured there. If you want, I can reduce the size from 250 pixels to 225 or lower. Maybe that would help. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, just something better than that low quality photo. No matter what size it is it doesn't look very good. Maybe a photo of the most recent winner, or anything else? Reywas92^Talk 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few free pictures of Eli Manning, the most recent winner. Do any of them look better to you? In any case, I want to keep a photo of Montana in the article. I know some of the pictures aren't the greatest, but that's one of the drawbacks that comes with a free encyclopedia. We just have to make the best of it, and a photo of the only three-time winner should be included if avaliable. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See below. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I would say reduce the size of the Montana photo.—Chris! _ct 04:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge

• Comments - I looked hard but problems are far and few between.

Reduce the Joe Montana image resolution to be the same as the other images.

Note [c], should be next to Harvey Martin's name as well.

It doesn't really matter at the moment, but in the future it might be more sensible to treat the co-MVP's as having ½ an award each, giving the Cowboys a tally of 6. This would make sense as if the Steelers of 49ers won the MVP again IMO they should be listed as having the same number of wins as the Cowboys.

The Peyton Manning image looks isolated and has no real relevence to the "By position" table. Consider stacking the image with the others.

Lots of citations need a "publisher", I count over 30 that don't have one.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I took the forced sizing out; it's optional anyway. I do think the photo looks better in a smaller size, although I wish we had a picture of the trophy for the lead.
• For the life of me, I can't figure out how to use a note multiple times. Is there a function like ref name that I don't know about?
• I'll think about that, since the Steelers are the favorites this year.
• I placed a quarterback photo by that table because quarterbacks have won the award so often. I did move it and resort the photos by the date that the players won the award.
• Most of the references used are newspaper or magazine articles, and I'm using the work parameter of the cite templates to force italics. Therefore, I don't think the publisher parameter is needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• For the note issue, there a lots of different ways with different note templates, but for {{ref label}} (the one currently in use) you can add it as many times as necessary. I have done this for you. If you desire each note to have an individual backlink give me a shout and I can point you to a different notation method that does this.

• Shout. :-) I would like to know how this is done, since the hyperlink by the note only goes to the first use. There are only four notes, so it won't be too much trouble.

• See your talk page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• For the publisher field, "work" is not the same as "publisher". For example The New York Times is the work, but The New York Times Company is the publisher. A publisher field is quite a common requirement for references both here an at FAC too. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't really like adding the publishers, since I believe they clog up the references, but I did add them for all printed publications. Let me know if any more are needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm happy to wait and see what other people think on this one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Excellent list. On the photo issue, I am fine with Montana in the as the only 3 time winner, but a better photo of either Eli Manning or one of the two time winners may be preferable. Regardless, the Montana photo should remain in the article. Rlendog (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a picture of Eli in the lead, which I think is quite good. That was really a tough decision for me. :-) Montana's photo is now on the right side of the tables with the others. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• WP:CAPTION, image captions that are full sentences should have periods at the end.
  • This is hard because the captions really straddle the line between sentences and fragments. I added stops to two captions; please let me know if any more are needed.
    • Hm, I thought it would be easy to see which are sentences and which are fragements. In a nutshell, complete sentences have a subject, which completes or is completing an action (verb). Read this (hope it is not too below your level). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Here is an example of an incorrectly punctuated caption: "Tom Brady, the MVP of Super Bowls XXXVI and XXXIII." The subject is "Tom Brady", but there is no verb; therefore, it is not a sentence and should not have a period. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • You do know that I'm a college student, right? We don't deal with too many photo captions in our English classes. :-) I think I got them all right this time. Of course, most of them were correct to begin with. Don't know how that happened. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
        • No offense, I didn't know how else to explain the difference between fragments and sentences. :) Anyway, I fixed the rest of the captions. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The winner is chosen by a fan vote during the game, and by a panel of 16 American football writers and broadcasters who vote after the game. " No comma needed.
  • Removed.
• "Ottis Anderson was the first player to win the trophy."-->Ottis Anderson was the first player to have won the trophy.
  • Changed it to "Ottis Anderson was the first player who won the trophy."
    • Seems a bit wordy, why not just "Ottis Anderson was the first to win the trophy." After all, only players can win the trophy. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Changed to your wording. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Joe Montana is the only player to win three Super Bowl MVP awards"-->Joe Montana is the only player to have won three Super Bowl MVP awards
  • Done.
• Fix the edit bunching near the bottom the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I needed two tries to fix this one, because the edit preview screen doesn't have edit links to test. Some reshuffling of the photos was needed, and I had to remove the Jerry Rice photo due to lack of room. Note that I have a former Dallas Cowboys player in By team, and a quarterback in By position. I left these in to cut down on white space. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 00:41, 25 January 2009 [36].

---

Timeline of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season

previous FLC (23:42, 30 December 2008)

I've cleaned up all the issues pointed out in the previous FLC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Improved from previous FLC, however...
  • The last two paragraphs can be made into 1.
  • Why is there no summary of the list itself, i.e. explaining in prose the names of the storms, which can be the first/last one or the most significant ones.
    • Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this request. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
      • FL's at the end or somewhere in the prose have a quick summary of the list itself, like "The first named storm was...." "The final named storm was....", "(Named storm) had the most significant damage" (prose like that)--Truco 00:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Isn't that the same as "The first storm formed on June 1 and the final storm crossed into the western Pacific on December 6, thus ending the season" is? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I think it would sound better if the actual storm names were given.--Truco 01:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The word "central" in "Central Pacific" is capitalized in the timeline, but not in the prose, which is right?
  • Tropical Depression Two-C strengthens into Tropical Storm Oliwa- the Hawaiian name for Oliver. - I think the longer dash is needed here, I'm not sure whether thats the en or emdash, but is the longer of the two
    • It is the em dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Hurricane Linda strengthens into the second- and final Category 5 hurricane of the season. - I don't believe a dash is needed here
  • Tropical Storm Nora strengthens into seventh hurricane of the season. - add "the" after "into"
  • Hurricane Pauline strengthens into the seventh- and final major hurricane of the season - needs a full stop, and is the dash necessary?--Truco 00:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with everything else. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--TRUCO 15:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The first storm formed on June 1, and the final storm crossed into the western Pacific on December 6, thus ending the season." First comma doesn't seem necessary and stunts the flow.
• "There were 24 cyclones in total for both the eastern and central Pacific, including five unnamed tropical depressions." "five"-->5, as comparable quantities should be spelled out the same. Alternatively, you could change 24-->twenty-four.
• "Of these, 19 were in the east Pacific; eight peaked at tropical storm intensity, while ten reached hurricane status." Same comment here.
• "two tropical storms formed, in addition to several tropical depressions." Comma not necessary.
• "A number of storms entered the region from the east." Is there not an exact figure?
• "With a total of nine tropical cyclones entering or forming there, the 1997 season was the fourth most active in the central Pacific since satellite observations began."-->The 1997 season was the fourth-most active in the central Pacific since satellite observations began; nine tropical cyclones entered or formed in the region during that period. (something like that, the original sentence has redundancies and awkward grammatical structure)
• "1100 UTC – Hurricane Nora makes it's" Wrong use of "it's". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • All fixed or amended. Thanks for the helpful comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment this list can Easily be transformed into a table with the following columns: Day | Hour | Comment/Note; and would look much better too. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this follows the same format as Timeline of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season, Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season, Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season, etc. So any major change would have to first be discussed at the project talk page. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the use of tables is discourage when there is a better alternative—they are less accessible and are harder to edit. See WP:LISTS. Julian, you forgot some :D : Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season, Timeline of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season, Timeline of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season, etc. (gosh, WP:WPTC churns out way too many of these...) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2009 (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 Matthewedwards 00:41, 25 January 2009 [37].

---

BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year

The next in a hopefully potential BBC SPoTY topic. I feel it now meets all the criteria. All comments welcome, and will be addressed by me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Spell out UK in its first occurrence.
• The recipient either be British or reside and play a significant amount of their sport in the UK, with their core achievements that year being in the UK, and not with a non-UK national team. - I'm confused by this sentence. Is this sentence trying to say that the recipient has to be British or reside and play that sport a lot in the United Kingdom? done
• The Young Sports Personality of the Year award was preceded by the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Newcomer Award, in which the recipients could be aged upto 25. - space needed between "upto" done
• The award was replaced by the Young Sports Personality of the Year in 2001,[3] and sprinter Amy Spencer was the first recipient of the award. - in this context the word "the" in the phrase "first recipient of the award" should be changed to that. done
• Rationale: for "finished in eighth place in his debut Formula One World Championship season." - I know its a quote, but I would replace this with [for finishing "in eight place in his debut Formula One World Championship season." done
• For "achievements in diving which include becoming the youngest-ever National Men's Platform Champion." - For should not be capitalize per consistency. done
  • For becoming "Britain's youngest ever individual Paralympic gold medallist" - same thing here done
• In Ref 6, since an article about Echo News does not exist, I recommend not linking it. not done (I hope to make this article myself in the not to distant future)
• Since there were only two recipients to the the "Newcomer Award" why not list the final winner? done

--Truco 00:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Followup

• The recipient must either be British; or reside and play a significant amount of their sport in the United Kingdom, with their core achievements that year being in the UK, and not with a non-UK national team. - how about The recipient must either be British, or reside and play a significant amount of their sport in the United Kingdom. Their core achievements that year must also be in the UK, and not with a non-UK national team. done
• In 2001 the award was replaced by the Young Sports Personality of the Year,[3] and sprinter Amy Spencer was the first recipient of that award. Although the rules stipulate the winner does not have to be British, all the winners to date have been. - comma after 2001, and it says that all the winners to date have been British, yet a Scottish person won it, or am I reading the sentence wrong?Truco 01:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've added the comma, but the British bit is correct as it stands. British people are citizens of the United Kingdom, which includes the countries England and Scotland. So while there is 1 Scottish winner and 9 English winners, they are all still British. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for letting me know that :)--Truco 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support A very nice list. The only suggestion I have is to add an age column since this award has an age requirement.—Chris! _ct 20:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  Thanks, I liked your suggestion and have added an age column. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Could you add the age column to the coaches list? This will eventually be a featured topic, and it would be nice if the lists could all look the same.
  • But since the coach award doesn't have an age requirement, I don't think we should add the age column.—Chris! _ct 19:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I am stupid. Disregard this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• "It is awarded to the sportsperson aged 16 or under on January 1 of that year" "on"-->as of. done
• "The recipient must either be British, or reside and play a significant amount of their sport in the United Kingdom." No comma necessary. done
• "Their core achievements that year must also be in the UK"-->Their core achievements that year must have taken place in the UK done
• "and not with a non-UK national team."-->and cannot have been done with a non-UK national team. done
• "The panel later reconvenes to choose the top three, and decide on the winner by secret ballot." "decide"-->decides. done
• "Although the rules stipulate the winner does not have to be British, all the winners to date have been."-->Although the rules stipulate that the winner does not have to be British, all winners to date have been. done
• "The most recent award was presented in 2008 to achondroplasia dwarf Eleanor Simmonds" "achondroplasia"-->achondroplastic done
• I made the "by sport" table sortable, revert if you do not want it that way. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Thanks

Sources

• Echo News is a redlink, I suggest unlinking it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I originally didn't unlink this when Truco suggested it, saying it served as a reminder for me to create it. However you are the second person to mention this, and I can always relink it if/when I create it. So done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [38].

---

List of New York Islanders head coaches

previous FLC (20:34, 19 June 2008)

iMatthew // talk // 15:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issue, Dabomb87 (talk)

Quick comment You used the wrong type of dash in the year ranges. Use en dashes (–), not em dashes (—). See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. iMatthew // talk // 19:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It also needs a playoff win percentage column—see List of Montreal Canadiens head coaches. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. iMatthew // talk // 20:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Al Arbour is still missing a statistic for winning % in the playoffs. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, that first one is a combination of both of his coaching seasons. Can you help me find the individual season Win% for the playoffs? I can't find them anywhere. iMatthew // talk // 21:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Is it not right here? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Nope, that's for the expanded seasons, (eg, for season 1, 2, 3, 4). I need to find the % for an average of 1, 2, 3, 4. iMatthew // talk // 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Just do the math yourself. Don't worry about OR, that would a bit too strict. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I was never good in math, would I add them all together and divide by whatever? iMatthew // talk // 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Never mind, I will do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! iMatthew // talk // 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I will provide a full review of the article later. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• There have been 14 head coaches for the Islanders franchise. The team's first head coach was Phil Goyette, who coached for one complete season from 1972 to 1973. - remove the "complete", the sentence still says the same without it and it flows better
• Phil Goyette, Earl Ingarfield, Bill Stewart, and current coach Scott Gordon are the only coaches who spent their entire careers with the Islanders and were not elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame. - since Goyetter is already mentioned before, just mention him by his last name
• Al Arbour is the only coach having been inducted to the Hockey Hall of Fame. - IMO, to have sounds better than "having"
• Al Arbour, Terry Simpson, Peter Laviolette, Steve Stirling, and Ted Nolan are the only coaches to have ever coached the team going into the playoffs - no need for "going", the sentence still says the same without it and it flows better
• Achievements column: Stanley Cup Champions (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983) - should be Stanley Cup Championship (1980, 1981, 1982, 1983)--Truco 19:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. iMatthew // talk // 19:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 23:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rlendog

Nice list. I do have a few comments:

• The list should be sortable - at least alphabetically by last name, and in order of all the numeric categories.
  • See below, but what should I sort?. iMatthew // talk // 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Are there any free images available to illustrate the list? Ted Nolan at least seems to have a free image available.
  • Per the MOS for images, they can't be facing the right side of the computer and be right aligned. iMatthew // talk // 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Per WP:MOS, "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." This is a preference, not a requirement. If there is a choice, use an image facing the text, but if the only problem with the only available image is that it faces the wrong way, I don't think that should exclude its use. Rlendog (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overtime/shootout losses are presented in the key, but are not included in the list
  • Done.
• I wouldn't oppose FL if this is not done, but I believe these lists should have a section showing the combined record of coaches with multiple terms. For example, List of San Francisco Giants managers. In this case only Al Arbour would need to be shown there. Rlendog (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • With regards to sortability, it cannot be done for these types of lists. There have been requests for previous head coach lists, but it doesn't work. The multiple-tenure table seems unnecessary; the other head coach lists don't do it and readers can easily do the math. As you said, only one coach has had multiple tenures, seems like a lot of extra markup and such for a small thing. Just my opinion. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that the combined record list is not a big deal, especially in this case. But I don't understand why sorting can't be done. It works for the List of San Francisco Giants managers as far as I can tell. I'm not sure what is here that would prevent sorting on last name, # wins, # losses, or winning percentage. Rlendog (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorting cannot be done because of the colspan on top. Besides, every head coach FL (eg. List of Calgary Flames head coaches, List of Oklahoma City Thunder head coaches, List of Denver Broncos head coaches) don't have sorting. And they should be consistent.—Chris! _ct 19:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • It would be better then to use a different heading that permits sorting, because that can be very useful to readers. For example, it makes it easier to find the particular coach you are looking for, or to see the coaches in an order of particular interest to you, such as number of wins. But I take your point that many of these lists have already been promoted using the same format you are using, and so if that is the consensus for what is appropriate for a featured list, that will not uphold my support. See my comment above re the photo. Rlendog (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • All we want right now is consistency. If you do want the List of (NHL team) head coaches articles to have the sort function on the list, then please ask WP:HOCKEY, since it is their concern. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 06:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Per FL criteria: "Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities." So looking at it from the standpoint of the FL criteria, sorting would be helpful on these lists. So it is not necessarily a WP:HOCKEY issue, but a WP:FLC issue, that may happen to affect some hockey lists. But, I value consistency and, like I said, I will not withhold support for this list due to the fact that the list is not sortable. Rlendog (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think I am done with your requests. iMatthew // talk // 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - All issues were resolved. I have some lingering reservations over the lack of sortability, but that is an issue that is currently under discussion at WP:HOCKEY, and so in light of consensus on these lists until now, I believe this list meets the criteria. Rlendog (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Islanders have played their home games"-->The Islanders play their home games
• "The team's first head coach was Phil Goyette, who coached for one season from 1972 to 1973." Simplify the wording; note that he did not coach the full season: "The team's first head coach was Phil Goyette, who coached the team for part of the 1972–73 season.
• "game wins (740); Arbour is also"-->game wins (740); he is also
• "Goyette, Earl Ingarfield, Bill Stewart, and current coach Scott Gordon are the only coaches who spent their entire careers with the Islanders and were not elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame."-->Goyette, Earl Ingarfield, Bill Stewart, and current coach Scott Gordon are the only coaches who spent their entire careers with the Islanders and have not been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame.
• You only have to write out "Al Arbour"'s full name once. After that, use his last name.
• "Al Arbour, Terry Simpson, Peter Laviolette, Steve Stirling, and Ted Nolan are the only coaches to have ever coached the team into the playoffs."
• It would be preferable if you could find a [free] image of a coach instead of the arena. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Will look. iMatthew // talk // 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • All done but the image. iMatthew // talk // 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think I am done with your requests. iMatthew // talk // 16:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Move the image to the left so that it is facing the page; some FAs start with a left-aligned image, such as Joseph Priestley. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. iMatthew // talk // 16:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Could add the team captain with the last sentence in the first paragraph (ie. List of Tampa Bay Lightning head coaches).
• Reference for Garth Snow being a former goalie of Islanders.
• Phil Goyette should be wikilinked.
• In achievements, could add the Arbour won the Jack Adams Award in 1978-79.
• See also section should be removed because the first one is on the navbox, and the other two are not related to the article.
• "A running total of the number of coaches of the Panthers." The Panthers? LOL, you copied one of my featured lists.
• "Arbour replaced Ted Nolan as an interim head coach for one game." reference? Also include the reason why.

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 09:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nurmsook

Comments by Nurmsook (talk · contribs)

• The team's first head coach was Phil Goyette, who... -> Phil Goyette should be wikilinked
• In Al Arbour's achievements section, make note of his Jack Adams award (mention it in the lead as well) and wikilink Stanley Cup Championship to List of Stanley Cup champions (it's linked to a dab page at the moment)
• In Scott Gordon's term length, you need an endash, not a dash, in the wikilink to the 2008–09 NHL season
• I see no reason why List of current NHL captains or List of NHL players should be in the see also section, and the List of NHL head coaches is covered in the template at the bottom of the page. I'd say get rid of the whole see also section, but those first two links especially.
• Note A states A running total of the number of coaches of the Panthers.
• Ref 16 (Arbour replaced Ted Nolan as an interim head coach for one game.) should be moved to the notes section as you should include a reference for the statement.
• You don't need nowiki tags around the endashes in the coaches table. Just takes up extra bandwidth. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 01:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comments 1, 2, 4, and 6 all relates to my comments. Laugh out loud. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 01:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Everything looks good to me now. Good job! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 20:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done with all of your comments. Except Nurmsook's last comment. I don't see it's much of an issue. iMatthew // talk // take my poll // 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You do his first, but not mine? Laugh out loud with all due respect. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 02:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What? No, I am done with your comments and his. You should have checked the page first. iMatthew // talk // take my poll // 02:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh...should have said that you finished both our comments. Anyways, I'll Support when everyone else Supports, since that's how I roll. ;p -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 02:36, 20 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [39].

---

List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries

After working on this list, I believe it fulfilled the FL criteria.—Chris! _ct 20:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I find the title a little awkward. Has there been any discussion about how this list is named? Jkelly (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, but I am open to any suggestions that would make the title less awkward. I am not sure how to make it less awkward.—Chris! _ct 21:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Very nice read. I also found the title to be a little awkward though. "First women" had me thinking that the First Ladies had held Secretaryships. Couple of things: why are the Party and Administration columns not sortable; and the prose in the Postmaster General and SECNAV rows needs fixing -- it's wrapping very strangely. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I am open to any suggestions that would fix the title and make it read better. I am not sure how to make it less awkward Also, the reason Party and Administration columns are not sortable is that the sorting function is not working and I don't know how to fix this glitch. Lastly, how do I fix the wrapping of the proses? I don't see anything wrong.—Chris! _ct 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"List of first female U.S. Cabitnet Secretaries"?

Done—Chris! _ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:FFCS table.JPG is a screenshot of the page, with the line breaks circled in read.

Fixed—Chris! _ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool. In that case I'll delete the image. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The sortability glitch is if you're using Firefox with Twinkle or WikEd.. The linking for the other three columns works right; there's no reason Party and Administration shouldn't either. No big deal though.

Done—Chris! _ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think List of first female United States Cabinet Secretaries is a lot more clear. Jkelly (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 19:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by User:Reywas92

• Question: This is a very nice list, but why can't we have a list of all women who have been secretaries? I would find that more informational, useful, and inclusive than just the firsts, and there aren't that many more to add. And if it's only the firsts then Condoleezza Rice shouldn't have an image here.
  • I did thought about that but didn't do so because it is hard to show two seperate info: first secretaries and all secretaries in a single article. I would add other female secretaries if there is a nice way to illustrate that here with the first secretaries info. I know Condoleezza Rice was not the first, but her image is here because she is mentioned in the lead.—Chris! _ct 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Take a look at this version when I have both info on the single page.—Chris! _ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I significantly prefer the list with all of them. A possibility is a table of all women secretaries with asterisks indicating the firsts. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Ok, this will take some time but I think I will be able to finish it later by the end of today.—Chris! _ct 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Elizabeth Dole is no longer a Senator.
    • Fixed—Chris! _ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I really don't like much of the lead; it seems to just be listing off the firsts in prose.
    • The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article content. I don't see anything wrong.—Chris! _ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Four existing departments of Homeland Security, Veteran Affairs, Defense, and Treasury" is badly worded.
    • Ok, what do you suggests?—Chris! _ct 19:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, You should add "The" to the beginning.Reywas92^Talk 04:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent job including all female secretaries! The lead is great and less listy, and the table is very well made. Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The United States Cabinet has had many female appointed officers in its history." This seems a bit vague, especially for the first sentence. Can you put in the exact number?
• "prior to"-->before.
• "No woman had ever held"
• "which prohibits states or the federal government" Don't you mean and "the federal government"?
• "Since then, 24 different women had been members of the Cabinet."-->Since then, 24 women have been members of the Cabinet.
• "Patricia Roberts Harris was"-->Patricia Roberts Harris became...
• "newly-formed " No hyphen after -ly adverbs.
• "was the first woman to hold a Cabinet position, "-->was the first woman to have held a Cabinet position,
• "to serve in the Cabine"-->to have served in the Cabinet
• "Former North Carolina senator Elizabeth Dole is the first woman to serve in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations when she was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Secretary of Transportation in 1983, and again by Reagan's successor George H. W. Bush as Secretary of Labor in 1989."-->Former North Carolina senator Elizabeth Dole is the first woman to have served in two different Cabinet positions during two different administrations. She was appointed by President Ronald Reagan as Secretary of Transportation in 1983, and was the Secretary of Labor during the tenure of George H. W. Bush—Reagan's successor.
• "Madeleine Albright" You might mention her nationality?
• "The defunct Department of Health, Education, and Welfare also has had two female Secretaries."-->The defunct Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has also had two female Secretaries.
• "have yet to have women Secretaries"-->have not had women Secretaries. "yet to have" implies that these departments will have women secretaries.
• Make sure to update the article when Barack Obama takes office.
• "If confirmed, Clinton will become the first First Lady to serve in the Cabinet and the third female Secretary of State."-->If confirmed, Clinton will become the first First Lady to have served in the Cabinet and the third female Secretary of State.
• I think that the "Secretary" column should be the second, not the third, from the left. After all, this list is about the Secretaries. Also, there is no need to highlight the whole row. Perhaps just the secretary and their postition? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

All done—Chris! _ct 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved image issue

Images

• File:Albrightmadeleine.jpg needs a source.
  • Contact uploader, and still wait for his/her response—Chris! _ct 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The uploader hasn't edited in two and a half years. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Should I wait or remove the image?—Chris! _ct 19:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Wait a couple days, and if the problem isn't solved, remove it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Note this was actually originally uploaded as File:Secalbright.jpg by User:Nk who is still active (edited yesterday) on en wiki. I suggest asking them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I contacted User:Nk on en wiki and commons. Hopefully, he will reply me soon.—Chris! _ct 19:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• (outdent) I removed the Albright image since the uploaders didn't reply me.—Chris! _ct 21:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I replaced the deleted image with a different image from Commons. I thought it looked very peculiar to highlight the second woman to be Sec'y of State, but the first. --Orlady (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• The source link to File:PatriciaHarris.jpg is dead.
  • Image replaced—Chris! _ct 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Likewise for the next image (the senate.gov link redirects to the main page.
  • Fixed—Chris! _ct 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that ref 8 http://www.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=ec058dc49ba86eafad5319127b1f4bc7 dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you made a mistake. None of the reference I used is from Asian Week. And the link for Ref 8 isn't the one you pointed out.—Chris! _ct 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I got it. Ref 8 is dead, you are right. But the link for Ref 8 isn't the above one.—Chris! _ct 23:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.—Chris! _ct 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Sorry it is good and I enjoyed reading the lead, but currently I will oppose mainly on the first problem I raise below.

• Because you have comments spanned across 4 rows, it makes the party and administration columns not sort.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• For context it might be worth mentioning when all the cabinet departments were established. You do this for those where a woman has never served, but it might be useful for the rest to.
  • I can easily do it if you want, but the table is fairly crowded already.—Chris! _ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • True, I am considering whether this is necessary, as it is only really relevant to departments formed after 1920's Nineteenth Amendment
• Whilst I've seen both used going from the Obama article (an FA) I think it should be President-elect not President-Elect.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• first to "have served in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations", seems a bit ambiguous do you mean the first to have served in two different Cabinet positions, doing so in two different administrations. As currently it reads like she was the first person to "serve in two different Cabinet positions in two different administrations".
  • I am not sure what to do? Do you have any suggestion?—Chris! _ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I originally thought this meant that she was the "have served in two different Cabinet positions" which was in fact Patricia Roberts Harris. I was being stupid, and this is actually fine how it is. Sorry, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
• Might be worth adding note b to Albright in the table as well.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 01:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Also, just a note that this is extremely close to being an orphaned page. It has three mainspace links for "see also" sections, and one prose.
  • Is this really a problem? I can't really control how many other pages link to this page.—Chris! _ct 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 13, 29 and 31 need a NYT login, which should probably be noted. Also a lot of the refs are missing publishers.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Regarding your last point—which refs are missing publishers? Note that publications should be in italics, which is why they would be used in the "work" parameter of the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Work and publisher are not the same thing. For example The New York Times Company is the publisher of the work The New York Times. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, now I understand you. The publisher is really not necessary when its name is similar to the work. I've seen many Featured articles and lists not add publishers to refs. The purpose of publisher info, especially in the case of publications, is to show the reader that an established company supports/owns the publication; therefore, that source can be considered reliable. In the case of The New York Times, it is such a well-known and established publication that few (if any) people will question its reliability. It can stand alone. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something? Refs 13, 29 and 31 do not need any login.—Chris! _ct 00:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • That is weird they don't require one to for me now, but checklinks still says they do. However some of the other NYT ones still only give short previews and not the full articles. They are refs 2, 21, 27, 29, 32 Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • These refs still work, right. The short previews already verify the info of the articles.—Chris! _ct 01:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Patricia Roberts Harris became the first female Secretary of Health and Human Services after serving as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in 1977." Probably worth noting that she was also the "Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare" before the department split. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done—Chris! _ct 19:33, 17 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [40].

---

List of Second Boer War Victoria Cross recipients

It has been a while since I was here, but another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of other lists in the campaign topic. The Second Boer War is actually covered quite well in Wikipedia, but South African villages isn't. I have created a large number of stubs for them, but there are still a few redlinks. I don't think that is an issue though, nor is it covered by any FLC criteria. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - it was my understanding that the award to Frederick Hugh Sherston Roberts was also posthumous, yet this is not reflected in the list. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment, depends exactly how you define posthumous I suppose, he didn't die during the action that won him the VC, surviving for a couple of days after the battle. It appears from the despatches published in "No. 27157". The London Gazette. 26 January 1900. pp. 506–507. that he was recommended for the VC by the CinC, Redvers Buller, before his death. The Royal Warrant and procedures then in force meant that an action directly observed by a CinC and duly recommended for a VC was almost certain to be confirmed, though interestingly, Buller declined to recommend Harry Norton Schofield for the VC for this action, but he was later awarded it. The actual citation, in "No. 27160". The London Gazette. 26 January 1900. p. 689. records him as "since deceased". David Underdown (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't have put it better myself David. These lists have generally defined posthumous as being killed whilst carrying out the gallant action, or nominated for the award post-death. Neither seems to have occured in this case. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. It's just that I have noticed Roberts' VC has been attributed as posthumous in several sources, and a few claims that his was one of the first posthumous awards due to his father's position. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment The link to Hyde Park needs to be disambiguated. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Woody (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "from 11 October 1899 until 31 May 1902" "until"-->to.
• "The third phase began in March 1900 " Comma after here.
• "The campaign had been expected by the British government to be over within months"-->The British government had expected the campaign to be over within months
• "A campaigner, Emily Hobhouse"-->Emily Hobhouse, a campaigner,
• "Gustavus Coulson was one of the first soldiers to be directly nominated"-->Gustavus Coulson was one of the first soldiers to have been directly nominated
• "The Victoria Cross warrant was not officially amended to include posthumous awards until 1920 but one quarter of all awards for the First World War were posthumous"-->Although the Victoria Cross warrant was not officially amended to include posthumous awards until 1920, one quarter of all awards for the First World War were posthumous. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.angloboerwar.com/ a reliable source?
• Ref 4, the page range needs an unspaced en dash.
• Refs with multiple page numbers should use "pp." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Much apologies about the lateness of the reply, it seems to have slipped through my watchlist. I have done all the little issues and removed the Angloboerwar.com site as a source. I couldn't find the sourcing information for the website so can't corroborate its verifiability. All the other references say the same thing anyway. Thanks for your review. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - from what I can tell this list meets all the criteria. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:35, 19 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [41].

---

Girls Aloud discography

This was at WP:PR for 8 days and got no feedback. I can only hope this means it's as good as it can be. Thank you for your consideration. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• They have also provided eleven original recordings for other albums, and appear on three more non-music DVDs. - from the context, "more" isn't required in the sentence

• done

• Their second single, "No Good Advice" was released in both CD and DVD single formats in May 2003. - either add a comma after the single's name or remove it the comma before it

• done

• A week later, the girls released their debut album Sound of the Underground, which was certified platinum by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI). - since it is also their name, capitalize Girls, because if it was a male group you wouldn't say the "guys"

• done -- changed to "group"

• The third single to be taken from the album was "Life Got Cold". - period should be within the quotation marks

• not done - the period is not part of the single's title.

• They released their debut single "Sound of the Underground", which reached the coveted Christmas Number 1 on both the UK Singles Chart and Irish Singles Chart. - comma should be within the quotation marks

• not done - the period is not part of the single's title.

• Their fourth single, "Jump", a cover version of "Jump (for My Love)" by The Pointer Sisters, was taken from the soundtrack for the film Love Actually, and appeared on the re-issue of Sound of the Underground. - comma should be within the quotation marks

• not done - the period is not part of the single's title.

• What Will the Neighbours Say?, the group's second album, was released in November 2004 and produced four singles, "The Show", "Love Machine", "I'll Stand by You", and "Wake Me Up". - commas and periods need to be within the quotations marks

• not done - the period is not part of the single's title.

• Preceded by the singles "Long Hot Summer" and "Biology", their third album, Chemistry, was released in December 2005. - like above, commas within quotation marks

• not done - the period is not part of the single's title.

• Basically, punctuation should be within the quotation marks, unless I am not aware of them being outside of the marks.

• I don't believe this is true. The punctuation is not a part of the title, it is part of the commentary.

• Sources for notes 4 and 5?

• done

--Truco 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - my comments were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL and thanks for clearing up the situation on the punctuation and the quotation marks.--Truco 23:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "a British pop music girl group" Comma after this phrase.

• done

• "Girls Aloud have also released twenty-one singles and music videos, and six music DVDs" Comma not necessary.

• done

• "coveted Christmas Number 1" Show, not tell please. Anyway, when is a number-one spot on a chart not coveted?

• done

• "It is taken from Out of Control, their fifth studio album, was released on 31 October 2008 " Add "and" before "was".

• done

• Why are the country names in the table bold?

• They're part of the table header.

• "It featured the promotional music videos for the singles to date" Why in the past tense?

• done

Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support:

• The country names in the title shouldn't be in bold

• Well since you've done it I'll leave it, but I disagree. The country names appear as part of the table header and I haven't seen a table without bolded headers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• BPI certification: Platinum → UK: Platinum
• In the compilation albums section → Header should be "Certifications" not "Sales and certifications"
• Everything should be organized as it appears in the infobox

• The page follows the layout of all other discogs. The infobox is sorted the way it is by default, and unless I change the infobox, there's not much I can do about it.
• I agree it would be preferable, but I can't see a good work around. I disagree with the shift of the "Other appearances" section to below "Other DVD appearances" because now it goes albums, songs, music videos, dvds, songs. I'd prefer to keep the songs all together, and if you are happy with that reasoning I'll put the section back where it was. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• DVDs → all should be under the main heading "Video albums"

• But not all of them are albums. Some are, for sure, but others, like Ghosthunting, Pop Idol, etc aren't. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• Maybe add catalog numbers?

• Do these add to the encyclopedic value of the page? If so I'll add them, but I'm not convinced they do. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• Album → Album details
• Single → Song
• Music video → Title
• Music video titles shouldn't be in italics
• In the Other appearances section:
  • Song title → Song
  • Release → Album/Single

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, and for carrying out many of the changes yourself. I appreciate it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 16 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 23:14, 20 January 2009 [42].

---

Megadeth discography

The early work done on this list was made by Burningclean. Later I improved, until reach here. I had a type of deal with Burningclean, was to be he nominating this list (or a co-nom between us), but he nearly left wiki or in a vacant period, I don't known. Now this work is better and waiting for your comments, that's all. Regards, Cannibaloki 03:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• In early 2002, Mustaine suffered several injuries, that led him to announce in a press release which Megadeth had disbanded. - how about In early 2002, Mustaine suffered several injuries, which led him to announce in a press release that Megadeth had disbanded.
  • Done. (swapped and not saw)
• Two years later the band was reformed, and released The System Has Failed, which was supposed to be a solo album released by Mustaine, but due to outstanding contractual obligations with the band's European label EMI, he was forced to release one more album under the "Megadeth" name. 1)Comma after "later" 2)(Opt.)Remove comma before "and released"
  • Done. (just slipping to the wrong place)
• Why is it that there is nothing noting the singles in the lead? Or other releases, like live albums, etc.?
  • This informations are written in the band's article, the discography is only a summary.
    • Yeah, but other discographies list singles and other types of albums released, I mean like a summary of them, but this one doesn't.--Truco 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Not done. Cannibaloki 16:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
        • So its no got going to be added? --Truco 04:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
          • No, I prefer to tell you a mini-history, than statistics. Cannibaloki 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Do I sense a problem between me and you here? All I said was whether you could add a bit of prose about the singles, which is part of the discography of Megadeth.--Truco 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Done. Cannibaloki 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Tables check out fine.--Truco 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks. Cannibaloki 00:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• One more thing, spell out United Kingdom in its first occurrence.--Truco 15:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - issues resolved, meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 16:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been on for a while, but if there's work to be done, I'll help. If the nom goes to Cannibaloki that's fine, but I'll help with it. We had a deal, I just haven't been on much for a while, but I'll do work that's needed. Sorry about that. Burningclean _[speak] 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The following year, the group released their debut, Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good!," Second comma should be a semicolon.
  • Done.
• Why is thes "№" symbol used? Can we just use plain text?
  • Done. (number)
• "went platinum by RIAA"-->was certified platinum by the RIAA
  • Done.
• "Later that year " Comma after this phrase.
  • Done.
• Can you mention some of the other things from the discography in the lead, such as the highest-charting single, notable EPs, etc.? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The date format in the citations are inconsistent, some are in ISO format (2009-01-05) and others are in American format (January 6, 2009).
  • Done. (January 6, 2009)
• What makes http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_M.HTM a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing, but the chart information were taken from several kinds of books; see Bibliography of Chartography Cannibaloki 03:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Confirmed to be reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style and other FLCs. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for now The prose needs work: I can't understand the sentence "Throughout Megadeth's many lineup changes, they toured and gained a following, signing with the independent label Combat Records in late 1984." Reading further on "Their major hit, is the single "Symphony of Destruction", which peaked at number 71 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart, as well as, the top 15 in Ireland and UK." is rather grammatically incorrect as well.

Also, instead of writing out entire sentences just to describe which year an album was released, you could just put the year in brackets and convey the same meaning with fewer words. For eg: "Megadeth's sixth album Youthanasia (1994) was a commercial success." Please find somebody to look through the text and I will be happy to strike my oppose. indopug (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I sifted through the text a bit; most of what needed copy-editing was added after I had reviewed the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposer asked to revisit here. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 22:15, 17 January 2009 [43].

---

Tokio Hotel discography

I am co-nominating this with User:AngelOfSadness; it is her first FLC nomination. We think it comparable to other Featured discographies. All comments will be addressed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I happily co-nom this article with Matthewedwards as for reasons already mentioned. It is quite comprehensive as it lists all official releases, known certifications/chart positions etc., all of which is easily verifiable through the reliable sources cited and I believe it meets the WP:WIAFL critera. Cheers. AngelOfSadness talk 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• Zimmer 483 was released on 23 February 2007, and hit the top spot on the German albums chart. - how about instead of "hit" use reached?

• done

• On 4 June 2007, Tokio Hotel released their first English language album, Scream throughout Europe. - Either remove the comma before the album name or add a comma after it

• done (added)

• "Ready, Set, Go!" was released in the United Kingdom though it failed to enter the Top 40; it spent just one week at Number 77 before dropping out of the charts. - comma before "though"

• done

• "Don't Jump" was released in 2008 as Scream's final single. - this makes it seem like the band is no longer together, is it suppose to sound this way?

• The band are Tokio Hotel, the album is Scream. This just means it was the last single taken from the album. I've reworded and I'll try to find a reference for their yet-to-be-released new album to emphasise the fact that the band is still together.

• • Gotcha.--Truco 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Punctuation should be within quotation marks, unless I am wrong.

• Only if the punctuation is part of the title, or part of a quote, AFAIK. Which one are you referring to?

--Truco 22:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was referring to all the punctuation that was outside the quotation marks for the names of the songs. But I am aware now that its suppose to be like that, thanks for letting me know.--Truco 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - my comments were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 22:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick comment: those "year in music" (like 2008 in music) links are unnecessary. I think they should be removed. For eg: 2005 in music doesn't even mention Tokio Hotel. indopug (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• done - AngelOfSadness talk 15:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "was certified Platinum" Any reason "Platinum" o\is capitalized?

• done - Although the featured List of music recording sales certifications has gold & platinum etc. capitalised in the prose (it's the same on the promoted version of that list also) but I changed the capitalisation in this discography as every other featured discography has it non-capitalised. If I'm wrong feel free to revert.

• "The album's second single, "Spring nicht"" Comma after here.

• done

• "In German speaking countries,"-->In countries with German-speaking populations,

• done

• ""Don't Jump" was the final single to be from Scream."-->"Don't Jump" was the final single to be spawned from Scream.

• done

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

AngelOfSadness talk 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as SNEP and ORF.
• What makes http://www.disqueenfrance.com/certifications/video.asp?forme_certif=19&annee=25 a reliable source?

• The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry links to the Société Civile des Producteurs Phonographiques site (http://www.scpp.fr/SCPP/), which is the French company that collects royalty payments for artists when their songs are played on the radio, tv, or purchased. They link to Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique, which on the front page says:

  Créé en 1922, le Syndicat National de l'édition Phonographique regroupe 48 membres dont il est le porte-parole et le représentant, vis-à-vis du Gouvernement, des parlementaires et de l'administration, que des autres organisations professionnelles, de la presse et du public.

  My French isn't too good these days, but basically its been around since 1922, and is made up of 48 members including the Government, Administrative Parliament, the press, public and other professional organisations. DisqueEnFrance.com is the official site.Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.tokiohotelamerica.com/2008/12/25/gold-in-italy/, a fan club site, reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• They claim to be the official US fan club website, but I've replaced it with the offical Italian Tokio Hotel website. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The link checker shows that several links are dead. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Just fixed them. Hopefully the new links are working ok. AngelOfSadness talk 19:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• They do, but now some other things have turned up.

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as ORF and SNEP.

• Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• Refs 43 and 48–58 needs publishers. Some of those also need the language= parameters filled in. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Support:

• The country names in the title shouldn't be in bold

• done - fixed

• I don't believe this is correct. The country names are part of the table header, and should be bolded. I am yet to see a table with unbolded headers. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• At first I wasn't sure about it but many other Featured discographies have the countries unbolded like Foo Fighters discography, Goldfrapp discography, Nine Inch Nails discography and 50 Cent discography so I changed it as all of the ones I checked were unbolded. AngelOfSadness talk 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• {{nowrap|IFPI (Austria): 2× Platinum → AUT: 2× Platinum

• Not done yet as I don't have to fix all of them at the moment but I'll fix them within the next 24 hours if no one else has fixed it in the meantime.

• Maybe add catalog numbers?

• done - added to all studio, video and live albums

• Personally, I don't feel these add any encyclopedic value, but since it's been done - meh. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• I added them as suggested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style where all catalog numbers should be added (only for albums and only if they were notable releases). The Discography more than proves that the releases are notable so they were added. AngelOfSadness talk 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Album → Album details

• done

• US → U.S.

• done

• I'm reverting this per WP:MOS. Since "UK" is used, "US" must also be used - It is never "U.K.", otherwise "U.S." would be okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• Just for clarification, either can be used; however, U.S. is more prevalent, especially in American English. Since this article doesn't seem to use American English and does not concern an American subject (not sure which variant is used), there seems to be no reason to change. I know I said otherwise earlier, I was wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article uses British English and British date formatting. "US" is much more common in the UK, because "UK" is never "U.K.". MOS actually says "never add periods" (Wikipedia:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations):

  In American English, U.S. is the standard abbreviation for United States; US is becoming more common and is standard in other national forms of English ... If the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout; never add periods to the other abbreviations (the US, the UK and the PRC, not the U.S., the U.K. and the P.R.C.).

  Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an article's spelling and grammer/punctuation use is based on where the subject is from I was unsure which one was more correct in this case. But, looking at it MOS links provided by Mattewedwards, US is actually correct. AngelOfSadness talk 17:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Single → Song

• done

• Everything should be organized as it appears in the infobox

• done

• No, because it splits the "music" section up by sticking the "videos" part in between. I've put this back. It's an issue with the infobox, not the page layout. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• Director → Director(s)

• done

• Music video → Title

• done

• Music video titles shouldn't be in italics

• done

• In the Other appearances section:
  • Song title → Song
  • Release → Album/Single

• done

• DVDs → Video albums

• done

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

AngelOfSadness talk 21:57, 15 January 2009 (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 Scorpion0422 22:15, 17 January 2009 [44].

---

List of 24 episodes

I had hoped to get this nominated and hopefully promoted before the new season starts on Jan 11, but I don't think that will happen now. This list follows the most recent styles of episode-list FLs, with writers and directors, and has followed concerns raised at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The O.C. episodes, in that the tables are not transcluded from the season pages and production codes have been removed. No episode summaries are given here because they are on the individual season pages. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments: First time reviewing, so bare with me here! It's just a quick question but what does the "Season" column in the tables mean? There is no Season 24 last time I checked ;). The Helpful One 14:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to mean the episode number within the season. I suppose it's not really necessary; each season has 24 episodes and there is an "overall" episode # column. I'll remove it if you wish, I am not attached to it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could remove it, or perhaps you rename "Season" to "Hour" or something like that? The Helpful One 10:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all good Supporting. The Helpful One 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The series is is presented in real time format; each one-hour episode depicts one hour's events, and each season a twenty-four hour period in the life of protagonist Jack Bauer (played by Kiefer Sutherland), a CTU agent. - 1)Double is 2)I don't think the one hour's events needs an apstrophe 3)add is before a twenty-four hour period...
  • done, though I changed "one hour's events" to "one hour's worth of events" -- is this better?
    • Thats fine.--Truco 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Season 7 will begin on January 11, 2009, with a two-night, four-hour premiere over two consecutive nights. The remainder of the episodes will air weekly on Monday nights. -- Source?
  • done: [45]
• As well as each season of 24, and 24:Redemption, being available to purchase as DVD boxsets,[6] episodes are also available digitally. - Source for being available digitally?
  • They appear in the following sentences.
• In the series overview table, I would add a footnote to the 24: Redemption stating why it's there not to confuse the reader.
  • What do you mean? How would it confuse the reader? 24: Redemption is mentioned in the Lede so it's not the first time it's being introduced to the reader.
    • How did I miss that, eh.--Truco 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Refs 24-26 have date linking problems.
  • done: The cite template needed fixing.
    • Gotcha.--Truco 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Is the refs for the airdates also verifying the directors and titles?--
  • done: I just checked, and yes they do. I've added the links to those columns too.

Truco 14:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank's for the review, just that one Series overview table thing I need clarifying. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - excellent list that now meets WP:WIAFL after my resolved comments.--Truco 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "As of May 21, 2007, 144 episodes over six complete seasons have been broadcast." Comparative quantities should be written out the same.
  • done
• "As well as each season of 24, and 24:Redemption, being available to purchase as DVD boxsets,[7] episodes are also available digitally." Can this sentence be rephrased? It is rather clumsy. Maybe: "Each season of 24, as well as 24:Redemption are available to purchase as DVD boxsets; episodes are also available digitally."
  • done
• The date formats of the retrieval dates are inconsistent; some are in [Month day, year] and the rest are in [Day month year]. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure? I don't see any. Can you specify which refs, please?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • '24': Redemption". Digital Spy (November 24, 2008). Retrieved on January 2, 2009.
      "24 – Season 1". TVShowsOnDVD.com. Retrieved on 2 January 2009. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • done Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 4 (http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/14/tv.24delay.ap/index.html and Ref 23 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/24-Complete-Season-Kiefer-Sutherland/dp/B000NVLI7) deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/2008-02-14-2281862716_x.htm (same article) and http://www.amazon.co.uk/24-Complete-Season-Kiefer-Sutherland/dp/B000NVLI70 - bad link was due to typo. Thanks! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor comments This list needs a picture.—Chris! _ct 20:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of Featured episode lists don't have a picture. If they do it's an image of a DVD boxset casing. I don't believe that satisfies WP:NFCC#8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I don't think having that picture helps people understand anything in the list. I am open to any suggestions for a picture, if you have any. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support —Chris! _ct 07:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge

Comments

• "For the fourth season, Fox scheduled 24 to begin midseason, with a new episode airing every week. Season seven was..." Up to this point you've mentioned viewing schedules of the first four seasons. It seems to abruptly neglect season 5 & 6. Might be worth mentioning it continued beginning midseason for five and six too.

• done

• "Season 7 will begin on January" - Season seven.

• done

• "as well as 24:Redemption are available" -> well as 24: Redemption are available (italics and spaced per this)

• done

• "Every episode is also available at the iTunes Store to download and playback on home computers and certain iPods." Reword as it is country dependent. Whilst all six seasons are available in US & UK stores, only seasons 1 & 6 are available in the Australia store.

• done - thanks, I didn't realise that.

• Series overview should also space 24: Redemption

• done

• You missed this one, but it's done now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's hard to see the refs [31] on the "Television movie" against the title colour. Any chance of changing the purple?

• done

• Season 7 - "Written By" isn't centred.

• Looks it to me..

• This is what I see, despite the coding being seemingy identical to the other seasons above it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's weird. It's only happening in IE, not FF. I don't understand why it's doing it. I can't get it to fix. :/ Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• I couldn't fix it either, and I won't oppose on seemingly non-actionable grounds. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Unaired Season 7 directors. Do we have cites for Cassar & Turner directing the first four.

• The first two episodes aired tonight. I have added directors and writers for those -- they're given on-screen. Tomorrow I will add those. The episodes are self-references.

• OK, this will be fine after you've updated it following the airing of the first four episodes (tonight or tommorrow). "Season seven will begin on January 11, 2009, with a two" in the lead will also need a change of tense. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• done

Overall it looks good and it is nice to see you back again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [46].

---

Dido discography

previous FLC (07:07, 22 August 2008)
I think this discography about the British singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all done. Cannibaloki 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments

• First of all, looks good! I made minor fixes and now more a few things.
• Increase the peaks from eight to ten as MOS:DISCOG suggests.
• Dido's albums not received certifications in other countries?
• Remove Live at Brixton Academy as live album, it is a DVD with a bonus audio edition (just that).
• Taken from Odds & Ends: "Odds & Ends is Dido's first recording album, which was never released officially." (see MOS:DISCOG)
• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Added additional charts and certifications. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The following year, rapper Eminem sampled the song "Thank You" in his song "Stan", which reached number one in the UK. - the sentence is making clear which one ranked in the UK, Dido's or Eminem's song.
• In 1997, she began composing solo material and signed a recording contract with Arista Records in the United States. - delink United States, to common country.
• No Angel, composed of pop, rock and electronica songs,[1] reached number one and went nine times platinum in the UK. - should be ...and went platinum nine times in the UK
• Spell out UK on its first occurence
• In the US, the album reached number four and was certified four times platinum. - should be ...and was certified platinum four times.
• The album reached number one and went seven times platinum in the UK - should be ...and went platinum seven times in the UK.
• Life for Rent sold nine million records,[10] and produced four top forty singles. - no need for the comma
• Source verifying the video albums, or is covered by the general references?Truco 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The video albums are covered in the general sources section. Hopefully fixed everything else. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - comments were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "In the US"-->In the U.S.,
• "The record experienced international success with sales of over twelve million." "twelve"-->12.
• "and went platinum seven times in the UK" Don't you mean "certified platinum"? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_B.HTM a reliable source/
• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as IFPI.
• Web titles or portions of them should not be in all caps (ref 8). Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have fixed everything. Also, Zobbel.de is listed as a reliable source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style and has been used in other featured discographies. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [47].

---

List of San Francisco Giants Opening Day starting pitchers

I believe this list meets the Featured List criteria, along the lines of List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers and others in the series. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) - great list, few problems however

• Juan Marichal holds the San Francisco Giants record for most Opening Day starts with 10. - comma before "with"
• Marichal has the most wins in Opening Day starts for San Francisco Giants with six. - add the before "San Francisco Giants"
• Zito and Marichal have the most losses in Opening Day starts for the San Francisco Giants with two apiece.' - comma before "with"
• Merge the last three paragraphs into one paragraph.
• Diverse the name of the team in the prose. "San Francisco Giants" is constantly used, refer to them as simply San Francisco or the Giants
• Maybe I missed it, but who "was the most recent Opening Day starter?
• Ref #1 could be used as a General Reference, as seen in 2008 WWE Draft#References.--Truco 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - excellent list that qualifies as a Featured list.--Truco 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The San Francisco Giants are a Major League Baseball franchise that moved to San Francisco, California in 1958." "moved to" might confuse readers. Say "based in" in this sentence, and insert a sentence that explains where the team was based before and when they moved.
• "That was the Giants only " Missing an apostrophe.
• "6 wins, 2 losses and 2 no decisions"-->six wins, two losses and two no decisions
• "Reuschel and Burkett are the only pitchers to win more than one Opening Day start for San Francisco without a loss."-->Reuschel and Burkett are the only pitchers to have won more than one Opening Day start for San Francisco without a loss.
• A couple of the image captions are missing possesive apostrophes after "Giants".

Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [48].

---

List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing

For those that don't like the table format, there are some alternatives listed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing (although they don't seem to be too popular). Anyway, all concerns will be addressed by me. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list; all of my concerns on the Wikiproject review have been addressed. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• (1) Maybe it is possible to add also the "Image:Alpine skiing pictogram.svg"? These pictograms are added to nearly all Olympic articles and I think it is good to "mark" all Olympic articles on English wiki with these pictograms?
  • I don't know, I can't really find a convenient place to put it, maybe in the see also section?
• (2) Same more useful images: "File:Ann Heggtveit 1960.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Lake Placid 1932.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Garmish 1936.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Grenoble 1968.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Innsbruck 1976.jpg", "File:Olympic medal Sarayevo 1984.jpg", "File:Olympics medal Salt Lake 2002.jpg"?
  • At the moment, there is only have room for one image, but if a spot opens up, the Heggtveit would be a good option.
• (3) The FIS and also the IOC call the "Super giant slalom" only "Super G" so I think we should also use this name?
  • I'm not sure, I'll see what the WP:OLYMPICS convention is.
• (4) What about: The oldest/youngest male medalist? The oldest/youngest male gold medalist? The oldest/youngest female medalist? The oldest/youngest female gold medalist?
  • I have Aamodt listed as the oldest medalist and I would like to add the youngest, but I haven't been able to find out who that is yet.
• (5) The first who was able to repeat his/her title? Or the biggest gap between two medals?
  • Okay. I added some more firsts too.
• (6) Is it of interest, that Liechtenstein is the only country to win medals in Winter Games but not in Summer Games and they won all their medals in Alpine skiing?
• (7) Maybe we can add a list which country was the most successful in every year?
• (8) Maybe we can add medal tables for men/women only? Or we can add medal tables per disciplines?
  • I have an idea for that. Give me a bit of time and I'll see what I can do.
• (9) About the text: "..., although some Austrians decided to compete for Germany." Maybe we can add that one of them the Austrian-born Gustav Lantschner won silver for Germany? This is why Austria failed to win a medal only in 1936...
• (10) About the text: "...and have been won by athletes from 24 nations." Maybe it is better to write alpine skiers or competitors and not athletes? Isn't there a different in the meaing of the word "athlete" in British and American English? And maybe it is better to write NOC's and not "nations"? Maybe West Germany - Germany and/or Soviet Union - Russia are not different "nations"?
  • Done.
• (11) What about triple wins for countries? E.g. Norway in men's combined in 1994?
  • Added.
• (12) What about families? Mahre, Fernández-Ochoa, Wenzel, Frommelt, Kostelić? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that's a bit too trivial for here.
  • Thanks a lot for your comments! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(1) Like on the other pages this <div class="tright">[[Image:Alpine skiing pictogram.svg|100px|border|Alpine skiing]]</div> is added at the top right corner.

(3) Please see e.g. [49] and [50]

(4)

• Youngest female medalist: Traudl Hecher bronze downhill 1960 - 16 years and 145 days
• Youngest female gold medalist: Michaela Figini downhill 1984 - 17 years and 315 days
• Oldest female medalist and gold medalist: Michaela Dorfmeister gold Super G 2006 - 32 years 332 days (Alexandra Meissnitzer who won bronze in the same race is the second oldest medalist - 32 years 247 days)
• Youngest male medalist: Alfred Matt bronze slalom 1968 - 19 years 281 days
• Youngest male gold medalist: Toni Sailer giant slalom 1956 - 20 years and 73 days (two days later he won gold in slalom - 20 years and 75 days and again three days later he won gold in downhill - 20 years and 78 days)
• Oldest male medalist and gold medalist: Kjetil André Aamodt - 34 years 169 days (Aamodt is also behind Sailer's three gold medals the second youngest gold medalist (Super G 1992 - 20 years and 167 days)

(11) The triple wins are not added?

(13) Janica Kostelić is the only female skier to win three gold medals. Kjetil André Aamodt won his first gold medal in 1992 and his last in 2006 - span of 14 years.

Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I gave the pictogram a try, and it really didn't look that good as a second image in the lead. I changed the name to Super G, and mentioned that Traudl Hecher is the youngest medalist. I decided not to add triple wins to the lead, and I'm in the process of adding a table of the most medal-winning athletes. Thanks a lot for your comments, is there anything that I haven't addressed? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - excellent list after the resolved comments by Dowa, however, World Championhips is WP:OVERLINK (overlinked) in the prose.--Truco 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(6) Liechtenstein: there is no decision up to now

I'd have to say no, I don't think it's really worth mention here.

(9) Gustav Lantschner: there is no decision up to now

Had Lantschner planned to compete for Austria prior to the announcement of the boycott?

I am not sure, Lantscher won medals for Austria in the FIS world championships in 1932 and 1933 and get German citizanship in 1935. If the reason was the boycott or political is unknown to me... Doma-w (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(13) Correction: Janica Kostelić is the only female skier to win three gold medals at the same Olympics (2002) like Sailer (1956) and Killy (1968).

The reason Sailer and Killy are mentioned is because they won every available gold medal and swept ther events. Kostelic won three, but she didn't sweep.

(14) Marielle and Christine Goitschel: They were the first sisters two finish one-two at the Olympics ever - Slalom February 1, 1964 and they repeat their one-two finish only two days later in the giant slalom, but in reversed order.

I'm not entirely sure if it's notable enough for here, it's a tad trivial. Why not mention team mates that achieved the same feat?

(15) I think it is necessary to explain all the lists to describe the specials, curios, and records. I think this is very important to make a (featured) list readable also to non-experts! Maybe this is also the right place to add triple wins or others like the youngest female gold medalist or something like that. Also I think it is very important to explain the "Medals by nation" why there are three Germany's and maybe it is also useful to explain the years for Yugoslavia (1924-1992), Czechoslovakia (1920-1992), and Soviet Union (1956-1988)? And I think the "Medals per year" needs a note why there are some figures in bold?

Okay, I'll add a section in the statistics section for medal sweeps. As for your suggestions in the table section, I'll do it now.

Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "At the most recent Winter Olympics, events for both men and women were held in five different disciplines" Redundant, is it possible to be held in "five identical disciplines"?
  • Fixed.
• "He is also the oldest alpine skier to win a medal (34)"-->He is also the oldest alpine skier to have won a medal (34)
  • Done.
• "is the youngest alpine skier to medal"-->is the youngest alpine skier to have medalled.
  • Done.
• You talk about Austrians so much in the lead, you might as well mention that they have won more medals than any other NOC.
  • Done.
• Spell out the NOC abbreviation in the prose.
  • Done.
• "bolded numbers indicate that that was the most medals won at that year's Olympic Games." Can we avoid the "that that" repetition?
  • Any suggestions?
    • Hm, maybe: "bolded numbers indicate the highest medal count at that year's Olympic Games." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the "Medals per year" table, why are the years linked twice? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a special of WP:Olympics as there are templates created as header and footer for such lists. Doma-w (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from User:Andrwsc

I am happy to see work on this one of the Category:Lists of Olympic medalists pages, which were overhauled in August 2006 and mostly unchanged (save for link maintenance) since then. Hopefully the rest can be brought up to FL status as well! I do, however, have some comments:

• The article structure we have maintained by WP:WikiProject Olympics has been for a pair of pages per Olympic sport, such as (in this case) Alpine skiing at the Winter Olympics and List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing. The intent is that the "Sport at the Olympics" article gives an all-time overview on the sports history, and the "List of Olympic medalists in sport" is a more detailed list (obviously) of the specific medal winners. With that in mind, I question why the "Statistics" section has been moved here? It reduces from the intent of the former article. Also, I fear that this kind of treatment will not scale well to sports like athletics or swimming, where the medal lists are already very long. Scorpion0422, I know you enjoy working on lists in particular, but I would encourage a more balanced view of these article pairs, where the list is not expanded and developed to the detriment of the main article. This comment would also apply to the lead prose paragraphs as well—the list ought to focus on medal winners and not go into as much depth about the history of the sport.
  • It was moved here because I felt that it would work better if they were included here, that way users wouldn't have to go back and forth between pages. I would not be opposed to the medals by nation table being moved back to the main article (or, alternatively, you could add a small version of just the top 10 there, then have the full table at the medalist page) but I think the rest fit here better. As for your comment about the lead, I wouldn't call it an in depth history of the sport at all. It's just a brief summary of when the various events were added to the Olympics, which relates directly to this page.
    • I still disagree that the medals by nation tables belong on these pages. There are 48 lists like these, and I think it would be awkward and confusing to have alpine skiing different from the rest. Nine of those 48 sports are split into two list articles for size reasons, so where would you put the medals by nation list for athletics, for example? I assert it is much better to put it on Athletics at the Summer Olympics rather than duplicated on the men's and women's medalist lists (or worse, split into men's only and women's only lists to match the list structure!). Please think of the larger context and not just this singular list. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I actually have thought of the "larger context" and I figured that in cases like those, the statistics would be listed in the main article, since they are split. However, I can agree to putting that one back where it used to be (although it doesn't make things very convenient for readers), but what do you of the three other sections in statistics that I created for this article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • My personal opinion (not necessarily consensus) is that
        • Medals by nation – belongs on the summary article page instead
        • Athlete medal leaders – makes more sense to stay here, as the central focus of that table is about the people, not the nations
        • Medals per year – new summary table we haven't used before, perhaps keep in lieu of the medals by nation since there is some overlap (list of nations would be the same, as would the grand total column). The table ought to have a similar style to those on the participating nations pages, where a grey colspan section is used for nations that didn't "exist" for certain years (e.g. Czechoslovakia after 1992, Croatia from 1936–1988) Also, the alphabetical layout and nation by year distinction helps avoid the situation where editors want to combine the different German teams, URS + RUS, etc. in grand total tables to improve their ranked position.
          • I tried to add a grey background, but as fasr as I can tell, the template doesn't allow it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't think that {{OlympicNationWinterRow}} is especially entrenched by the WikiProject, so I'd just use simple table markup. Using that template on List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing looks especially goofy with all the blank space before 1992, for example. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Medal sweep events — I really don't like these tables. I know they started to appear on some Games pages recently (starting with 2006 Games perhaps?) but seem rather trivial and/or crufty to me. I have never seen any other source with this kind of information tabulated, but only just in prose text (Austrians Cap Their Blowout With a Sweep in the Slalom).
          • I don't particularily like them either, but I added it to satisfy a reviewer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • But again, even for the summary tables that could stay here, there is the problem of how to apply the same treatment on all Olympic sport articles. My general feeling is that summary tables belong on the summary article pages. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think it is absolutely essential that the official reports of each Games are listed as references for these lists. Feel free to cut and paste from List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games, where I have already created complete {{cite book}} references for all past reports.
  • I guess I can do that, although I don't bother with them (they take too long to load and even once they are done they rarely work for me)

Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: I moved the medals by nation table back to the main article, and I reformated the by year table and blanked out every year in which a nation didn't compete. Better? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an improvement, but I think more can be done. I wouldn't hold up FL status on this list for this reason, but it ought to be something we have sorted out before it is used as a "guideline" or best-practice for the medalist lists for the other 47 Olympic sports. Specifically, what I'd like to see is a distinction between the following situations:

1. country didn't exist at that time
2. country didn't participate in alpine skiing for those Games (and therefore, could not possibly win any medals)
3. country participated, but won no medals
4. country won medals

Right now, you're using a hyphen for both the second and third cases, but perhaps this should be a symbol (ndash, bullet, or ×) for the second case and a zero for the third. I think the distinction is significant. Also, I think this table needs the same visual appearance and detailed footnotes like we have on List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games and All-time Olympic Games medal table.

Again, all of this feedback is something that I think should be undertaken outside of this FL nomination, and ought to be discussed under the WikiProject page to get more people involved. Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, basically the main purpose of the table is to provide two sets of info: when nations won medals and which nations won medals in a certain year. As it's not the focus of the article, I think the current format is fine, since it's just meant to be a quick summary rather than an in-depth listing of which nations competed which year. That kind of information belongs in the main article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to show the "medals by nation table" on the main page AND here? I think this table is important for both pages? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would prefer to have a quick summary of the table (perhaps the top 10) at the main article, and the full list here, but that's just me. -- 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just one concern how come the tables are not sortable they ought to be really. cheers NapHit (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Basically it's because several rows use the rowspan option, so that screws up the sortability. See here for discussion about it and potential (but ultimately shot down) ways to make it sortable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 08:01, 17 January 2009 [51].

---

List of Canadian Idol finalists

The article may have some image and grammar problems, but all comments are welcome. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 08:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments Might violates WP:RS, since all references used except one are from the TV network website, not from independent sources.—Chris! _ct 00:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

IF TV.com is a reliable source, I will add that in, but currently, I do not believe it is one. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 01:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Support It now meets the FLC criteria.—Chris! _ct 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco (formerly SRX)

Oppose - good list, but not comparable to List of American Idol finalists

• Canadian Idol is a Canadian Interactive reality game show series. - no need to capitalize Interactive
  • What about this?--SRX 22:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• The series premiered their first season on 2003 on CTV and has aired six seasons. - the first on should be in. How about rewording the last part of that sentence to , and has since aired five more seasons
  • I am assuming you mean the first "on", correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I stated that :)--SRX 22:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• As a result of the current economic climate, there will be no season seven of Canadian Idol in 2009. - reword the last part to a seventh season will not be produced in 2009.
• Seventeen finalists have came from the province of Ontario, while British Columbia and Alberta have each had 9. - either reword the first part to ..have come from the or to ..came from the
  • Actually, I have an even crisper suggestion: "Seventeen finalists reside in the province of Ontario..." Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• The second paragraph, the one about the show format, should go into the first one.
  • I was the one who suggested the split, but it does look a little stubby, so this should probably be done. I will go further to say that "Sixty-one contestants have reached the finals of their respective Canadian Idol season." should be deleted, and the next sentence in the last paragraph should say: "Of the 61 contestants who have reached the finals of their respective Canadian Idol season... Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• The sortability function of the table does not work.
• There needs to be more use of third party reliable sources, versus primary ones from the company.

As I said to Chris above, if TV.com is a reliable source, then I will use it. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Caption:Jacob Hoggard, now the lead singer of Hedley,[4] was third on the second season of Canadian Idol. - how about finished third--SRX 16:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for a copy-edit from Dabomb87, and he gave me one, but I never knew that there was more. Thanks for pointing out those grammar problems. Also, this is my first Oppose I've gotten in over 3 months. Now I finally realize how hard it is to make your own article by hand. I have done all your comments/concerns, and will appreciate if there is more that is needed to be resolved. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the sorting is currently glitched on Firefox. If you try it on Explorer, you'll see that the sorting works perfectly. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 01:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey SRE, I didn't say I was perfect :). Most of SRX's suggestions were good catches, I have offered further suggestions under his comments. I wouldn't worry about the oppose, it is not binding; most of the issues are relatively easy to fix. As for TV.com, that doesn't seem to be a reliable source from a first glance. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re primary sources, there is nothing wrong with them as long as they are limited to the verification of uncontentious information. To SRE, a quick search on ProQuest revealed an article that provides more detail on why Canadian Idol is not airing. If you are interested, see User:Dabomb87/Misc. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the comments that have no replies above, are they done? Sorry to give you your first oppose in 3 months, but I can support once these comments are resolved, the list just needs other publishing sources, not just primary source--SRX 22:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)s.

If you read what I wrote, "I have done all your comments/concerns, and will appreciate if there is more that is needed to be resolved." :D I'll try to get more secondary sources. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 00:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay :) If the sourcing issue is solved, I'll support.--Truco 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support - all my issues were resolved, but one, which is that there should have been more variety in the references to sources, other than that, the list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Please fix the dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All fixed. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I copy-edited the article and checked the images before the FLC, and the article now fully meets FL criteria. I also added another third-party source. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Kensplanet

• Can you move As a result of the slowing economy climate, there will be no season seven of Canadian Idol in 2009 to the second paragraph, because I see some mention of season there.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can you include wikilinks for Ontario, while British Columbia and Alberta. Will be helpful for Non-Canadians.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Prince Edward Island and all other Canadian provinces need to be linked too.

Done. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{review me} 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• References, List all checked. All look Good.
• Do Ping me on my Talk once these issues have been adressed. I'll Support. Kensplanet^T_C 14:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:47, 13 January 2009 [52].

---

Moons of Uranus

I am nominating the list of Uranian moons for featured list, because I think all FL criteria are met. This will be the second featured list of planetary moons (after Moons of Jupiter). Ruslik (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment while resisting the temptation to make the obvious lowbrow joke - In the image, the second moon from the left looks screwy (half of it appears to be solid grey), is that an error or intentional? It's also a tad wider than I'd like. Imagine what it would look like on small screens. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Intentional, see NASA photjournal. The second moon (Ariel) is actually exactly larger than the third (Umbriel). Ruslik (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "The five major, spherical moons of Uranus compared, at their proper relative sizes and brightnesses." does not need either comma.
• "all of which were named" -> "all of which are named" They still have the Pope/Shakespearean names.
• "respectively" is not needed in the second sentence.
• "the thirteen inner moons" -> "thirteen inner moons". The other two groups listed don't use "the".
• "dark small bodies" -> "small dark bodies"
• "endogenic resurfacing and tectonics" needs to be wikilinked, explained, or removed.
• "is at 1578 km in diameter the eighth largest moon in the Solar System" -> is 1578 km in diameter and the eighth largest moon in the Solar System"
• (most being retrograde) -> (mostly retrograde)
• "of a further ten inner moons" -> "of ten further inner moons"
• "last giant planet with without" -> "last giant planet without"
• "but since 1997, nine" -> "but since 1997 nine"
• October of 2003 -> October 2003
• continuing the "airy spirits" theme -> continuing the airy spirits theme
• discoverer, Gerard Kuiper, after -> discoverer Gerard Kuiper after
• The Rape of the Lock (a poem by Alexander Pope) — Ariel, Umbriel, Belinda -> *Poems by Alexander Pope ** The Rape of the Lock: Ariel, Umbriel, Belinda To be uniform with Shakespeare
• Wikilink albedo
• varies in the range 30–50% -> varies in the range of 30–50%
• All major moons (except Miranda, which is made primarily of ice) comprise approximately equal amounts rock and ice. -> All major moons comprise approximately equal amounts rock and ice, except Miranda, which is made primarily of ice.
• ovoid 'race-track' like -> ovoid race track-like
• between Miranda and Umbriel, as well as a past 4:1 -> between Miranda and Umbriel and a past 4:1
• eccentric (~0.2), namely: Francisco, -> eccentric (~0.2), namely Francisco,
• As of 2008, Margaret's current eccentricity -> As of 2008, Margaret's eccentricity
  • Very informative and well-referenced. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks, I will fix them tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

    Already got them fixed. Thank you for the copy edit! SkarmCA (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

    I clarified "endogenic resurfacing and tectonics". Ruslik (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

    Support Excellent, informative article! Reywas92^Talk 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "the combined mass of the five major satellites would be less than half that of Triton alone." - You should explain what Triton is, maybe say that it is the seventh largest moon in the Solar System?
• "Margaret is the only known irregular prograde moon of Uranus and has one of the most eccentric orbits of any moon in the solar system. As of 2008, Margaret's eccentricity is 0.7979.[31] This temporarily gives Margaret the most eccentric orbit of any moon in the solar system, though Neptune's moon Nereid has a higher mean eccentricity."
• Maybe the diagram of the irregular moons should be explained in the caption and not in the text? Well, I dont know.
• Otherwise a nice list. --Skizzik ^talk 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I fixed all issues above. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Is there any way to not squash the text in the lead?
• "has twenty-seven known moons," "twenty-seven"-->27.
• "all of which are named after various characters from the works of William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope."
• "William Herschel discovered the first two moons, Titania and Oberon, in 1787, while the remaining spherical moons were discovered in 1851 by William Lassell (Ariel and Umbriel) and in 1948 by Gerard Kuiper (Miranda)." "while"-->and.
• "internally driven processes like canyon formation and volcanism" "like"-->such as. Maybe consider inserting em dashes after "processes" and "volcanism".
• "eighth largest moon"-->eighth-largest moon
• "All of Uranus's irregular moons have elliptical and strongly inclined (mostly retrograde) orbits at great distances from the planet."
• "Later Herschel thought he had discovered up to six moons (see below) and maybe even a ring."-->Later, Herschel thought he had discovered up to six moons (see below) and perhaps even a ring.
• "For nearly fifty years" "fifty"-->50.
• "Current IAU practice"-->The current IAU practice
• "making Titania the eighth largest moon"-->making Titania the eighth-largest moon
• "Uranus is about ten thousand times more massive than its moons." Can we use a numeral here?
• "As of 2008 Uranus is known to possess thirteen inner moons." Same here.
• "All inner moons are intimately connected to the rings of Uranus which probably resulted from the fragmentation of one or several small inner moons." Comma after "Uranus".
• "Two innermost moons"-->The two innermost moons
• "They are made of water ice contaminated with some dark material"
• "The latter is approximately 73 million km for Uranus." Typo, I think.
• "over 10 million to a billion years"-->from 10 million to a billion years
• "A past 3:1 orbital resonance between Miranda and Umbriel and a past 4:1 resonance between Ariel and Titania are thought to responsible" Word missing. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I fixed all issues, except the last one. I can not find missing word. Ruslik (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"thought to responsible"-->thought to be responsible Dabomb87 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I can swear that I read it several times and did not notice! Ruslik (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It was already fixed by someone else. I still think either way can be correct, but adding "be" before responsible sounds less awkward. SkarmCA (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any reason that conversions to standard measurements are not provided? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  If by standard measurements you mean feet and pounds, conversion to these units is usually not provided in astronomical articles (because these units are never used in the scientific literature). See, for instance, Moons of Jupiter. In addition, the space in the table is a limiting factor: there is actually no space for any conversions. And it would be inconsistent to convert in the text, and not to convert in the table. Ruslik (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Having looked over the FL criteria, I think this more than satisfies it. Ruslik and Serendi have done it again, good luck with your task. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Three dab links need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:47, 13 January 2009 [53].

---

Listed buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire

This is a complete list of the listed buildings in the urban area of Runcorn, divided into the grades of listing. Grade II* is further divided geographically as it is rather long. The coordinates take you to the individual building. Each building has the reference to its entry in the Images of England website or, where there is not one, to the relevant document on the local authority's website. Where there is significant historical information, references are made to the appropriate sources. All the photographs were taken by me and all are in the public domain. The list has not been submitted for formal peer review but I have requested comments from local editors who are experienced in this field. Their comments are on the talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by doncram Quick comments:

• Nice list!
• The first sentence ("In the United Kingdom, the term listed building refers to a building or other structure officially designated as being of special architectural, historical or cultural significance.") should be about the buildings in Runcorn, Cheshire, rather than providing a general definition not specific to this article. Grab the reader with a topic sentence about what is special about this specific list.
• In the tables, I would prefer that the interesting photos be provided further to the left, perhaps in the second column, not at the very right, after the references column, which should probably be included last. See, for comparison, U.S. FL candidate article, List of NHLs in AL, which puts photos in 2nd column i think.
• Organization by listing status or geography? I am not sure that listing by Class A/B/C or 1/2/3 is superior to organizing by town / geographic location.
• Question: what is the model Listed buildings article that this nomination should be compared to? Sorry, i am not familiar with what is the standard for listed buildings Featured Lists.

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the comments. I will re-order the lead as you suggest. I also agree that the photos look better in column 2, and I will move them.

In respect of the last two points, the only FLs of listed buildings are Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. These provide some similarities, but also major differences (there is no really acceptable model for comparison). The differences are: (1) they list only one grade; (2) they cover areas much larger than Runcorn. Runcorn is a small town with a population of <70,000. Bristol is a city with a population of 0.5 million; Greater Manchester is a metropolitan area with a population of 2.5 million. The population of even the smallest region in Greater Manchester is much greater than that of Runcorn. The idea of the different grades is to show the differing importance of the buildings; which is why I have split the list into grades rather than into geographical areas. In such a small town, splitting it primarily into geographical areas makes no real sense; I have split Grade II (the lowest and therefore the least important) into areas to make the list more managable/less daunting for the reader. I hope you agree that this makes sense. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco/SRX

Comments

Lead

• Until the Industrial Revolution Runcorn consisted of two small communities, one a hamlet by the river and the other in a more elevated situation to the south known as Higher Runcorn (the communities were also known as Runcorn Inferior and Runcorn Superior). - comma after Revolution" and remove one before a hamlet
• To the west of Runcorn was the separate village of Halton which contained a castle and a court. - comma before which
• As the population grew in the 19th century the two Runcorn communities joined, and extended to the south to include the villages of Weston and Weston Point. - comma before the two and remove the comma before and
• In the 1960s and 1970s a new town was built to the east of Runcorn. - how about Between the 1960s and 1970s, an new town was built to the east of Runcorn.
• The new town grew to incorporate Halton and, further to the east, the village of Norton. - the comma should be before the and
• Grade II* - what does the * mean?
• Apart from the ancient structures in Grade I, on the whole the buildings can be divided by date into two groups, those built before the Industrial Revolution, and those built during or after it. - how about Besides the ancient structures in Grade I, the building can be divided by date into two groups; these included structures built before and after the Industrial Revolution.
• The stone is almost invariably red sandstone which was obtained from local quarries in the Runcorn, Weston, and Halton areas. - comma before which--SRX 00:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

• Commas amended as recommended.
• In the 1960s... Arguing pedantically, one could say that BETWEEN the 1960s and the 1970s was midnight on 31 December 1969. The new town was built in the late 1960s and through most of the 1970s (I do not have accurate dates). So I think IN makes sense.
• Grade II*... I thought this was adequately explained in the lead. Grade II* lies between Grade I and Grade II in importance - better than Grade II; not as important as Grade I. That's how English Heritage do it and that's how it has to be in the list.
• Apart from... The suggested alternative sentence does not make sense (to me).

Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How about Besides the ancient structures in Grade I, the building can be divided by date into two groups; these include structures built before and after the Industrial Revolution.--Truco 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure. What do others think? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What about "Except for..."? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Done. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Further Comments

Tables

• In about 1800 additional walls were built on its east side, to improve its appearance from Norton Priory. - bad wording, should be During the early 1800s, additional walls.. In addition remove the comma before "to"

• "About 1800" is careful wording, it could have been before or after, "in the early 1800s" would be inaccurate. Comma added and one removed. Nev1 (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• A Tudor mansion house was built on the site by Richard Brooke and this was replaced by a Georgian house in 1730. - comma before "and"

• Used a semi-colon instead of a comma and removed the and. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The roof has a cornice and a solid parapet, stone gables and a chimney. - this should be The roof has a cornice, a solid parapet, stone gables, and a chimney.

• Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The windows are sash windows. The eaves consist of a cornice with a solid parapet which is pedimented over the centre bay. - comma before "which"

• Comma added. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The entrance to the court room is approached by a stone staircase and its doorcase is surmounted by the Royal Arms. - comma before "and"

• Comma added. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• This was built as a mansion house, Halton Grange, for Thomas Johnson, a local soap and alkali manufacturer in the style of an Italianate villa with a belvedere tower. - comma after "alkali manufacturer"

• I don't think so, "a local soap, and alkali manufacturer" just doesn't read right. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I said after.--Truco 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, done now. Nev1 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the 19th century it was the home of Thomas Hazlehurst, a soap and alkali maker, and is now used by the adjoining bank and as a solicitors' office. - comma after "century"

• Comma added. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The original entrance has been filled in and a new entrance provided. - how about ...a new entrance was built?

• Done. Nev1 (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The church has a four-bay nave with aisles, and a chancel at a lower level. - remove the comma

• Why, that's the kind of situation you've suggested adding commas before. Nev1 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• But in this context, its not needed.--Truco 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Nev1 (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• The gate piers in the wall fronting the entrance to the Chesshyre Library which consist of squared sandstone blocks with ball finials. - comma before "which"

• Removed which. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The stone doorcase has Ionic pilasters, a pulvinated frieze and a swanneck pediment with a cartouche in the tympanum. - comma before and

• Not using a serial comma is not bad practice, it's merely a matter of taste. I've added one. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• This house was built in roughcast brick with a slate roof on a stone plinth and it has rusticated quoins. - comma before and

• Added comma. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - from these many prose errors, fails WP:WIAFL Cr1 and 3. A peer review could have helped here. If improvements are made, I may support.--Truco 21:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do you have any further examples? Nev1 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, just my responses to a few above.--Truco 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - this list is a first, I believe, hopefully next time a peer review will be advised since many prose problems were found, but for now, it meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Nice list. I work mainly on US National Register of Historic Places listings, so it's interesting to look at one from elswhere. We've been struggling with featured list issues, and I'm not list expert. I do have just a couple comments.Lvklock (talk)

• I'm viewing with Internet Explorer, and the Coords column, below the heading, runs over into the descriptions column. The line between columns doesn't line up with the heading, and some description words overlap the line.

• You have nice coordinate information. It would be nice to have a clickable "Map of all Coordinates" like there is in some of the US articles, such as List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. It's on the right, just above the list heading. I knwo I've read discussions about it not being too hard to do.

• I believe that we at WP:nrhp have always made sure there's an article for each item on the list before trying to promote the list, even if the article is just a stub. I notice that some of your listings don't have individual articles. I'm really just curious to know if that's OK with the list folks. The articles that you do have seem to all be nice, extensive articles...I'm impressed.

Response

Thanks for your comments. It is interesting to see how different cultures, with different histories, compare.

• Oh, those different browsers! As you may have guessed, I have been using Mozilla Firefox. I think I can correct it when I move the photographs by making the title of the column "Coordinates" rather than "Coords"; at least it works in my sandbox. I expect there are other (better?) ways of doing it but this seems to work. Incidentally, I recommend Firefox - it's free, easy to use, more secure than Explorer, and it comes with a spell checker as a useful add-on (that's meant to be helpful, not snide).
  • Thanks. I can't change at work, so have just always stuck with IE at home, too. You're not the first to recommend Firefox. The spell checker would indeed come in handy. It's not that I don't know how to spell, just that my brain moves faster than my fingers! Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's been done - many thanks to doncram! It really brings to light the distribution of the important local buildings. One query - the arrows relate to numbers which are not in the list. I suppose it would be useful to have these numbers in the list BUT I am very reluctant to add yet another column to a list which is already a bit crowded.
  • Doncram is one of those I've heard discussing this at WP:NRHP. I think there's some way to edit the coordinates set to show the names of the sites instead of numbers, but I don't know what that way is. Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you need to set name labels for the coordinates sets so that a label like "Norton Priory" appears in the Google map, rather than a default number provided by Google. I just edited a couple of the coordinate sets to add such labels, as in this format

<small>{{coord|53.3424|-2.6796|name=Norton Priory}}</small>

Note the Google map does not update immediately. It can take a few hours, less than 24 hours always in my experience, before the Google system updates the appearance of a map based on a big wikipedia list-article like this one. So the Norton Priory one still shows temporarily as a number, for me, but that will change.

Note i also prefer to put the coords display in the list-article into Small font--I think that is appropriate, as few if any readers are seriously interested in the numeric coordinates, they just want the coord link and/or the Google map link to work. doncram (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• This does not appear as a criterion for FL. I could write short stubs for all the buildings but some of these would be so small as to be of little value, containing not much more than is in the list. I wonder if one of the directors could advise on this please.
  • I'd be interested in this, too. I do write a lot of short stubs, usually either to fill out blue links in a list or as a place to put a picture I've taken. I've heard the argument that having a small stub might stir up interest in someone who might then beef up the article. Unfortunately, that has not been my experience, though I do often get subsequent edits helping with categories and other small fixes. (As noted above, it never hurts to have someone check my stuff for typos!) Lvklock (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress report The photographs have been moved to column 2 and the title of column 4 has been expanded. It looks fine in Firefox but IE is still not right. Can anyone help with this? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on locations and organization The organization system doesn't show the locations of the Grade I and Grade II* buildings; locations in terms of 4 towns(?) are given in the organization only for Grade II buildings. It's not obvious to me what towns the Grade I and II* buildings are in; i don't think that info is in this list-article. The supplementary Google map link helps only partway, it does not show Runcorn vs. Halton vs. other jurisdictions. The current organization of the article is:

# 1 Grade I
# 2 Grade II*
# 3 Grade II
    * 3.1 Runcorn
    * 3.2 Halton
    * 3.3 Weston and Weston Point
    * 3.4 Norton

I think that the town locations and even perhaps street addresses can usefully be included in the tables, in a column. Town or address+town info could be included in what is now the coordinates column, to be renamed "Location" and to include the town followed by coordinates in each cell. Also, it would be possible to use color coding of Grade I vs. Grade II* vs. Grade II buildings, and mix them in the table. You could have just one big sortable table, sortable either by town or by grade type. That would make your table more similar to the U.S. NRHP tables, like List of RHPs in Syracuse, List of NHLs in AL, List of NHLs in NY (none of which are Featured Lists). I don't necessarily suggest adopting the U.S. NRHP table formatting, but I think it still is informative to look at how they are organized. You can adopt what makes sense here. doncram (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit more: Perhaps i should acknowledge, i don't understand the difference between Runcorn vs. Halton vs. Norton. The overall list title says "in Runcorn", but then it includes Runcorn and other towns? Also, I see the Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester list-articles use a Location column giving street and town or neighborhood, as well as having a coordinates-like Grid reference column. This provides the location info i'd like to see, but formatting-wise seems wasteful of column-space, as those can be combined into one Location column. Again, hope this helps. doncram (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reformatted I hope this version deals with the above comments. I understand the confusion I had caused. Runcorn is one town (there are no more "towns"); but I had also used it as a geographical area, which was confusing. There is now one table with three sortable columns and the locations expressed more clearly. Are we getting there? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I appreciate the improvements made to the article and work done to develop and improve the accompanying Google map. By the way, I appreciate that you refined coordinates so that the Google map flags point exactly to the two bridges, rather than to the water nearby. All of my previous comments have been addressed in one way or another. Further comments, then i am done:

• The reorganization to use one sortable table might be revisited (altho i appreciate it was tried). I think i prefer the previous organization, but support the FL promotion either way. I think the previous organization, with some relabelling to clarify Runcorn Centre not Runcorn, has advantages:
  • It broke the list-article into more manageable, readable chunks
  • It provided for a useful table of contents at the top
  • It provided for meaningfully organized list of sites in the Google map link (now all the sites appear listed at the left in the Google map in one list; the previous version showed Grade I vs. other sections).
  • Sortability can be kept in the Grade II list. Sorting the few Grade I ones is not important.
• The colors used in the color coding are a bit bright, i thought, and they do not tie into any standard for U.K. listed buildings. The colors are not used in the two model articles mentioned (tho those are not mixed lists). However, there is not a color coding system yet developed for U.K. listed buildings, as part of any WikiProject or Manual of Style guidelines. If/when a WikiProject Historic Sites is started up (on my to do list to propose), color coding for grades can be a topic, and any Featured lists can be re-visited. Promoting this article should not be held up for lack of a U.K. historic sites standard. If former separate table organization is adopted, color coding can be dropped.
• Please say something next to the Google map link other than that the locations "appear all around Runcorn". That was my wording, meant as a placeholder only, written before the Google map was visible. Replace by some meaningful narration descriptive of what the Google map shows, or delete.

Again, nice work. Others' comments about wordings below may have validity, but I assume you'll address what needs to be addressed, and I probably won't comment further, just put me down as Support. Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Two dab links need fixing.
• "This list includes all of the 58 listed buildings in the current urban area of Runcorn. "
• "Two of these are classified by English Heritage as being in Grade I, nine in Grade II*, and 47 in Grade II." 47-->forty-seven, comparative quantities should be written out the same.
• "Buildings are listed by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on recommendations provided by English Heritage, who also determine the grading." "who"-->which.
• "Similarly" Comma after this phrase.
• "Apart from the ancient structures in Grade I, on the whole the buildings can be divided by date into two groups" What do you mean by "on the whole"?
• "there was a greater variety of types of building "-->there was a greater variety of building types
• "the structures are all built in brick or stone. "
• "A former Augustinian Priory which was reduced"-->A former Augustinian Priory that was reduced
• Did you take all the pictures used in this article?
• "This was also built also by Sir John Chesshyre." Extra "also".
• "Runcorn's first town hall which later became a police station," "which"-->that.
• "It is now used as shop." Missing "a" before "shop".
• "A bank in red brick with polished granite columns flanking the entrance and a parapetted roof." "flanking"-->that flank.
• "A town house dating "-->A town house that dates (Multiple occurences)
• "It is built in red brick with stone dressings and a slate roof." I think "is"-->was.
• "A purpose-built library in Egerton Street which was constructed " "which"-->that.
• "The bridge is operated from the south bank by means of a hydraulic system " Comma after this phrase.
• "The stone Doric doorcase has an open pediment, and a radial bar fanlight." No comma necessary.
• "It is beehive-shaped and is approached along a short tunnel which leads into a circular domed chamber." Comma after "tunnel". Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks for the suggestions; all have been dealt with; it is helpful to have these comments when one gets "too close" to the list. "On the whole" deleted - I had not realised the degree of the gap between the two periods in the list. Yes, all the photos are mine (see my intro). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Query When you sort the Grades they come out I II II* (or the other way round) which is not the order of importance (or unimportance). Is there any way of getting them to sort I II* II without changing their appearance in the list? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You have - brilliant! Many thanks. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Espresso Addict. Apologies for the delay in replying, Peter -- I was going to put these on the talk page, but then realised that the featured list candidacy was already live, so I'm moving them here. First off, congratulations on getting all the photos & putting this together -- I know just how much hard work that entails! I don't see the lack of sub-articles as a problem given that there are descriptions of each building/structure. I'm not sure that creating stubs on grade-II-listed buildings where there's little/no sources other than the listing information is of value to the project. On the other hand, some/all of the grade II* buildings might merit an article (by the way, what's the status on II* -- I thought it was being abolished?)

Grade II* is definitely still in use, where did you hear it might be abolished? Nev1 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I think it used to be stated in our article on listed buildings. It was possibly one of the plans that was being considered in the reorganisation of the various listings that has now -- thankfully -- been dumped. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think you need to state somewhere what search strategy was used in compilation. I found with Nantwich that searches at the Images of England site missed several listed entities (I think their search engine is broken); also that list isn't up to date or definitive.

The list is up to date and definitive as it has been checked against the borough of Halton's listed building register. It's their duty to maintain an accurate list of LBs in the borough, and I think they handle applications for grades to be changed. Nev1 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this should be stated explicitly, perhaps as a footnote to the lead sentence that first mentions numbers. The date of the search should also be included, as further buildings will presumably be listed over time. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps mention it as a footnote, rather than in the main body of the article?

The IoE website is comprehensive... as of 2001. If some were missed out when you searched, it's probably because they didn't have images, I think you need to be a member to see them. Nev1 (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is comprehensive of listed buildings, as of the date it was compiled, however I know of many buildings that are miscategorised by CP (I happen to live in one). Also, when I was conducting exhaustive searches I found the search engine repeatedly failed to bring up all relevant articles, even where the CP was correctly stated. I suspect the entries have been hand indexed, rather than using a free text search, and there are several errors. However, if IoE searches were not used as the definitive source, then this isn't relevant to the discussion here. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the history of Runcorn in the lead needs to be pruned/rewritten to make it more specific to the architectural history of the town. A longer discussion of key buildings in the lead would be interesting -- perhaps mention for example Seneschal's House.
• A wider range of references would be helpful. Are there any other general references on buildings in Halton?
• Lead image doesn't look good at the size used.
• I like the Google maps co-ordinates, but think a custom-drawn map instead/in addition would be very valuable.
• I preferred the earlier version without colours for I, II*, II. The colours should certainly be toned down -- I couldn't read the text through them.
• What is the default ordering criterion for the columns now? Some entries appeared random.
• The comments should all use full sentences.
• Given that the headers allow resorting, comments such as "This was also built by Sir John Chesshyre", "see below", "in the former garden of the house" should probably be avoided. I don't know what the best policy for repeated wikilinks is given the resorting problem -- is there a FL policy on this?
  • In sortable columns, the repeated linking of the same item is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• References need to be cited in numerical order (though again that could be shot by resorting).
• Some minor points: Castle Hotel is missing a column. Garden Loggia & Ice House need to state location (part of priory?).

Hope that this is of assistance, Espresso Addict (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Castle Hotel now has a date. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments made by Truco (out of chronological order, above). Thanks to Nev1 for the actions taken. The comments are mainly about commas, and there is to my understanding no general agreement about their use, especially after "and" (even in the UK). Some of the suggested comments distorted the meaning and would have led to inaccuracies. All the comments made by Truco related to the descriptions so I assume the lead is OK now. Regarding a professional standard of prose, this has of course to apply to the lead. The other FLs relating to listed buildings have no descriptions; I included them to give added value to the list and they were in the form of notes rather than in full sentences (perhaps I should have omitted them altogether). Anyway I take the point and will make the descriptions into full sentences (also recommended by Espresso Addict), with the inevitable risk of repetition of phrases. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe the other lists differed in having articles for all the buildings & structures, so the summary wasn't necessary (though it might have been helpful). As I said above, I don't think creating stubs for all grade-II-listed buildings is the best use of time at this stage. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true for Bristol but not for Greater Manchester. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments by Espresso Addict on 8 January (in the order of points made).

• You are right, I did miss one - Ivy House, Astmoor. I think I removed that from my memory because it is just a burnt-out wreck; but it's listed so it counts. I've added it, but without a photo - will remedy that when possible. I did use Images of England to find them, supplemented by publications from the local authority. You can find these from Runcorn, Halton, Weston and Norton - although I could not get the last two to download today. Everything is in the list except for the Viaduct, which is outside the urban area. Do you think I ought to include the links to the LA sources somewhere?

• I think a footnote which explains your search strategy with links to the relevant pdfs would be valuable. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've further amended the lead, but not sure that this is yet satisfactory.

• I think this could still benefit from a little further work to make the history of the town's growth more related to its architecture & to expand on some interesting points, eg the oldest listed building and the newest, the dates of the priory/castle &c. Some of the writing also reads a little oddly to me. I don't have time right now, but if you drop me a note when you've expanded/edited I'll give it a quick copy edit. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've done some editing to the lead to address these points. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• No. I've included all the references I can find. Pevsner is particularly dismissive and starts his section, "Runcorn is miserable to look at; so the best of luck to the New Runcorn at the time of writing just beginning to emerge". His comments about the town occupy only two pages (plus one page for his hopes about the new town) (pp.324–329). There is only one book about the history of the town since 1887 (Starkey's Old Runcorn); Greene's book about the excavations at Norton Priory; nothing about Runcorn's buildings.

• Yes, I'd read the Pevsner description -- he really didn't like the place! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• What size do you suggest? It has been described as "the finest decorated Norman doorway in Cheshire".(Thompson, F. H. (1966). "Norton Priory, near Runcorn, Cheshire". Archaeological Journal. 123: 62–66.) so I would like to include it. Is the problem its size or the quality of the photograph?

• It looks ok at 220px and above at my screen resolution, but you might get into trouble for fixing the width -- I've been told it violates style a few times. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've increased it to 220px. My understanding is that the lead image should be 300px (that applies to landscape orientation) - but I can't find the advice just now. This would be too much for portrait orientation and I think 220px should be OK. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have the skill to make a custom-drawn map.

• Fine. I think that's a nice to have, not a requirement, and there are certainly several other similar FLs which don't have an in-text map. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Colours toned down (not sure that I like them!).

• Better, but a bit pastely. Have you tried the colours used by the American lists? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• The default ordering reflects the history of the list since nomination. Initially it was Grade I; Grade II*; Grade II, with the last split into more-or-less geographical areas. Now it is all merged into one, in the same sort of order. What do you suggest - grades, dates, types of buildings, or what?

• I don't think it matters overmuch, as long as the ordering strategy is clear. When I checked, I couldn't work out what feature it was ordering on. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done
• Addressed; with many more wikilinks as advised.
• This will have to wait for any change in the default order.
• Done (don't know how that disappeared - thanks Nev1); addressed - is this what you meant?

• What do you think to adding Norton Priory to the first column? eg "Garden Loggia, Norton Priory" Espresso Addict (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I believe the article now meets all the criteria, and is at least equivalent in quality to the two existing Featured Lists on UK listed buildings. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. This article has been improved very substantially during its nomination, and in my view it now more than meets the criteria expected of a featured list. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to comments by doncram on 8 January. Sorry, doncram, I missed your comments above. I have made a simple amendment to the end of the lead which I think is adequate. Regarding the organisation of the list, I await consensus; I am content to go along with what will best suit the reader. I still prefer dividing it into grades. After that not sure - dates, types, location - what is most useful to the reader? It would certainly be good to have agreed colours representing the three grades - my choices were (obviously) arbitrary (and it took me some time to find out how to get more subtle colours); although if we split the list into grades, do we need colours at all? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I was indeed wondering what you preferred. Sounds like you and I both prefer the previous organization into 3 Grade tables, expecting that is best for readers. Within each Grade table, I think the natural order is to follow the order in the first column, which here is name of place.

About colors for grades, following the template system designed for U.S. National Register properties, i just created templates so that {{Grade I colour}}, {{Grade II* colour}}, {{Grade II colour}} can be used instead of hard-coded color specs. (Update: you can spell color/colour either way, as in {{Grade I color}} or {{Grade I colour}}) That way you can try out different colors in just one place, and any new agreement on colors would be implemented automatically through any and all articles on Listed buildings that call these color templates. The colors chosen by wp: NRHP are also arbitrary but I believe their use provides a unifying motif in two big systems of U.S. list-articles under List of RHPs and List of NHLs by state. These list-articles currently index about 15,000 wikipedia articles on individual NRHP/NHL sites, most of which include an NRHP infobox coded to use the same colors.

For this list-article though, if you redivide the big table back into 3 Grade tables (which I support), then it is appropriate to drop the Grade column and all use of the 3 colors as well, in my view. In the U.S. list-articles, especially for big lists where it is useful to be able to say how many items are in the list, we mostly choose to include a numbering/count column at the left. This column carries the color-coding nicely i think. With no numbering column here (and not a need to add one), the colors don't come in as naturally. If there were a broader system of Listed buildings articles with color use, though, the colors could be used to color the headers of tables, e.g. use Grade I color to color header cells of table of Grade I buildings. This use of colors for table headers in systems of coordinated lists is not yet in practice in any Featured Lists, though, AFAIK. doncram (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have written an article on the Grade II* listed Castle Hotel which has been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Castle Hotel, Halton. Can I have some support in its retention please. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The decision was Speedy Keep; thanks to all those who helped. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Progress report The list has been re-ordered following the suggestions by Espresso Addict on the article's talk page and more copy editing has been carried out. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Closing comments I have promoted this page to WP:FL; for any future lists of similar scope, a Peer review would be good. FLC should not be used as a substitute, and that's what this became. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 17:47, 13 January 2009 [54].

---

List of Yozakura Quartet episodes

Another episode list. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, Finished reading the summaries. Nice work. All the refs are reliable sources, while the summaries are well-written.Tintor2 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• The episodes of the Yozakura Quartet anime are based on the manga series of the same name by Suzuhito Yasuda. The episodes are directed by Kou Matsuo and produced by the animation studio Nomad." The episodes...The episodes. Can we do away with that repetition?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Singles containing"-->Singles that contain

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "A DVD compilation, containing the first two episodes of the anime"-->A DVD compilation, which contains the first two episodes of the anime or A DVD compilation that contains the first two episodes of the anime

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Rin appears and holds Akina at gunpoint, revealing Kosuke" Insert "that" after "revealing".

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Hime meets with Yūhi Shinatsuhiko, a tochigami, concerning Rin" I don't understand, what "[concerns] Rin"?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "where all the participants become inebriated on yōkai water, which is alcoholic. "-->where all the participants become inebriated on the alcoholic yōkai water.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "but a portal connecting the human world to" That troublesome noun + -ing structure...

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Ao and Kotoha take a car and begin to search for the source of the yōkai energy causing the Seven Pillars to grow"-->Ao and Kotoha take a car and begin to search for the source of the yōkai energy that causes the Seven Pillars to grow

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Enjin goes to one of the Seven Pillars, and forces it to bloom." Comma not necessary.

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref titles (or portions of them) should not be in all caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [55].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Alanis Morissette

This article lists all of the awards and nominations received by Alanis Morissette in an excellent, easy-to-read, and enjoyable fashion. The sources look good and are reliable. WereWolf (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments - excellent list, just a few problems

• Morissette has won and has been nominated for numerous awards. - the repetition of has puzzles me, I think IMO one has shall suffice

• Done

• Overall, Alanis Morissette has received 45 nominations, winning 22. - it should be the other way, Overall, Alanis Morissette has won 22 awards from 45 nominations. (per consistency of other FLs)

• Done

• The second paragraph should summarize more of her awards, elaborating a bit more about the awards she won and has been nominated for.

• Done

• Just seeing the way the website is set up, Metro Lyrics is not reliable due to it being a forum/blog type website.

• Done

• Since you use ref#5 to source most of her awards, it would be best if you made it into a general ref, as seen in 2008 WWE Draft#References.--SRX 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done WereWolf (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• The first part of the lead should explain more about her work, like how did they rank on charts and what singles were spawned, see List of awards and nominations received by Chris Brown--SRX 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I added the fact that Jagged Little Pill, Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, and Under Rug Swept all debuted at number one on the Billboard 200, and were among the top five on the Canadian Top 50 Album Chart. I also added a reference to the statement. Does that count? Or are you looking for more? WereWolf (talk) 03:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That's good enough.--SRX 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice job, just a few comments:

• "Jagged Little Pill, Supposed Former Infatuation Junkie, and Under Rug Swept all"

• Done

• "Morissette has won and been nominated for numerous awards. They include seven Grammy Awards and ten Juno Awards." Can we combine this into one sentence? It is not clear whether the "seven Grammy Awards and ten Juno Awards" were won or just awards that she was nominated for.

• This is what I wrote: "Morissette has won and been nominated for numerous awards. Her awards include seven Grammy Awards and ten Juno Awards." Does that work?

• Two suggestions: ""Morissette has won and been nominated for numerous awards; she has won seven Grammys and ten Juno Awards."" or ""Morissette has won and been nominated for numerous awards, including seven Grammy Awards and ten Juno Awards." Take your pick. Suggestion two is a bit more smooth, while suggestion one makes it more clear that she won those awards. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done

• "Alanis Morissette has received two nominations."-->Alanis Morissette has has been nominated twice. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• See List of awards and nominations received by Katy Perry. I was using the format of that featured list. WereWolf (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore;) In this case, concise writing takes precendence over consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done

Sources

• No need to make a two-column reflist.

• User:SRX told me to use a two-column reflist...

• Where? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• On the above resolved comments. "Since you use ref#5 to source most of her awards, it would be best if you made it into a general ref, as seen in 2008 WWE Draft#References.--SRX 16:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)"

• You misunderstood his intentions. I have fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay.

• What makes http://www.mariah-charts.com/chartdata/PAlanisMorissette.htm a reliable source?

• That source is used on her discography for her Canadian album data.

• That doesn't make it reliable. That just means that no one checked the sources thoroughly enough at that FLC. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. WereWolf (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, so what did you do (replace source, find proof of reliability, remove it?)? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the source, since I can't find any others that list her Canadian album charts.

• So what reference supports that statement now? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I finally found a source in a magazine, so I stated "*Canadian chart positions courtesy of the RPM 100 Album chart listings". I also found this on her discography references as well. Done WereWolf (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• In ref 2, Rolling Stone is a magazine, which means that it should be italicized. Make the citation code like this: work=Rolling Stone.

• Done

• Ref 4 (""People's Choice Awards") should have "People's Choice" as the work and "Sycamore Productions Inc" as the publisher. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done WereWolf (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: No space for Oppose. Very clear and precise. Kensplanet^T_C 06:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [56].

---

Darwin Medal

Another in my series of Royal Society medal lists. Ironholds (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 17:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "every second year" Maybe "every other (alternate?) year"?
• "First awarded in 1890, it was created in memory of Charles Darwin and carries a £1000 prize." Does it literally carry money on top of the medal? Maybe "First awarded in 1890, it was created in memory of Charles Darwin and us presented along with a £1000 prize."
• "with the requirement being"
• "at least 3 years" WP:MOSNUM, numbers under ten should be spelled out.
• "has been awarded to 64 individuals" Comma after this phrase.
• Add a sentence about the first and most recent winners.
• Image caption: "Charles Darwin, after whom the award is named"-->Charles Darwin, for whom the award is named Dabomb87 (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  All done; not sure about the caps on 'theory of evolution'. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Two dab links need fixing. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Righty-o, done. Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, except for the fact that I can't win it. Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Qualify as a biologist, do ground-greaking research, move to a Commonwealth nation, stay there for three years, make friends with prestigious scientists who are fellows of the Royal Society, do more ground-breaking research that impresses said friends, meaningfully point out the medal, make friends with the B-side award committee, get your friends to nominate, suck up to the awards people... Is it all that much work? :P. Actually it has elements of RfA in it, heh. Be careful with your work, suck up to the RfA regulars, try not to piss anyone else off.. Ironholds (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Can't see any problem. —Chris! _ct 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Would be nice to somewhere refer to the fact the winner gets an actual physical silver medal. Presumably there isn't a suitably licensed photo of the medal? Would also like to see a bit more history in the intro, such as controversial or interesting winners! Feel free to split the intro into more than one paragraph as it looks a bit cramped to me. But these are relatively minor, overall very good! Suicidalhamster (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ehh, the closest to interesting is Francis Darwin (ZOMG NEPOTISM). The problem is that the history is very difficult to find online, unfortunately. I'm going to (hopefully) get some books about the Society as a whole and that might show some things. Ironholds (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the fact that Motoo Kimura was the first Asian scientist to win the medal interesting enough? (I'm not actually convinced myself that it is!) Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I don't understand how he won it. Neither Japan or the US are commonwealth members :S. Ironholds (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He was in Japan from mid 1950s until 1993 so can't see how he had time to spend 3 years in the commonwealth! I'll have a hunt for a reference which talks about his eligibility for the award. Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I guess if you fail to find something we can include the fact that he was included as an interesting fact! Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [57].

---

List of Pittsburgh Pirates managers and owners

I am nominating this list after a complete overhaul. Editors who have reviewed other lists of baseball managers will notice the inclusion of general managers and owners in addition to the basic manager list. I included this partially because they were already present on the list when I began my revisions and unlike other franchises, I had sources available to use. I have discussed the extra inclusion with a few editors as well as the Baseball Wikiproject and I feel that the list meets the FL criteria with the inclusion of the said material. I will address any comments or concerns to the best of my ability. Thank you! blackngold29 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from Killervogel5

• The sorting in the "Modern day franchise" table is messed up by the rowspan in the ref column. That reference should just be named and reused.
  • Done
• En-dashes should not be spaced for indicating ranges; this is only to indicate a sharp break, like an em-dash.
  • Done
• Use two columns for your reflist.
  • Done
• You mention some statistics in the lead but provide no numbers to corroborate them, so readers have to search in the table. To make the lead a proper summary of the list per WP:LEAD, I suggest adding numerical values for most wins, most losses, etc..
  • Done
• "Thirty-eight"→"38" per WP:MOSNUM
  • Done
• A definition for player-manager would be nice.
  • Done
• "the Pirates's first general manager"→"Pirates'"
  • See above
• "Neal Huntington is the Pirates current general"→"Pirates'", and add "manager" after general.
  • Done
• Section header #4: "General Managers"→"General managers" per WP:HEAD
  • Done
• There should be mention and notation in the tables of which managers are in the Hall of Fame, whether as players/managers or whatever. Your choice on that.
  • Done
• "The Pirates first manager"→"Pirates'"
  • It's funny you mention this. I had never done this in the past until I read a Stephen King book in which he said you should always use 's even after an s. Obviously he's not infallible, but I can't remember learning that it is incorrect to do. Is it alright as it stays consistant throughout?
    • Actually, it's grammatically incorrect to not show the apostrophe; it signifies possessive plural for words ending in S. Since the franchise (with a plural name) is possessing the manager, the apostrophe is necessary to maintain case. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Sorry, I was looking at the wrong one.
• Pirates's now appears 7 times in the article, where before it had originally been fixed. Replace all with Pirates'. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done I still don't think "Pirates's" is technically incorrect, but I think I got 'em all.
• According to Pittsburgh Pirates and Baseball-Reference, the team's name is properly spelled Alleghenys, not Alleghenies. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that has come up on a few other articles. According to the Pirates Encyclopedia cited in the list and the official website it's "Alleghenies". I guess we could say "Alleghenies (sometimes spelled Alleghenys)" if you want.
    • Hooray compromise. Works for me. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done
• One last comment: Picture captions using the word "from" to designate a range of years should not use en-dashes, per WP:DASH and WP:MOS; rather, they should use the word "to". In addition, captions that are complete sentences should end with periods/full stops. I think Bill McKechnie was the manager, too...KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done
• The table should be able to be sorted into pure chronological order, so managers with more than one term should have more than one entry and a footnote should be added to indicate (see List of Minnesota Twins managers).
  • If you sort the chart with the "Years" column it puts the managers in order by their first appearence. The reason I didn't list them like most have is because the sorting feature becomes pointless if we split them up: If I want to know who has the second most wins as Pirates's manager and the list is split up it would be a pain to figure out what Danny Murtaugh had accomplished, but the way it is now I know instantly. I do realize that it is a little different from most list styles in the past, but I don't think providing the totals causes the list to not meet the FL criteria.
    • I would tend to agree with you, except that this prohibits us from knowing in which orders the managers served. I certainly don't think that this make it fail WP:WIAFL, but I think that knowing where a manager served in a given season is important (for example, if one manager served for 20 games and was fired, then his replacement led his team to the playoffs). KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, I understand what your saying better. I'm trying to figure out some way that we could keep the list the way it is, but also state the order of managers in a season with multiple managers. What if we added footnotes and said something like "In 1947, Billy Herman was manager for the majority of the season, but left prior to the last game leaving Bill Burwell to coach the season's final game." Would that work? We could even add their stats for each term in the footnote.
        • Could work, I suppose, but I still think that not having the chronological order available might have problems. Try it out and I will check again when it's done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I added the info as footnotes. Like I said, if we include the sortable columns (pending we can figure out what's wrong with them) it wouldn't be fair to sort the list with some managers having totals and some only part of their stats. blackngold29 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I like it, looks good. However, due to the width of the column and the whitespace issue it causes, I would rather see line breaks in between terms to make wider rows, rather than commas which give us huge columns all through the table. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
            • I broke Murtaugh's years, I don't think much would be gained by breaking everyone elses. Unless the whitespace you're referring to is something similar to the Firefox/IE thing below, that is.
              • I'm still on the fence; I'm coming back to this every day to look, and every day I reformulate my opinion. Agh. Confusing. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
                • It's really up to you. If you want to break all the years so it looks right to you, I could take a look and see what that looks like. We could also add the

A serious support from me for putting up with all my crap. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments - good list, few problems however

• The Pittsburgh Pirates franchise has had 38 managers in its history. - this should not be the opening sentence, the opening sentence should state what they are what they do where they play etc.
  • Done
• The team began play in 1882, under the name the Alleghenies, as members of the American Association. --> The team began play as the Alleghenies in the American Association.
  • Done
• Clarke, who won (1422) and lost (969) more games than any other Pirate manager, also had the longest tenure as manager in his 16 years in the position.- there no need for the data to be in parenthesis
  • Done
• The sortability in the American Association table does not function, it also doesn't work in the modern day franchise table
  • I don't know what the problem would be, both work perfectly fine for me.
• Caption:Fred Clarke, manager, 1900–1915 - this caption needs to flow more Fred Clarke was the Pirates manager from 1900-1915, this also applies to the other captions-
  • Done

-SRX 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL, with the exception of the firefox glitch.--SRX 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The sortability still does not work. If you sort something in the tables you are redirected to the top of the page, there must be something wrong with the coding of the table.--SRX 00:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Every column sorts fine for me, I don't know what would be wrong. Is this happening to anyone else? blackngold29 02:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Does not work for me either. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Could someone try to figure out what is wrong? I have two computers and it's sorting fine on both. Thanks. blackngold29 02:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Guys it is all a glitch. The glitch is only on Firefox, so if you go to for example Internet Explorer, the sort will work perfectly. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 04:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A glitch for me too, probably a Firefox thing as SRE said above. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That would make sense as I have IE. Is there anyway to fix it? I assume it has been brought up before somewhere. blackngold29 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, its probably compatibility issues.--SRX 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Although images have not been checked, they seem to look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The franchise has had 38 managers in its history."-->There have been 38 managers for the Pirates franchise.
  • Done
• "Pirates's" I don't think the extra "s" after the apostrophe is necessary.
  • I left a comment about that above, it stays consistant throughout the article.
    • I also re-commented on it, because I believed it had been resolved, then it was changed to be wrong again. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• "prior to"-->before.
  • Done
• "Thirteen of the Pirates's managers"-->Thirteen Pirates managers...
  • Done
• "taking on simultaneous roles as a player and manager"-->those who take on simultaneous roles as a player and manager
  • Done
• "Five additional Pirates's"-->Five additional Pirates
  • Done
• Needs a note about each year being linked to that particular MLB season—see List of Houston Astros Opening Day starting pitchers.
  • Done
• The numbers in the closing page nos. should not be single numerals, for example ref 19 should be "Finoli, Ranier 2003, p. 440–41" instead of "Finoli, Ranier 2003, p. 440–1".
  • Done
• Can you turn off the linking trick with the Harvard citations? It isn't necessary with only one reference, and it adds a lot of unnecessary blue to the reference section. You can do this by adding Ref=none to the end of the template.
  • Done Never knew about that, thanks.
• File:Pie-traynor.jpg needs a fair use rationale, and is it even necessary with all the free pictures on the page?
  • Removed Didn't realize it wasn't free, I'll look for a replacement.
• File:Connie Mack in 1911.jpg needs a link to the source.
  • Not sure I understand... It is from the Commons
    • Fixed this one myself. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ask User:Awadewit to verify that all images look good; I am not an expert in this area. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Your other fixes look good, have you pinged Awadewit yet? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Add a sentence telling the readers who the current manager is.
  • Done. Lol, how did I forget that one?
• Could add a lot more onto the first paragraph. Examples are in List of Tampa Bay Rays managers and List of Houston Astros managers.
  • Done
• Articles shouldn't start with sub-sections. (ie. ===Table key=== --> ==Table key==)
  • Done
    • About the general managers and owners, shouldn't they also ===Table key=== --> ==Table key==? -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done Sorry missed that one.
• The reason why my tables don't put managers with multiple terms into the same row is because readers have to find which one came after which (hope you know what I mean). It could be great if you seperate the terms, and to the table like on List of Washington Nationals managers.
  • Done As per the footnotes section discussed above with KV
• Could mention which managers had their numbers retired with the Pirates.
  • Done
• Since this is a sortable table, you could link all the years, ignoring WP:OVERLINK.
  • Done
• Though I would like you to only include HoFers who were inducted as a manager, I don't want to start a huge discussion about something so little (just look here).
  • This is specifically mentioned in the lead. What if I changed the color of shading for those elected as players?
    • Instead of another shade, just note it. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done
• Is there a wikilink to Modern day franchise?
  • Not sure I know what you mean, the franchise is just Pittsburgh Pirates. I was thinking of changing that section to "National League", would that be better?
    • Definitely. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Done
• On Joe L. Brown's row, the term column has, "1956–1976, 1971". Isn't 1971 between 1956-1976?
  • Done That was a typo (corrected to 1985). His second term seemed very breif, but I could add a footnote if you need it.
• There are a lot more categories to be added. Examples are in List of Boston Red Sox managers.
  • Done
• You could also mention which general managers and owners were elected into the HoF.
  • Done
• Please fix the disambiguation links.
  • Done

-- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 06:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review

• File:Connie Mack in 1911.jpg - The source link on this image is broken, so I cannot verify the license.
  • Replaced with File:Patsy_Donovan_1910.jpg
• File:BillMcKechnie.jpg - The source link on the image does not link to the specific HTML page for the image - it links to the general collection. Please link to the HTML page for this specific image.
  • Done
• File:Bing Crosby.jpg - The source link for this image is broken, so I cannot verify the license.
  • Removed for now. I am not too experienced with pictures, and though I did look for the needed links I could not find them. If anyone with more knowledge of the subject would like to look for them it would be appreciated, but overall I think the pictures look fine. Thanks. blackngold29 04:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to fix up these images. Awadewit (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [58].

---

Eminem discography

previous FLC

After receiving multiple feedback from the previous FLC, along suggestions from a recent peer review, I feel this discography meets the FL criteria and is now ready to go through the process, once again. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: all replies written in Navy blue were written by User:Udonknome at 01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: all replies written in Maroon were written by User:Udonknome at 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick ones from me, haven't got time to give a full review, sorry.

• EPs: UK Albums Chart → UK. Also move the reference underneath UK...
  • Done
• In my opinion, Bubbling Under Singles should be stated as 113 not 13, because that is really what they are, isn't it? Sure it's 13 on the BU chart, but that really starts at 101, so it's not really a justified number 1, 2 or whatever it may be.
  • I am not sure what you mean. Billboard actually publishes a separate Bubbling Under Singles chart for the songs that do not reach the Hot 100.
• Make the director field wider in the music videos, just so the names and refs are all on one line.
  • Done
• Infinite's catalog number is: WEB714V Link.

k-i-a-c (hitmeup - the past) 12:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I also added the catalog number for The Slim Shady EP.

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose - Improvements since the last FLC, but still a couple of problems before I can lend support

• In 1996, Eminem released under Web Entertainment his first studio album, Infinite, which failed to enter in any national charts. How about rewording to rank on any national charts
  • Done
• In the same year, the rapper along manager Paul Rosenberg founded the imprint label Shady Records. - comma between along and Rosenberg
  • Done
• In the subsequent year, Eminem released his third studio album The Marshall Mathers LP, which sold 1.76 million copies in its first week, breaking records as the fastest-selling hip hop album of all-time as the fastest-selling solo album in the United States. - the repetitive as the sounds awkward, how about replacing the second as the with and the
  • Done
• The lead single "The Real Slim Shady" became Eminem's first song to enter in the top ten of the Billboard Hot 100, while "Stan" was the most successful singles outside of the States, where it failed to reach the top fifty. - 1)singles should not be plural 2)If it is outside the U.S., on which chart did it fail to reach the top fifty?
  • It failed to reach the top fifty in the US, while it reach various #1's outside of the US. I re-worded it.
• In 2002, Eminem's fourth album The Eminem Show debuted at number one on the Billboard 200 along reaching the top spot on various charts worldwide, as it went on to sell over nineteen million copies across the globe.[ - comma between the album name and along should be replaced with and.
  • Done
• The album received eight platinum certifications from both the RIAA and New Zealand's RIANZ, while it reached Diamond status in Canada. - RIANZ needs to be spelled out and Diamond status should be elaborated as to what it means.
  • Done
• In the same year, for the first time the rapper reached the number one spot on the Hot 100 with the song "Lose Yourself" from the 8 Mile soundtrack. - comma after time and one before from
  • Done
• The album too reached the number one position in the United States, where it sold more than four[12] of the nine million copies distributed worldwide. - too should be replaced with also
  • Done
• In 2004, Eminem's fifth studio album Encore became the rapper's third or consecutive studio album to reach number one in the United States, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and United Kingdom. - IMO or should be and
  • I removed "or". Third consecutive is what I meant.
• Following Encore, Eminem released a greatest hits album Curtain Call: The Hits in 2005 which sold almost three million copies in the US[14] and has received a double platinum certification from RIAA. - 1)Comma before which 2)reword and has received to and received
  • Done
• The album received in 2007 a platinum certification from the RIAA. - place the in 2007 after RIAA
  • Done
• Is the info on the sales for his 1996 album unavailable?
  • The closest thing I've found is this ("Eminem already had an underground album titled Infinite, and reportedly sold 500 copies out of the trunk"). I doubt it can be used as a reliable source.
    • I don't think so either, just add an emdash there and place a note stating why it couldn't be found.--SRX 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I actually found an article from the Los Angeles Times stating that the album sold around a 1000 copies. The article is in the pay-per-view ProQuest archive, so I am not sure if you are interested in buying it. Nonetheless, this is the following quote: "Released on a label called Web Entertainment, "Infinite" sold only about 1000 copies." I think this should work. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • link (Silly me) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Is the info for the 1996 album certifications unavailable, or did it receive none, if it received none, place an emdash there.
  • This also applies to the 2003 compilation album, the singles, and video albums
    • Done
• CD Universe is unreliable as a source
  • I was hoping I could use it as a collective database, but to be honest I had some doubts too. Given that there are over fifty entries in that table and that each may require a citation, this will probably take me one or two days. Is that OK?
    • Well, what is CD Universe citing exactly?SRX 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • CD Universe is a music retail store, kind of like Amazon. And nonetheless, I already did 'the job' and replaced with various references, as you can see here. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• The albums Eminem Presents: The Re-Up, The Up in Smoke Tour and Music from and Inspired by the Motion Picture 8 Mile are credited by Eminem along various artists. - source?
  • I removed this, as there is contrasting information. For example, the RIAA credits The Up in Smoke Tour as an album by various artists, while ARIA credits it as an album by Eminem, Dr. Dre, Warren G and Snoop Dogg. As well, the RIAA credits Eminem Presents: The Re-Up by various artists, while for Allmusic it's an Eminem album.
• "Just Don't Give a Fuck" was later released on The Slim Shady LP in 1999. - source?
  • Done
• How reliable is "Rap Basement"?
  • I believe it is reliable. It is one of the most comprehensive websites when it comes to hip hop news, and it received in 2007 an award from VH1 for having the best coverage of hip hop lifestyle. Also, what is being used as a source in this case is simply Paul Rosemborg stating that he co-founded Shady Records with Eminem.
    • Okay, thats fine in my eyes, lets see what the source checker says.SRX 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• The Notes should be in the footnotes section and the references should be in its own section, not as subsections.--SRX 16:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for your extensive review.

Support - my comments were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 19:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Much improved from the last time I saw it. One quick comment: Don't abbreviate the publisher names in the citations. RIAA, BPI, etc should be spelled out. Drewcifer (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. Thanks

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "along its subsidiaries" Word missing here.
  • What do you mean? If anything, "its" is unnecessary.
    • Perhaps I don't understand the usage of "along" here. Shouldn't there be a "with" after "along"?
      • I see what you mean. Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• "In this discography, music videos and collaborations are included as well." Can you move this sentence down some, as it concerns the contents of this list rather than the artist.
  • Where would I move this? The paragraph where it is currently located deals with the sum of the artist releases and content of the list; the rest is simply the artist's release history. Also, keep in mind that the lead should deal primarily with the content of this discography.
• "In 1996, Eminem released under Web Entertainment his first studio album"-->In 1996, Eminem released his first studio album under the Web Entertainment label...
  • Here is how it would read then: "In 1996, Eminem released his first studio album under the Web Entertainment label, Infinite, which failed to rank on any national charts." I'm not sure that's what we want.
    • Well, the sentence construction either way is awkward. Is the record label info absolutely necessary here? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I split the sentence into two parts: "In 1996, Eminem released his first studio album, Infinite, under Web Entertainment. The album sold only around a thousand copies[4] and failed to rank on any national charts." Does this work? Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• The dabfinder tool is down now, but I checked the article a couple days ago, and there were multiple dabs that needed to be fixed. (more comments later, something just came up). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, and i don't use my toy (Checklinks tool), because is down for maintance too. Cannibaloki 22:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • D'oh! How long do you think it might take to fix it?
      • It shouldn't be too long, I hope. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
        • I found and fixed three dab links; I think that was the number of dabs I found with the tool, so we should be good there. Sorry about the long delay in finishing my review (New Year's festivities and all that), I promise I will get to it tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• "and failed to rank on any national charts" Done
• "while receiving four platinum certifications"-->and received four platinum certifications... Done
• "along manager Paul Rosenberg" Missing a "with". Done
• "breaking records as the fastest-selling hip hop album"—"as"-->for. Done
• "as it went on to sell over nineteen million copies across the globe." "across the globe"-->worldwide. Done
• "a diamond certifications" Should be singular. Done
• "In the same year, for the first time the rapper reached the number one spot on the Hot 100" Logical flow a bit off, put "for the first time" after "Hot 100". Done
• "four[13] of the nine million copies distributed worldwide" Ambiguous, at first read, it sounded like he sold four copies! Fixed
• "and eleven worldwide" You do mean "eleven million", correct? Indeed
• "Following Encore, Eminem released in 2005 a greatest hits album Curtain Call: The Hits, which sold almost three million copies in the US"—"Following Encore" is not really necessary, readers will have figured out that you are going in chronological order. Done
• "Meanwhile" Idle word, not necessary. Done
• "Royce da 5'9"" "da"--> Done
• "Swiss Music Charts"-->Swiss Record Charts. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 43 http://www.smokecds.com/cd/34168 lists the product as "not found". Replaced with this
• As I said below, the Youtube video titles should be copied character for character—change the spaced em dashes to hyphens when necessary. Also, how do we know that the videos are not copyright infringements?
  • Well, in regards to the dashes, they were apparently added by some sort of script (edit diff). I left a note in regards to the issue to the script's talk page, in case you were interested. Nonetheless, I removed them. For the YouTube videos, there are all hosted by Universal Music Group's official account, so they are not copyright violations. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• For the Billboard refs, use "Billboard" as the work—it will be automatically italicized—and "Nielsen Business Media, Inc" as the publisher. Done
• Ref 4 (LA times, "Has He No Shame...") needs a note that a fee is required. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all done. Cannibaloki 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki

Comments

• Before, see MOS:EMDASHES; Em dashes should not be spaced. (You use them several times in references titles.)
  • Actually, those em dashes should not even be used. Unless the title is in all caps, we should keep true to the orginal source title as much as possible, so change those em dashes back to hyphens in such cases. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Removed. The dashes were added through a script, as noted above in my response to Dabomb87. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rap Basement - About Us (Ref. 6)
  • In 2007, VH1 recognized RapBasement.com by presenting it with the "Best Hip Hop Lifestyle" website, beating out such competitors as BET.com. You can view the award by clicking here.
  • Used on: In the same year, the rapper, along manager Paul Rosenberg, founded the imprint label Shady Records. (No problem, is a reliable source.)
• Read all of this article with a FREE trial (Ref. 16)
  • In short, I can not confirm what the text says.
    • "His last album, Encore, went to No 1 across the world, selling 11m copies globally, including 1.2m copies in the UK." link
• Product not found! (Ref. 43) Replaced with this
• YouTube? (Refs. 73, 74, and 91)
  • They are appropriate sources, as they are hosted by Universal Music Group's official account. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• ...for Allmusic refs. should be: |work=[[Allmusic]]|publisher=[[Macrovision]] Done
• ...for MTV refs. should be: |work=[[MTV]]|publisher=[[MTV Networks]] Done
• Correct code for ref. 151: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/reviews/id.1050|title=Album Reviews > Trick Trick - The Villain|last=Kuperstein|first=Slava|date=2008-11-10|work=HipHopDX.com|publisher=Cheri Media Group|accessdate=2008-12-31}}</ref> Done
• Sources looks good, checked with the Checklinks tool. Cannibaloki 17:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. More than one source for some chart positions, I see (the ones at the top of the column, and for some, there is also one in their box.) ^Tezkag₇₂ 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Gimmetrow 01:10, 11 January 2009 [59].

---

List of first overall Major League Baseball draft picks

I've nominated this list because I believe that it fulfills all of the FL Criteria. I believe that it is comparable to the NHL version of this list, which has already been granted FL status. It has already undergone a peer review, and I've fixed all of the problems with the list as indicated by the review. Thanks for taking the time to edit! See The Morning (talk) 04:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment It says in the article that two people on the list have won rookie of the year, yet I do not see a ^ symbol appearing next to anyone's name in the table. --Pgp688 (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There has so far been no winner of the ROY award that hasn't made an all star team. However, should I just remove the key for winner of just the Rookie of the Year? See The Morning (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose

• The lead needs to be expanded to give more about the history of the draft, like when it was established by who it was created, etc.
• MLB needs to be linked
• Overall, 18 of the 44 picks to date have made the participated in the All Star Game, and two have won the Rookie of the Year Award. - remove made the
• Many teams, such as the Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Toronto Blue Jays have never had a first overall pick. - "Many" is WP:WEASEL, "Various" would better here
• The second part of the lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list a bit more, who was the first overall draft pick in the history of the draft, the most recent, etc.
• The legend should be made into a table, and renaming the section to Key
• The coloring in the table should only cover the name of the player not the whole row.
• Wilson has not officially retired, but last played in the Golden Baseball League before being released in June 2008. - source?--SRX 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed all of your points, so hopefully it's okay now. See The Morning (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Further comments

• In 1965, Rick Monday became the first number one overall draft pick after he was chosen by the Kansas City Athletics, while Tim Beckham was the most recent number one overall draft after he was chosen by the Tampa Bay Rays in 2008. - how about ...while Tim Beckham is the most recent number overall draft pick after he was chosen by the Tampa Bay Rays in 2008.
• Overall, 18 of the 44 picks to date have made the participated in the All Star Game, and two, Bob Horner and Darryl Strawberry, have the Rookie of the Year Award. - remove the made the and add won before the Rookie of the Year Award.
• Meanwhile, 20 of the 44 picks have been drafted straight out of high school, while the rest have been picked out of university. --> Meanwhile, 20 of the 44 picks have been drafted from high schools, while the others were drafted from universities.
• Convert the key into a table, as seen in List of New Orleans Saints head coaches#Key--SRX 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've addressed all of your issues, hopefully now it's okay. See The Morning (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The "active players" note in the key should also be in the table.--SRX 22:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - the list now fulfills WP:WIAFL.--SRX 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• I have changed the name to List of first overall Major League Baseball draft picks, just to be consistent with the other draft picks articles. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 16:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nurmsook

Oppose from Nurmsook (talk · contribs)

• The First-Year Player Draft link in the opening sentence links to a disambiguation page; should be piped.
• "The first draft took place in 1965 in order to curb the signing bonuses. Originally, three separate drafts were held each year. First draft took place in June, which involved new high school graduates and college seniors who had just finished their seasons. The second draft took place in January for high school and college players who graduated in the winter. Finally, third draft took place in August was for players who participated in amateur summer leagues." I have a lot of issues with this part of the lead:
  • "The first draft took place in 1965 in order to curb the signing bonuses." What was the problem with them? Don't put the before signing bonuses.
  • "First draft took place in June..." Try "The first draft took place in June and involved...". I also don't think you need to put "new" before high school graduates. Seems redundant.
  • "Finally, third draft took place in August was for players who participated in amateur summer leagues." This sentence makes next to no sense. Try "Finally, the third draft, which took place in August, was for players..." Also, don't use summer (or winter for that matter, as you did in the previous sentence) per WP:SEASON.
    • They're officially known as "Summer Leagues", but I've added "American" to clear up any confusion, so hopefully that's okay See The Morning (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• "In 1965, Rick Monday became the first number one overall draft pick after he was chosen by the Kansas City Athletics,..." Lots of clutter in that sentence; try "In 1965, Rick Monday became MLB's first draft pick after being selected by..."
• "...while Tim Beckham was the most recent number one overall draft after he was chosen by the Tampa Bay Rays in 2008." More gramatical errors. The most recent number one overall draft? Isn't he a pick, not a draft? Most recent number one overall...way too wordy.
• "Overall, 18 of the 44 picks to date have made the participated in the All Star Game, and two, Bob Horner and Darryl Strawberry, have the Rookie of the Year Award." Have made the participated? Have the ROY? Scratch "made the" from the first and add "won the" to the second.
• "Various teams, such as the Boston Red Sox, Los Angeles Dodgers, and the Toronto Blue Jays have never had a first overall pick." Just get rid of this whole section. It's too POV to include only a select number of teams to never have had the first pick.
• The key has two symbols and colors for Rookie of the Year. I'm confused, why do two things in the key mean the same thing? Also, capitalize "retired" and link the All-Star game key.
• Why is Luke Hochevar's team listed as UofT, when the footnote states that his team when he was drafted was Fort Worth?
  • U of T was his university, not his team. Hochevar was placed in a situation where he was not drafted out of university, but rather out of Independent Leagues. See The Morning (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• In the Griffey Jr. caption "Ken Griffey Jr. 1997 AL MVP, taken first overall in the 1985 First-Year Player Draft" you need a comma after Griffey Jr. and you need to disambiguate the draft link.

Right now, there are just way too many gramatical and factual errors to let this pass. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your comments I've addressed all but the two I marked above. See The Morning (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, where to start. I went through and did a minor copyedit of the article to address some of my own issues with the grammar in the article, so that is mostly fixed. Right now, the one big issue that is really bothering me and hindering my support of this article is the Luke Hochevar situation. The article is very contradictory. I gather he was drafted three times total, but the only time that applie to this list is the third time he was drafted. To start, the lead states that "Meanwhile, 20 of the 44 picks have been drafted from high schools, while the others were drafted from universities." This is also stated in the list itself when the University of Tennessee is listed as Hochvar's college. But as I stated before, the footnote states that he "was drafted out of Fort Worth of the Independent League in 2006." So let me get this straight, even though he was drafted out of Fort Worth, you are including him as someone being drafted out of college? This is simply factually incorrect. Firstly, that statement needs to change so to mention that one player was drafted out of the Independant League. Secondly, you should consider fixing the field of the table showing University or High School. Can't you simply put "amateur club"? I don't know why it is important at all that Hochevar is from UofT when all that matters is that he was drafted out of Fort Worth. This whole thing is very confusing to the reader and makes the section in the lead factually incorrect. I'll go through this article more thouroughly soon with another copyedit, but until then, I can't support this article with this glarring factual error. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 07:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be unable to do another copyedit until the night of January 1st, so I'll give you a few more things to work on:

Many of the links in the schools part of the table link to disambiguation pages. Work on piping those (ie: Cal State Fulerton should really be California State University, Fulerton I believe)

Done, but the only problem I've got is that there is no wikipedia page for the Brooklyn Thomas Jefferson High School, so for now I've just removed the link. See The Morning (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There should be a better footnote explaining why Danny Goodwin was picked first overall twice. Right now it just says how it's the same guy. But why did this happen? – Nurmsook! ^talk... 19:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: MUCH improved since I first looked at the article. Good job! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by NatureBoyMD

• The list looks great. The only thing I would recommend is to put a note in the table key concerning links the "Year" column. Let the reader know that the link goes to an article about that year's draft and not a regular year link 1978, year in baseball (1978), or MLB season (1978). -NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [60].

---

List of Nobel Peace Prize Laureates

The sixth, final and trickiest of the Nobel lists. This one is tricky because the first 90 or so years of the official history don't have the official descriptions that the others do. However, most of them do have a brief description of what they did, and that is what was used here. For the ones with little/no description, I supplemented it with a description from this official history article.

Note on the images, I got White cat to do an image review for me, so they should be okay. As always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I made a review and found:
  • File:IPB-logo.gif <- fish license. Make sure its free. It may very well be free. The image is a terrible quality gif. Get an SVG in there...
  • File:Gustavstresemann.jpg <- up for deletion but was kept previously. Probably will be kept again
  • File:Dag_Hammarskjold.jpg <- other version (linked on the page) may be of better use.
  • File:Sakharov_1943.jpg <- complex license status. PD-russia related. Sort it out please.
  • Aside from that all others are freely licensed. If they turn out to be copyrighted (and falsely licensed) they would be deleted from commons eventually. But I see no problem with them at a glance.

  -- Cat ^chi? 04:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent list! Good work on all the Nobel Prizes and good luck on the Featured Topic. Reywas92^Talk 19:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Second paragraph first sentence: Nobel prizes -> Nobel Prizes

Other than that, looks good—Chris! _ct 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Scorpion fixed that. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "which is equal to 7,731,004 SEK in December 2008." Very soon, it will be not be December 2008 anymore, and the tense will be wrong. Try: "which is equal to 7,731,004 SEK as of December 2008.
• "Eleven women have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the most of any Nobel Prize alongside the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine." I count twelve.
  • You're right, I miscounted.
• "The International Committee of the Red Cross has been awarded the prize three times (1917, 1944 and 1963), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has won twice (1954, 1981)." Insert "and" after the comma.
• Make sure to address White Cat's image concerns.
  • Already done.
• In the sources, some instances of the publisher "Nobel Foundation" are linked. Be consistent, they should all be either linked or unlinked. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  Done points 1 and 3. I count 11 female winners as well; it might be a bit long but could you link to the 12? Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [61].

---

Highlander: The Series (season 2)

I am nominating this episode list because I think it meets all the criteria. It's accurate, complete and has reliable sources. It has recently undergone Peer Review and has been copyedited by three different editors. It was modelled after the most recently featured episods list such as The O.C. (season 4) and is now ready to get your comments. Thank you for your time, Rosenknospe (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The panoramic image of Vancouver is excellent, but does it really have to be that big? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you using IE6 by any chance ? I know the Wide image template doesn't work with it and makes the page ridiculously large, although it works fine with IE7 and Firefox. We tried to use the Panorama simple template during Peer Review, but the bottom of the picture gets cropped for some reason. I'd welcome any other idea you might have. Rosenknospe (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox, and in addition a large resolution, and that infobox image is a little big.--SRX 20:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid most infobox pictures in episode lists are 200 to 250 px wide, see for example 30 Rock (season 2), The O.C. (season 4), or all Lost or The Simpsons lists. In fact, this picture is quite near the lower limit of the range, so I don't feel I did anything out of the ordinary. Do you find it really disturbing or looking like an advertisement ? Rosenknospe (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This in a way goes against WIAFL Cr 6, Visual appeal. because the image is very distracting. I would consult with the respective project(s) to discuss reducing the default size for the images in the infobox.--SRX 22:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Image size is fine; they're typically up to 256px in width. Gary King (talk) 22:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've just requested input from WikiProject Television, as well as The Simpsons, The Office (US), Lost and Degrassi task forces. (And somebody already commented, thank you !) I hope a discussion will take place. However, until a new consensus is built, I think it better to stick to the current one and keep the image size for now. I will of course change it if necessary. I hope this answers your concerns. Thank you for taking the time to comment, Rosenknospe (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit excessive to contact so many WikiProjects; I don't think that the criterion conflicts with any WikiProject guidelines. Gary King (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wanted to get an answer, though I didn't think I'd get it so quickly, and I thank you very much for that. Sorry if I've been excessive, but I've got FLC nerves ;D Rosenknospe (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I definitely understand the nerves part. Anyways, no harm done; I think the lesson learned here is that when someone suggests something, take it into consideration but always go with what you think makes the most sense and explain why (I'm not saying that anyone is correct in this particular case, but I think this is a good general rule to follow). Gary King (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I will keep that in mind. Rosenknospe (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by my comment was that it isn't really necessary to have a large panoramic image in this article. A smaller (200-300px) image of the city would work better. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. Sorry for not getting it. Well, I chose this image because it matched the color of the page and you can see several filming locations of the series on it, but okay, I'll go find another one. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am using Firefox, and I think the image looks fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the Vancouver wide image by a normal-sized one. Hope this works. Any other thoughts ? Thanks for commenting, Dabomb87 ! Rosenknospe (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) It is obvious that you have exerted much effort into this excellent article, kudos to you and the other collaborating copy-editors!

• "MacLeod discovers Tommy had been hired by Mike to kill Gallen" I think that a "that" should be inserted before "Tommy".
• "Sullivan kills Coleman when he tries to buy George" Literally?
  • Yes. Those are tough men. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• "MacLeod and Charlie meet Sara Lightfoot (Michelle Thrush) and baby Jamie who are fleeing the Hoskins family." Needs a comma after "Jamie".
• "Xavier St. Cloud uses mercenaries to behead fellow Immortals." "uses"-->employs.
• "so MacLeod fights her and beheads her. "
• "sarcophagus" Wikilink it.
• "MacLeod realizes Constantine"-->MacLeod realizes that Constantine...
• "Richie joins MacLeod in Paris because he is chased" Add being before "chased".
• The "Notes" need references. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The note about Michel Modo is self-referential and in my opinion doesn't need to be sourced, and I have provided references for the two others. I have done all the modifications you suggested, too. Thank you very much for taking the time ! Rosenknospe (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://www.hulu.com/highlander a reliable source?
  • According to their About page, "Hulu was founded in March 2007 by NBC Universal and News Corp and is operated independently by a dedicated management team". Rosenknospe (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise http://web.archive.org/web/20000104020414/retrovisionmag.com/index.html? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Their home page archived here states that they were a magazine publishing excerpts on their website. Rosenknospe (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I will leave this source unstruck so that other reviewers can evaluate the source. Although it is probably good enough, we need to be absolutely sure, because it sources WP:BLP material. In my mind, the fact that it is a print magazine does not fully prove that it is reliable, although it makes it more likely. We still need to know what kind of fact-checking they do. Anyway, this source is not going to stop me from supporting, I am just leaving it unstruck so that other reviewers can form an opinion of their own. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
      • For all it's worth, it's listed at OCLC 40987681. Thank you for supporting, Dabomb87, have a happy new year ! Rosenknospe (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• It aired September 27, 1993 in broadcast syndication,[2] continuing to follow the adventures of Duncan MacLeod, a 400-year-old Immortal who can only die if he is beheaded. - how about stating The first episode of the season aired on September 27, 1993...
• The episodes are available at the online video on demand service Hulu, a joint venture between NBC and Fox Broadcasting Company. - on the not "at the"
• The lead should also state when the season ended.

Production

• The first season aired earlier in the United States than elsewhere, thus in early 1993, Rysher TPE, the distributor that had sold the series to the American market, had to make a decision about financing a new season even though several of its co-producers had yet to air the first season. - this needs to be reworded, but then I got confused at the end. The sentence, to me, is stating that after airing in the U.S., the distributor was going to make a decision whether to finance a new season to the U.S., 'yet the co-producers had yet to air the first season (the part in bold throws the sentence off, it needs rewording.

You got it right. Rysher was distributor and co-producer at the same time. They invested money and got it back in advertising rights, if you like. The thing is, in North America episodes are aired very quickly after they are filmed (about one week to two months) while in Europe they are typically aired more than a year after they are filmed. (You need time to translate the episode and dub it, then the channels usually wait until September to start a season in order to get the maximum audience.) What happened was, Rysher aired the first season between October 1992 and May 1993. In early 1993, even before the end of the season, they saw that they were getting good ratings and wanted a new season. At this time, none of the European partners (TF1, RTL, Reteitalia) had aired the series, they would only start in fall 1993, at which time the second season was already in production and the first episodes were being aired. So the Europeans wouldn't be able to make a decision. I'll try to explain that in the article, I'm not sure of what you mean by "the part in bold" though, could you please clarify ? Rosenknospe (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done now. Rosenknospe (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Gaumont Television (France), Rysher TPE (United States) and Reteitalia (Italy)[7] returned for the new season. - what do you mean "returned?" Returned to produce the series?

Yes. I'll reword that. Rosenknospe (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Rosenknospe (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Amuse Video (Japan) also was no longer part of the co-production, but Gaumont Television Christian Charret signed Filmline International (Canada) as a new partner. - was also not "also was"
• As a result of this new co-production agreement, with less wealthy partners, the budget of the season decreased to US$22 million, half of it coming from French [8] and other European sources,[9] and the income per episode from international sales, which had reached $800,000 in the previous season, decreased too - 1)It is stated that the budget decreased to a certain amount, but what was the budget for the first season? (it helps to clarify this in the article) 2)"half of it coming from the French" - is this intended as it was the French's fault for the decrease or the budget itself? 3)I would make the "and the" into a semi colon 4)What did the income per episode decrease to?

1) I'll get you that.

2) No, it only means that half of the money came from the French and other Europeans, quite an unusual fact for a North American series. The budget decreased because the co-production agreement was redesigned, and the new partners has less money to invest than the former ones.

3) Done.

4) I don't have this information, the source only says that it decreased, but not how much income they made in the new season. Rosenknospe (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything fixed now. Rosenknospe (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• According to The Hollywood Reporter, pre-production started in April 1993[11] and filming in June the same year. - comma before "and"
• Creatively, the second season was intended to be more action-oriented than the first, but lead actor Adrian Paul refused to do "another kung fu series", insisting that more romance and history be brought in the scripts. - the comma should go within the quotation marks like ","
• Former executives in charge of production Marc du Pontavice and Denis Leroy returned as associate producer and coordinating producer respectively. - comma before "Marc" and after "Leroy"
• David Abramowitz served as head writer,[17] but he could not be credited as such because as Highlander was a Canadian-based show, only Canadian writers could author scripts;[18] Abramowitz was American, and thus was credited as creative consultant instead. - remove the "as" before "Highlander" and add an and before "only"
• Brent Karl Clackson was line producer in Vancouver, succeeded by Patrick Millet (with the title of production manager) on the Paris segment. - add the before "line producer" and add but was before "succeeded"
• The opening theme is "Princes of the Universe" from the 1986 album A Kind of Magic by Queen;[6] incidental music was composed by Roger Bellon. - was not "is" (past tense)

Cast

• Jim Byrnes was introduced as MacLeod's Watcher Joe Dawson, in the season's first episode "The Watchers". - comma before "Joe"

Reception

• During the 1993 November sweeps, ratings increased from 3.5 the previous year to 4.1 (a 17 percent gain), meaning that 4.1 percent of viewers aged 18 to 49 watched the episode. - it should be elaborated earlier that the ratings were among adults, because it literally does not "mean that 4.1....etc."--Truco 21:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing... Rosenknospe (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. Thank you very much for your thorough review. Any other thoughts ? Rosenknospe (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - all my issues were thoroughly addressed, which I agreed upon, and this list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 00:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for supporting ! Rosenknospe (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Oppose for now. Several references are books with no publishing date. Quite a few references do not have the same date format. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't believe I used the wrong parameter in the Cite books template ! *bangs head on wall* And I didn't realize the Cite news and Cite web templates didn't format dates automatically. (I mean, you get used to comfort ;) Everything's fixed now, thank you for taking a look. Other thoughts ? Rosenknospe (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • You aren't the first to make that mistake. Won't be the last. It has my support now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you ! Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 23:11, 10 January 2009 [62].

---

List of Texas Aggie terms

previous FLC (02:53, 5 March 2008)

I'm nominating this list as an exemplary example of what a featured list can be. As always, your comments are welcome. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all major issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Some resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment "This list of Texas Aggie terms..." We don't start Featured Lists like this anymore. See an article like Alabama Crimson Tide football seasons for an example of a good opening sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I like the creativity of the list, very nice! (even though I am a Longhorn;)

• "senior military college"-->Senior Military College.

• Done Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "It provides more commissioned officers to the United States Armed Forces than any other school outside of the service academies." This statement also needs a reference.

• Done. Also removed the next sentence, an unsourced claim (the claim on the cited page was that ROTC produces more officers than anyone else, not VMI). — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "university's history"-->university's history.

• DoneOldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Several other land grant schools use "Aggie"" Comma after this phrase.

• Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Due to the November 18, 1999 collapse of bonfire"-->Due to the November 18, 1999 collapse of the bonfire (a very sad event, I remember reading about it in the paper).

• ????? not sure if this should be done Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• This shouldn't be done, but Bonfire is a proper noun and is treated as such (annotated on the Aggie Bonfire page too). You wouldn't say "We went to the Kyle Field," you'd say, "We went to Kyle Field."

• OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The initial phase of Aggie Bonfire construction, where students cut down logs"-->The initial phase of Aggie Bonfire construction in which students cut down logs.

• Done

• "Term referring to senior undergraduates"-->Term that refers to...

• DoneOldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "A tradition where the senior class"-->A tradition in which the senior class

• Done Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Grodes were typically not washed until Bonfire burned, if ever." Why is the past tense used?

• Bonfire has always been a difficult subject to write about. Officially the school does not sponsor the event due to lawsuits. As such, the student bonfire, is debatable as if it is a tradition or not. It is not on campus anymore, and is not quite the same thing anymore. Some have said, bonfire is an Aggie tradition, just not a Texas A&M tradition. To keep consistency with everything else, i changed the tense to of all bonfire related terms to past tense.

• ""Highway 6 runs both ways"" You might mention that Highway 6 runs past Bryan/College Station (once again, bringing back memories)

• Done.

• "Ag" Can we refer to them in full "Aggies"?

• Only used once, but i checked again. I removed the "ag" term and moved it to a separate sentence. Oldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Official greeting of Texas A&M University."-->Texas A&M University's official greeting.

• DoneOldag07 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The second phase of Aggie Bonfire construction, where the newly cut logs are brought back to campus."-->The second phase of Aggie Bonfire construction in which the newly cut logs are brought back to campus.

• DoneOldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• "A Texas A&M pep rally like event."-->A Texas A&M event that is similar to a pep rally.

DoneOldag07 (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Sources

• A number of the sources need last access dates and/or publisher info (Refs 3, 4, 9, 26, 40, 54, 57, 64). In addition, all citation dates should be of the same format. Right now, you have a mish-mosh of international (DD-Month-YYYY) and ISO (YYYY-DD-MM).

• For the first problem, we had a mix Citation/ Cite web/ news etc format. so we converted all citation templates into cite XXX for consistancy. it seems as of the parameter "newspaper" is in the citation template and, but not the cite news section. Oldag07 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• 80% done with this. it seems like some of the problem is template problem. the cite news template formats (yyyy-dd-mm) into (dd-month-yyyy). Cite web leaves it alone.Oldag07 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• I still don't know what to do with the dates that only have months and years as publication dates. we cant sue the (YYYY-DD-MM) format i believe. Oldag07 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• That is fine. Fix what you can. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It is as good as I personally can get it. dates without days are going to simply be formatted different than the rest of them. Oldag07 (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 48 is not formatted like the other references.

• Fixed Oldag07 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Rdf 66 has something wacky in its formatting.

• Fixed. Oldag07 (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• In many of the references, you put in the format as HTML. HTML is implied and does not to be signified.

• Fixed Oldag07 (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.salon.com/index.html a reliable source?
• Reference 45 needs a publisher/work.
• Why does ref 30 use the cite news template?
• The cite web template does not force you to use the ISO formats. Change the remainder of the dates to international format, see my sample edits. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done Oldag07 (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the rest of the dates to be international format. There are two redlinked dates, those are from the {{cite paper}} template. I have put in a request for an admin to remove the date links, the redlinks should disappear soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

• File:Aggiebonfire2005.jpg needs a source and author
• File:Fishreviewfall06.jpg same.
• File:TAMU Fishpond2.jpg same.
• File:Dixie chicken in college station.jpg should probably be copied to Commons, and needs a source and author.
• File:Seniorboots.jpg needs an author.
• File:Sul Ross Statue.JPG needs a stronger fair use rationale. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• The first five are sourced to the author of the photo (the uploader). As for moving that image to commons, fine, but that is an issue with the image, not this list. I see no reason to duplicate information about the uploader all over the image page when the history and source are already clearly marked.

• The Sul Ross statue is a picture of a work of art from 1918. It can reasonably be argued that the statue's copyright is null and void, but in deference to the creator, we have kept it. The picture itself isn't copyrighted, but the statue is. Its purpose is for identification as there are many statues on campus. Given the prominence of this statue and the subject it represents, an image for purposes of identification is appropriate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Meeting image use policy and all that is part of the criteria, but I will organize the info. I will use that last sentence you said to strengthen the FUR. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not saying it isn't part of the policy, but what part do these pictures violate? I must be missing it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Image use policy#Requirements. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Always tag your image with one of the image copyright tags. When in doubt, do not upload copyrighted images. done
2. Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified. Examples include scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer. For screenshots this means what the image is a screenshot of (the more detail the better). Do not put credits in images themselves. done

• Ummm...I noticed you struck them out, but I haven't done anything. I just pointed out that they already met the criteria you mentioned. Is there something I'm missing here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I was working on them earlier today. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I have strengthened the fair use rationale for the non-free image. I am working on the last free image. OK, I finished cleaning up the last image. All image issues are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, ok. Thanks! — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• What was the inclusion criteria (scope) of the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• See talk page. Oldag07 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done to the best of my knowledge. Oldag07 (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed inclusion criteria (copied from talk page) This is what i think it should be.

• Terms unique our used in unique ways related to Texas A&M.
• Major Bonfire terms
• Major Athletics related terms
• Terms not exclusively used by the Corps
• Major traditions.
• Terms related to major traditions
• Terms that could be found on a basic tour of the university.

Suggestions. How do we convert that to prose? Oldag07 (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think the third paragraph pretty much covers this. But I could add this sentence?

• Terms exclusively used by the Corps of Cadets, and not the rest of the students are not included in this list to narrow the list size.

• Sounds good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• With these criteria, the term "old lady" would be on the chopping block. Pisshead/ Surgebutt/ Zip are questionable. That being said, this page is missing a whole lot of Corps exclusive terminology. Other than that, that, this new criteria fits everything else on the page. Oldag07 (talk) 15:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps you should split off an exclusive page on Corps terminology and make this page for general Aggies terms.

• After our Articles for Deletion debate about a year ago I am weary for starting an even more exclusive TAMU page. It is easy to find stuff on the terms "Wrecking crew", Reveille, or Bonfire. Not so easy to find "old lady". That being said, the corps does have a very good dictionary with their exclusive terms. [Corps Dictionary]. We have argued that this is a university source, making it pretty good, but it being an exclusive source for one page, would be questionable. Not to mention we would have to fight off accusations of fan cuft etc. Maybe a see also page at the bottom would be good. enough Oldag07 (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Do you mean an External link? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• That also would make sense. Oldag07 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) OK, I did that myself. So the only thing left is the name, which I commented on below. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• It would be nice if all the finished stuff were to be under hidden templates, so it will be easier to tell what else needs to be done. Oldag07 (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from other reviewers are welcome. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't it be Texas Aggies terms? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, thank you for your pacience, suggestions, and help Dabomb87. They have greatly improved this page, and have made a very positive impact on this page.

As for the title of the page. I think the name is approprate. The way I see it, the phrase "Texas Aggie" here is used as an adjective.

The terms plural forms of these words Longhorns and Aggies are used only when the noun forms are used.

Longhorn used as a noun

• The longhorns scored a touchdown.

Longhorn used as an adjective

• The longhorn team scored a touchdown

Aggie used as a noun

• The Aggies won the game

Aggie used as a adjective

• The Aggie football team won the game.

In this case, the nouns are list and terms. The adjectives describing these are Texas Aggie.

Thoughts?Oldag07 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, but on further thought, why is it not Texas A&M Aggie terms? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not a deal-breaker for me either, so I have supported. Asking the major editors in a neutral manner would not be considered canvassing. Maybe: Hello, List of Texas Aggie terms is up at Featured list candidates. At that page, there is a discussion about what the correct name of the article should be. Your input on the matter would be much appreciated. Thanks. Just a suggestion. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, but since it is not a deal breaker, I moved the discussion to the talk page.Oldag07 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A minor issue, but magazine, newspaper and journal names (ie. Sports Illustrated, Houston Chronicle, etc.) in the refs section should be italicized. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  The wrong field was used. Fixed. Did I miss any? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  Ref 7 is missing a publisher/work, and I think that Ref 41 to "The Maroon Weekly" is a publication (says that it is weekly newspaper). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  Good catch. The first had a publisher, but the citation template was the wrong one. Fixed Maroon Weekly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Looks like all issues have been addressed. Great List. Kensplanet^T_C 09:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose
  • "...its abbreviated form, "Ag"...." is not cited.
  • "...non-university sanctioned Bonfires, called Student Bonfire,..." shouldn't that be "...Student Bonfires...?
  • Don't abbreviate ROTC, I haven't a clue what it means, just write it out in full, especially since you don't use it more than once.
  • "Corps of Cadets at fish review fall of 06" - this caption means nothing to me. "fish review"? and I suppose you mean "Fall" and "of 2006"?
  • "...Colloquially "Corps Turd, etymologically "Cadet in Training"..." missing a " after Turd...
  • "See Elephant Walk" - I'd put a full stop after this.
  • Be consistent with full stops in captions - the "humping it" caption has one while the "gig 'em" caption doesn't yet both seem to be incomplete sentences to me.
  • Same with the "Flag room" caption.
  • Could you list the "Muster" citations in numerical order as per all other citations?
  • "...the dorms .." little informal - stick with dormitories.
  • I assume RAggies is supposed to have two capitalised letters.
  • "The Texas A&M mascot, now a purebred American collie." - I think "currently a ..." would make more sense.
  • Not sure you really need to link choir or buses...
  • "Texas Longhorns fans respond by saying t.u. stands for "The University"." not cited.
  • Is it Yell Leader or Yell leader? The caption has "yell leader"...
  • Ref 59 is dead. I haven't time to check the others... Since a lot of them have old retrieval dates (many from 2007), I suggest you check them all.
• A few too many issues for me to support just yet. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• "...its abbreviated form, "Ag"...." is not cited.

• It is now. Good catch.

• "...non-university sanctioned Bonfires, called Student Bonfire,..." shouldn't that be "...Student Bonfires...?

• No. In this case Student Bonfire is an event and an organization. Similar uses are in the article Aggie Bonfire and are consistent.

• Don't abbreviate ROTC, I haven't a clue what it means, just write it out in full, especially since you don't use it more than once.

• ROTC is a common American term for Reserve Officer Training Corps. The first use of ROTC is wikilinked for those unfamiliar with the term.

• Did this one, per MOS:ABBR, abbreviations should be spelled out on their first appearance. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Corps of Cadets at fish review fall of 06" - this caption means nothing to me. "fish review"? and I suppose you mean "Fall" and "of 2006"?

• <grimaces> yes. explanation: fish are freshmen, and in this context a "review" is a military review. This is the first military review of the school year. Fixed the rest and wikilinked for clarity

• "...Colloquially "Corps Turd, etymologically "Cadet in Training"..." missing a " after Turd...

• Missed that one. Thanks!

• "See Elephant Walk" - I'd put a full stop after this.

• okay

• Be consistent with full stops in captions - the "humping it" caption has one while the "gig 'em" caption doesn't yet both seem to be incomplete sentences to me.

• "Humping it" is not a verb in this case, but an adjective. Ergo, it is an incomplete sentence and does not require punctuation

• Same with the "Flag room" caption.

• No verb=no sentence

• Could you list the "Muster" citations in numerical order as per all other citations?

• done

• "...the dorms .." little informal - stick with dormitories.

• fixed

• I assume RAggies is supposed to have two capitalised letters.

• It is.

• "The Texas A&M mascot, now a purebred American collie." - I think "currently a ..." would make more sense.

• just removed "now"

• Not sure you really need to link choir or buses...

• I don't think it hurts

• Compromise: I unlinked "bus"; choir can stay or go, it may have some relevance. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Texas Longhorns fans respond by saying t.u. stands for "The University"." not cited.

• removed

• Is it Yell Leader or Yell leader? The caption has "yell leader"...

• Technically it can be both, much like "President" or "president"

• Ref 59 is dead. I haven't time to check the others... Since a lot of them have old retrieval dates (many from 2007), I suggest you check them all.

• Couldn't find any others, but that ref was redundant anyway.

• To confirm, the link checker shows that there are no more dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

— BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 stole the words right out of my mouth. just a few seconds too late.Oldag07 (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Although these may not be correctable, there are two disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, these seems to be necessary. Oldag07 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:44, 6 January 2009 [63].

---

List of Bleach episodes (season 9)

Another episode list. This and List of Bleach episodes are the last FLs needed for my Seasons of Bleach FT. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 12:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking forward to that FT—and the end of those Bleach episode lists;)!

• "a member of a hollow-hunting group the Gotei 13 normally does not interact with" Who or what is the "Gotei 13"?

• Wikilinked. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• "well accepted" Maybe "well-received"?

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The following day, they move into the house next to Ichigo's, and they become students at his school. "

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• "by an assassin wielding a guandao "-->by a guandao-wielding assassin...

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Ichigo calling out to her. "-->Ichigo's calls to her.
• "who Kifune kills"-->whom Kifune kills. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all references are reliable source. Summaries are easy to understand.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:44, 6 January 2009 [64].

---

List of Texas Rangers managers

previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)

I have edited the article since its failed FLC, and I think it meets standards. This follows my format from List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers and List of Seattle Mariners managers. Thanks for the comments in advance. --LAAFan^sign _review 05:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RyanCross (talk · contribs)

Comments by RyanCross (talk · contribs):

• For reference [3], I believe {{citenews}} would be a better template to use rather than {{citeweb}} since ESPN, a news network, is the publisher. Don't forget to include "author=Associated Press" and "date=2006-11-08" to the template.  Done
• There's a problem with the table. "Reference" is where "Awards" is supposed to be, etc. Done
• ESPN is linked in one of the references, but why isn't Baseball-Reference linked in the others? Done Removed ESPN link.

• Heh, I actually meant for you to link them all, not delink it... RyanCross @ 19:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've done it myself. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Statistics are accurate through the 2007 MLB season." – I think it would make more sense to add that to the "Managers" section than the "Key" section. Done

— RyanCross @ 06:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from Killervogel5

• Replace the en-dashes used for blanks with em-dashes.

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Baseball-reference.com is not a publisher; it is a work. The publisher is Sports Reference LLC. All of the B-R references need to be changed.

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead, link playoffs to "Playoffs#Playoffs in Major League Baseball."

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Ted Williams is the only Rangers manager to have been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame." - reference

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The asterisk does not appear bold in the table so it should not be bold in the key.

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• "GC-games coached" should be "GM-games managed", since coaches and managers in baseball are distinct.

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• There is no general managers' table or information in the article (list) itself, so that information should be removed from the lead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. — RyanCross (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• "and 13 general managers (GMs)." is still there. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Missed that one. Thanks, now removed. — RyanCross (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• This should be updated to include the 2008 season since it is complete.

• Done. — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• You discuss very few managerial superlatives or anything of that nature in the lead. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers or List of Minnesota Twins managers for examples. An overview of franchise history is important as well considering the team's move.

• Done. RyanCross @ 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• "There have been thirteen interim managers in Rangers history." - needs a reference. Who says they were "interim"?

• Removed and moved to talk page until ref is found.

• "it was decided Connie Ryan would not finish the season." - by whom? This needs a reference or the wording should be altered.

• Reworded. — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no sorting. There is also no reference at all to pennants or championships won.

• Referenced. — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Table rows should be able to stand alone, so all years in the table should be linked, and there should be a line in the key table explaining that years are linked to the corresponding Senators'/Rangers' season.

• Partially done. I've only linked all the years so far for this one. — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Additionally (KV5)

• The "focus on interim managers" that was never addressed in the previous FLC is still present and should have been fixed before any re-nom was attempted.

• Not sure what you mean. More info please? — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to complete some of these. Give me some time. RyanCross @ 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Cheers, and if you need a hand, let me know. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done several, will continue later. RyanCross @ 22:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've done as much as I can for now. — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose - many prose problems that goes against WP:WIAFL

• There have been 23 managers in the history of the Texas Rangers Major League Baseball franchise. - this should not be the opening sentence, the following sentence should open the list.
• The Rangers are based in Arlington, Texas and are members of the American League West division. - this should be reworded as The Rangers are an American baseball franchise based in Arlington, Texas. They are members of the American League West division.

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Rangers franchise was formed in 1961 as a member of the American League. - that's it? There needs to be more explained on their history, what happened after this? Who currently owns the team, the venue they play at, etc (more on their history)
• Mickey Vernon became the first manager of the Texas Rangers, then called the Washington Senators, in 1961, serving for just over two seasons. - the part about them being called the Senators should be in the first paragraph
• Bobby Valentine has managed more games and seasons than any other coach in Rangers history. - So? What was the record?
• The only Rangers manager to make it to the playoffs in October is Johnny Oates, who won the 1996 Manager of the Year Award with the Rangers. --->The only Rangers manager to lead the team to the playoffs was Johnny Oates, who also won the 1996 Manager of the Year Award with the Rangers.

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• In 1963, manager Mickey Vernon was fired. The interim manager chosen was Eddie Yost. - how about merging these...In 1963, manager Mickey Vernon was fired and replaced by interim manager Eddie Yost.

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• One game later, Yost was replaced by Gil Hodges. - why? This leaves the reader in question.
• In 1973, manager Whitey Herzog was replaced by Del Wilber. One game later, Billy Martin took over the role of manager. - why? Who appointed him, why was he appointed, same applies to the above sentence
• After six games, it was decided Connie Ryan would not finish the season. - this just stands out because in the previous sentence you say that Martin was replaced by Stanky, so where did Ryan come from?
• Billy Hunter took over the role of manager, only to replaced in the midseason by Pat Corrales. - add a be before replaced

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• In 1982, Don Zimmer's poor performance forced the Rangers to hire Darrell Johnson midseason. - add as his replacement during the midseason after Darrell Johnson.

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• In 1985, after years of losing seasons, Doug Rader was replaced by Bobby Valentine. Valentine was later replaced midseason by Toby Harrah. --> In 1985, after Doug Rader led the Rangers to (exact number of seasons) losing seasons, he was replaced by Bobby Valentine, who in turn was replaced by Toby Harrah during the midseason.

• Done. I still need to fill in exact number of seasons though. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• In 2001, Johnny Oates's poor performance forced the Rangers to hire Jerry Narron midseason. - ++as his replacement during the midseason after Narron's name.

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The current manager of the Texas Rangers is Ron Washington, who has led the team since 2007. - ++managed not led

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• The color on the fifth entry should only cover his name, not the whole row per previous passed FLCs

• Done. RyanCross @ 21:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers for an example of an FL prose.
  • Footnotes need to be added to the article as seen in the above FL
• The table says that statistics are correct as of the 2007 season, yet the 2008 season just occurred, so it needs to be updated.SRX 00:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - the list now meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 16:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I found and fixed the dab, so you don't have to worry about it. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The only Rangers manager to lead the team to the playoffs"-->The only Rangers manager to have led the team to the playoffs...

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "There have been thirteen interim managers in Rangers history." "thirteen"-->13.

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "After six games, it was decided Connie Ryan"-->After six games, it was decided that Connie Ryan...

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Add a note about each year link in the "Term" column being linked that team's season—see List of Houston Astros managers.

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• The placeholding 0s before the decimal points are unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. RyanCross @ 22:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - All issues resolved. Nice work. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments by NatureBoyMD

Comments from NatureBoyMD

• (image caption) "Ron Washington (left), the current manager of the Rangers"

• Done. — RyanCross (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Frank Lucchesi" should be linked in the prose.

• Done. — RyanCross (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are five instances of the term "the midseason." The mid season isn't a specific time in a season like the pre-season or the post-season. The only way "the midseason" might be correct is if you meant at the All-Star break (even then, you should specify at the All-Star break). Try replacing "the midseson" with just "midseason" or a specific date or just a month.

• Done. — RyanCross (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

-NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

All resolved. — RyanCross (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:44, 6 January 2009 [65].

---

Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)

This was written in the same way as season 1 and season 2, so it should be good enough to be a Featured List. Let the nitpicking begin. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The season begins with the protagonist and his friends Sokka, Katara, and Toph traveling" This phrase uses the noun + -ing sentence structure, which is ungrammatical. Consider: "In the season's beginning, the protagonist and his friends Sokka, Katara, and Toph are traveling...
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Prior antagonist and anti-hero Zuko"-->The former antagonist and anti-hero Zuko...
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The final season featured twenty-one episodes, as opposed to the twenty episodes contained within each of the previous two seasons."-->The final season features twenty-one episodes, one more than in the previous two seasons.
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "All the DVDs were encoded solely for Region 1."
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Episodes were written by a team of writers, which consisted of Aaron Ehasz, Elizabeth Welch Ehasz, Tim Hedrick, John O'Bryan; along with creators DiMartino and Konietzko." Why is this in the past tense? Has the team disbanded?
  • Well, as season 3 is the last season, yes, I believe they have disbanded. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Mark Hamill joins the cast to voice Fire Lord Ozai, who, while having a major role in the plot, had previously only been shown playing minor roles in the series."-->Mark Hamill joins the cast to voice Fire Lord Ozai, who, for the first time in the series, has a major role in the plot.
  • Fixed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The season also received some praise for its video and sound quality."
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "and Joaquim dos Santos was nominated "Directing in an Animated Television Production"" Word missing.
  • Fixed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Aang accidentally takes a school uniform and is taken to a Fire Nation school" Comma after this phrase.
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "over the objections of Sokka and the rest"-->against the objections of Sokka and the rest...
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "However, Katara feeds Appa berries to make it seem like Appa is sick." How does this contradict the previous sentence?
  • Clarified. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "and he helps her to destroy the factory polluting the water."-->and he helps her to destroy the water-polluting factory.
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, Iroh devises a plan for escaping the prison"-->Meanwhile, Iroh devises a plan to escape the prison...
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "body building" I believe it is one word.
  • Fixed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The gang discovers there have been strange disappearances in a spooky town" Add that before "there".
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Feeling he is unprepared" Add that before "he".
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Hakoda returns with several people who" "who"-->whom.
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "of the Sun Warriors in order to learn"
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The DVDs contain five episodes in four volumes, with a boxed set following." What do you mean by "following"?
  • Fixed. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• http://www.economicexpert.com/a/List:of:assets:owned:by:Viacom.htm is not a reliable source, it is a mirror of the Wikipedia article.
  • Interesting. I never noticed that. New source from CNET. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://firefox.org/news/articles/959/1/Review---Avatar-The-Last-Airbender---quotThe-Day-of-Black-Sunquot-Parts-I-amp-II/Page1.html a reliable source? I know that it is sourcing a review, but how do we know that the quotations were transcribed accurately if we don't know how reliable the source is?
  • Bah, I hate WP:RS, especially because I know that's right. I'll hunt around for another source.
  • Note to Haha16 - I could use help on this one; you're usually pretty good about finding sources. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I ended up replacing the quote entirely and adding a note about Sozin's Comet. However, if you can work the quote back in, that would be great, because I really liked it. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• What makes http://nickmag-comics.livejournal.com/13799.html a reliable source?
  • New source (IGN). NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Likewise http://news.tvonmedia.com/tvom_news_by_show/Avatar-The-Last-Airbender-Complete-Book-3-DVD-Special-Features.shtml?
  • New source. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your quick responses. I am Wiki-bonked for the day, so I will look at your fixes tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

• The season, and especially the finale, received much critical acclaim, with praises from sources such as DVD Talk[2] and IGN. - "especially" is point-of-view, I would replace it with mainly and remove the "and" if you do that.
  • Especially highlights the fact that the finale was indeed one of the most highlighted parts of the season, but that reason of the season was praised as well. I feel that "the season, mainly the finale, received much critical acclaim" makes it seem that only the Season Finale received acclaim. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This could be interpreted in many ways, but lets just leave it as is :)--Truco 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• The season's executive producers and co-creators are Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko, who worked alongside episode director and co-producer Aaron Ehasz - the rest of the article is in past tense, so "are" should be were
  • Done. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

--Truco 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - the list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 22:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 06:24, 4 January 2009 [66].

---

The Kills discography

previous FLC (06:55, 14 August 2008)

I believe I have addressed the main concerns with the list from the last FLC. I haven't submitted anything to FLC for quite some time, so please let me know if there's anything new or different I haven't done. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Does "Meds" feature The Kills, or just Mosshart? I've seen both being used, and clarification is needed as it's a point of comprehensiveness. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From the looks of things, it's just VV (the vocalist for the kills) who contributed to the song. So it's not part of the groups' body of work. Drewcifer (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support

Just a few comments...

• ChartStats.com doesn't support the claim that Midnight Boom reached number one on the UK Indie Chart

• Fixed. Think someone snuck that in while I was on Wikibreak. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe include formats and catalog numbers?

• Never been a fan of including formats, but I'll see about catalog numbers. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ended up adding both anyways. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Title → Album details FIXED
• Video → Video albums

• I'm not sure about that, since it's not an album at all, it's a documentary... Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe title it that then? -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Ended up removing the section based on some suggestions made below. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The link to the studio albums section doesn't work in the infobox FIXED

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The comments from User:Underneath need to be resolved
• The Kills debuted in 2002 with the Black Rooster EP, released on Domino Records. wouldn't it be by and not on?

• Either is correct, though I do prefer "on", since I would usually reserve "by" for speaking about the artist. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Included with a limited number of copies of No Wow was a feature-length tour documentary titled I Hate the Way You Love, directed by The Kills and Morgan Lebus. - comma before was

• Read it again, I don't think a comma is needed (or grammatically correct) there. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Are the references in the music videos section, located on the name of the song/video also citing the directors? If so, it would be best to move them to the directors.

• They cover both the directors and the couple of notes, so putting it with the directors might imply the don't cover the notes. But I could go either way on this one. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• The EPs need verification by a source. So does the Video section.

• Both sections are covered by the general source(s). They are no different than the album/singles sections. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since a source is verifying one of the songs in the other compilations section, where is the source for the compilation in 2005?

• One of the general sources covers it ([67], at the bottom).

• The note should go in a footnotes section and the templates {{note}} and {{ref}} should be used instead of the current format.--SRX 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm, this might be something new that's happened since my wikibreak. I'll see what I can do. Drewcifer (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead should have more summaries of the list itself, not only their albums, but their music videos, singles, compilations, etc.--SRX 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Udonknome (talk)

• In the lead:

• "The Kills have released three full-length studio albums, three extended plays, nine singles, ten music videos, a documentary…" – I don't think documentaries should be part of a discography. Also, you might want to make sure the terminology is consistent, as I Hate the Way You Love is referred to as a documentary in the lead, but then as a video in the body of the list.

• Good call, took the section out completely, and just made a mention of it in the Studio albums section. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The Kills have released three full-length studio albums" – Is "full-length" necessary? FIXED
• "Between three studio albums, The Kills have release nine singles…" – Remove this, as it is a repetition from what is said in the first sentence.

• Reworded to avoid being repetitive.

• "Included with a limited number of copies of No Wow was a feature-length tour documentary titled I Hate the Way You Love". – This sentence may not need a comma, but it surely could be worded better. Rather than having the verb at the beginning and the subject at the end, try to put them together: 'A feature-length tour documentary titled I Hate the Way You Love was included with a limited number of copies of No Wow.' FIXED

• For peak chart positions:

• Insert a line break <br /> between each chart abbreviation and its reference link. For example, !style="width:3em;font-size:75%"|[[Top Heatseekers|US<br />Heat.]]<br /><ref name="AMG charts" /> FIXED
• Wikilink UK to UK Albums Chart. FIXED
• "US Ind." --> "US Indie" and "UK Indie Chart" --> "UK Indie"

• I prefer to abreviate, since the other column headers are typically abbreviated as well. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Chart position for the UK Indie Chart is not referenced.

• I got rid of that column altogether, I think someone else added that one and I didn't notice it wasn't backed up by any source. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• For the albums:

• Rename the 'Albums' section to 'Studio albums'. Extended plays are albums too. This is also consistent with the Infobox. FIXED
• For studio albums, add catalog numbers and format releases. Most FL discographies have this, and it is recommended at MOS:DISCOG. Same for the extended plays, if such is possible. An easy way to find this information is through the album entries at Allmusic. For example, Keep on Your Mean Side was released as a CD and LP while the main catalog number is 124. FIXED
• Verify all music label entries are correct and complete. According to the link above, Keep on Your Mean Side was released on Rough Trade Records, Sanctuary Records and Domino Records. Similar issues with No Wow, Black Rooster EP and Fried My Little Brains.

• The thing with multiple labels is that it can all get a little convoluted with re-releases, co-releases, multiple releases in different territories, etc. So, it's always been my approach to boil it down to the original domestic release, in the case of the ones you mentioned, is Domino records.

• According to the cover art, the EP is named Fried My Little Brains rather than Fried My Little Brains EP FIXED

• For the music videos section:

• Change the heading Song to Title. Remember, these are not songs, but rather they are music videos. FIXED
• For the videos "The Good Ones" and "U.R.A. Fever", use the following references: [68] and [69]. The current references does not indicate the directors. FIXED
• "Fashion Rocks! 2005 - Prada" seems to be title of the video directed by United Visual Artists, rather than "No Wow".

• Good catch. Upon further research, my understanding is that it's more of a video showcasing Prada, featuring the Kills, set to "No Wow." Which means it technically isn't really a music video at all, more like an commercial. So I removed it from the table. Drewcifer (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• For the videos "Cheap and Cheerful" and "Last Day of Magic", could you explain why is Promo News a reliable source? (Just for clarification)
• In regards to the note on "Kissy Kissy", was it the song or the music video to be "taken from I Hate the Way You Love"? You might want to specify this. FIXED
• Since there are really only two notes in the whole table, you can just move them to the footnotes section. I'd also recommend the use of {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}} rather than {{Ref}} and {{Note}}, as the latter ones can be cause a bit of mess when used in tables.

• Could you rename the section "Original contributions to compilations" to simply "Collaborations"? Or otherwise, could you explain why it is important to mention that two songs were recorded were on compilations or tribute albums?

• I think that "Collaborations" implies that there was some sort of creative dialogue between people, rather than The Kills doing their own thing and putting it on a compilation album. I'm not sure if I follow your second question, but if I understand the question correctly, my answer would be that it is important to mention it since it is music from the group that was released only on those records, so it therefore is part of the body of work/discography.

*Avoid using Amazon.com as a reference or store retails in general. Replace it with this link for "Restaurant Blouse". Ditto for "I Call It Art (Le Chanson de Slogan)"

• Fixed the first, but not the second one, since that one's covered by the general reference.

• "Love is a Deserter" --> "Love Is a Deserter". As well, "I Call it Art" --> "I Call It Art (Le Chanson de Slogan)"\

• The French title is what the song is a cover of, but not part of the Kills' song's title.

Until these issue are solved or addressed, I'll have to oppose the promotion of this to FL. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review. I fixed a bunch of the issues your pointed out, but a couple of them I boil down to preference, so I suppose where my preference differed from yours I left it as is. But I'm obviously willing to discuss those particular instances if you completely disagree. I'm still working on a few of them, which I should be finished with shortly. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Sorry for not replying for a while. You've addressed my main concerns and the article seems just fine to me. Good job and good luck! Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your support, but most importantly the thorough review. Drewcifer (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 06:24, 4 January 2009 [70].

---

List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama

I want to have this list assessed for FL, it has been peer reviewed and the reviewer felt it was ready. Myself and Doncram have been the primary contributors, but the list structure involved substantial input from our project, the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. This is the first of the 50 state National Historic Landmarks lists to be nominated for FL. (List of National Historic Landmarks in New York was nominated and failed.) Thanks. Altairisfar_talk 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Quick comments:

• We don't use "This is..." for lists anymore. Make a more descriptive opener.
• Cut the blue out of the table. It serves no purpose and is unnecessarily distracting.
• The "The table below lists all of these sites, along with added detail and description." is unnecessary.
• Find someone to spot-check the images for proper sourcing/permissions/etc.

• That's it for now. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The first three are done, working on the fourth. Thanks. Altairisfar_talk 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sephiroth BCR objected to the use of color because, I assume, he/she did not understand the purpose of the color, which is to provide consistent color-coding of various types of NRHP properties in mixed tables of NRHPs created by WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The coloring system was explained in a footnote to the top left cell of the first table, and it could also be linked from each of the differently colored numbering cells in the table. The article coloring scheme will not be immediately obvious to a reader who is not familiar with more of the NHL and other NRHP list articles. However, there is a purpose to it, and it enhances the reading for the more informed reader while not detracting from the experience for a less informed reader, in my view.

This article, being mostly a tabulation of the NHLs in one state, used the NHL blue color mostly. A different color is used for the NHL district or two within the first table; other different colors used in the third table. In my view, the color in the first table header (which Altairisfar removed) should be restored to NHL color blue. doncram (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I restored that color and I restored/added explanatory footnotes about the color-coding, now linked from the top left cell of each table. Note the color-coding info is also linked from the number in the first cell using each new color when it is introduced...namely, cell 1 in table 1, the Tuskegee Institute's number cell, the Yancey number cell, and the 3 entries in the 3rd table. This access to color-coding explanation is subtle, rather than hammering the reader over the head with it. The use of the color-coding makes sense in the larger context of the system of lists of NHL and NRHP lists. For example, see also List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, which uses more colors because more types of properties appear there. Again, I think the subtle use of color-coding helps for the more informed/interested reader, and it does not detract from the reading experience for the less informed. It suggests to the reader, correctly, that there is a distinction to be made between some of the properties vs. others. doncram (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't justify the blue in the top row of cells. Drop those. If you want to use color to identify the different NHLs, then add a key (see Chicago Bulls seasons#Year by year table, use symbols in addition to the color for the benefit of our colorblind readers), center the numbers (use align="center" | YOURTEXTHERE), and make them bigger. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the blue in top row, I don't think this would be controversial at the wikiproject. I'll leave a note there to make sure. My skills at markup language aren't good enough to center the numbers, though I tried. The template link to the key at NRHP colors legend within the number at the first occurrence of each color seems to be the problem, it needs different formatting. Altairisfar_talk 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was a reason for the blue NHL color in the header row, which Sephiroth would also not have understood upfront, namely that it is a table of NHLs. In the wikiproject, we have been using the different blue color for NRHPs (as used in this article for the Yancey site which is now an NRHP and no longer an NHL) for headers of those tables. There is a planned out system for many many articles. I don't think it is essential for the reader of just one article to see what the system of organization is; it is a feature enhancing the information for readers of many NRHP / NHL articles. That said, i don't mind terribly losing the NHL color here if that would secure Sephiroth's support. I've tried adding a key with symbols into the article. I don't want to increase the size of the numbers. Why do you want them increased in size? They are not official numbers, they are merely helpful row numbers which are helpful for clarifying how many items there are in a table. They should not be enlarged or bolded or otherwise highlighted further. Such numbering is helpful here, but even more helpful in longer lists of this type, and including them is a matter of the style worked out for these tables by the NRHP wikiproject. Further editing to use the symbols as well as the colors is still needed, if the new key is kept in. I am not sure if it is that helpful or not. The proposed list-article did have a key system (though without symbols) which was already explained in the article's notes and the available links. There is a danger in whipsawing the article through too many changes in response to semi-casual observations. Upon further consideration, does switching to a different key system really improve the article, once you understand there was a key system already? doncram (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what type of table this is; having a solid sheet of blue in the top row is by far not aesthetically pleasing, serves no purpose, and is distracting to the reader. It shouldn't be in any type of table. As for the numbers, I want them increased in size so a reader can read what on earth it is. There's no advantage to keeping them small, and you can barely see what symbol is used in the table. Adjust the template accordingly. As to your so-called "danger in whipsawing the article [...] in response to semi-casual observations," that's insulting. You're nominating this to be an item of featured content, and as such, it must meet community standards that the reviewers here, including myself, are very knowledgeable about. It's fine to state the reasoning as to why your doing things and quite another to bring accusations against the reviewers of this process who invest time and effort in ensuring that these lists are of the necessary quality to be featured. In any case, you need to use the symbol in every iteration of the said classification, and each needs to be wikilinked because the table is sortable. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as insulting to you. You labelled your own comments as "Quick comments" and you made what I believe is an over-statement / misstatement (about the colors "It serves no purpose...."), when in fact there was an intended purpose for the colors. I do freely grant that the intended purpose may not have been adequately clear, and there is room for consensus improvement as well as room for personal taste differences. I don't believe it is disrespectful, and it was not meant to be, to comment about a danger of revising an article too much in response to semi-casual comments. Thank you for your comments. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting to change it according to the suggestions, but I may need help with the coding. BTW, I nominated the list, not Doncram. Altairisfar_talk 04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) Okay, it's done now. Altairisfar_talk 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose - many prose issues in the tables

• One of only two surviving South Dakota-class battleships, Alabama was commissioned in 1942 and spent 40 months in active service in World War II's Pacific theater, earning 9 battle stars over 26 engagements with the Japanese. - this is a run on sentence, reword to make it a complete sentence.
• Spain established this wattle and daub blockhouse on the Chattahoochee River in 1690, in an attempt to maintain influence among the Lower Creek Indians. - instead of in an attempt how about attempting
• This structure is an unusually sophisticated Greek Revival style plantation house, built in 1840. - 1)usual not usually 2)no need for the comma.
• The interior contains a stairway that climbs in a series of double flights and bridge-like landings to the rooftop observatory. - I'm pretty sure a stairway does not climb, but it can lead or ascend. IMO, climb sounds awkward.
• This church served as headquarters from 1956 to 1961 for the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, an organization active in the Civil Rights Movement. ---> This church served as the headquarters for the Alabama Christian Movement for Human right, an organization active in the Civil Rights Movement, from 1956 to 1961.
• This church was a starting point for the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965 and played a major role in the events that led to the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. - 1)comma before and 2)Add it before played
• This was the first of the Gato class submarines to be completed before World War II and was launched on May 12, 1941. - how about Launched on May 12, 1941, this was the first of the Gato class submarines completed before World War II.
• It represents the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war. - represented not represents
• It is considered one of the best examples of Ecclesiastical Gothic architecture in the South. It is also one of the least-altered structures designed by architect Frank Wills. - instead of a period, add a comma and an and before it
• Delegates from six Southern states which had seceded from the Union met here on February 4, 1861 and on the 8th they adopted a "Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America." - 1)Comma in between which and Union 2)8th of what?
• This brick fort was completed in 1834 and was used by Confederate froces during the Battle of Mobile Bay. - typo on forces
• It was established in 1717 at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers and was abandoned in 1763, after the Treaty of Paris. - comma before and
• This house, cottage, and water pump are where deaf and blind Helen Keller was born and learned to communicate, assisted with the aid of her teacher and constant companion, Anne Sullivan. 1)is not where 2)remove assisted
• Constructed in 1898, this an excellent example of late 19th-century commercial architecture. - this is an excellent example is POV
• This small Carpenter Gothic church with wooden buttresses was built in 1853 and shows the influence of 19th-century architectural leader Richard Upjohn. 1)Comma in between with and buttresses 2)Comma before and
• It was the victim of a bombing by the Ku Klux Klan on 18 September 1963 in which four young girls were killed and twenty-two others were injured. - 1) consistency in the date formatting 2)Comma before in which
• Yancey, William Lowndes, Law Office [41] - why is this in italics in the list?
• This monument was established on May 11, 1961, when 310 acres (1.3 km2) of land were donated by the National Geographic Society to the American people. - was not were
• General Andrew Jackson's Tennessee militia, aided by the 39th U. S. Infantry Regiment and Cherokee and Creek allies, crushed the Creek Nation's Red Stick resistance at this site on the Tallapoosa River. - can another word be used versus crushed?
• For consistency, the publishers in refs #43 and #44 should be spelled out.
• The color of the tables have no purpose and should be removed.--SRX 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above, to the first reviewer, about the purpose of the coloring in the table, which is not obvious at first glance but which does have reasons. I will restore the informative footnote about the color-coding. doncram (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The prose issues have been addressed. The color coding is the standard for NRHP tables, per practice and discussions at the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. Though it does not matter to me personally, completely removing it would require a consensus there. Altairisfar_talk 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all problems were fixed to comply with WP:WIAFL.--SRX 16:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose [Opposition withdrawn] for the same reason that I earlier opposed the similar list for New York: the scope of the list is fuzzy. A list of National Historic Landmarks should be a list only of designated National Historic Landmarks, and should not also include National Park Service sites with historic value. The assertion that these are "equally significant" is probably true, but (1) it is original research that is not based on the cited sources and (2) these sites have other designations (such as "national monuments" and "national historic sites") -- they are not "national historic landmarks." I have no objection to listing former landmarks in the article, but the list should not include other sites that never had this designation.

I have not reviewed the article thoroughly yet, but I have some concerns about prose similar to those stated by SRX. For example, I suggest restating "This is one of the most unusual examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States" to something like "Gaineswood was designated an NHL because it is considered one of the most unusual examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States."--Orlady (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Response I removed the "equally significant" phrase to which Orlady objected. It now reads "Though they are also historically significant at a national level, they are not also designated as NHLs." That is a 100% factual, true statement involving no original research. The NHL program has a priority to designate sites which are threatened; the probable true reason why these 3 sites are not named NHLs is that they were very well protected already in the National Park Service system. This assertion, however, is not stated in the article and does not need to be stated there.

As for Orlady's objection on the inclusion of the 3 other National Park Service areas in the article, she states that "A list of National Historic Landmarks should be a list only of designated National Historic Landmarks, and should not also include National Park Service sites with historic value". But why not? Why should it not? Orlady does not object to the one former NHL site, which is also not an NHL. The list is more helpful to readers by identifying the other 3 major contenders for historically important sites in the state. There is no problem, as I see it, in including the 3, and in fact it is helpful. Perhaps Orlady believes it is too confusing for readers? That would be very negative about the ability of wikipedia readers to read and to comprehend what is stated in the list-article. I suggest that if other reviewers do not also object strongly to including those three, that Orlady's view, just on this one point, be disregarded.

Also, Orlady, if you have specific objections to the prose in the article, it would be most helpful if you would state them. Otherwise, your objection about prose is vague. The 2nd reviewer's comments, above, are much more helpful. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account suggestions from several users, I've removed the sites that aren't National Historic Landmarks. This seems to have been one of the main reasons List of National Historic Landmarks in New York failed to attain featured list status. These sites are already covered in List of areas in the United States National Park System. I've also addressed the specific issue with prose in the Gaineswood text. Altairisfar_talk 03:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I personally object to losing the sites that are not National Historic landmarks. As a reader/user of the list, I find it very helpful to have all of these sites in one article when trying to see historic sites there are in a given state. As a member of WP:nrhp, I guess it's what we have to do in order to get a list to featured list status. I am frustrated by the fact that Orlady's view by itself seems to be enough to derail the nominations of these lists. I'd be more in favor of changing the title of the list than of removing the additional sites. Or, I'd just disdain the honor of Featured List status, and keep the article the way it is. I am, however, extremely sympathetic to Altairisfar's desire to have the hard work he and Doncram have put into this list recognized. Therefore, I can reluctantly agree with removal of the other sites if that's what it takes.

I am appreciative of the specific suggestions about prose. I have written many list descriptions, though not on this list, and I appreciate the input about specific phrasing. There are, however, some that I do not agree with.

This structure is an unusually sophisticated Greek Revival style plantation house, built in 1840. - 1)usual not usually 2)no need for the comma.

Changing usually to usual changes the meaning. As originally written, the unusually refers to sophisticated. The house's Greek Revival architecture is unusually sophisticated. Changing it to unusual makes it refer to the house. The Greek Revival style house is unusual.

• It represents the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war. - represented not represents

It represents what was then standard design. Because the design changed does not change the fact that the still existing submarine represents that style. Maybe It represents what was the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war.

This house, cottage, and water pump are where deaf and blind Helen Keller was born and learned to communicate, assisted with the aid of her teacher and constant companion, Anne Sullivan. 1)is not where 2)remove assisted

I'm guessing that 1) should be is not are. However, the house IS where but the house, cottage and water pump collectively ARE where...

• This monument was established on May 11, 1961, when 310 acres (1.3 km2) of land were donated by the National Geographic Society to the American people. - was not were

An acre WAS donated. 310 acres WERE donated. OR "land WAS donated " but "acres of land WERE donated"

I agree with Doncram that we need to be careful that changes we make are appropriate changes, and that we don't just change things based on one reviewer's opinion if it is questionable.Lvklock (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Support Nitpicks, insignificant nitpicks all of the reasons to oppose are just that. Nowhere in the criteria WP:FL? does it say that an article needs to be perfect in order to be a featured article. Since everyone will disagree about just what makes a perfect article. Heck almost immediately after an article is approved for this status someone will make some change or the other that would ruin said "perfection".

• "We don't use this is anymore..."says who? I suppose using it over and over again is not that creative. But on the other hand. How many ways can there be for telling someone what something is? A simple fix for this, though IMO it does not need fixing, would be to replace this with "(name of place) is....." OR would that not be Avant Gard enough? :-/ This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is recognized as being a non-argument argument. It implies somehow that a certain person's likes or dislikes constitute an objective, logical reason for the writers of an encyclopedia to do something.

• "Coloring of the table" That is a matter of personal taste. Don't go making it sound like your personal taste is the only way a list can be. Saying that the color coding confuses you, That only makes sense if there is no logic to the code. which there is. Different types of monuments have different colors. That made perfect sense to me. This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT....

• "The list sould be composed only of sites which are on the list of national historic monuments or some such." That assertion is far to limiting. Because there are official list of national historic "sites", "Architecture", "art" etc etc etc. If you read the essay WP:NOTOR gathering data under a common heading is not Original research or synthesis. Many pieces of historic art, or historic sites have monuments on them. This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT....

• "Typo's" The complaint about typo's is probably the only criticism with which I agree. That was one of the reasons I wrote in my peer review that I would not nominate this for FA status. There is an easy way to fix this. The Mozilla firefox browser has a built in spell checker. I use it all the time and forgot that not everyone does. It will underline each and every mispelled word. (just be sure that it inserts the appropriate word.) It cost nothing. Another thing you can do, if you havent, is check out wikipedia's enhanced editor. Look under your preferences, click gadgets, then "wiki ED". This alone is not a good reason to not have an article be a featured article. Heck I could fix those typo's in two minutes. So I will. Thus negating this quibble. (After checking for spelling errors) For example in one of the above "typos" it is said that represents should be replaced with represented. The submarine in that case sill does actively represent the way subs would be built at the begining of that war. Just like a large mockup of a Saturn V represents how NASA used to build spacecraft. Until it is destroyed it will continue to represents. I mean does the Great pyrymid of Giza represented the state of Architecture in the 3000's BC. :-? I would say it still represents. Many of the so called typo's are simmilar issues which reflect a individuals personal taste hence are just a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Which is no reason at all for anyone here to take any particular action.

I strongly support this because as I have just argued there has only been one real reason given to deny this FL status. That was some spelling errors which have been addressed. The others are just matters of personal taste which can never please everyone. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to come here to do nothing but pout and claim that all the errors are "insignificant nitpicks" then don't bother commenting. It's disrespectful to the reviewers of this process and a disservice to the nominator of this article, who is doing an admirable job in bringing this list up to par. Our suggestions are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which by the way, is solely for use in deletion arguments and has zero relevance to the discussion here), they are actionable suggestions on the aesthetics of the table that need to be addressed. The NHRP WikiProject does not exist in a vacuum. It does not make standards that trump community standards, and FLC's purpose is to recognize our best work by community standards, not the arbitrary standards of a random WikiProject. You obviously have no experience with the FL process, and as such, your claim that our concerns are irrelevant is all the more insulting. I would advise both you and Doncram to not comment on the nomination because as of now, you're doing nothing constructive for the candidate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I kinda feel like i have to chime in, because you are telling me not to and I do not think that is right. Please note my response above (within this edit change) about your taking offense; i did not mean to insult you. I do agree with some of what you say and appreciate your helpful participation in this review. I do not think it is appropriate, however, for you to say who else should participate here and who should not, with respect to me and Hfarmer. User:Hfarmer has legitimate points and I appreciated hearing them; I expect that Hfarmer knows plenty well enough about the FL process and has much else to contribute on this and other FL nominations. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better way to put it is this: If someone does not have any constructive comments to make, then that someone should not say anything at all. Let us stop arguing about who has the right to do or say what and focus on improving the article. I will post a full review of the list later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it useful to hear Hfarmer's candid reactions to the FL review process, as Hfarmer seems to have a lot of experience with peer review but has never previously contributed to an FLC discussion. However, I share Sephiroth's concern that attacking the FL review process is a tactic that is unlikely to help this list get promoted -- and even might possibly hurt its chances. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) If anybody has a problem with the way FL reviews are conducted, please bring them to WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Butting in, for the record (and to the best of my knowledge) Hfarmer only very recently got involved with peer review. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 06:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hfarmer, I take issue with this comment: "Nitpicks, insignificant nitpicks all of the reasons to oppose are just that. Nowhere in the criteria WP:FL? does it say that an article needs to be perfect in order to be a featured article." Sure, a list will never be "perfect", but the point of this process is to smooth out all of the little details and make the article as perfect as possible. They may be minor errors and the like, but they should still be fixed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not say they should not be fixed. What I did say is that the issues raised above were more or less matters of personal taste being presented as if they were logical arguments. (i.e. Color coding the table) That is the essence of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it is a common part of the process that people decide if an article should be featured or not based on personal taste. Then just what does FL status really mean? It is not in fact there are criteria, which I feel that this article basically meets. After reading it and checking a random sample of the citations and consulting WP:FL? It was my opinion it met the criteria at least 98% of the way. I do not see how issues like removing coloration help get it that last little 2%.

As for my right to comment here. None of us own these articles or these pages we all have equal rights.--Hfarmer (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, since all my issues (below) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge

(edit conflict)Comments

• The current citations 2, 4 need a publisher.
• "Using color alone to convey information should not be done" per WP:MOSCOLOUR. Every colour coded landmark should also be accompanied by the symbol listed in the key.

Done.

• National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)s to National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)
• NHLs in 17 counties. Not sure of the specifics, but the table lists Wilson Dam as being in Lauderdale as well. Which would make it 18 counties not 17.
• I believe that it is "Port of Mobile" (not port of Mobile) as it is a place name.
• 16th St. Baptist Church: - "was the victim of a bombing". victim usually refers to an animate object. Perhaps "site of a bombing" instead.
• Drum, USS: - "The USS Drum sank 15 Japanese ships" to "The USS Drum sank fifteen Japanese ships"
• First Confederate Capitol: link "portico"
• Yancey, William Lowndes, Law Office: - don't link "building" or "death".

Overall, this a very good piece of writing Altairisfar. Try not to worry about the bickering above. As Dabomb says, the focus here is the content, which is good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've taken care of the issues raised by Dabomb87 and Rambo's Revenge, with the exception of the new third paragraph by Doncram. I'll give him a chance to correct these issues before doing it my way. Altairisfar_talk 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I've revised the 3rd paragraph, trying to address all the issues raised for it. What i was trying to do was provide some context for the NHLs, what they are vs. what they are not, including mentioning the 3 other obvious contenders for most-important-Federally-protected-historic-sites in Alabama, and mentioning that the NHLs are just 3% of all the Federally-somewhat-protected sites in the state. Done for now. doncram (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Images look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Non-comprehensive list from someone who knows next to nothing about images):

• File:USS Drum SS-228 in Mobile.jpg needs a real source (is it self-made).

This one was copied to Commons from here, not sure why it double redirects, corrected.

• File:Episcopal Church of the Nativity Huntsville.jpg – Can we have a link to the website?

The link was at the bottom of the summary, corrected.

• File:1861 Davis Inaugural.jpg needs an author, and Wikipedia cannot be the source.

I have already replaced with a new image.

• File:Fort morgan alabama.jpg – Use the commons version instead.

Replaced with a new image.

• File:Sloss_Furnaces_Birmingham.jpg needs an author for attribution.

Corrected

• File:WilliamLowndesYancey.jpg needs its information organized. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

This one came from the NPS website, but has no attribution there, looking for another image, then will upload. Done.Altairisfar_talk 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer either of the two images of the building itself available at the NHL webpage for the building ([71]) to be added, rather than an image of Yancey the person. One of those pics is in the William Lowndes Yancey Law Office article already. (Further, in fact, I'd rather have no image, than just an image of the person, in order to enlist readers to provide a new photo, but that's just my opinion and here 2 pics are readily available.) It is not a problem that the specific author of the photo is not available at the NHL webpage. The problem with certain other photos at NPS photos is that they are specifically credited to a non-public-domain type source. If not specifically credited elsewhere, like these, the photos can be used. This is consistent with NPS webpages copyright statement, it is practice at Commons AFAIK, and it consistent with my own "watchdogging" on NPS photos. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that image, I'm the uploader. It is specifically credited as a National Historic Landmarks photograph too, which is good, I just didn't like it much. That's why I added the credited engraving instead, and because an engraving was what was already there. If you'd like to change them, feel free. Altairisfar_talk 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, finished with the above issues. We still need a source for the final sentence of the third paragraph. Altairisfar_talk 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The sentence currently is: "Neither NHL listing nor NPS management are exclusive indicators of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in these Federal programs." Its "there may be..." is deliberately vague. Does it really need a specific reference? It could be footnoted, perhaps that: "There are historic sites such as the Charles Scribner's Sons Building in New York City which have recognized historic standing but whose private owners decline to permit listing on the National Register and hence exclude also from National Historic Landmark consideration." See the "Accompanying nomination correspondence" link in that Scribner's article. I don't know where it appears in NRHP / NHL regulations that owner objections to listing must be, or often are, obeyed, but I know it occurs in practice. Perhaps it appears in what I refer to as the NRHP manual, or in some document in this list of NRHP / NHL publications: [72]. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It has to have a source, original research is going to be brought up if it doesn't have one. Altairisfar_talk 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I expanded the thought into what is now the last 2 sentences, with a reference to the Title 36 regulations already referenced. The reference documents procedures for private owners to object and directs that if a majority of owners object, a site will not be designated NHL. BTW it is similar for NRHP. In practice (not asserted in article) this means that private sites whose owners oppose NRHP listing and/or NHL designation generally will not be nominated: it would be wasteful to apply scarce State staff time to developing nominations that cannot yield designation. The Scribner example to NRHP listing is one where the owner objection came in very late in the process, after the site was already deemed eligible. Anyhow, I believe there's now no original research present. Done for now, again. doncram (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can live with that, thanks! Altairisfar_talk 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments: I've stricken my earlier opposition, but did not hide my comments because I think that the subsequent discussion, which had broad participation, should not be hidden. I have edited the article myself to fix a few of my concerns with it, but I have a few additional concerns that I imagine the creators would like to have the opportunity to address:

• The first sentence of the lead is nicely written, but the language seems overly flowery and imprecise for an encyclopedia article. It says "The National Historic Landmarks in Alabama trace a broad sweep of history from the precolonial era, through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Space Age, as well as many points in between," but in fact the landmarks don't "trace" anything (that word implies some sort of a continuum, which is lacking here), and I can't read about "points" in time without being reminded of the Watergate hearings. I also find "sweep" to be overly metaphorical, but I won't quibble with the effort to avoid saying "this is a list." I suggest changing this sentence to "The National Historic Landmarks in Alabama are representations of a broad sweep of history from the precolonial era, through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Space Age."
• The last sentence of the first paragraph says that "One site in Alabama was designated a National Historic Landmark, but was subsequently removed." I know what this is supposed to mean, but the sentence tells me something different. Clarify that it was the NHL designation (not the site itself) that was removed.
• The first sentence of the second paragraph says that the National Park Service is in charge of the NHL program, but the second sentence says that the Secretary of the Interior is the one who designates landmarks. This could be seriously confusing. To fix this, separate the statements about who is responsible for NHL designations (that is, the NPS, which is in the Department of Interior, runs the program but the official designations are signed by the Secretary of Interior) from statements about the criteria for designation.
• In the third paragraph, the sentence "The NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in the state" is unsourced -- and I think it is unverifiable. The NPS' FAQ on NHLs says "Many of the most renowned historic properties in the Nation are Landmarks," but that's not the same as saying that the NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in either the nation or any specific state. I suggest deleting the sentence.
• The second sentence of that third paragraph introduces the concept of the National Register of Historic Places, but in a kind of backhanded fashion. For users who are not familiar with NHLs and the NRHP, I think it might be more effective to (1) say that NHLs are included on the NRHP, (2) briefly define the NRHP, and (3) state that NHLs are tiny fraction of the NRHP listings in the state (give the number). The key point to be made in distinguishing NHLs from other NRHP listings (according to this source) seems to be that NHLs are judged to have national significance; it would be useful to make that point (possibly in the previous paragraph).
• Later in that paragraph, there is a statement that "The state holds four historic sites directly protected by the National Park Service". The word "holds" is misleading as it implies state government ownership; substitute a different verb here. Also, it is arguable whether the NPS role for these sites is "protecting" them; the NPS role is more typically described with a word like "managing," and the only protection bestowed on many (but not even all) of these sites is federal ownership. For example, the passage could say "Four historic sites in the state are managed by the National Park Service. One of these, the Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, is also designated a NHL. The others are Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, Russell Cave National Monument, and Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site."
• The last sentence of the paragraph ("Thus, NHL listing is not an exclusive indicator of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in the NHL program") is true in part, but it falsely indicates that objections of private owners are the only reason why a site might not be included. In fact, there are also some potential landmarks are not NHLs because they haven't been evaluated yet, and others are not NHLs because they are owned by federal, state, or local governments (not private owners) that don't want them to be designated. (I can name examples of federally owned properties that have been determined eligible but have not been designated.) Also, the sentence implies that all historic sites are "protected" even if they aren't designated landmarks-- in the U.S., that is utterly incorrect. I suggest simplifying the statement to something like "NHL designation is not an exclusive indicator of a site's importance; for example, some sites of equal or greater national historic significance may not be designated because their owners have declined to participate in the program."
• The table legend is unnecessarily complicated and possibly confusing. In the context of a list of landmarks, it does not make sense to show "National Register of Historic Places only" as the first entry. That category should be presented as an afterthought, if it is presented at all. (My preference would be to delete it from the table and legend -- it applies to only one site that is not in the main table.) I don't see a need to specify "NRHP and National Historic Landmark," since all NHLs are listed on the NRHP -- that's sort of like saying "Mammal and cat", when "cat" would suffice; just say "National Historic Landmark." For similar reasons, simplify "NRHP, NHL, and National Historic Site" to "NHL and National Historic Site."

--Orlady (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed all of the concerns. I found the suggestions helpful, so I implemented almost all of the them. The only difference was that I left the NRHP reference in the table legend. I think that as long as the colors are used in the tables it will be necessary. Altairisfar_talk 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. My concerns are resolved. Support. --Orlady (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The edits in response to Orlady's comments made the text different, not better, in my view. Now, i don't get the organization of the 3 paragraphs. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repeat parts of each other, and it is not clear why/how they are divided.

I appreciate Orlady's responsiveness in being more specific with suggestions, but I perceive there to be overstatements and unnecessary dismissiveness in Orlady's comments. The most harmful to the writing is Orlady's dismissal of the sentence "The NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in the state". The sentence was a topic sentence providing introduction to a 3rd paragraph which fully supported the sentence. Support for both the assertion of relative importance of the NHLs, and the assertion that NHLs are not everything were included. The support was in the form of (a) quotation that the NHLs were sites of exceptional national historic significance; (b) fact that they represented just 3% of the Federally listed historic sites in the state; (c) example of 3 non-NHL National Park Service areas of historic importance that demonstrates not all salient historic sites are NHLs; (d) explanation of another way in which there may be other protected historic sites in the state of high importance (the private sites whose owners declined to participate). The topic sentence was supported by those statements and was not unsourced or unverifiable as Orlady asserted. Removing the topic sentence, and rearranging as was done, leaves the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repetitive and disorganized, in my view.

I would prefer to return / develop the 3 paragraph text into (para 1) intro / description about the 36 NHLs in AL; (para 2) define / expand about the NHL program (perhaps including differentiation vs. NRHP program here); (para 3) broaden out, putting NHLs in context of other historic sites in AL (quote about exceptionality of the NHL sites, just 3% of the NRHPs, that there are 3 non-NHL NPS areas, and possibility that there are other protected historic sites in the state of high historical importance). I would prefer to bring back the 3rd paragraph's topic sentence and ensure that it is supported. doncram (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the current form is more easily understood and still conveys that these sites are important and protected to some extent. I'm not seeing what you mean about the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repeating info. The 2nd describes how NHLs are designated and nominated. The 3rd contrasts the differences between NHLs and NRHPs. My feeling about the first sentence was that the reader can draw the conclusion that the NHLs are "among the most historically significant protected sites in the state." But if you can provide a source that states this unequivocally, then we can put it back in. But, perhaps I'm not getting what you really mean? Altairisfar_talk 22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you acknowledge the stricken topic sentence was supported and/or could be supported by the rest of the paragraph. I don't see the need for a reference for it. There is no rule that every sentence needs a reference, and it is like a lede which summarizes what follows. Ledes don't need to say everything or contain detailed references; those are developed later. I thot the stricken sentence was a short, semi-provocative statement, that gives the reader something to think about (hmm, are these the most important sites? what about other sites?) and then the support for the sentence followed and provided larger context. Currently, the lead sentence of the 3rd paragraph is not a topic sentence.

What i meant by repetition is that the second paragraph now ends with "Owners may object to the nomination of the property as a NHL. When this is the case the Secretary of the Interior can only designate a site as eligible for designation." and then, separated in the 3rd paragraph, is "...for example, some sites of equal or greater national historic significance may not be designated because their owners have declined to participate in the program." Discussing the owner objection process in 3 sentences is overkill in the current draft. Note, currently the 5 sentences of the 2nd paragraph and the first 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph do not mention Alabama at all. Those 8 sentences could appear in the NHL article, instead.

Mentioning the owner objection process would be relevant, however, in supporting an assertion that the NHLs in AL are among the most nationally significant historic sites in the state (but are not guaranteed to be a comprehensive list). In my view, the 1st 2 sentences of the 3rd para could better be merged into 2nd paragraph (then 2nd paragraph is generalities about the NHL program, somewhat boring but perhaps helpful). The stricken topic sentence, added back to start the 3rd paragraph, would transition back to talking about Alabama and would be interesting/relevant to readers. The 3rd paragraph also could/should end more positively, not with the list of non-NHL NPS areas. Perhaps the stricken topic sentence could be used as an ending, summary thought type sentence there, instead. doncram (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I do see what you mean, though I don't agree with all of your points. The brief overviews are helpful to have in a list of this type, even if the National Historic Landmark article was more informative than it now is. The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph is a topic sentence, but maybe not the best. It is more so now that I've removed the somewhat repetitive sentence and broken out the unrelated text about other historic sites. As for the former topic sentence, I just don't believe that we need to expand on that any further. I really think that most readers would easily infer that the NHLs are among the most protected and significant sites in Alabama. Altairisfar_talk 00:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Kudos to the nominator and others for their prompt fixes and responses after a bumpy start to this FLC. In a little over two days, huge improvements have been made. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking at the lead only for now...

• Will not comment on the whole color/scope issue for now, but I hope there will more transperancy for both.
• "There are a total of 36 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)s in Alabama."-->There are 36 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in Alabama.
• "The state has 67 counties,[2] and there are National Historic Landmarks in 17 of them."-->The state has 67 counties,[2] of which 17 have National Historic Landmarks.
• "The sites are designated by the United States Secretary of the Interior because they are places where events of national historical significance occurred, they are where prominent persons lived or worked, they represent icons of ideals that shaped the nation, they are outstanding examples of design or construction, they are places characterizing a way of life, or they are archeological sites able to yield information." Can we somehow split up this sentence? It is quite a mouthful.
• The third paragraph has identical sentence starts in its first three sentences. Mix it up a little.
• "most significant historic sites protected, to some degree, by the U.S. government. " Why are they the most significant, and what does "to some degree" mean? (If this has already been discussed above, please accept my sincere apologies.

It was my wording and I agree it should be improved. I wanted to avoid saying the sites were "protected" without qualification, because readers assume that means absolutely protected, but NHLs are sometimes demolished. Perhaps it could be changed to "partially protected by the U.S. government", although an explanatory footnote would still also be helpful. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The NHLs represent an honor roll of these NRHPs." What do you mean by "an honor roll"?

Again, my wording and better wording would be welcome. I meant to convey, informally, that the NHLs are the higher quality historic sites; there are in fact higher standards shown in the NRHP's manual for NHL sites, the manual should probably be cited. There are no additional tax benefits to private owners for NHL listing, in addition to NRHP listing, though. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "One site, the Tuskegee Institute is both an NHL and also protected by the National Park Service as a National Historic Site."-->One site, the Tuskegee Institute, is an NHL; it is protected by the National Park Service as a National Historic Site.

My wording ag'in. Perhaps: Only one site, the Tuskegee Institute, is both an NHL and protected by the National Park Service (as a National Historic Site)." doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Two disambiguation links need fixing.
• Could you add (a) reference(s) to the third paragraph that covers the information?

Could add NRHP manual, and also could add a reference to the NHL enabling legislation. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Have the images been checked by an independent experienced image reviewer? Sephiroth mentioned it above, but I don't know if that has been done yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone clarify what exactly is wanted in a new image review now? These images have withstood a great amount of review already, including a long discussion regarding a previous image for the carpenter gothic church that led to its image being replaced. Pointer to a well-done image review elsewhere would be helpful. Thanks. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that an image review had already been done, could you point me to the discussion about the image? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that there has been a formal review of all the images in this list-article. I meant that, in general, there has been a lot of scrutiny of NRHP images. I have been one of several "watchdogs" on use of photos from NPS webpages which are usually but not always public domain. I recall the discussion about the previous image for the carpenter gothic church (St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Prairieville, Alabama)), since been deleted from commons along with the previous image, because it was very agonizing to lose use of a very nice historic photo. It hinged on whether a photo available in the NPS focus system but taken by an Alabama state employee, not a NPS employee, was in the public domain. My perhaps-too-conservative position which prevailed (and which I believe is the current consensus type position at commons now) was that the image was not public, barring a separate release from the state of Alabama, so it was deleted. The current photo is one taken and contributed by Altairisfar himself, which was a nice solution. I just now checked a couple other photos, seeing no problems, although I did make a point to edit the commons description for the J.L.M. Curry House photo to clarify its authorship. I could do my own review of all the photos but that would take a day or two. doncram (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will look at the images myself; if I find any issues, I will post them here; if not, then I won't fuss any more about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

More comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) It was too crowded up there, so I am posting them here:

• "Both public and privately owned properties are included." Included in what?
• "All NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), historic properties deemed worthy of preservation by the National Park Service."-->NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which are historic properties deemed worthy of preservation by the National Park Service.
• Overall, I think you have done a much better job of explaining the differenced bettween NHL and NHRP.
• "One of only two surviving South Dakota-class battleships, "
• "earning nine battle stars over 26 engagements with the Japanese."-->earning 9 battle stars over 26 engagements with the Japanese. (comparative quantities should be written out the same)
• "It was used for only one year"
• "that climbs in a series"-->that ascends in a series
• "Instead of focusing on bus segregation, it focused on legal and nonviolent direct action against segregated accommodations, transportation, schools and employment discrimination." "Instead of focusing on bus segregation" implies that all Civil Rights efforts in Alabama were directed toward bus desegregation.
• "features a unique Italianate style." How is it unique? Can it not be found anywhere in the world?
• "This building is an example of the trend in 19th-century America toward structures combining more than one civic function."-->This building exemplifies the 19th-century American trend toward structures that served multiple civic functions.
• "He was appointed as a Federal District Judge in 1914, where he became recognized as an advocate for judicial reform."-->He was appointed as a Federal District Judge in 1914, and became recognized as an advocate for judicial reform.
• "This Gothic Revival church was built in 1859, and it is considered one of the best examples of Ecclesiastical Gothic architecture in the South." Considered the best by whom? Watch out for these weasel words.
• "Andrew Jackson reestablished a fort here in 1814, following his defeat of the Creek Nation at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend." No comma necessary.
• "One of the few surviving steam-powered sternwheelers in the United States and is one of only two surviving United States Army Corps of Engineers snagboats. "-->One of the few surviving steam-powered sternwheelers in the United States, it is one of two surviving United States Army Corps of Engineers snagboats.
• "Alabama-Tombigbee-Tennessee" Should those hyphens be en dashes?
• "Built in 1964 to conduct mechanical and vibrational tests on the fully assembled Saturn V rocket, major problems capable of causing failure of the vehicle were discovered and corrected here." Comma should be a semicolon.
• "It served as the test vehicle for all of the Saturn support facilities at the Marshall Space Flight Center."
• "As a lawyer, populist legislator," Do we really need to link lawyer? Most readers know what they are, and the link detracts from other, more high-value links.
• Sources: You've mixed {{Citation}} with {{Cite web}}. You should only use one of these templates for consistency. I recommend using Cite Web because most of your sources use that template. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've covered all of the suggestions in this list. If I've missed any others above, let me know. Thanks. Altairisfar_talk 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:23, 4 January 2009 [73].

---

List of Houston Astros Opening Day starting pitchers

I believe this list meets the featured list criteria, consistent with List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Kansas City Royals Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, and others. Rlendog (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• The Astros began to play in 1962 under the name Houston Colt .45s (their name was changed to the Astros in 1965 when the Houston Astrodome opened as their home park). - how about instead of under the name replace it with as
• In their first eight seasons, the Colt .45s and Astros used eight different Opening Day starters. In 1970, that steak ended when Larry Dierker made his second Opening Day start. - in similar lists like these, a / is used in between the 2 names the team has used because adding an and makes it seem like it was 2 different teams
• Three different pitchers have made five Opening Day starts apiece - apiece just stands out here, can it be reworded somehow?
• They moved to the Astrodome in 1965. They played 25 Opening Day games in the Astrodome, and their starting pitchers had a record of 12 wins, 8 losses and 5 no decisions in those games. - these two sentences can be merged like After moving to the Astrodome in 1965, they played 25....
• Through 2008 they have played seven Opening Day games there, - comma before they--SRX 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I addressed them all. Rlendog (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• In addition, in the key, the headings should be in bold because the column headings in the table are in bold, which is what the key is representing.--SRX 20:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this is the case. The other "Opening Day starting pitcher" featured lists, including but not limited to the ones above, do not bold the keys. Has there been a new policy on featured lists to t his effect? I don't necessarily have a problem doing it, but not all the items in the key represent column headings from the table. So the result would be an ugly mishmash of bold and non-bold items. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

They should, however, because the key represents what some of the table parameters mean. For example see List of ECW Television Champions, the bold/non-bold doesn't really matter.--SRX 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• The key represents what some of the table parameters mean, but bolding versus not bolding does not affect that meaning, or anyone's comprehension of that meaning. The example you provide works with some elements in the key bolded and some not, but that is a simpler key than this one (and my personal opinion is that it would look better all non-bold, but that is just a personal opinion). This key would start with a bold item, then have 4 non-bold items, then 2 bold items, and then 4 non-bold items, which I think would look messy. If there is a FLC standard that items in the key that match table parameters should be bolded I will comply, but I don't think that is the case. Most if not all of the Opening Day starting pitcher featured lists use non-bolded keys. In addition, just among baseball featured lists I checked, at least Cy Young Award and List of Nashville Sounds managers use non-bolded keys. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support- all issues were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very good article, just a couple of silly errors:

• "their starting pitches" Typo.
• "that steak" Another typo.
• "based Houston, Texas" Word missing. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I fixed the typos. Rlendog (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Houston, Texas--> Houston, Texas
• "No decisions are only awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost after the starting pitcher has left the game." reference?
• "...(their name was changed to the Astros in 1965 when the Houston Astrodome opened as their home park)..."

• It is way too long, and could be shortened.
• needs reference.

• "Three different pitchers have each made five Opening Day starts:" --> "Three different pitchers have each made five Opening Day starts with the Astros:"
• "in three home ball parks." should be wikilinked on the first appearance, which is on the second paragraph.
• "in the Astrodome" WP:OVERLINK.
• "The Astros have advanced to the World Series once, in 2005. Oswalt was the Opening Day starter that season, and lost to the St. Louis Cardinals."

• First sentence needs reference.
• Read the second sentence carefully. "lost to the St. Louis Cardinals." what is that referring to?

• The article is not wikilinked on the Houston Astros navbox template.
• You could mention which ones have their numbers retired by the Astros. (ie. Dierker, Wilson, Ryan, Scott)

-- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed all of them, with two exceptions. For the "long sentence" comment in the 3rd bullet, I'm not sure the sentence is too long or that there is a good way to shorten it. It is 163 characters with spaces and 133 characters without spaces, including the parenthetical phrase. I also chose not to add the retired numbers. While that information could be interesting, I am not sure it adds that much in this context, and I think it would add clutter for pitchers who have multiple opening day starts and a retired number. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [74].

---

Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season

This is a collaborative effort between myself and Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs), so consider this a co-nom. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 03:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Checklinks run and Advisor.js formatted. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 05:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments - great list

• The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned upon. - this sentence is confusing, consider revising.
  • Got it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Tropical Storm Alberto produced significant rainfall and flooding in the Southeastern United States, damaging or destroying over 18,000 homes, and inflicting $750 million (1994 USD) in total damages. - wouldn't it be and instead of or
  • Not necessarily; the storm affected 18,000 homes, of which some were destroyed, and others were only damaged. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph, I would add the months to the storms which you don't have them for, like Gordon
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Be consistent with the publishers, ref #1 and ref #2 are the same publisher but are written differently.--SRX 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's standard to spell out an abbreviation in its first occurrence. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well its spelled out in ref#6, the third occurrence, so I think there should be some consistency made, and possibly add (acronym here) to the first occurrence in the publisher.--SRX 03:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I've put the acronym for ref#6. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support-my comments were resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 15:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, which is information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center." Can we fix the repetition of "information"?
• "Tropical Storm Alberto produced significant rainfall and flooding in the Southeastern United States, damaging or destroying over 18,000 homes, and inflicting $750 million (1994 USD) in total damages." Readers will understand that the amount is the total unless there was reason to believe otherwise.
• One dab link needs to be fixed.
• "Hurricane Gordon in November was the most significant storm, causing damages from Costa Rica to North Carolina during its six landfalls." What do you mean by "significant"?
• "approximately "-->about; it's simpler. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected all but the one for Gordon being significant. I'm not sure in which way Julian meant Gordon was significant so I'll leave that to him. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Gordon was the longest-lived storm of the season, and it caused the most damage and fatalities. I'll see if I can clarify that. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [75].

---

List of Houston Astros managers

-- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 02:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• The team joined MLB in 1962 as an expansion team and have won their first NL Championship in 2005.-no need for have

Fixed -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Lanier and Dierker the only managers to have won a Manager of the Year Award with the Astros, winning it in 1986 and 1998 respectively. - add are between Dierker and the

Fixed -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• I like the new format of this table :)

Thanks. It's the same as the rest the the List of (MLB team) managers lists that I have done. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

--SRX 01:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comments were resolved to satisfy WP:WIAFL.--SRX 02:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "(1965-1999)" En dash.

DONE -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The franchise is owned by Drayton McLane, Jr., and Ed Wade is their general manager." No comma necessary.

Which comma? -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The one after "Jr." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That can't be done because it will sound like this :"The franchise is owned by Drayton McLane, Jr. and Ed Wade is their general manager." It sounds like Ed Wade is also owning the franchise. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 06:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The comma should be there. It doesn't sound correct without it. RyanCross @ 06:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Add information about the Astros originally being the Colt .45s.

Told readers that they were first called the Houston Colt .45s. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When did their name change? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've put that on the article now. Thanks for the comment. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 16:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RyanCross (talk)

• All the years in the lead need to be linked with [[YEAR Major League Baseball season]] the first time it is mentioned.

If you haven't noticed, there was a discussion on WT:MOS saying that years should not be wikilinked like this: [[#### Major League Baseball season|####]]

Then I guess List of Philadelphia Phillies managers needs some cleaning-up. RyanCross @ 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• franchise should be linked to Professional_sports_league_organization#The_system_developed_in_baseball in the first sentence.

DONE -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Leo Durocher is the only Astros manager to have been elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame[5] – Period needed between Fame and [5].

FIXED -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Larry Dierker is the only Astros manager to have had his jersey number retired by the Astros. – Most people would be questioning what his number was that was retired.

DONE -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dierker is also the sixth manager in MLB history to win a division crown in his first season for the Astros in 1997. – Is it possible to link division crown with something?

Can't find anything that can be wikilinked to "division title" (reworded). -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

— RyanCross @ 22:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support – Comments were resolved to meet WP:FL?. RyanCross @ 23:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment When did that horrible whitespace appear? Please get rid of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean the white-space between the table and the images? If I don't upright it, the Achievements column will look messed up. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [76].

---

List of NBA All-Stars

I have been working on this list back in July, but sort of abandoned it until this week. Now after making some more edits on the list, I believed it fulfills the FL criteria.—Chris! _ct 02:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• Twelve players—five starters and seven reserves—from each conference are chosen from a pool of 120 players (60 players from each conference with 24 guards, 24 forwards and twelve centers) listed on the ballots by a panel of sport writers and broadcasters. - 1)Link to reserves?
  • Could you tell me which article I should link to? I don't see anything relevant in reserve.—Chris! _ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well what does a "reserve" mean in the context of Basketball or in the context of the NBA?--SRX 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • A reserve in the context of sport means "a member of a team who does not participate from the start of the game, but can be used to replace tired or injured team-mates" according to Wikitionary.—Chris! _ct 06:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Then my best input would be to link it to the wikitionary definition.--SRX 20:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • Done—Chris! _ct 22:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• The first way is through electronic ballots cast daily by fans on NBA.com or mobile phones. - no need to say way again
  • Done—Chris! _ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• The second way is through paper ballots cast by fans at each NBA arenas and various T-Mobile retail stores. - how about The other is through..
  • Done—Chris! _ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Coaches are not allowed to vote for their own players and can select two guards, two forwards, one center and two players regardless of positions. - comma before and
  • Done—Chris! _ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Per WP:Columns{{reflist}}, not all browsers can handle 4 ref columns.
  • I change to 3 columns.—Chris! _ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

--SRX 21:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - comments resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--SRX 00:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reywas92

• Comments: Players should not be sorted into separate sections by number of appearances. All players should be combined into a single sortable table with number of appearances as a sortable column. All headers need to be second-level. Per WP:HEAD, never start an article with a third-level header. Lead and information is great. Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, I am not sure if combining all players into a single table will be a good way to illustrate this info. As you can see in this version of the list, a single table is too long and it is hard for readers to look at the number of appearances.—Chris! _ct 04:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed headers—Chris! _ct 05:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I don't mean like that example. Every person should have a column next to the name with the number of All-Star games. It could be with the years like "3: 1999-2001". I want to sort all players alphabetically. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Instead of "3: 1999-2001", how about make another column for the number of appearances, but not use row spans. Also, I would like to have the "Selections" column sorted out too, so that people can see which player became an All-Star earlier. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 22:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
          • I can make the tables sortable.—Chris! _ct 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! My only other comments are in the notes. I think that the note that the 1999 game was canceled can be mentioned in the lead rather than as a note of the first sentence. Also, I do not think it is relevant or necessary to mention the two names and their Arabic meanings. Reywas92^Talk 18:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I move the note about 1999 game to the lead. As for notes about the names, I mention them because I think it should be made clear to readers that the names shown here are different from their originals. But if you still think they are irrelevant, I will remove them.—Chris! _ct 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the names were changed, but the meanings are irrelevant. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, I removed the meaning bits.—Chris! _ct 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Excellent. Reywas92^Talk 04:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "(60 players from each conference with 24 guards, 24 forwards and twelve centers)" Use em dashes instead of parenthesis, and "twelve"-->12.
• "The starters are currently chosen in two ways."
• "each NBA arenas"
• "and various T-Mobile retail stores" Various implies a variety or divesity in these stores, use "some" instead.
• "Lastly, if a player is unable to participate due to injury, the NBA commissioner will select a replacement." Why "Lastly"? This is not a chronological list (in the lead).
• "holds the record for most All-Star Game selection and most All-Star Game played. " Should be pluralized "selections" and "Games".
• "He was selected 19 times and has played a total of in 18 games." Why only 18 games (add a footnote if necessary)?
  • Done—Chris! _ct 05:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Is it possible to include information about why the All-Stars missed certain games?
  • Not sure if that is possible because there aren't references about why they missed certain games.—Chris! _ct 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Shaquille O'Neal holds the record for most All-Star Game selection among active players, with a total of 14 selections." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Everything else done—Chris! _ct 04:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24

Comments -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Question: Is it possible to split the list into two, so that the page will load faster? This is because, with 145,184 bytes, some computer may tend to take longer than 30 seconds to load the page.

• No, I don't think so.—Chris! _ct 19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why not? You could easily split it to for example, List of NBA All-Stars: A–L and another one with M–Z. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better to leave it in a single page for now. The page is not long that it have to split into two page immediately.—Chris! _ct 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"The page is not long that it have to split into two page immediately." Are you sure? The page is 145 kilobytes long. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The reason I don't want to split the list is because it is very hard for readers to look at the number of selections when players are split in two page. I am willing to change if you can come up with a way to shorten the list while illustrating all useful info on a single page, but unfortunately I think that spliting the page according to last name isn't going to work.—Chris! _ct 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not saying that it should be done now, but this is one of those instances where writing out the references manually (as opposed to using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}) would have been beneficial. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think making the columns wider is ridiculous. I suggest you make the lists thinner to add images of the players. One image of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not enough.

• You just mention that this page is loading a bit slow, adding more pictures will make things worse.—Chris! _ct 19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• That is true. How about add another column for Nationality or Position? -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That too will make the page even longer especially after I add a "# of appearance" column.—Chris! _ct 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• You could note that the statistics are correct through the end of the 2008 NBA All-Star Game.

• Done—Chris! _ct 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of noting the column, "Selections", you could add that note to the key.
  • I don't see why adding notes to the key is better than having a note column. Basically they served the same purpose.—Chris! _ct 19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I misunderstood your comment. Never mind.—Chris! _ct 19:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note already in the key.—Chris! _ct 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see the note being moved to the key yet... -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

-- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• You could tell the readers that Jerry West have the most consecutive selections, and that Bob Cousy and John Havlicek are tied for the most consecutive games played.
  • You sure? The list is already long.—Chris! _ct 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The second paragraph looks too short to me, besides, it's only two sentences. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Added —Chris! _ct 20:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Some reader may not know what a "all-star" is. You can get a definition of it and put it on the article, or just rename the article to "List of players selected to play in an NBA All-Star Game", or something similar.

• After some thoughts, the first sentence of the second paragraph pretty much explains this. But if you think it is inadequate, I can move the page.—Chris! _ct 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article should be moved to "List of NBA all-stars" because of the grammar. Also, you should add the definition of an "all-star". The reference is here, which defines, "Sports. a player selected for an all-star team." -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said, the first sentence of the second paragraph already define what is "all-stars", "players who have been selected for the All-Star Game". As for the grammar issue, I don't anything wrong with the title. But I will ask someone about that.—Chris! _ct 19:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I also don't see the grammar problem. "All-Stars" is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The first sentence does define what an all-star is, but doesn't actually tell the readers directly what the sentence actually defines. I suggest you change, "The following is a list of players who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career." to "An (A/a)ll-(S/s)tar is a player who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career." -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Also, how is all-star a proper noun? It has never been spelled capitalized. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I think I understand what you are talking about. I linked all-star so that readers can understand the term. I also added "NBA" in the first sentence of the second para to avoid ambiguity and to make absolutely sure that the capitalization of "All-Stars" was correct in that instance. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Did Dabomb87 addressed your concerns, SRE.K.A.L.24?—Chris! _ct 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• The sentence still does not tell the readers what the definition is defining. I still suggest you change the sentence to "An (A/a)ll-(S/s)tar is a player who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career.", ot something similar. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 00:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• How about: "An NBA All-Star is a player who has been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career."? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me, but of course with the reference. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Do we really need a reference? If that is the issue, we can say: "For the purposes of this list, an NBA All-Star is a player who has been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career." That way we are free from having to justify our calling the players an All-Star. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No references are needed, in my opinion—Chris! _ct 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that some readers may not know much about basketball, that is why I wanted a reference for the definition of "all-star". As long as all the readers know what you are saying, then its fine. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is fine now? Are you satisfied?—Chris! _ct 04:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are you asking me two questions that are very similar? Anyways, yes, I think it is fine now. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice work on the list. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [77].

---

List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

previous FLC (20:02, 8 September 2008)

previous FLC (00:56, 17 December 2008)

Third time's a charm? I hope so, since all of the objections raised in the two previous nominations have been addressed. BomBom (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support My concerns have been resolved, and it looks like the image concerns are fixed too. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Looks excellent. john k (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support though it would be nice if you can expand the lead a bit more.—Chris! _ct 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been significantly expanded. BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Could you try to include a link to dynasty somewhere in the lead?
  • The lead gives a background for the topic, but doesn't really summarize the list. Could you maybe mention who had the longest reign, shortest, etc?
  • Also in the lead, could you add a couple sentences explaining and maybe what form of government Egypt went to after the monarchy was abolished?
  • Could you add a key somewhere that explains the colours?
• Overall, a pretty nice list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A link to dynasty has been added in the lead. A key explaining the colours has also been added. Your second and third concerns will be addressed simultaneously when the lead is expanded. I am currently working on such an expansion and will notify you once I am done with it, so that you review the new text in the lead. Regards. BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been significantly expanded. It now summarizes the list, providing a brief description of each monarch. It also mentions who had the longest reign and the shortest reign. Information has also been added regarding the form of government Egypt went to after the abolition of the monarchy. Is the lead OK now? BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note that all links from the Official Website of the Egyptian Presidency show up as dead according to the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This is quite strange since the links were still working a few days ago. Anyway, there are two possible solutions to this problem. The first solution would be to include links to archived copies of the pages in question, all of which are available in the Internet Archive. The second solution would be to remove the links to the Presidency website altogether, and replace them with links to the website of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, an equally trustworthy source. The latter has profile pages for all the monarchs in question, albeit in Arabic. Which solution do you prefer? BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The likely problem is that the site is temporarily broken. In that case, since this nomination is only three days old, I think we would be better served by waiting. If the links have not fixed themselves by say, January 1, then replace them with the web archive links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the links with the web archive links. Are all the sources used OK now? BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [78].

---

Ballon d'Or

The list has gone through a major revamping and I now believe it meets all the criteria necessary to become featured. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Jameboy

• "The "Ballon d'Or", often referred to as the European Footballer of the Year"... isn't the Ballon d'Or the trophy and the European Footballer of the Year the recipient? Should it be changed to the European Footballer of the Year award?
• Footnote A should have a comma after "Despite being born in Argentina"
• In the "by player" section, I don't see the point of regurgitating all the players who have won it just once. Can we just mention that it has been won once "by 34 players" (if my count-up is correct)?
• "over the previous year" - can we clarify whether this is calendar year or football season? I assume the former, but it should be clarified due to many people using "year" and "season" interchangeably. Also I think "during" sounds better than "over".
• "players at European clubs; meaning" comma not semi-colon (or change second half to "this meant that")
• "This changed in 1995 when there was a change" - repetitive phrasing
• "Germany has produced the most winners" - German players or players from German clubs?

Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments I have addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments resolved. Support. Jameboy (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment from Toon05 Support

 Done Good job on the article. One think I am wondering about is why the most recent winner of the award (Cristiano Ronaldo, as you undoubtedly know) isn't mentioned in the text, only in the table. It would seem prudent to include the information in the text, as it would undoubtedly be one of the most sought-after pieces of information to readers - they currently need to scroll down to the bottom of the table, or figure out that the table is, in fact sortable. Best (and Merry Christmas), – Toon^(talk) 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to disagree there on grounds of recentism: we don't want to be constantly updating the leads of articles or lists to mention the most recent event related to the subject. Ballon d'Or 2008 has all the info on this year's award. --Jameboy (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Well the article is updated at least every year due to the nature of the award, the list of winners needs to be updated, so really WP:RECENTISM isn't an issue. It makes sense to have the reigning European Footballer of the Year mentioned in the text. – Toon^(talk) 14:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

added reference to cristiano ronaldo in lead. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments - Found a few issues with it, in addition to the ones above. Here's a list of them.

• France Football is a magazine, so it should be in italics.
• "with 96 journalists from around the world choosing..." This is a "noun-plus-ing" structure and should be adjusted. Perhaps try a semi-colon and "96 journalists from around the world chose..."
• Replace the comma after "Three men have won the award three times" with a semi-colon.
• "Platini won all of his awards in a row from 1983 to 1985, and is the only player to acheive this feat." I don't believe this is specific enough; of course he's the only person to win three in a row from 1983 to 1985. What's important is that he's the only player to do it, period.
• Another noun-plus-ing: "with five players winning seven awards between them."
• Next sentence: "with seven players winning eight awards whilst (change to while) playing for the club."
  • Missed this one. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• The Alfredo Di Stefano photo doesn't have source and date of publication, both of which are needed to prove its public domain status.
• Reference 7 (Juve legend Sivori dies) is lacking a publisher.
• The Sports Illustrated references should be handled in a similar manner to the ones from The Independent. One SI ref is from Reuters, and the other is from the AP. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Giants they have all been addressed. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the one which was missed. – Toon^(talk) 19:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - After my comments, and those of the other reviewers, were addressed, I think this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Only image captions that are complete sentences need full stops (periods) at the end.
• "Originally journalists could only vote for European players at European clubs" Comma after "Originally".
• "meaning that players like Diego Maradona and Pelé were ineligible for the award" Make a footnote that notes which clubs and countries these players play for and are from, respectively.
  • You haven't addressed this comment. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because I feel it is unnecessary, they are former players and the reader can easily find out their clubs and countries by clicking on the relevant link, to add a footnote would be overkill in my opinion. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• "In 1995" Comma after this phrase.
• "The rules were changed again in 2007 with players of every nationality and from any club around the world eligible for the award."-->The rules were changed again in 2007 so that players of any nationality and from any club around the world could be eligible for the award.
• "European based"-->Europe-based.
• "Three men have won the award three times" Add each to the end of this phrase.
• "Platini is the only player to win the award three times in a row"-->Platini is the only player to have won the award three times in a row
• "German players have won the Ballon d'Or the most, five players have won seven awards between them." Make the comma a semicolon.
• "Italian club Juventus has had the most winners, with seven players winning eight awards while playing for the club." Another one of those noun + -ing phrases, try: "Italian club Juventus has had the most winners; seven players have won eight awards while playing for the club. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the comments I have addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as RSSSF and UEFA.
• What makes http://www.laureus.com/ a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at their article and you'll see hy it's a reliable source, they have a famous award for sports people and are a famous sports organisation. NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Images look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• File:Jc ajax belle photo 01.jpg Who are the "personnel"? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

replced with image of Kevin Keegan, no idea who "personnel" are. NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24

• "presented each year" don't need the "each year" part as reader already know the award is awarded annually.
• I think the column, "Country", should be renamed "Nationality" or "Citizenship".

done NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the "By (noun)" sections are ridiculous. Why do you need to have those when the sorting function can easily determine which country, player, or club had the most award winners?

They present the information easily for the reader, the sorting could still cause confusion, with this there is none. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• "..., meaning that players like Diego Maradona and Pelé were ineligible for the award." Why do you need to point out name?
• "Three men..." Does it say that the award can only be awarded to men, and not women?

I don't think that needs to be made explicit, it is pretty obvious. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But do you have a reference that only men are allowed to win the award? The word "obvious" relates to WP:Original research. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Ronaldo became the first Brazilian to win the award in 1997, after non-Europeans were made eligible." Why does this also need to be pointed out?
• What are the years wikilinked to? Tell the readers that by note or by key.

The years are wikilinked to the relevant year of the award, a note is not needed for that it's just overkill. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that somewhere on WP:MOS, it says not to pipelink years (ie. 1982) That is why you need to tell the readers first about what the years wikilink to. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not what it says. The MOS is rather obsolete on this detail; the latest consensus (i.e. Date Linking RfC) suggests that when articles are piped through single-year links, it is better to be explicit about where the links go so as to not confuse the reader. Most of the basketball and baseball lists use this method, see List of Washington Wizards head coaches as an example. Also, all the years should be linked because the tables are sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

-- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the section about Maradona and Pele, I think it's important to highlight that the two players who are almost universally regarded as the best footballers of all time were ineligible - it is not a minor detail IMHO. We could rustle up a large amount of sources to demonstrate this if required. Best, – Toon^(talk) 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Toon05 stated, "I think it's important to highlight that the two players who are almost universally regarded as the best footballers of all time were ineligible" This is called original research. According to WP:Original research, it is not allowed. I still believe that pointing out players have no use. For example, why do you need to point out the first Brazilian, but not the first Czech? -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [79].

---

List of Montreal Canadiens head coaches

-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 01:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• Officially known as Le Club de Hockey Canadien,[1] the Montreal Canadiens (French: Les Canadiens de Montréal) are an Canadian professional ice hockey team based in Montreal, Quebec. - I'm guessing the an is because of the type of English they use, right?
• ...in 1976-77 and 1988-89 respectively. - why not link to the seasons?

• Because wikilinking them will maybe confuse the readers. I really don't know how it is confusing, but if I'm correct, there was a discussion about this on WT:MOS. I don't know where though... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dandurand is the only coach to have spent his entire NHL head coaching career with the Canadiens, and have been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame as a builder. - I thought there were nine that were spent their entire careers with the Canadiens. If you mean that they have spent their entire careers with the Canadiens and to have been elected to the HoF, then maybe adding a too before have might tweak it a bit.

Dandurand did both: spending his entire NHL head coaching career with the Canadiens and to have been elected into the Hockey Hall of Fame. I removed the comma before and, hope that clears thing up. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• In the footnotes, instead of having to reference to it over 6 times, use the {{ref}} and {{note}} templates, they work better in this case.

Didn't I already do that with the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} template? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

--SRX 16:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I don't know what I was thinking. D'oh.--SRX 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - problems fixed, meets WP:WIAFL.--SRX 01:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from Killervogel5

• "The Canadiens are owned by George N. Gillett Jr., former head coach of the Canadiens,"→"Canadiens;"

I think I did it right... -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Though Dick Irvin has coached the team for 15 seasons, Toe Blake, who has coached for 13 seasons," - keeping "has" in there makes it sound like they are all still coaching. Consider "Though Dick Irvin coached the team for 15 seasons, Toe Blake, who coached for 13 seasons,"

Copied your re-phrasing. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Blake also has the most Stanley Cup championships"→"has won"

DONE -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "in 1976-77 and 1988-89 respectively"→use en-dashes in year ranges.

DONE -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The team's first head coach was Newsy Lalonde, who has coached the Canadiens for eight NHL seasons, in two stints." - remove "has" again. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DONE -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c] 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!

• Support: Had a few issues with the grammar in the prose and captions, but I went through and did a minor grammar copyedit and it looks good to go! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Kaiser matias

• Comment I've got to bring up the inevitable discussion about when to start the Canadiens coaching list, whether 1909 or 1917. Now in the lead, it makes several mentions to the team being founded in 1909, including winning the 1916 Stanley Cup. However, the list only includes the Canadiens from 1917, when they joined the NHL. I would go ahead and include the NHA coaches in this list. After all, they are included in the NHL Record Book for the Canadiens, the only team that includes pre-NHL anything. Information is available in regards to the coaches, and it was a vital part of the team's history, and should be included. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know about actually putting the NHA seasons because of the lack of sources for the playoffs. The only source I know that covers the regular season is [80]. The playoffs will be hard to find. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 23:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you're welcome for the barnstar! -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment While I'll be busy the next few days due to the time of year, I probably have enough references to cover the NHA Canadiens' coaches. It's probably not going to be in time for the nomination, but so be it. And thanks for the award, I appreciated it.

One more comment. The NHL Record Book, as well as the Montreal Canadiens article, lists Babe Siebert as a coach, even though he died before coaching a game. Since he was officially appointed as a coach, and is recognised as such, he should be included, with a note mentioning he drowned prior to coaching a game, similar to what the Record Book does. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing that. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• I went ahead and have figured out the coaching record of the NHL Canadiens. I'll go and add them in the next few days, after finding references for it. However this leads to something. In the NHA and early NHL, the playoffs were a total goals series, not the best of format used now. A note should probably be made to that degree for coaches of that era, as it makes a huge difference.

It is a difference, but it won't effect the list. I already knew that the playoffs system were by goals before the 1930s. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• On the subject of NHA coaches, the issue of how to add them to the list comes up. Now I would personally say have a running total of all coaches, NHA and NHL, then have seperate running totals for the NHA and NHL coaches. For example, Guy Carbonneau is the 25th coach of the Canadiens in the NHL, but the 28th total coach of the team. Maybe break up Newsy Lalonde's totals, since he coached in both the NHA and NHL. Again, I'll go and add it myself within a few days, to give an idea of what I'm tryig to convey.

The total will be including both the NHA and the NHL, which is of course 28 according to your references.

Kaiser matias (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support As the NHA totals are not of dire importance, and it's stated as not being part of the article, it can wait until proper references can be obtained. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Good job, almost all the issues were pointed out by reviewers (and subsequently addressed) before I could get to this article! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is one thing, could you add the ISBN for the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I found the source for the ISBN, but I don't know which one, ISBN-10, or ISBN-13? [81]

ISBN-10 (including the "X" at the end). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DONE -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards on} 02:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support, although I have one minor concern: Is the asterisk, dagger, and double dagger really necessary in the key? The list is already color coded, the extra symbols just look redundant. Tavix (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:MOS, yes. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 07:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The symbols are for those who have sight disabilities. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent list. I do have two comments, but neither is significant enough to withold support. In the sentence that begins "Alhough Dick Irvin coached the team for 15 seasons, Toe Blake, who coached two less seasons," should "two less seasons" actually read "two fewer seasons"? I'm actually not sure of the correct grammar myself here, or if maybe both are fine. Also, I would prefer to see a section showing the overall Canadiens coaching records of coaches with multiple stints (e.g., List of San Francisco Giants managers), but I don't think that is required to attain FL status. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the sentence. Also, the readers can easily sort the name column and then add the numbers up if some managers have multiple stints, so it wouldn't really be necessary. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [82].

---

List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations

This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film No Country for Old Men. It is thorougly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. The content will be stable since all major awards for which the film would qualify have now been awarded and any future accolades would likely encompass "Best of..." or "Top films of..." types of inclusion in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks fine to me. The JPS^{talk to me} 21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: I have not been involved in this article prior to nomination, but have helped out since. Any opinions expressed here are completely neutral. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way that you could make the list more in the format of List of Carnivàle awards and nominations? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

CommentSupport - prose checks out fine, as does the rest of the list.but I agree with Dabomb, this format serves no real intention but to make it look more appealing. It should be converted to the format of other FL's, such as the one Dabomb pointed out above.--SRX 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Response - I looked at the few awards focused lists and cannot see a comparative example. I don't think they are comparative. In fact, there are no comparative examples in featured lists at this time, although it is likely that as some changes from projects like WP:FILMS and WP:ACTOR are occurring, it may lead to more. One of the changes that is about to occur in WP:FILMS is that the use of the pink/green nominated/win templates won't be supported, while tabling of awards will be, using a similiar format to what is presented here. To my knowledge, this may be the first list of its kind to be considered and I'm not altogether sure that the same focus for television award lists should be applied to a film awards list. They spring from different projects with different focus.

Carnivàle is a television series, as are all the other featured lists for individual program awards, the production of which extended over a period of time, yielding multiple nominations of the same award over time. I'd have to ask how a division of awards for a one time production would be better served by breaking it down into a table for each award. Even breaking it down into acting/technical awards would complicate it unnecessarily, since the majority of awards over these categories would create cross-content (acting, writing, editing, etc. are awarded from the same organizations). There is nothing in the FL criteria that compels a breakdown into multiple tables, and criteria says specifically: Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. So how is making it visually appealing not an intention?

Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• There is a closing parentheses in the third paragraph of the Lede, but no opening one.
  • done
• The fourth "paragraph" is just a single sentence. Can it be merged into one of the other paras?
  • done
• Please have the use of the poster checked by an image reviewer. I'm not sure it qualifies as fair use in this article because it bears no relation to the awards it won
  • It was removed but further search will be conducted to try and find an acceptable use image of perhaps the Coens accepting one of the awards
• Is there an article for DGA Awards in the Lede? All the other awards are wikilinked
  • done
• What does "collectively as Roderick Jaynes" mean?
  • done clarified and cited
• Why does the table use small writing? What effect does regular sized text have?
  • This is the size text that is now being used in filmographies through WP:ACTOR and that is going to be incorporated in WP:FILMS. See response two points down.
• Since there is the L2 header, "Awards and nominations", why repeat it as another header in the table?
  • Just a table style and the need/desire for enough sub-headings for the TOC
• I'm happy for the format of the table to be used, but simply saying that WP:FILMS and WP:ACTOR are going in this direction may not be enough. Do you have links to talk page discussions?
  • See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Discussion, which ratified (for lack of a better term) the style as well as the smaller text, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Possible table format, which is progressing toward this format with no dissenting opinions on the style. It's slowed a bit because of the holidays, but Erik is developing the guidelines.
• Same for the use of {{won}} {{nominated}}. Please provide a link to the discussion where their use is discouraged.
  • This is included in the WP:FILMS discussion above.
• I think some of the External links could be trimmed. This isn't a Canadian movie, so the official Canadian site could go. Including it is rather arbitrary. Why not the British, German, or Russian official sites? Get rid of the main imdb link, too. This article is about the awards only, so the imdb award page is good enough.
  • done
• References need formatting correctly. Website names should not be itallicised; only titles of books, magazines and newspapers. Terms such as Inc should be removed, and things such as org, .com etc, as in "goldenglobes.org", "GoldenGlobes.org", "BAFTA.org", "theage.com.au" should be recast as the actual names: Golden Globes, BAFTA, The Age. Please wikilink to articles of publishers and publications where available.
  • done Note: Some of the references are from the website of the organizations that gave the awards. Since the awards are linked in the table itself, should they also be linked in the references, or would that be overlinking? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• The empty cells may appear to some people as if information is missing. Could an em- or en-dash be used to show that there is no missing info?
  • done

That's all I have for now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think the image qualifies as fair use for the reasons Matthew says. I've removed it. The JPS^{talk to me} 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is using mdash appropriate for the tables? MOS:DASH does not seem to permit this kind of usage. Maybe use something else or leave it blank? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I added those after the (last) point above - "The empty cells may appear to some people as if information is missing. Could an em- or en-dash be used to show that there is no missing info?" Neither mdash or ndash specifically endorses this, but I've seen dashes used in other FL tables. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "No Country for Old Men is a 2007 American film that was a multiple award winner in categories ranging from Best Picture" "ranging"-->that ranged.
• "were multiple nominees in Best Director, Best Editing (under the pseudonym of Roderick Jaynes[1]), and Best Adapted Screenplay."-->were nominated for the Best Director, Best Editing (under the pseudonym of Roderick Jaynes), and Best Adapted Screenplay awards.
• "The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, winning four, including Best Picture,[2] four Golden Globe Awards, winning two at the 65th Golden Globe Awards." The logical flow is thrown off by the commas. Try: "The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, winning four, including Best Picture; it was nominated for four Golden Globe Awards, winning two at the 65th Golden Globe Awards."

Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• reworded, although I didn't use the semi-colon. It's a personal dislike.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as BAFTA.
• What makes the following sites reliable sources?
  • http://www.chlotrudis.org/
  • http://www.altfg.com/blog/
  • http://www.backstage.com/bso/index.jsp
• Reference 6 needs a publication date. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. BAFTA spelled out and ref date included. Chlotrudis is the source for its own awards, the Boston Society Film Critics Award was given its own source and the Hollywood Reporter article reprinted on Backstage was replaced with the original publisher. Working on the other source. Alternative Film Guide references replaced with refs either from Variety or other pertinent sources. I think that addresses all concerns raised. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support an excellent-looking list. Only one issue, which I am not sure is major... since there is no date auto-formatting anymore, would it be better to rewrite the ISO formatting of the dates into American date formatting? Not a deal-breaker, but I tend to fix up the dates like here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the dates used are in the references, unless I've badly overlooked one in the prose. The template examples don't indicate that is required, one uses the "2008-12-29" style. If it's an issue, I'd be glad to change it, but it would help to see a guideline that indicates it. And thanks :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Content is fine, but I have some concerns over the style which echo comments made above.

• Why use an infobox instead of a normal thumbnail for what is essentially an image and a caption? I believe the infobox is intended for articles about actual awards, not lists of awards such as this.
• Why the "Awards and nominations" header in the table? It's redundant to the section header and serves no further purpose, so it could be removed with no detriment to the table or article.
• Would "Recipient" or "Nominee" make a better column heading than "Name"?
• What is the justification for using smaller text? It's not as if space is at a real premium here, so normal sized text would do just fine. While this doesn't make a huge difference to me using IE, for other users on different browsers (such as Firefox) the smaller text size will be quite noticeable. I don't think that this smaller text size is entirely appropriate for the main body of an article.
• I'm not sold on the visual styling of this table as opposed to a standard wikitable (as seen in List of Carnivàle awards and nominations, for example). The colours I can take or leave, but the grid lines are far less visible making the table a little harder to read. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Response - Most of these comments actually don't echo comments from above. If the infobox is an issue, it can be replaced, I was looking for something a little more visually appealing than just a thumb image. The comment about "Awards and nominations" was made because originally the subtitle also said that, so it is no longer redundant to the subtitle. Since the category called "Names" covers both recipients and nominees, which would you suggest be used that would not ignore the other? As for the table style comments, you didn't raise opposition to this at the discussion for the table styling, so why are you raising it here now? This was created on Firefox and the font size is not a readability issue, it is a stylistic choice. The grid lines are the same color on this table as the grid lines on the List of Carnivàle awards and nominations, so on that, I don't see the point you're making. As I noted above, the Carnivàle list is for a television series with a (then) ongoing series of nominations over time, while this is static. Both of the reviewers above withdrew their concerns regarding this list being like that one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No, some of these points were raised above which you yourself have just acknowledged (I never meant all of them). However, I remain unsatisfied by your comments.

• Infobox: This isn't really a major issue, though it does seem like you're using one for the sake of it. If the article can have an infobox with actual info in it then great, but if not then a thumbnail should suffice. I don't think it does anything for the "visual appeal" of the article.
• "Awards and nominations" heading in the table: Of course this is still redundant, a rewording of the section header doesn't change that. You only need one heading for the table, not two that say essentially the same thing. My point above stands.
• "Recipient" or "Nominee": Neither of these terms are exclusive. However, this was merely a suggestion which you may take or leave.
• Table style: In the discussion we had at WT:FILM (which trailed off without any definitive conclusion) I said at several points that I preferred the default styling of "class=wikitable" and that I didn't see any reason to employ the syling which you have here. Regarding the text size, of course this is a stylistic choice but it nevertheless has an effect on readability. The smaller text adds nothing obvious to the article besides the rather dubious sense that it is more visually appealing, and I maintain my position that such reduced text it inappropriate for the main body of an article such as this. My point about the grid lines being less visible should be quite obvious; the lines may be the same colour, but the background colour of the table is darker, hence they sand out less. But my primary concern here is with regard to the text size. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't my view that it trailed off without conclusion. It was left off at attempting to develop specific guidelines. You are raising objections here to my FL review much stronger than you bothered to object on WP:FILMS, with one comment leading at one point to the comment "Well, PC78 is not a fan of it, apparently." You said you preferred the default style, but I don't see that anyone else enthusiastically endorsed your comment. Finally, when I look at the table here, and the one on the Carnivale list, I see the same background color. When I removed the background color from this one, then it looked different. You also said that the List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors list "is essentially the same as how [you] set up awards tables". When I compare that, it also has the similar background color. You also objected to the awards table used on Mulholland Drive (film), which uses even smaller text and definitively distinct background color, but that is a featured article. I'm at a bit of a loss for a response here beyond this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I did change the text size to a larger set, but just to reiterate, I see no difference in table backgrounds between this and the Little Mis Sunshine and Carnivale lists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it does at least alleviate my primary concern. If I am raising my objections much stronger here than in the previous discussion, it is because I felt that discussion was more to establish a basic layout for such tables rather than the more specific styling we are discussing here. I don't recall any "enthusiastic endorsment" for your preffered style either; I don't believe it was commented on much one way or the other. To give you some comparative examples, all other film-related featured lists use bog standard tables without any such styling that you are using here; certainly none of them use anything other than full size text. A final word about the background/gridline colours: if you truly see no difference beween this list and (for example) List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors then I'm inclined to think that this is another browser issue. To me the lines on your list stand out far less, and while it isn't a major issue here, in some such lists this does IMHO affect readability. Anyway, it's late so I'll have another look at this tomorrow before I withraw my opposition. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be a browser issue, because I truly see no difference in the gridlines. On this list, there is a darker gridline between the major awards (Academy, BAFTA, etc.) but if I recall, it didn't appear that way to you previously, although others didn't say that. I looked at the table on Christmas day from a computer using Internet Explorer and don't recall a line problem there, but then she had her computer set up oddly anyway. On my computer, the background of the tables on all three lists we've mentioned are the same color as the background in the Wikipedia styling around the outside of the articles. As an aside note, in the near future, organizations will begin to release updated lists of top films, and I suspect that No Country will be included on some of those. If that happens, I would think that a secondary table would be developed to include those top film lists, much as the Carnivale list does now. To go back to the Mullholland Drive (film) FA, I see less line distinction on the recipient/nominees column than on this one. After looking at that, I did change the "Names" column to "Recipients and nominees" on this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, a few minor issues that will need resolving. There are two blank entries in the "Outcome" column (San Diego & Vancouver awards), and ref #50 is missing a retrieval date. Also (and this one isn't a deal breaker), all of the external links except the IMDb one are just generic links for the film, which seem better left to the main film article. Are these really necessary? PC78 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how the blanks happened, but apparently no one noticed that before and were accidental absent spaces. Those are fixed as is the retrieval date, which was a misplaced |. I thought the Box Office Mojo and critic pages were interesting, but they weren't essential, so I removed those, but left the IMDB awards page and the official site link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Article is well written, comprehensive and fully referenced, and that's what's really important here, though I retain a few misgivings over the style issues discussed above. I have, however, made the following changes:

• Replaced the infobox with a thumnail per my comments above. Other film-related FLs such as List of Japanese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film look just fine with a thumbnail, and there's no reason why this article should be any different. I've also added a bit of context to the caption.
• Removed the heading from the table and renamed the section heading accordingly. Again, I still don't see any good reason to have two headings, and I'm not seeing it in other film-related FLs. I could understand if the table was split into two or more sections, but that isn't the case here.

By all means feel free to revert if you feel strongly enough about either of these changes, though I would ask that you state your reasons here. My support stands regardless. PC78 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I am trying to think of something to do with the heading in order to retain the blue, which I think gives the page a bit of needed color. Perhaps adding a separate section with top ten lists as they occur? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [83].

---

List of Governors of Indiana

User:Golbez, User:Charles Edward, and I have collaborated on bringing this list up to FL quality. It is based on other Governor FLs, and I believe it is finally ready to be promoted. Reywas92^Talk 17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I will co-nominate this article since I have also spent considerable time on it and have access the book sources that were used and a fairly extensive knowledge of Indiana history :) Charles Edward (Talk) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I co-nominate with but reservations; I'm unhappy with the 'days' column and the party chart at the top. I think the days column is a bit too much (It gives a different view of the date data without really adding any information, IMO, that isn't readily visible with the more abstract terms column; such information, since it requires constant tending, should be in its own list IMO), and the party table gives undue weight to people who were elected once over those who were re-elected, and doesn't really enhance one's knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, it's simply counting certain rows in the table, so it's not new information at all. I'm also unsure about the terms, adding parts of a term together with +, etc, as I think it complicates what is already not an entirely intuitive column; but others would disagree, saying it simplifies it. To each his own. :) --Golbez (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I do get your point about the party table. I don't understand why the days would need constant tending. I added a template that automatically updates the current governor. It's nice to be able to sort them by length of time in office; that can't be done with terms. For Morton's terms, it shows how he only served one full term with some on both sides rather than two terms when added. Reywas92^Talk 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see that, I'm still used to the old days. :P As for the "served part a term, then was elected, then served part a term" problem, I brought up the Clinton/Tucker/Huckabee part of the Arkansas table. It's not great, but I still think it's better than all the addition. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the party table. Reywas92^Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years, with the governor's term commencing on the second Monday in the January following the election."-->The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; the governor's term commences on the second Monday in the January following the election.

That doesn't sound right.

Whoops, forgot to add an "s". My issues was with the with + -ing sentence structure, which is awkward and ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Still not so sure about the semicolon here. I'll try to think of something else. Reywas92^Talk 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I can find no source against this and a grammar expert said it was acceptable. The constistution specifies the date, so a semicolon splitting the clauses doesn't work, and nothing else seems to be parallel. Reywas92^Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. How's "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years and set the commencement of the governor's term on the second Monday in the January following the election."? Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's better, but the sentence is a bit winding. Give readers a break with the semicolon: ""The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How about "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years, and it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election."? The semicolon is a too abrupt splitting of clauses that go together. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That will work. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the only instance of this is when James B. Ray succeeded William Hendricks."-->this has happened once, when James B. Ray succeeded William Hendricks.

Done

• "Isaac P. Gray and Henry F. Schricker are the only governors to serve non-consecutive terms. "-->Isaac P. Gray and Henry F. Schricker are the only governors to have served non-consecutive terms.

Done

• "The longest-serving state governors are Otis R. Bowen, and Evan Bayh" Comma not necessary. Should it not be "were", since this happened in the past (I assume)?

Previously it said "Shricker, Bowen, and Bayh." I must have forgotten to remove the comma when removing the incorrect Schricker; Done. No, they still are the longest-serving.

• "who served only two days"

Done

• "The most recently-serving governor"-->The most recently serving governor...

No, I think the hyphen is correct. "Recently-serving" is one phrase. Think about "the recently-servingest governor," not "the recentlyest serving governor."

See MOS, -ly adjectives should not have hyphens following them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:HYPHEN: "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb...unless part of a larger compound...Some words ending in -ly function as both adverbs and adjectives," which this is. The example "a friendly-looking driver" would become "the most friendly-looking driver." Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand now after looking at the larger context a couple times. The sentence was a bit obscure. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Use em dashes in the empty cells in the table.

In this case I don't think it's really necessary; it's clutter and the other FLs don't have it either.

I disagree that they are "clutter", but it is a minor issue and since the other governor FLs don't use them, I will let it be. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Add a white color (for independents) to the legend.

Done

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Images

• File:William H. Harrison.jpg needs a proper source and author.

I'm not experienced in image tagging, but it says it was by Rembrandt Peale and is now in public domain.

OK, I organized the file page. We still need a source (where did the image come from?) Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a picture person. Can I just use http://www.lib.niu.edu/1998/ihwt9806.html? Shouldn't the fact we know it's PD be enough? Reywas92^Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The link will work. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG same. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I just replaced it with another pic of him, File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg.

Sources

• Ref 14 (http://www.allbusiness.com/ should not have its ref title in bold caps. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

Done. It was actually from Indiana Business Magazine and hosted on Allbusiness.com.

• On the citations from the Indiana government website, use "State of Indiana" as the publisher instead of IN.gov.

Done Reywas92^Talk 03:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this article is ready for featured status    World   ^tcs 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Kensplanet

• It is recommended that you have atleast one map of Indiana at least for people outside the US. Kensplanet^T_C 09:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Reywas92^Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree strongly with this suggestion; should we include a map of every area that we have a list of executives for? A map of Nepal for its kings? A map of Bavaria for its list of minister-presidents? I think the link to the location is 100% sufficient to find out just where it is. It adds no real information for a list of governors. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need for it here when there is a link. The important thing is that readers know that Indiana is a state in the US; its location in the country itself is not important enough for this article to warrant adding an extra image. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I had thought the same, but I added it because of his suggestion. It is now removed. The capitol photo's okay though, right? Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: It need not be a recent map of Indiana. Maybe a map of the 1800s will work. Kensplanet^T_C 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But Kensplanet, why is a map necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If we only had a map from the 1800s... Indiana is linked to in the lead. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• What do you mean by the Days in Office in each Table? How did you consider this. Are they exact?Kensplanet^T_C 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes they are exact. It is the number of days that passed from taking office to leaving office, exclusive.

• What is Gubernatorial term? Kensplanet^T_C 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just referring back to the years he was governor. Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, great work! HoosierState^Talk 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [84].

---

NBA All-Star Weekend Three-Point Shootout

Another NBA-related list. Comments welcomed.—Chris! _ct 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Oppose from Killervogel5

• Violates WP:RS, specifically the use of third-party source. Every reference except one is to the league's official website, not to an independent source.
• "No players have ever achieved the perfect score of 30."→"No player has..."
• Three point arc needs a wikilink.
• On my monitor, there are references for statements breaking over lines, which means that there may be a space between them, I believe. "television instant replay system.[2][4]"

I am not too sure what you mean, but I think I took care of it. Let me know if I didn't.—Chris! _ct 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• The 1998-99 season should be sorted so that it ends up at the bottom when the total points are sorted (right now it sorts as higher than 25 points). This can be rectified by sorting the m-dash as negative 1.
• Note B should be a complete sentence.
• Neither navbox has a direct link to this article. Add links or remove the navboxes.

I will reconsider an oppose only if third-party sources can be found. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Every point is addressed except the first one. I am not sure if it is actionable since there aren't many independent sources out there about this subject. But, I will try to research more and see if I can improve it further. Also, I think it is unfair to oppose this nomination based solely on the fact that most of references used are from the league's official website. But that is just my opinion, I guess.—Chris! _ct 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I add two more independent refs. So hopefully you are satisfied.—Chris! _ct 02:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am still wary about the high level of league-dependent sources but I support. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Comments

• In this contest, participants attempt to shoot as many three-point field goals as possible from the five positions behind the three-point arc - remove the from the five positions
• In cases of tie, additional rounds are played to determine the winner. - how about In the case of a tie...
• In the lead, the last paragraph, it should be stated who was the first winner, and the most recent winner.--SRX 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - all problems fixed to comply with WP:WIAFL.--SRX 01:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments -

• Move reference 1 after the parenthesis in the first sentence.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• The Three-point Shootout is an National Basketball Association contest...". Typo.
  • Not really. Try to say it out loud. It should be "an NBA."—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • But NBA is spelled out here: a National Basketball Association... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Right—Chris! _ct 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Move the first use of reference 2 so it can cover the "money ball" part.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Three players with the top scores advance to the finals." I suggest adding "The" to start this sentence.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• "which was not made in the same round as the 25 points" Perhaps try "which was not made in his 25-point round"
  • Done—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• 2007–08 NBA season should be 2007–08 seasons.
  • "Seasons" with an "s" seems incorrect —Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It now reads "who won the contest in the 2006–07 and 2007–08 season". I take it that season should be plural, as it represents both of Kapono's victories. Alternately, season could just be removed. Either way, I don't think it looks right as is. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed—Chris! _ct 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Photo caption: "Larry Bird has won this contest three consecutive times" implies that he is the current champion. Removing the has should be good enough to fix it.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Perhaps make clear that Stojakovic's two point totals came in the tie-breakers? It was a little confusing to me at first.
  • What do you suggest? I already have a note for that.—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I would just add to the note and say that the score given came from the tie-breaker. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Done—Chris! _ct 05:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• There's room for one more photo on the right. I first thought to ask for a photo of Peja, but the one free one is blurry and not the best choice. Ray Allen has a couple of good free pictures; one of these would be nice to have.
  • Will get to this soon—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Done—Chris! _ct 05:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• Records: Why are the refs in two columns out of order? They are currently both [8][7][1]. Usually, citations should be put in numerical order.
  • Done—Chris! _ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Giants2008 (17-14) 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - After the fixes above, I think this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Since then, however, six players typically take part in the contest." Why only "typically"?
• "Hodges and Kapono are tied for the scoring record with 25 points. No player has ever achieved the perfect score of 30." If the scoring record is 25, then is it not understood that the perfect score has not been attained?
• In the key: The "Player (X)" and "Team (X)" should be changed to "Player (#)" and "Team (#)".
• Center the em dashes in the table.
• "Denotes the number of times the team has won" The teams can't win, try "Denotes the number of times a player from this team has won". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • In response to your first point, I slightly reword the sentence, though I am not sure if I addressed your concern. Everything else is done.—Chris! _ct 21:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "NBA All-Star Weekend Three-point Shootout" Why is "point" not capitalized ? All your other changes look good. I tweaked that one sentence a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Done now. Thanks—Chris! _ct 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• In the brackets on the first sentence, "also named the" --> "officially named the", since that is the official name.
• "—one on each baseline..." there are two on each baseline, not one.

No, one shot on each baseline and there are two baselines, which mean there are two shot total.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A baseline is the end of the court, and if it is on each baseline, then one is on one side of the court, and one is on the other. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you mean—Chris! _ct 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• "...have both won..." --> "...have each won..."
• "...have won..." --> "...have each won..."
• The whole third paragraph needs a general reference to be cited at the end of the paragraph.

This is based on the referenced list below and thus does not need a reference. Everything else done.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think that readers may think that the third paragraph does not have a reference, that's all. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

-- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 07:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• "...who won the contest in the 2006–07 and 2007–08 seasons..." Aren't they in the 2007 NBA All-Star Game and the 2008 NBA All-Star Game?

No. This contest is part of NBA All-Star Weekend, but not the NBA All-Star Game itself.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Since it's in the All-Star Game, wikilink all the years to the All-Star Game.
• Note that the column, "Season", that each year is linked to an article about that particular NBA All-Star Game.

See above.—Chris! _ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at 2008 NBA All-Star Game, you will see that it includes the events in the All-Star Weekend. Maybe you should wikilink all the years to the respective All-Star Game. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 11:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think this is a good idea. Keep in mind that this contest started in 1986, so if I link to 2008, I must also link to 1986. Now look at 1986 NBA All-Star Game, it has no info on events in the All-Star Weekend. And I don't like how some links in the list are irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps a discussion is needed on whether events in the All-Star Weekend should be in the All-Star Game article or not.—Chris! _ct 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I get what you mean. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion/Comment

Comments

• In this contest, participants attempt to shoot as many three-point field goals as possible from five positions behind the three-point arc—one on each baseline, one at the top of the arc as well as two halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc. Aren't the two points "halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc" commonly called the wings?

That's not the real name for the two points halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc though. It is just a common saying. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm just looking for a way to reduce the wordage. I don't know if there are "official" names for any parts of the basketball court. FWIW, this source calls those spots the wings. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as it has a reliable source, and it has to be true, so I guess Chris should add it on. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

From the source, it states, "each corner, both wings and the top of the key [should be arc]." I think this version is better than "one on each baseline, one at the top of the arc as well as two halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc." -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you guys that this version is better, but we have to assume readers don't understand what we are talking about. So perhaps the best way is to combine the two.—Chris! _ct 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice job on combing. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think the sentence still needs some work. If you try parsing it, you'll see that the grammar is a bit sloppy. For example, what does "two" refer to in "two on the baseline"? There's no clear antecedent. (I think I know what it's supposed to refer to, but we shouldn't make readers stumble.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Then can you please reword the sentence for me? Thanks—Chris! _ct 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm struggling to find a way to make the sentence clear to non-basketball fans without being too wordy. I tried to make things very simple- I just said that a player begins at one corner, and works his way around the arc. If someone wants to add more detail, they can take a stab at it. (It might not be a bad idea to include a simple diagram of the positions from which the player shoots. Anyone good with graphics?) Zagalejo^^^ 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A minor fix to File:Basketball positions.svg could work. —Chris! _ct 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Is the money ball supposed to honor the ABA ball? Zagalejo^^^ 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for my ignorance, but I seriously don't know the answers.—Chris! _ct 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it does, but I don't know for sure, as Zagalejo may know, the ABA ball was colored with the American flag colors, same as the money ball. I'll my to find the reference. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a About.com reference, and here is a USA Today reference. The USA Today one states, "I made just five shots, including one ABA-like red, white and blue ball, better known in NBA circles as the two-ball because you register 2 points if you make the final ball in each rack." -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone going to reply to my comment, since I really want to know what users think of it. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't think those sources really prove that the ball is intended as a salute to the ABA. I'll see if I can dig something up, though, since I'm pretty sure there is a connection of some sort. Zagalejo^^^ 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

But the article could tell the readers that the red, white, and blue ball is ABA-like (ie. The ABA-like red, white, and blue ball, also known as the "money" ball...) -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 10:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The two-point ball in the most recent contest is not red white blue anymore, but gold I believed. That's why I wrote "special colored ball" in the article. Anyhow, this info is pretty trivial and probably shouldn't be in the article.—Chris! _ct 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point: Fixed to "specially". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I just watched some of the last contest on YouTube, and the ball is, like, yellow and bluish green now. Zagalejo^^^ 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the blue and gold ball was only for the All-Star Game for New Orleans. I think it'll change back to the ABA-like ball in this year's All-Star Game in Phoenix. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 01:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You sure? Can you show any evidence on that?—Chris! _ct 04:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I believe it is true. Just say "specially colored ball" for now. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{spell my name backwards at} 06:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - In the sentence "Hodges also holds the record for making 19 consecutive shots (which was not made in his 25-point round)," should the parenthetical comment read "which were not made in his 25-point round), if the "was" refers to the 19 shots? Otherwise looks good. Rlendog (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "often nicknamed the "money ball") -> "often nicknamed the money ball)"
• "Change "The first place is worth $35,000" to "The first place winner receives $35,000" and so on for the other places. The former seems weird to me.
• "Denotes the number of times the player have won" -> "Denotes the number of times the player has won"
• "Denotes the number of times a player from this team have won" -> "Denotes the number of times a player from this team has won"
• "Most points, round" -> "Most points in a round" to the the same as the next table.
• "Ray Allen won this contest in the 2000–01 season, while playing with the Milwaukee Bucks." doesn't need a comma.
• For all captions, change "this contest" to "the contest".
  • Another great NBA list! Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done—Chris! _ct 02:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24_[c]

• Laugh out loud, I found something that can be quite interesting. Why didn't you include the finalists of the Three-Point Shootout? If you don't, shouldn't this article be named "List of NBA All-Star Weekend Three-Point Shootout winners"? -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [85].

---

List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2008

I am submiting this list because I think is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRX

Oppose - many prose problems

• There were twenty three number one albums in 2008, including La Vida... Es un Ratico by Colombian singer-songwriter Juanes, which won five Latin Grammy Awards including Album of the Year. - twenty three should be written as a number. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Cómplices, the eight number one album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel debuted at number 10 on the Billboard 200, the highest peak for the singer on that chart, with 32,000 units sold;[4] also gave the singer the record for most number one albums on this chart for one month, - 1)comma after Luis Miguel 2)Instead of a semi colon, use a period to start a new sentence. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Mexican performer Vicente Fernández with Para Siempre, won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album[6] and spent three non-consecutive weeks at the top of the chart; while Primera Fila, a live album by Fernández, became the last number one album of 2008. - 1)Comma before and' 2) a comma would work better than a semi colon here. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• With 26,000 units sold, Daddy Yankee debuted at number 13 on the Billboard 200 with Talento de Barrio, a sountrack for the movie starred by the Reggaeton performer, which also debuted at number one on this chart. - 1)Soundtrack is misspelled 2)There is a problem with the font, you need to stop the italics on the name of the album, it italicizes the whole sentence. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Wisin & Yandel returned to number one with Los Extraterrestres, and album that was awarded with the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album. - An album, not and album. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• and ended the year as the best selling latin album of 2008.[9] -If this is part of the previous sentence, the previous sentence needs end in a comma not a period. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Luis Fonsi with Palabras del Silencio, landed his best sales week ever with 30,000 units sold and the second biggest sales week of the year for a latin performer, only Luis Miguel came in higher with Cómplices starting with 32,000 in May. 1)Earned, not landed 2)the comma before only should be a semi colon. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the last three paragraphs together, they are too small to be individual paragraphs, and merge the second and third.--SRX 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • All issues fixed, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - all problems fixed to comply with WP:WIAFL.--SRX 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Chicago-based group K-Paz de la Sierra, one month after the death of their lead vocalist Sergio Gómez in late December 2007,[3] returned to the first position of the chart with Capaz de Todo Por Tí for six consecutive weeks."-->One month after the death of their lead vocalist Sergio Gómez in late December 2007, the Chicago-based group K-Paz de la Sierra returned to the top of the chart with Capaz de Todo Por Tí, for six consecutive weeks. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Cómplices, the eight "-->Cómplices, the eighth... FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "the highest peak for the singer on that chart, with 32,000 units sold." How can it be the highest peak if he had eight number-one albums?. Answer: It is his highest peak on the Billboard 200.
• "This album also gave the singer the record for most " Add the before "most". FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "Mexican performer Vicente Fernández with Para Siempre, won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album, and spent three non-consecutive weeks at the top of the chart"-->Mexican performer Vicente Fernández's Para Siempre won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album and spent three non-consecutive weeks at the top of the chart... FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "while Primera Fila, a live album by Fernández, became the last number-one album of 2008." Make this a separate sentence. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "movie starred by the Reggaeton performer"-->movie that starred the reggaeton performer...
• "with the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album"—Add award at the end of this phrase. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• "latin" Capitalize. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fix these prose issues; I will also copy-edit afterwards, then I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• • All issues adressed, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
• One more: What is a "unit"? Everything else looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC) FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "Copies" still isn't accurate (copies of what? albums?). You haven't changed every instance either. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • FIXED units is a term used on Billboard magazine when they are talking about albums, but I think it was not clear enough for people that do not read Billboard. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [86].

---

List of districts of West Bengal

Nominating this list for FLC review after a peer review was completed. Please add your comments/suggestions here.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support -- Reduce the overlinking. I tried to remove some, but just clean up the rest where duplication occurs. Mention what a Paragana is. It would be an interesting addition as 24 Paraganas sounds interesting. Expand contractions such as "viz" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Taken care of the links: now only districts are linked twice, once in text and once in final table; if that is not desirable, please tell me which one should be kept, first occurrence only or only in the table. Pargana article is linked from 24 Parganas page, explaining what it means may be somewhat irrelevant for this list (concept of Pargana was abandoned long before West Bengal was formed), unless it is done in notes along with other Indian words used in various names like Purba, Zilla, Samiti, Sabhapati etc. Linked the former districts. If needed, I can add a small list of former districts like say, Former counties section in List of counties in Massachusetts.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Support The lead and the geography section have no inline citations.—Chris! _ct 02:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Though lead section is a summary of other sections (except tables), added refs for both lead and geography section. If you think any more refs are needed, then please mark corresponding sentence with citation needed tag. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Good, my concern is addressed.—Chris! _ct 00:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Nice work, Dibyendu.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support: Has improved a lot since its peer review. --KnowledgeHegemony ^talk 09:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Too many little prose problems, articles are missing, there are ambiguities, the flow is sometimes awkward. These examples are from the lead

• "and its main distributary Hooghly flows southwards to reach Bay of Bengal."-->and its main distributary, the Hooghly River, flows southwards to reach the Bay of Bengal.
• "The important Siliguri Corridor" Why is it important?
• "The important Siliguri Corridor that connects North East India with rest of the India, lies in North Bengal region of the state. "-->The important Siliguri Corridor, which connects North-East India with the rest of India, lies in the North Bengal region of the state.
• "Former princely state" Add a The at the beginning.
• "Hooghly district" "district" should be capitalized.
• "States Reorganisation Act" Add The before this.
• "led to addition of Puruliya district" missing "the" before "Puruliya" (which is spelled wrong).
• "West Bengal is now divided into 19 districts under three divisions." Either spell out 19 or write out three.
• "Other districts are further divided into administrative units like subdivisions and blocks" "like"-->such as.
• "the atomic ones" Be more specific than "ones". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made the suggested changes and similar ones across the sections. I have removed important form the sentence on the 'Siliguri Corridor', as importance is explained by the sentence. Please see whether these issues are resolved now. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I looked over your changes and they are all good; I have not looked at the rest of the article. I was wrong about "District" being capitalized; rather, the Hooghly District article was wrong and I have moved it. I promise to finish commenting tomorrow. Good job so far, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• "West Bengal is a unique state of India that has both the Himalayas in the north and the Bay of Bengal at the south." So how does that make it unique?
• "The districts which are located at the north of the Ganges" "which"-->that.
• "are often termed together as the North Bengal"-->are often referred to collectively as North Bengal.
• "with effect from 1 March 1986" Do you mean to say that it was bifurcated on this date?
• "With effect from 1 January 2002" Same here.
• "Since 2007, the demand of a separate Gorkhaland state has been revived" "of"-->for.
• "Kamtapur state covering"-->Kamtapur state that covers.
• "DM is either an IAS officer or a WBCS officer and is appointed by the State Government of West Bengal."-->A DM is either a IAS officer or a WBCS officer, and is appointed by the State Government of West Bengal. Spell out what the abbreviations stand for.
• "(also known as CD blocks or simply, blocks"
• "A Panchayat Samiti is be headed"
• "Third tier" Add The before thus phrase.
• "and the MLAs" Spell out this abbreviation out too.
• "panchayat" italicize this term.
• "etc." Italicize per WP:ABBR
• Disambiguation link needs fixing.
• Why are Kolkata and 1947 in the "Total" row?
• Refs 2, 12, 27 and 29 need format=PDF added to them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have made these fixes. I don't know why dabfinder is still showing Siuri as the only link to be fixed: I fixed it probably before nominating this page for FLC.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Got the dab and fixed it: it was used in a navbox.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Repetition of nineteen districts under three divisions. (in lead) and nineteen districts, grouped under three divisions: (before division list). Can the later be removed?
    • The lead section is a summary of other sections, as it was suggested during peer review.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Repetition of West Bengal is bordered by three countries: Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh; and five Indian states: Sikkim, Bihar, Chhattishgarh, Orissa, and Assam. Sikkim and Bhutan are located at the north of the state, Nepal at the northwest, Bihar and Chhattishgarh at the west, Orissa at the southwest, the Bay of Bengal at the south, and Bangladesh and Assam are at the east. in Geography section and also in lead. Text from geo-section can be removed.
    • The lead section is a summary of other sections, as it was suggested during peer review.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Repetition of Kolkata, the capital of the state, constitutes the Kolkata district in lead and geography section.
    • The lead section is a summary of other sections, as it was suggested during peer review.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Gorkha Hill Council is a unique administrative body in WB (a Government within a Government). Add one sentence on what executive powers it holds over the region. Currently the 1 sentence speaks of power maintained by Darjeeling district administration, but not of GHC.
    • Good point. Will add that.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • districts have more courts other than a District Court – not sure what more courts exist?
    • The ref for this sentence provides the list of other courts in various districts. However, there is no clear structure across the districts (it would have been if each subdivision would have had a court for example), so details are not noted here.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Each district is divided into subdivisions, except the Kolkata district, which contains urban area only. Sentences after this talk of other districts with no mention of Kolkata Municipal Corporation being administrative body of capital city district.
    • Municipal Corporation is not exactly a district-level or subdivision-level authority. Sentences after this talk about subdivisions of other districts. Kolkata district does not have any subdivision. However, it can be mentioned.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • After the Indo-Bangladesh enclaves sentence can one sentence for South Talpatti Island be mentioned under South 24 Parganas district as disputed territory claimed by India?
    • Yes. Though this type of info rather sounds in a trivia in a list of districts page, it can be added.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

--GPPande 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on repetition: I agree lead is summary of article, but exact duplicate of the sentences is not what is expected. In lead, only a point should be made like 19 districts - details of which can be put in sections below OR if it is just a point already mentioned in lead no need to mention it again in section below (example, what all surrounds WB). No need to repeat same at both places as it is already written at one place. Best example would be see India page - which says what all oceans and countries surround India in lead only not again in geo section. --GPPande 19:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess I have got your point. I have removed one repetition from lead section. I don't think any other cleanup on repetition point of view can be done, as it will destroy the flow of prose. Having said that, I appreciate your view on this. Most FL's have leads which are not summaries. Initially I kept it like that and kept only geographical info in lead, so there was no repetition. The change to summary-style lead was done as suggested in the review. BTW, India article is written on a vast topic and all of its sections are written in summary style. So, the lead there need not be a summary of summaries to a T.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Kensplanet

• Can we have Page nos for Directory of District, Sub division, Panchayat Samiti/ Block and Gram Panchayats in West Bengal, March 2008". The document is huge. Just citing the document is not at all helpful for any readeer. Use {{harvnb}} templates if required. Kensplanet^T_C 13:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The second page of the document contains intra-links for each district, where detailed info on constituent subdivisions and the GPs are provided. Also, each subdivision in the table is linked to a WP page that provides information on the subdivision (including info contained in this doc. That should be a lot of info for the reader.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Works

• Can you correct REF14 (Mandal, Asim Kumar (2003). Google books preview from The Sundarbans of India: A Development Analysis. Indus Publishing. pp. pp. 168–169. ISBN 8173871434. ) Kensplanet^T_C 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --GDibyendu (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. All comments addressed. Kensplanet^T_C 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [87].

---

List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office

1st nomination

2nd nomination

All concerns of reviewers in the previous nomination had been addressed when it was closed, and I can't find a rule against immediately resubmitting an article, so here it is again. If there are any new problems I'll fix those ones too. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support All my issues have been resolved. It is often good to say that you have fixed the issues on the FLC page itself. I didn't know that you had until just now, which is why I did not support last FLC. Anyway, the article is good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing notes:

• Despite only one review in this FLC, it has been extensively reviewed in previous FLCs. I think there was nothing else to mention on this FLC, and IMO it met the criteria.
• This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [88].

---

List of Boston Latin School alumni

I believe the List of Boston Latin School alumni meets Wikipedia's featured list standards. Boston Latin School is my alma mater and I have put a lot of work into the article over the past week. This list would be a major point of pride for me, to have my work honored as the best Wikipedia has to offer. It would also be an honor to create the first list of high school alumni to become a featured list. The motto of Boston Latin is "summus primi" which can mean "we are fisrt" (it is the oldest public school in the U.S.) or "we are number one." I want Boston Latin to be the first high school to receive this honor, and have it be the best high school list on Wikipedia.

Thank you, --Pgp688 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Chrishomingtang

Comment

• Can you move {{Dynamic list}} down to the list. It is distracting when placed in the lead, imo.—Chris! _ct 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I moved {{Dynamic list}} underneath the Alumni heading. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Linked U.S. News & World Report

• done --Pgp688 (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Some rows are missing years. If the year is unknown, put an emdash in the empty cells

—Chris! _ct 05:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• done --Pgp688 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 06:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: THe dash in missing years implies that there wasn't one. I think that all people should be able to have a year listed or at least an estimate. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I see four possible solutions to this. First, we could leave the article as is. Second, we could leave the cells without dates blank, but User:Chrishomingtang argued this was not a good idea. Third, we could estimate the year of graduation to be 18 years after birth, but we would have to indicate that this is just an estimate. Fourth, we good remove names from the list that do not have years. All of these options are not ideal. I'd like the input of another editor on this issue. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Add a footnote that explains the significance of the dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• I added this to the end of the graduate section: "— A dash indicates the person graduated but the year of commencement is unknown." --Pgp688 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good, I tweaked the note a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a requirement for FL, but are there any WikiProjects the page falls under the scope of? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added the list to WikiProject Schools, WikiProject Boston, and WikiProject Massachusetts.--Pgp688 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment We do not start lists as "This is a list of..." anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I improved the wording of the lead section. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Still needs rewording, see List of Wilfrid Laurier University people for an example. We have been trying to get away from the near-repetition of the title in the lead. Nothing should be bolded, really. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have reworked the lead section again. Nothing is boldface, and it now begins with "Boston Latin School is a public exam school, founded in 1635..." --Pgp688 (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Much better, full review of the article coming sometime today. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Images need checking, ping User:Awadewit.
• "The school's first class was in single figures, but it now has 2,400 pupils drawn from all parts of Boston."-->The school's first class had a population in the single figures; it now has 2,400 pupils.
• "The school's first female student was not until the nineteenth century. "-->The school's first female student was admitted in the nineteenth century.
• "It was not until 1972, when Boston Latin would admit its first co-educational class."-->In 1972, Boston Latin admitted its first co-educational class.

• I went ahead and changed the three sentences as suggested. I'm slightly hesitant to ask Awadewit because of the user's response to User_talk:Awadewit#Image_review_for_List_of_monarchs_of_the_Muhammad_Ali_Dynasty. I have gone through all the images and I believe they are all good faith public domain. Was there another user who does image reviews? --Jh12 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Moni3. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Great, I'll notify that editor. Also on further review, I think there may actually be a problem with File:ArthurFiedler Japan.jpg (Star and Stripes appears to be independent of the Department of Defense and I think that image is under their copyright). --Jh12 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the photo of Arthur Fielder, just to play it safe, and added John F. Fitzgerald and Henry Knox. These images seem to have much stronger free use rationales. --Pgp688 (talk) 08:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Several of your references need last access dates: Refs 1, 2, 4, 5. If possible, can you make the last access dates formatted the same?
• Ref 26 needs format=PDF added to it.
• Ref 27 has something wrong with its formatting.
• Why does Ref 31 use Brittanica? Generally, we shouldn't be citing to another tertiary source. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• PDF format added to refs, Ref 27 fixed, Ref 31 changed to a published book, accessdates added to 1,2,4,5, all accessdates standardized to ISO format (although I'm honestly not sure what the cite templates are doing half the time). --Jh12 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You did what you could; the remaining inconsistencies have to do with the way the Cite XXX templates deal with the input. Ref 1 uses Brittanica also, couldn't you use the official site instead? Also, you haven't resolved my prose comments and image check comment above. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• User:Jh12 has resolved the prose issues and the use of Brittanica as a source. I don't think the image issue has been resolved by an editor who is an expert in that regard, but all the images appear to have lock-down copyright-free rationales.

Resolved comments by Orlady

Comment: It would be helpful if the table included a hyperlinked footnote symbol (either in the column heading or in the first appearance of the --) to help readers find the footnote to the table (the note that reads "—" indicates that the person graduated but the year of commencement is unknown). Also, I suggest simplifying the wording of the note to — indicates that the year of graduation is unknown. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to put the disclaimer before the alumni names, instead of after them. --Pgp688 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

A footnote would work also, but I don't know how make them. --Pgp688 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I can do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks good. --Pgp688 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's much better. However, it is necessary to say "the person graduated but the year of commencement is unknown" or would "the year of graduation is unknown" be sufficient? Since the table lists only people who graduated, it seems unnecessary to say "the person graduated," and the reference to "year of commencement" seems needlessly confusing (apparently the ceremony of "commencement" is being used here as a synonym for "graduation"). --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the original wording was unnecessarily verbose. I was worried that readers might believe the em dash means the person did not graduate, but by placing the footnotes in, this should not be an issue. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The above comments are resolved (and hidden). However, I have a new concern. Most of the sortable table columns don't sort "properly." The human names sort by first name -- not wrong, but not particularly desirable. Some of the dates sort properly, but some don't. Fixing the date sort may require expert assistance. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think the sort by last name and dates have been fixed. I placed the people without dates at the bottom during sort. It can be changed to sort at the top with any lower number like 0. As for if the list should be manually changed to be listed by chronological order per below, I'll leave that up to the discretion of the primary editors. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good! Thanks! --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. All my comments have been resolved. Nice list. --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment 1: I strongly urge you not to use thumbnail images like you are doing. Make the images part of the table when relevant instead. -- Cat ^chi? 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll make this change. Revert if you don't like. But before doing that try adjusting the image size. -- Cat ^chi? 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Done, you can now add one image per person. As a lot them can benefit from this. Mind that some of the images are already on commons. -- Cat ^chi? 22:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this change. With so many alumni graduating in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, there are a wealth of free images available for use on this list. I can't wait to get started adding images :) --Pgp688 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment 2: All images are licensed & attributed properly. -- Cat ^chi? 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment 3: I would advice the chronologic of alphabetic sorting of the list. I know this can be done by clicking the arrows but it should be sorted by default. I'd advise chronologic listing by default as thats probably more interesting. -- Cat ^chi? 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I have been thinking about this for a while now. While most alumni lists display alphabetically, it is because the alumni are split into categories, such as sports, the arts, politics, et cetera. In this article, because the graduate alumni are in one big list, it is a really good idea to sort chronologically. I like how it shows that in its early years, Latin's graduates were mostly statesmen and ministers, but now the list includes many people from television, music, and sports. Furthermore, sorting alphabetically is only useful if one is trying to locate a name. --Pgp688 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

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