Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2011

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [1].

---

Grammy Award for Best Reggae Album

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists that I have promoted to FL status. Thanks, reviewers! Another Believer _(Talk) 18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - There is a dab link and two dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No disambig links. Working on replacing dead links... Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Replaced dead links. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "Buju Banton's nomination for the 2010 award sparked controversy and protest from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation due to homophobic lyrics within his music." reference? Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) And GLAAD is "Gay & Lesbian.." (not Gay And Lesbian...) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Rise and Shine (Aswad album) is a dab link. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Perry's caption says he won in 2004 but table says 2003. Done. Good catch! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) "The ad, which took " ad->advertisement. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Ref 23 - GRAMMY -> Grammy. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC) And I also thought that Shabba Ranks was similarly decried as a result of blatant homophobia? Will look into this... --Another Believer (Talk) 21:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Was possibly nothing directly involved with the Grammys, just something I recall.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I went ahead and added two references citing other reggae musicians that have been accused of promoting anti-gay lyrics (Beenie Man, Elephant Man, Vybz Kartel, Shabba Ranks and Sizzla). --Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Cool, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Of course! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Comment I would delete this gay controversis. Most of the reggae artistis, who are practicing the Rastafari religion, don't accept homosexuality as normal sexuality. It is not notable to add a section, that he wrote homophobic lyrics, it's about the awards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC) If other reviewers agree with you, I will have no problem removing the content. However, I disagree 100%. In my opinion, the fact that GLAAD and the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center placed an advertisement directed at Grammy officials and that the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences responded is relevant to this award. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) I think I agree with Orange Pumpkin on this one-- it definitely warrants coverage, but in the Buju Banton article instead of the Grammy one. The list should be about the award instead of controversies with individual artists. I'd say merge the information there if possible. Nomader (Talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC) It's useful to keep it in. This isn't just about the award. We frequently include controversies when discussing awards, this is no different. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I think its significant since the G&L groups did urge the Grammy's to denounce the artist. Afro (Talk) 08:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Agreed. If this were just about homophobic lyrics in reggae music and/or Jamaica, or just about Banton then I would not argue for its inclusion. This controversy involved multiple groups, including the Academy. If there is a better way to title the section, I am open to suggestions--I simply thought that "2010 controversy" was most general, and certainly more appropriate than "Buju Banton controversy" or "Homophobia controversy" (or something similar). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC) I think keeping it at "2010 controversy" is probably best, it doesn't give a POV slant to the title and it's informative to the reader. Taking out was just my gut, but if other reviewers feel otherwise I'm not really worried about it. Nomader (Talk) 18:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC) .

• Support-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support All my queries have been addressed. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:*Keep the homophobia stuff Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) "Starting in 2002, awards were often presented to the engineers, mixers, and/or producers in addition to the performing artists." - source? The general source (the Academy). I can add the same source as an inline citation, if necessary (though I do not believe I have done so for most of the other Grammy-related lists with featured status. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Winners are not always sourced General source (by following the instructions, a viewer can easily access a great amount of information, including the award-winning work, performing artists, year, and award recipients). --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Sean Paul needs to be sorted by surname Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Can you sort the 'TBD' to the bottom? Is this a request or a question of ability? I am not aware of a way to force an entry to the bottom. If you are, feel free to let me know and I would be happy to address your concern. Template:Sort and Template:Sortname do not provide answers. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) <span style="display:none">ZZZ</span> will do it Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks! Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review this list! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC) Also, you do not need to source the homophobia controversy in the lead, as it is already sourced later on. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I thought the same, but TRM requested above that a source be included. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man, can you take another look at this, please? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC) I don't see a major problem with citing this in the lead. I think in such controversial (potential BLP) issues, it's better to overcite than to undercite. Multiple independent sources make it even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Works for me! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support per normal, a great list, a really enthusiastic nominator prepared to listen to advice and act on criticism. Exactly the stuff we want at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your kind words. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Since it is a sortable table, "Mind Control – Acoustic" ought to be linked somewhere, even if that's a redlink at the moment. Courcelles 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I imagine that details about the album could/would be merged with the existing Mind Control article. Any opposition to linking to the existing article? Should someone choose to create a separate article for the acoustic album in the future, they could certainly update the list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections to that, though my curiosity would like to know how an acoustic version of a prior winning album was able to be 51% new and win the award again... but I might be going into stuff that sources just didn't care about there. Courcelles 21:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps in the sense that the tracks are new recordings, not necessarily of original material. I imagine there are other award-winning albums out there consisting of cover songs that have been newly-recorded. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [2].

---

U.S. state dog breeds

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a complete list which I believe meets the requirements. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Can't you just list states that have state dog? I don't think it is visually appealing to have a large number of "none" on the list.—Chris!_c/t 21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yep, happy to - I'll make the edit now. Miyagawa (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support I am comfortable to support. I read the list several times and can't found any issues.—Chris!_c/t 03:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• Suggestion and comments the table is a little bit odd. My suggestion, moving the columns in that order:Dog breed, image, state, since, refs. I wonder why there are no names for the dogs. Why is "beagle" not capitalized?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• You're right about Beagle - I've fixed it. Miyagawa (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments disagree with GreatOrangePumpkin, the ordering is logical and, in my opinion, completely correct. Some things I've seen...: Should the title of the list be "List of U.S. official state dogs" since you've emboldened "official state dogs" in the lead? That was another editor - now bolded state dog breed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Five paras in the lead seems a bit lengthy considering the size of the list. And there was me worried that it might be short! Seriously, it's just me being inexperienced with FL's, I wasn't sure how much prose so I went for as much as I could find. I've merged the one line first paragraph into the second. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Actually, should this just be called "U.S. official state dogs" since there's no other article about the state dogs? Changed article title to U.S. state dog breeds. Miyagawa (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Image caption has "state(s)" three times in one sentence, can we improve? Changed to "Map of the USA showing the showing which states have a specified dog breed as an official symbol in red." Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "quickly followed" - no need for quickly, perhaps just "followed the year after..."? Done. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "including the Chesapeake Bay Retriever (Maryland)" I don't think you need to repeat the breed since you've already talked about it in a previous sentence of the lead. Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "While in 2007,..." odd way to start a sentence and out of chronological order in this para. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "sponsor the bill in 2009, and eventually through passage" some technical terms that aren't obvious to non-experts (bill, through passage) That was my bad, I deal with these terms all the time where I work so I didn't even think twice about it. I've changed it now to read: "to support the bill in 2009, and with it becoming law in 2010.". Miyagawa (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Another mid-review thought. Should this be "state dog breeds"? These aren't individual dogs, they're breeds of dogs, after all.. Changed title of article to U.S. state dog breeds. Miyagawa (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC) "state dog got as far as a" I don't like "got as far as" - it reads poorly. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC) " state dog breeds," see earlier query, okay, so now you need to be consistent, is it state dogs or state dog breeds? State dog breeds. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Don't see the relevance of a state cat! Removed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I'd prefer to see "Since" renamed as "Year of designation" and Ref(s) is simply Ref. in this case. Changed as requested. Miyagawa (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC) No major trauma but surprised to see ref date formats dmy while it's a US list (so would most usually use mdy). Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Newspaper refs could use page numbers. Added. Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Eleven states of the United States have designation an as an official state dog breed." The struck words need to be removed for the sentence to work grammatically.
• Remove first word from "and with it becoming law in 2010."? That reads awkwardly when combined with the rest of the sentence.
• The comma after Georgia State Senate should probably be a semi-colon. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed those points as suggested. Miyagawa (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Drive-by comment - I think the map in the lead image needs a tweak: Wisconsin (which has a state dog) is not highlighted while Minnesota (which doesn't) is. They're right next to each other, so I'm sure this was just an accident... Dana boomer (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• That's what I get for being a Brit and not being 100% on my state geography. Although my wife is from Wisconsin and she'd batter me if she thought I'd mixed her state up with Minnesota... fixed now anyway. :S Managed to make the border lines between states stronger in this version as well, so it's a general improvement. Miyagawa (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Having another section/table with proposed/suggested/related breed for other states would probably improve the list. Nergaal (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just thinking, but if the list of proposed breeds are restricted to only those which have been defeated in the various state senates/houses (rather than those which may be suggested by newspaper columnists) it'll prevent it from becoming a random list with additional entries being added on a miscellaneous basis. I'll put a table up under that criteria in the next 24hrs.   Miyagawa    talk   12:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Just realised I hadn't left a note to say that'd been done.   Miyagawa    talk   12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support always nice to see these kinds of lists here, and this is no exception. Good job, well done (apart from the new signature...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Switched the sig back to the old one - the review page for Cocker Spaniel at FA Nom looks like a complete mess because of all the black boxes! Miyagawa (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [3].

---

List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in Northern England

Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is the next in a series of lists of redundant churches under the care of the Churches Conservation Trust, following the recently promoted List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands and List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England. The first two paragraphs in the lead are identical to those in the other lists. The third paragraph and the rest of the text has been copyedited. The format is the same as that used in the English Midlands list. All the churches in the list are linked to articles; all the photographs have alt text.Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment In the third paragraph you refer to Yorkshire as a county. Yorkshire is not a current county and it would be better to refer to the individual current counties of the East Riding of Yorkshire, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice point, thanks. Done (except for the East Riding, where there are no churches preserved by the CCT).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments - Note A most notably needs a reference. Afro (Talk) 13:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Hassocks5489 Support Another good-looking list in this series. Here are some initial comments; I will check ALT text etc. when I get home from work...

Lead

• Everything fine here.

Individual churches

• St Michael's Church, Cowthorpe: a link to Easter sepulchre would be good.

• Linked

• St Werburgh's Old Church, Warburton: doubled surviving.

• Corrected

• St Martin's Church, Allerton Mauleverer: two of which are of members of the Mauleverer family is a bit awkward, although grammatically correct. Perhaps two of which represent...?

• I agree. Done

• Becconsall Old Church: a new church was opened with the same dedication, but the blurb doesn't say what this dedication was.

• Dedication to All Saints added

References

• As you only have one Pevsner book dated 2002 in the bibliography, you can reformat the date from 2002b to 2002. This may also fix the problem with the Harvnb link on ref [101]; when I click on it, it doesn't take me to the Bibliography section. (All other Harvnb links work.)

• "b"s deleted. The Harvnb link failed to work because of a space after "Pevsner", which has also been deleted.

• Refs [1], [2] and [3]: for consistency, replace . Retrieved with , retrieved.

• This was a problem arising from the use of the "cite web" template. Sorted by changing to "citation" template, which has made it consistent.

External links and dablinks

• No problems here. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks for spotting those wrinkles; all sorted now, I think.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a problem... sorry! I've just cross-checked against the CCT list [4], which like this list has 49; unfortunately it's a slightly different 49. For some unaccountable reason, they have forgotten to include St Andrew's Church, Shotley in the listing (although it does exist on the website); you have correctly picked it up, and that's fine. There is a 50th church, though: St James's, Toxteth (listed here). I see from the article that the church has recently come back into use with an Anglican congregation; nevertheless it does still seem to be in the CCT's care, assuming that webpage is correct. If this has changed, and the CCT no longer look after it, a note "C" in the Notes section explaining the situation would be needed.

All coordinates and sorting are fine, by the way, and I will correct one or two ALT text typos. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You are right. Although it re-opened for regular worship in May 2010, it is still vested in the CCT, according to their latest Annual Review (of which I have a copy). So I've added it, upped the total to 50, and, as it is rather unusual in this respect, I've added a sentence at the end of the lead. (As a matter of complete irrelevance, I happen to pass this church every time I go into Liverpool.) --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one small inconsistency now; sources I've found (mainly through Googling the architect's name, and also this CCT document which appears to be hosted on somebody's self-published website) identify him as Cuthbert Bisbrowne. This name also appears in the article. I didn't just go in and change it in case Pollard & Pevsner name him as Charles. I've seen a few architect name inconsistencies in the Sussex volume! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's Cuthbert. I blame a minor virus infection for mis-typing it. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear—get better soon! Everything now looks in order, and I have marked as Support. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Note. I've moved St Mary's Church, Lead, to St Mary's Chapel, Lead, reflecting the weight of opinion that this has always been a chapel rather than a church.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Support – I tweaked one hyphen to an en-dash in a reference, but that was all I could find to do! Good work, once again. Bencherlite^Talk 12:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments late to the party so forgive me if I repeat things already discussed. Table caption doesn't mention notes (but I'm not sure it's that important, just an observation). Caption expanded. Does this work? Yep! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Not going to get in the car and get a photo of St John the Baptist in Pilling?! No! One day someone will, and fill the gap. "a group of Friends" explain/link this. Expanded, which should make it clear "becoming Transitional." to a non-expert this is unclear. Linked "(71.93 m)" way over-precise for me. 72m is fine. Fixed It may be my eyes deceive me but 1862–63 and 1845–46 look like they have different dashes... (probably my eyes). Not sure if I've changed it, but they're both n-dashes now. "Scheduled Monument" seems overcapitalised. Our own article thinks it's a regular noun, so just "scheduled monument" would do... Fixed Look out for the overlinking in the Bibliography section (YUP, Pevsner) Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Fixed some; asked questions about others.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC) I found it mildly counter-intuitive that the Name column actually sorted by the "town or village", not by the name of the church. I've agonised over this. The first list in the series, List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in South West England sorted by the name of the church. This produced anomalies: sometimes it was on "Saint", sometimes on "old", or the name of the place. I could see no sense in it. So I thought there might be some logic in sorting on place name, and this was accepted in List of churches preserved by the Churches Conservation Trust in the English Midlands. But is any form of sorting in this column of any benefit to anyone? Perhaps the best option would be to make the column unsortable. What do people think? I personally wouldn't have a problem with this being unsortable, otherwise by the Saint I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Not all the churches have dedications, so sorting by saint is not feasible; town or village is counter-intuitive, so the column is now unsortable.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I've missed this before but "Date" seems an odd heading when usually it's years only, and often just era (now that really is picky..) So, what's best? Period or year of earliest construction? But that makes a rather big title. Ideas/consensus please. Period works best for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry those were not alternatives (should have put the sentence in quotes). So I have used "Period or year", and expanded Note B to explain it more fully.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Further replies above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Support This is an interesting, comprehensive and well-illustrated list with enough information on each church to whet the appetite to visit the article for each individual church. (It also contains one of my favourite churches:-))--J3Mrs (talk) 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:51, 27 January 2011 [5].

---

List of 1948 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s):Arctic Night and Courcelles 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't done one of these in a while, hope to get back into the swing of it with the new year. This is Arctic Night's first swing at FLC, after earning more DYK credits than I can count. This is 1948- the first Olympics of any kind since the 1936 Berlin Games, enjoy and comment. Courcelles 11:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Quick Comment Just found this one: Martin Lundström during the Men's 18km event. Lundström went on to win the gold medal in this event.]] two brackets too much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Goodness me, how'd that happen? That text is supposed to be the image caption. Fixed now, thanks. Courcelles 11:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

• Remove "to" from "but would not to make another appearance until 2002 in Salt Lake City."
• Decapitalize first word in "Winter pentathlon".
• No need for two National Olympic Committee links in the lead. You also have two links to an article on figure skating at the Games that year, which is probably one too many.
• The second general reference could use a date of access. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

All taken care of, thanks. Courcelles 23:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• After a quick look, Barbara-Ann Scott, Nils Karlsson, and Erika Mahringer could have their images added also. Nergaal (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, going through things, File:Barbara Ann Scott portrait 1946.jpg needs to be deleted Commonsside, as it is not PD in the USA, so can only really be used under a claim of fair-use, which can't be made here. File:Erika Mahringer Are1954.jpg is very questionable- the uploader took the picture 56 years ago, really? (NB:This uploader has uploaded quite a few questionable pictures) And Nils Karlsson is another cross-country skier, and there is no logical place to insert another picture of one of those, the cross-country section already has a picture. Courcelles 18:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Support Notable absences from the 1948 Winter Olympics were defeated Axis Powers members Germany and Japan, who were not even invited in light of the recently-concluded World War II. Why? They were not invited only because of WWII? Maybe you could include more information about this. And a source would be fine. All in all a great list.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig anything up, but what I've read in general terms, not in specifics about the Olympics, was that neither Germany or Occupied Japan were considered "nations" until 1949 (FRG) or 1951 (JPN), and therefore, weren't typically invited to anything that would be treating them as such. I've seen articles discussing the awarding of the 1948 Summer Games to London (in 1946) that simply said the IOC would have to decide to invite the defeated powers, and then in 1947, well, see for yourself at [6]. And even that is discussing London, with the Winter games not even meriting a mention. I'll rework this a bit, but from my reading, I don't think there's much more to say here than already is. Courcelles 11:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments The "officially known as" thing, would it not be prudent to have "V Olympic Winter Games" in quotes, or italics? Italicised, though I'm not at all sure this is right. You talk about the adjustment from the 1936 Games, but leave out the fact that (I assume) there were no 1940 or 1944 Games due to the Second World War. Worth a note? Added one You abbreviate NOC in the lead but don't use it subsequently ("... 28 competing National Olympic Committees, ...") Done Worth clarifying visibly that the London games were Summer Olympics I think. Done Was the Soviet Union NOC led by Stalin? It reads that way. More relevant is that the CCCP didn't even have a NOC in 1948. Redid this. Caption has "Ice Hockey team" but other mentions of ice hockey don't consider it to be a proper noun... Done. When I sort by "Gold", I'd still expect Oreiller to sort above Lundstrom because of his bronze... It is for me in Firefox... I tried a total hack, making Oreiller's two sort as if it were a three, see if it works. Same when sorting by total, Oreiller sorts last despite having two golds, suspect his entry is not quite sorted... Again, this is working correctly to me, one click and it sorts in descending order, two in ascending, like it should... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC) thanks for the comments. Courcelles 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, not much wrong here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Great list on to aspire to. KnowIG (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [7].

---

Shooting thaler

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the criteria and covers the subject of shooting thalers thoroughly. This article was previously nominated, but I asked that it be withdrawn temporarily so some changes could be made to the format. The changes are discussed in detail on the talk page, but to sum it up, the lists were made more accessible for non-sighted users who must use programs to read aloud what is written on the page.-RHM22 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support like I did before. But now it's much better!-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!-RHM22 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments - welcome back! Should this be "List of shooting thalers"? "The first shooting thaler was issued for the Chur shooting festival." when? I think when you interpreted my request to remove years from the section headings you removed them from the lead instead! Assume that the franc in the lead is Swiss franc? worth linking. You definitely don't need to repeat the year in the section headings, now it's in each subsection's table. California based needs a hyphen. Table captions - "Chur Specifications" Specifications->specifications. What are "batzen"? Each table should be formatted the same, i.e. col widths should be consistent from section to section. " 1,023 pieces melted." when? What's the context of this comment? "Harmony is Strength" vs "Light after darkness" - be consistent with the capitalisation. Where are the designers referenced (e.g. where do I find that Bovy designed the 1855 thaler?) "Two examples are known to have been struck in gold." is this kind of note referenced? "20th- and 21st-century Swiss Confederation issues" table is missing a caption and needs to link everything every time, as it's sortable. Denomination does not sort correctly. One mintage has a reference in that table, none of the others do. Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the comments! I fixed most of them, but there a couple that I'm not sure about. "1,023 melted" refers to the coins melted under authority of the issuing mint or government. When commemorative coins are unused or unsold, they are often returned to the issuing authority to be melted down. Other pieces could well have been melted by private individuals, but there's obviously no way to quantify that. The number refers to the official government totals. References for Bovy and "examples struck in gold", etc. are all from the same book and page as the mintage figures. I wasn't sure if I should repeat the reference twice, but it probably would be a good idea to clarify. As for the 20th and 21st century table, I used the same reference for all mintages. I can it to all the numbers if that would be better. My reference does not give mintage figures for 2009 and 2010, though. I believe I found them somewhere on the internet. Now, the sortable table. I'm really not sure how to fix that. It seems to be sorting the denominations alphabetically when it should be sorting them numerically. I check the help page for sortable tables, but it was a little confusing to me. I'll check over it again to see if I can figure it out. Thanks again for all the suggestions!-RHM22 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Oops, forgot to address "Shooting thaler" versus "List of shooting thalers". I really don't have a preference. I thought I read somewhere that the "List of" prefix was not recommended, but that might have been something else. If you think it's the best title, I'd be fine with a move to "List of shooting thalers".-RHM22 (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC) If this is the only article addressing shooting thalers, then it should be located at the current title. If there is an article discussing what a shooting thaler is and then a separate list of them, then the "List of" prefix is needed. This list, as is, strikes me like Rawlings Gold Glove Award: it's about the award/prize itself and the list of recipients (or, in this case, list of coins) fills out where the prose in an article would actually be. — KV5 • Talk • 19:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC) I agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks to JohnFromPinckney for fixing the tables and my crazy spelling errors!-RHM22 (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Glad to help. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Is there anything else for me to change? Should I add references for the engravers, perhaps, or is that too many of the same citation?-RHM22 (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support great. And double-great you took some good advice from JohnFromPinckney (along with a few assists!) and came back with an even better list than the one you first nominated. Excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! The assistance and suggestions receieved from JohnFromPinckney cannot be overstated. His excellent suggestions have signifigantly improved the article.-RHM22 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• In the history section, I see mentions of "legal fineness" and "legal finess". Are these correct, or is there a typo in one of them?
• The bibliography should be in alphabetical order, by author. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice catches! It looks like I could use more "finesse" in my spelling! They should both be "fineness". I never knew that about the bibliography. Both have now been fixed.-RHM22 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [8].

---

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs

Nominator(s): Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria and, although shorter and less elaborate, resembles List of unreleased Michael Jackson material. Thanks, Xwomanizerx (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments No link to Britney Spears? Done. In the caption to the lead image, simply "Spears..." would read better. Done. "BMI" and "ASCAP" are never linked in the references section. Done. Link the first instance of them. Jujutacular talk 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Done. When I click on the citations for the book references, the link to the book reference doesn't work. Do you know why? Little mistake in the references section. Fixed it. The coloring system with the key can be confusing with some songs satisfying multiple conditions. Can you think of any better way to relay this information? I don't think there's a better way, since most of the songs are registered in multiple bodies. I initially didn't want to use the coloring system, but an editor noted in the peer review that it would move the article closer to comprehensive. Per Afkatk, I just don't think the current setup is acceptable. I'll inquire with some people to see if there is a workaround for this. Jujutacular talk 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC) You may have to use new colors for songs satisfying multiple conditions. See List of Los Angeles Lakers head coaches as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Just added a lot more categories. Xwomanizerx (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular talk 05:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me now. Jujutacular ^talk 21:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comments - You define some items with multiple symbols this conflicts with whats presented in the key. Abroad, Downtown, Guilty, My Big Secret, Take the Bait, Welcome to Me and Wonderland have a symbol yet no colour, once again conflicts with the key. "Several Spears's songs have been leaked..." I'm sure it should be "Several of Spears' songs". Afro (Talk) 11:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• In the Michael Jackson list the first category only has a key. Should I add a colour?

• You define it with a colour in the key it only makes sense to add the colour in the cell. Ref 28 has no publisher. Afro (Talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Added a colour and the publisher.

• Support - I'll support I have no issues with the list at its current state. Afro (Talk) 14:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think this list should have for each song a mention of when the song was originally composed, or at least some estimate. Nergaal (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• An estimate? Without sources?

• All the information provided should be sourced. Right now, some of those songs have nothing provided about them other than a name. I don't think a list of names without any context provided about the entries should be featured. Nergaal (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, some of the songs have little information, but this is clearly because they're unreleased and therefore are rarely discussed by Spears or the producers. I actually think the list looks good even with the writers only. And also, less than half of the songs don't have any information on the notes box. Xwomanizerx (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• It is 17 with notes, 17 without any. Nergaal (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• MJ's list also has many boxes empty, but of course he has more coverage because of his longetivity and recognition. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Please force the width of the writers column, as in Google Chrome the names are squashed quite a bit Done. Refs should be center-aligned. Could you also spell out the header in full? Done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Comments A few more sorry, mainly with style Writers' names should be sorted by surname, use {{sortname}} Done. I think it would be easier to include the copyright registration in the notes, rather than having three more notes. Such a long key is confusing, and readers have to navigate from key to item frequently Wouldn't that completely invalidate the concept of the keys though? I meant only converting the United States Copyright Office key info into notes. That would nearly halve the key, making it much easier to navigate. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Done. Could you not reference the notes, rather than having an extra column? This would also mean readers know which citation sources what info. Do you mean adding the reference next to the note? Yes Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC) Oh, and refs 41 + 42 (Hughes + Smith) need page numbers. Adabow (talkcontribs) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Done. Notes that are not full sentences should not end in full stops Done. "Failed to make Britney album" – is the word 'album' not redundant? Also link albums in the actual list Done. Spears's → Spears' Done. Can you sort unknown writers to the bottom, please? What do you mean? Add <span style="display:none">ZZZ</span> before "Unknown", and the cells will sort by ZZZ when the table is sorted by writer. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Great list! Future lists should use this as a guide. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

REplace the normal dasehs in the reference titles and the article, with en-dases, whereever applicable. Also, regarding the picture, since it is not an infobox image, you need to have a pic of Brit which looks towards the article, not away from it. And I do agree with Nergaal that some sort of info needs to be there for those songs with just a name. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• All done.

Support Great work, can surely be a template for any new "Unreleased song" lists. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support The list now looks good. Novice7 | Talk 16:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "She is known to have written" - why not just "She has written..."? Done. Maybe worth understanding what "official release" means, especially if this is going to be a template for future FLs. See below. Ok, so you explain it, but only a couple of sentences later. Perhaps rejig the lead so I know straight away what an "unofficial" song is. Done. "had been scheduled, at one point, " any need for "at one point"? Done. "by established artists" any real need for "established"? Done. I would explain the context of BoA (I'd never heard of her) so something like "Korean singer BoA"? Shouldn't I explain the context of every other singer in the lead then? I don't think I should add it solely because you don't know her. She's pretty well-known. No, I've never hear of her so just adding "Korean singer" in front of BoA shouldn't be a major trauma. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Done. Not sure how useful sorting by Writer is, especially if equal writing credit is given in the case of multiple writers. In my opinion it looks better than not sorting the writers at all. Then I'd make the whole table unsortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) The titles column too? You could leave that sortable I guess. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Done. "Leaked on July 29, 2010.[5]" seems to be only note with a full stop. Done. "Steve Anderson" (in Grow) is a dab link. Done. If the table is sortable then every linkable item needs linking every time (e.g. Blackout). Done. ref 12 has a spare full stop. Done. Are you sure this is comprehensive? You may need to consider an {{incomplete list}} template (or {{Inc-musong}} if not. How is this not comprehensive? It includes every unreleased Spears song that has been noted by a third party. Prove your statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Every song has at least a source. If you are referring to the songs that are left out, it's clearly because I didn't find any information by reliable sources on them after a extensive research. I'm not doubting that each song in this list has sources, I'm just asking how you can be sure that you've got every single one of her "unreleased" songs. There's no "master list"? That's what I'm on about. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man, wouldn't {{dynamic list}} be more appropriate? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) That's exactly the sort of thing I mean. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Here and here are the BMI and ASCAP lists with all of Spears registered songs. If the song listed has not been included in any of her releases, it's unreleased. There's also exceptions, with "Telephone" for example, which received attention from the media. Well that's just it, if there are exceptions to the two search results you provided then how can one be sure you have every single unreleased song? As Adabow suggested, this could be a {{dynamic list}} which wouldn't need to be utterly comprehensive, just as comprehensive as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, but I don't understand what you mean by dynamic or incomplete list. A dynamic list is one that will never be complete, and therefore will contain only entries and information for which there is a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Incomplete lists#Incomplete lists for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks, I just added it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Missing "were" in "or confirmed by Spears herself."?

• Done.

• The references at the bottom should be in alphabetical order (by author).

• Done.

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• The list looks much better than the last time I took a look at it. A couple of issues though: I would prefer unknown to be in italics and/or small font; and Failed to make Britney[ sounds awkward. I would prefer to rephrase these to sould more natural, and to give (in paranthesis) the year such albums were released (this would give an idea when was the song composed). Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Done. The unknown writers are done in italics, let me know if you want them to be in small font.

• Support all the major comments I had have been resolved. Nergaal (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support yes I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 20:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [9].

---

Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation

Nominator(s): PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, back again, with the 10th of 14 lists. We're done with all the written works, the magazines, and editors, so now we jump over to Dramatic Presentation- comprising movies, tv shows/episodes, and on rare occasion plays, albums or audiobooks. This list follows the same format of my previous Hugo Award FLs- like editors, it was split into long and short form (in 2003) but I've chosen to keep them together in this article. It's a bit long, but that is primarily because the WSFF records the directors, screenplay writers, story writers, and original work writers as the people responsible for the work, so the rows get fat at times. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dab/EL check - There are no dead external links but there are three dab links on the page. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh, could have sworn that I got them all. Fixed. --PresN 18:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments "were not enough nominations made " ->"were insufficient nominations made"? Done. "category 4 times" - four times. Done. "with 4 Short Form awards out of 13 nominations" would prefer that 13 to become thirteen and all numbers in this sentence to be written out. Sentence? Or do you mean paragraph? I did the whole paragraph, so that it would remain consistent in numerals v. words. Picky but I wonder if you should have different demarcation for when awards were not presented? Sure, they're now marked with a gray background and a dagger (†). Also, I learned that that mark is called a dagger! Actually, switched to a plus sign (+) due to the discussion in the nom below that screen readers don't like daggers. I do wonder if 12 Monkeys should sort after 7 Faces of Dr Lao with 2001 and 2010 afterwards? I don't see why not, fixed. "Best Dramatic Presentation (Long Form)" in the lead this wasn't in parentheses. Be consistent. Whoops. In the official site category description page they use parentheses, so consistisizing to that. "Retro Hugos have been awarded three times, for 1946, 1951, and 1954. All three of these awards were given..." no need to repeat "three". Done. Do you need Hugo Awards as a category when you have the much more specific (and still) Hugo awards cat? Nope, standard use seems to be that the list goes in the meta-Hugo Awards cat and the actual winners go in the specific Hugo award cat. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC) Addressed your concerns inline, should all be done. --PresN 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*Comments Is Torchwood's 2008 nomination included in Doctor Who's total of 13? No, good point. It is now. Buffy has three nominations, and Angel three, so the list of franchises with multiple nominations in the lede isn't complete. That could be fine, but it ought to indicate so. Added in. Since you mention Doctor Who's nomination count, what is Star Trek's... and, yes, I know "World Enough and Time" could make this debatable! Already in there (24!); played with the wording a bit to make it more obvious what I meant. Not counting "World Enough and Time"; I just don't think I should mix in a fan-created episode/series with the actual shows. 1968... all five nominees were Star Trek? Whoa... 1970 needs mentioning in the lede, since non-fiction won. First time I've seen that in this series. Mentioned. Yeah, it's not mentioned in any RS, but for a long time this category was the "catch-all" category for whenever the voters wanted to nominate something and it didn't fit in the more well-defined categories. Courcelles 03:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Replied in-line. --PresN 19:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why do you write "(no award)" and then add a key, that says the same? Isn't that a little bit curious?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to designate what was the winner for that year- for the normal years I do it with a star/blue background, but with the (no award) years it's a plus and a gray background. Without them, there's not obvious clue that (no award) was the winner- if you read the text you know it must be, but just looking at the table it's not so obvious without a marking. --PresN 22:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Support I would do that either italicize the "no award", so that everyone knows that it is not the winner, or just put this key. Anyway, I support this huge list, because I couldn't see any issius.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [10].

---

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (C)

Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that this is a second open nomination for me; however, my current nomination has four supports, one oppose which consensus has determined is invalid, and no unaddressed comments. Third list in a series of 21. Cheers to all reviewers. — KV5 • Talk • 14:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Grammar glitch in "allowing no runs in in three innings pitched."
• The blue color needs an accompanying symbol, just like the pink one has. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what the grammar glitch is. Can you explain? As for the ACCESS concern: the text is already italicized. — KV5 • Talk • 01:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"allowing no runs in in three innings pitched" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I'm not stupid then, just blind. Lol. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately, JAWS (one of the popular screen readers) doesn't read out the daggers by default. See Resolved comments from The Rambling Man in WP:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords)/archive1 and this diff for a previous discussion on this problem when attempting to accommodate visually impaired viewers. Also, I'm by no means certain that all screen readers discriminate effectively between italic and normal text – WP:COLOR suggests italics, but that section is aimed at problems with colour-blindness. For what it's worth, the daggers don't render properly on Lynx, a text-only browser either. I don't think this is a problem sufficient to merit an oppose, but it is always best practice from an accessibility viewpoint to use standard ASCII characters wherever possible as keys for the extra information. --RexxS (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, since nearly every baseball featured list contains the dagger as the method of denoting members of the Hall of Fame, I think it's a better option to find a way to make the daggers be read instead of changing all of those lists for an accessibility concern. Is there a way to put, for example, hidden alt text on the dagger that screen readers can read but which won't disrupt the rest of the list? — KV5 • Talk • 11:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your last question has been asked before and I'll try to find the discussion, but I'm fairly certain that the conclusion was that there is no way when using wiki-software to add hidden text for screen readers to anything other than images. I'm sorry to disagree, but if we're going to take accessibility seriously, then the better option is to avoid using non-ASCII text in any of the baseball articles. There's nothing about baseball that inherently requires such characters (compared with Japanese articles occasionally needing Japanese script, for example). --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with taking accessibility seriously, but there is such a thing as overkill. There are so many changes that we're all being asked to make suddenly in the name of accessibility and frankly, I find it prohibitive to the general purpose here: building an encyclopedia. — KV5 • Talk • 17:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that meeting the challenges of making our content accessible to all will require significant changes to much of what we have taken for granted. That's the reason why I made a comment, rather than oppose: I don't want to see meeting WP:ACCESS as a hurdle to FLC. Improving the accessibility of Wikipedia won't be done overnight, but there are certain practices that we can adopt to advance that goal, and this issue is one of them. I only wish to see best practice encouraged, not mandated. I hope you would agree that it would be sad to put the effort into building a free encyclopedia, only to find we have inadvertently excluded a significant minority of viewers from benefiting from it. --RexxS (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"I hope you would agree that it would be sad to put the effort into building a free encyclopedia, only to find we have inadvertently excluded a significant minority of viewers from benefiting from it." - and that being said, what, then, becomes of the free encyclopedia if its editors are driven away by increasing requirements, drowning under what feels like bureaucracy? — KV5 • Talk • 18:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't claim that improving accessibility is an easy task, because it's not intuitive for the majority that do not have disabilities. The trick is to encourage editors to become aware of how the choices they make affect accessibility, then it becomes less of a burden. The MOS is massive, and is still not comprehensive, yet WP:ACCESS is only a small part of the bureaucracy that some feel it imposes. Even so, this is a collaborative project and it's not necessary for every editor to take on board all the policies and guidelines that Wikipedia has. Eventually I expect that our best articles will improve incrementally to broaden their accessibility, and that will make it easier for other editors to emulate them in that respect. Since our conversation has moved somewhat off-topic from this specific review, would you agree that we should move it to its associated talk page, as I'm uncomfortable with potentially prejudicing this candidature by a more general discussion? --RexxS (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Given the size and utility of Wikipedia vs the usage of JAWS (for instance), is there not an argument to ask JAWS to change rather than Wikipedia? It's becoming clear that it's not really a shortcoming of Wikipedia, but a shortcoming of some other software which sounds as if it hasn't been updated for some time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course, it's not just Wikipedia, but every website that uses non-ascii characters in this way, so you're quite right, the shortcoming is in the software. JAWS does get major new versions about every twelve months, but users may find the cost of regular upgrades rather expensive, and many different versions are likely to be still in current use – for example, Graham87 doesn't use the latest version (12), if I recall correctly. Eventually the problem will disappear as the software is updated, but in the meantime, I'd still ask if there's a good reason for using symbols such as '†', '‡', etc. in a key, rather than '+', '&', etc., when we know that the former will cause problems for some viewers? --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps not for baseball lists, but for an absolute fact (and for the last 100 or so years) cricket has used the dagger to represent the wicketkeeper and the * to represent the captain. This predates screen-reading software and should never change for it. In fact Dagger (typography) makes for interesting reading, in that it is evident that screen-reading software really is at fault here, since this kind of icon has been used for several hundred years, in fields such as chess, biology, chemistry and military history. I would hate to think we'll re-write history for screen-reading software which is poorly written. It may not be that baseball has a history of using it, but since you've raised the point, I wonder what the best solution is for those kind of lists that have used the dagger for centuries? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem obviously arose when ascii text was invented, and standardised to a mere 95 characters, necessarily omitting numerous less common symbols. I'd recommend that we automatically accept the use of any given symbol where its usage is traditional or common in the sources. Anyone using a screen reader on any website related to cricket would be expecting a dagger and could switch to character-by-character readout to identify the wicket-keeper for example (JAWS works in this way, just not when reading continuous text). As I said above, we don't want to create hurdles in the FLC process, and I accept KV5's point that many baseball articles use the dagger consistently does have weight. For the moment, though, I still think it's valid to ask a nominator why a particular non-ascii character was preferred to a more accessible one. --RexxS (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so JAWS can do a character-by-character readout in any case? If so then why is it a problem to use daggers on baseball lists? I know you don't wish to create obstacles here at FLC, and most FLCers will happily accommodate ACCESS requirements but it seems that right now we're making a patchwork quilt of solutions which is a poor solution to any problem. It's 2011, screen readers should be able to cope with more than a 95-character set. Is there a list of "accessible characters" we can refer to (is it ISO/IEC 8859-1)? Are we working to meet the requirements of JAWS or is there a broader set of readers we need to satisfy to meet access requirements? Switching out daggers for something else on baseball lists shouldn't be a major issue but we need to make sure we're getting it right when we do change it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC) I've had a quick look at the MOS which states plainly:

Do not use Unicode characters as icons, use an icon with alt text instead. For example, a character like "→" can not be reproduced into useful text by a screen reader, and will usually be read as a question mark.

So I suppose we could use an "dagger icon" with alt text, to comply with the MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I finally found the debate I was thinking about: It's at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Archive 11#Non standard ASCII. It concerned the use of ♠♣♥♦ and all the same considerations apply. The conclusion was that an icon with alt text was the best solution. For ease of editing I'd suggest making a template such as {{dagger}} with default alt text and the ability to have customisable alt text as an optional parameter (e.g. "dagger" by default, but |alt=wicketkeeper would read "wicketkeeper"). Templates aren't my forte, but I could see if one of Jack Merridew's talk page watchers can knock one up. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, at the very least for the dagger, since it's prolific use is above and beyond the simplistic approach of screen readers. We shouldn't prejudice against 99.95% of our readers because JAWS can't handle a dagger. I also think some additional info at WP:ACCESS that's clear and obvious wouldn't go amiss. We've gone to some lengths at FLC to ensure we never use just colour to represent a particular property of something, but now it seems we need to ensure we use a suitable "icon"/character too. It's not a huge deal, but if we can see clear guidance, then so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the template may not be necessary after all, although a template would be more convenient. How does this look ? and this ? They both have alt text relevant to this article, which would be read out by a screen reader. I'll add this issue to my ever-growing list of clarifications needed at MOS. Thanks, TRM, --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They look fine, but they need to be easy to use, and your suggestion of a template is the best way forward. If we could find even just half a dozen characters that would be acceptable to screen-readers, acceptable to FLC and usable to regular readers, even if we have to template the lot of them for consistency, so be it. Sounds like a plan? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, KV5, this template has been created for us (at {{dagger}}) – any chance you'd be prepared to give it a go? All you should have to do is search-and-replace the current dagger for the template. The default alt text (hopefully "dagger") should cover RexxS's concerns over naughty characters. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any easier, there's a template {{†}} which does the same job as it's a redirect to {{dagger}}. There's now also a template {{‡}} which redirects to {{double-dagger}}, if you wanted to complete the job. (I still wouldn't insist on this as a necessity, just a small but helpful improvement). --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have been away and missed out on this whole discussion. I will implement the templates tomorrow evening in this list and, if they work, I will make the changes throughout the entire series. As a sidenote: any chance the dagger image could be an SVG instead of PNG? Seems kind of fuzzy to me even at a medium resolution. I have Inkscape but have failed every time I try to make a proper SVG, so this is just a suggestion. — KV5 • Talk • 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't note it. This has been done for some time. Still wondering about the SVG tho. — KV5 • Talk • 01:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The png's will always be fuzzy to some extent, purely because of the problem of small size and anti-aliasing against a transparent background. I made svg's originally, and following comments at Template talk:Dagger, I uploaded them to commons. Here's one of the svg's at the same size: – as you can see, the wiki-software doesn't render some svg's as they show up in Inkscape (cf. File:Dagger-200.png). The beauty of using the template in articles is that if someone creates a better image, then substituting it into the template will update it everywhere. Perhaps someone with better graphics skills than I can produce a more acceptable image? --RexxS (talk) 02:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The SVG looks loads better to me. I personally think that would be fine, and an improvement. — KV5 • Talk • 02:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can't actually see the SVG, because the wiki-software rescales it and delivers a non-optimised PNG to your browser. I've made and uploaded two more PNG versions that have no anti-aliasing, to remove the fuzziness. You may have to use ctrl-+ (zoom) to see the differences. They look like this: and – are these more like what you want? --RexxS (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those are perfect. I would be perfectly content with them. — KV5 • Talk • 23:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Our own article doesn't hyphenate extra-base hits, you do, any reason? Mainly because "extra-base" is a compound adjective of "hit". I don't know why the Wikipedia article doesn't, because it probably should. — KV5 • Talk • 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC) As a non-expert, I'm not clear what a "position player" is. "Through seven seasons, Phil Collins won more, and lost more, than 70 games." while true, still reads a little odd to me. " later writing a book about his experience." is this referenced? Link Babe Ruth.

• I've just noticed, no Phillies template you can use at the end of these lists?

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Template question was one that I puzzled over. We do have {{Philadelphia Phillies}}, but these articles aren't linked from that navbox. That template is on the main article, so readers can navigate back to the original to move from article to article. I didn't see any added utility to having a navbox just for this set of articles when the TOC already does exactly the same thing. Do you think it would be appropriate to add the sublists to the main Phillies template? We haggle over these things all the time at WT:MLB and the discussions can either be very productive or degenerate into a whole lot of nothing. — KV5 • Talk • 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  It looks to me like it'd be a reasonable addition to the template but that's a little out of the remit of the FLC process, so it'd be down to you (and your MLB colleagues) to decide really.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well we have a long time until these are all done. I'll raise the question at WT:MLB when I have a spare moment and we can see what develops. — KV5 • Talk • 18:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed we do.

• I asked at WT:MLB and response was minimal (namely only one user with whom, for the record, I always disagree about the usage of navboxes and who said that I should leave the team navbox out). — KV5 • Talk • 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support can't find anything else to quibble over. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Nothing to complain about. Courcelles 03:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [11].

---

List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others)

Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Another list in the series of National Treasures of Japan lists. This is the complement to List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords). See Lists of National Treasures of Japan (all except for "writing") for other featured lists of the series. bamse (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - In Statistics the one table's header is not center aligned? "...stirrups or armour.[79][82][81][83]" "...decorated with a variety of methods.[79][84][85]" "...small boxes or writing cases.[83][79][86]" "...decorating lacquerware.[91][90]" Refs should appear alphabetically. "(秋草文壺 akikusamontsubo?)[15]new line[16]" "hichijō shinō kesa?)[128][129]new line[130]" remove the line, didn't know how to phrase this. "Kamakura period, August, 1301" comma not needed for the date. Most of the notes need to begin with a capital letter and end with a full stop. I take it Note 9 is the poem, it needs to be referenced. Afro (Talk) 06:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I believe I fixed all of these issues. bamse (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 19-21 are dead. Ref 95, 109, 133, 134 need a format parameter. Ref 45, 60, 61, 70, 78, 95, 96, 110, 163, 167, 169, 170 need a language parameter. Ref 1 could do without the use of the search tags. Error in Retrieval date for Ref 52. Ref 47 is an image and doesn't verify what's cited. Also question regarding the use of Google books, I notice you use the .pl wouldn't it be better to use .com where applicable? Afro (Talk) 10:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Refs 19-21 are impossible to directly link to since they are subpages of some javascript database. How shall I deal with them? Just link the top (database search) page or do something else with them? As for .pl vs. .com, I don't see a problem with it (but would change if necessary). In any case the google book links are only for convenience as the references are sufficiently specified by title, author, isbn, etc. I'll fix the other problems in the course of today. bamse (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Added format parameters to all four references, added language parameters to most of the references ("Emuseum" pages are multi-language, English included, so I guess I don't need a language parameter for them), removed search tags from ref 1, fixed date in ref 52 and removed ref 47. Only open issues (for which I wait for your feedback) are the "dead" javascript refs 19-21 and the .com vs. .pl question. bamse (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd mention that the Emuseum refs are in more than 1 language personally. Although it's a minor issue itsthe English Wikipedia not the Polish Wikipedia and if the info links are available in English I don't see why the .com can't be displayed over .pl. I'll have a look over the links and get back to you on the Java issue. Afro (Talk) 14:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I changed .pl to .com and added "language = Japanese, Chinese, Korean, English, French" to the (archived) Emuseum refs. The links to the non-archived (new) Emuseum refs are in English only. bamse (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed the links of refs 19-21 to the start page of the respective database/collection. Please let me know if that is sufficient. bamse (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To be able to verify the links you'll need to instruct the user on where they can find the information, also the links need a new retrieval date now. Afro (Talk) 05:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How shall I instruct the user? I'll fix the retrieval date. bamse (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd instruct the user by telling them which menu they can find the item and what page to go to. Afro (Talk) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I specified the way I use to get to the respective item. It is not a unique way to get to the reference and refs 19, 21 could also be obtained with a keyword search; ref 20 could also be obtained with an advanced search (instead of simple search) for instance. Also fixed the access dates of these references. bamse (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ref 22, 26, 27, 129 doesn't have a retrieval date. Afro (Talk) 14:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

22, 27 and 129 are books and as such don't need a retrieval date as far as I understand. (The google books url is just there for convenience. The reference is to the respective book itself and not to google books.) 26 already has a retrieval date. bamse (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You use {{Cite book}} which says "accessdate: Should be used when url field is used." Afro (Talk) 13:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I remembered (apparently wrongly) reading that it was possible to cite a book and to provide a google books url for convenience (i.e. without accessdate). Added accessdates to refs 22, 27 and 129. bamse (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - I'll support as I have no issues with the article. Afro (Talk) 21:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Support --Tenmei (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments Present Location -> Present location. Fixed. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) "Japanese pottery is one of Japan's oldest.." no need for Japan here twice. Maybe "Pottery is one of Japan's oldest.." or "Japanese pottery is one of the country's..."? Fixed. I went with your second suggestion. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Would consider linking t, ST, LT for the mass of the bell because these are uncommon abbreviations (well, ST and LT are, at least). Linked ST, LT. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) gokosho is in italics in one column but not in another, why not be consistent? Fixed, also for the other Japanese terms in the same table cell: sankosho,... bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Is it mother-of-pearl or mother of pearl? Be consistent. Fixed. Everywhere "mother of pearl" now. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) "that don't fit in" avoid contractions. Fixed. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Should red linked Kamkura city really be Kamakura City? Fixed. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Year ranges in bibliography need en-dash. Fixed one (hopefully all) dash. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time for a (as usual) thorough review. I fixed most issues as requested and responded to the others above. Still need feedback from you for the first two issues and the column width problem. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Minor niggle but a single para lead for one of the biggest lists we have seems a little light. I'd like to write more in the lead, however I don't know of any sources that discuss these types of craft items as a whole. Honestly I would not know what more to add to the lead since there are objects of various type (pottery, bells, furniture, textiles) from various centuries and countries (Japan, China, Korea). Discussing all of them together seems a bit cumbersome. That's why I chose another approach with short introductory texts at each subsection (=each type of craft items). The lead is basically just a summary of these sections. bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Okay, I can live with that. It's a little unusual (mainly because we should be using WP:LEAD for length guidelines) but it's not something I'll get too uptight about! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC) Map caption says "non-sword craft" but that's the only mention of non-sword craft here... The Agency for Cultural Affairs only distinguishes "crafts" National Treasures. For the purpose of presentation in wikipedia (basically to have not too long lists) I split the list of crafts national treasures in two: List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords) and List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: others). Do you think that a sentence or two explaining this are necessary (in the lead?)? Or alternatively, would a move of the article to List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: non-swords) be sufficient? bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I think the former, some explanation would be excellent. Otherwise (like me) others may find this singular mention of "non-sword craft" confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I added: The objects in this list represent about half of the 252 National Treasures in the category "crafts". They are complemented by 100 swords and 12 Japanese sword mountings National Treasures of the List of National Treasures of Japan (crafts: swords). to the lead and added a footnote to the map caption: This includes all items in this list, that is, all craft National Treasures of Japan that are neither swords nor sword mountings. bamse (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC) I would prefer the column widths be consistent from section to section. The column width are currently chosen automatically by your browser in such a way as to make the tables occupy little space. If I made all columns equal width, the total length of the article would increase considerably, so I'd prefer not to change anything. Another issue with your preference is that some tables have "Artists" (or "Image") columns and some don't. So even if I made columns of equal width the total widths of tables would differ (by the width of the "Artists"/"Image" columns). bamse (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Okay, well it's my "preference" and nothing's mandating it, so not to worry. I accept your concerns, particularly since this is such a big list! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The first image used in the list is described as "Detail of the Tamamushi Shrine". Is this a detail of the shrine itself or a detail of something on the shrine? I think the wording could be a little more clear on exactly what the detail is of.
    • I added a little more detail. Better now? bamse (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • On the first map image, there are "a", "b", and "c" locations listed in the legend, but no "c" is on the map.
    • Fixed. The "c" in the legend was not necessary. bamse (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In the Japan subsection of the Treasures section, there is no "Image" column. One should probably be added in case images of those items become available (and to be consistent with the table below it).
    • See comment below. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There are seven entries without remarks scattered throughout the tables. Can you add some descriptive remarks to these?
    • Added remarks to them. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is also no Image column in the Armour section, the Harnesses, or the Mikoshi section. One should probably be added for each of these as well.
    • See comment below. bamse (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
• Those are my main concerns. The list looks really good. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I fixed the first and second issue and will see what I can do about the remarks. Not sure yet whether I can find something interesting to all seven though. As for the missing image column, I am reluctant to add an empty column as it is wasted space in my opinion. Of course as images become available I will add them to the list and if necessary add an image column. However, finding wikipedia-usable pictures is not easy as these objects are located in museums, are rarely displayed and photography restrictions often apply. Basically the only source of images are old (70+ years or so) books. ReijiYamashina is doing a great job uploading images of national treasure to commons and basically the only regular uploader of NT images at the moment. As you can see, it will take some time before all NT will have their picture. As a side note, the tables in this list also differ in the existence or absence of an "Artist" column because only for some types of craft objects the artist is known. It is very unlikely that the artists for say the two mikoshi NT will ever be known, so adding an empty "Artist" column for consistency does not make sense to me. bamse (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the first two issues. I can understand about the artist column, but it's quite possible images will be located at some point for every item on the list (even if just a scan from a very old book). Having a blank spot already there for the image will help in easing future upkeep, especially for those who may not be familiar with the intricacies of wikitables. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I am still not really convinced about the empty image columns, so I asked here for comments. BTW, I already added a couple of more entries in the Remarks column as you suggested. Will try to have remarks for all entries by the end of this day. bamse (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever works on the columns. I really disagree on the image columns as (to me) it throws of the balance of the tables as a whole. Despite strongly disagreeing on this, I support promotion of this list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [12].

---

List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders

Nominator(s): RexxS (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, as a scuba diver, I feel it meets a need for information, and is also useful for navigation (per WP:LISTPURP). It is somewhat unusual in being a compendium of five lists, but Wikipedia has no other single page that presents the commonest signs and symptoms of diving disorders, which I have categorised by the causal disorder. This is my first FLC nomination, so I am a little unsure of how well it will meet the criteria, but I am available to respond to criticisms on a daily basis. I have participated in discussions on FLC recently, so I have attempted to ensure that the lists meet standards of accessibility and usability, where appropriate. RexxS (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

;Comments by Arsenikk As a fellow diver I much appreciate the list. Listing of signs and symptoms of diving disorders is definitively an encyclopedic topic, and easily something people might look up here, even if they have never and don't plan on diving. However, there are issues before it can receive the star: Lists don't need to start with a bold title, instead just link to 'diving disorders'. 'Breathing gas' needs to be explained. The third sentence (starting with "The disorders are...") is very long and contains a lot of information. Break up the sentences. The lead should give a brief explanation of each disoder. I doubt non-divers know what oxygen toxicity or high-pressure nervous syndrome is. The lead should be much longer and contain a summary of the list, including information of the various signs and symptoms. Any suitable images? Even if they are just of scuba divers, they will brighten up the article. There is a severe underlinking in this article. Terms like 'toxic', 'antioxidants', 'US Navy', 'helium' etc. For each disorder there should be a full explanation of what it is. For instance under 'decompression sickness' there is nothing explaining what causes the disease or what it really is; it just starts off with talking about bubbles. It is not common to bold information within the tables, and I don't really understand why the first column is center-aligned. The first sentence under 'arterial gas embolism and pulmonary barotrauma' is long, and presents a lot of vary different information without at all explaining what the disorder is. Please start with a simple explanation of what it is, and then go on to talk about death rates etc. The first time I read the last sentence, I thought only ten percent of diagnosis gave symptoms. Center-aligning text in a table makes it much harder to read. Again, avoid boldface, and linked bold-face is a no-no. Euphoria is linked to 'Euphoria (emotion)' which redirect to 'Euphoria'. For the table for nitrogen narcosis it should be specified that the depth refers to breathing air, and that different breathing gas mixes (nitrox, trimix etc) will give a different narcotic equivalent depth. Although I would not recommend it, there are people who still use deep air and otherwise avoid helium. Be less blatant, and state that helium is a possibility for deeper dives. Also unsure if 'large proportions' is an accurate term for 40 meter dives with helium. Could you repeat the link to the disorder in question once for each section (now they are only linked in the lead). Ditto regarding boldface and center-alignment. In all five tables, there is no real need for the table header (e.g. "Signs and symptoms of HPNS"). The list under oxygen toxicity is a data dump from a single survey, and is hardly appropriate in an encyclopedia. Instead, it would be better to summarize the various symptoms. As it is now, it is difficult to read and understand, and often duplicates signs and symptoms. 'Blackout' is a disambiguation link. 'Category:Diving medicine' is a subcategory of 'Category:Underwater diving', so the latter should be removed. Arsenikk (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks for such a comprehensive commentary. I've made a number of changes to address some of the points you raise and I'll summarise them here: I hadn't realised lists were an exception to WP:BOLDTITLE, but I've now unbolded 'Diving disorders' and wikilinked it. I've expanded the lead to give more context and explain 'breathing gas', which I agree is central to an understanding of the disorders. I've also broken up the longer sentences throughout. I've gone as far as I think I can in providing more internal links. The ones you suggested were blatant omissions, and I've added rather more, but I'm wary of violating WP:OVERLINK. Perhaps you can look again and see if you feel the balance is right yet. I've expanded the introduction to some of the sections. I originally intended not to make any of the prose too long, and to rely on the internal links to give context to those who need it. However, I'm persuaded that there is room for a brief description in each case, so I've made an attempt to balance that against my perception that list articles shouldn't be overburdened with prose. I'm happy to be guided on that. I've sorted 'euphoria' and 'blackout', hopefully satisfactorily. As a former 'deep air' diver from the days before we could get helium (you don't want to know what narcosis is like at 80+ m), I've become a zealous convert to using helium, ever since we were able to brew 50% He 'heliar' in the garage for diving in the 100 m range. So I probably overstated the case, and I've amended the relevant sentence to be more neutral (although without a 'large proportion' of He, the mixes are not very useful). I've now tried to treat each section as self-contained as far as wikilinks are concerned. It's a degree of overlinking, but I can see the sense in your argument and hopefully I've have now complied. The parent category has now been removed. That leaves a number of issues that I feel I need to explain: In Nitrogen narcosis, I was hoping that the final sentence of the introduction ("Since the choice of breathing gas also affects the depth at which narcosis occurs, the table below represents typical manifestations when breathing air") would be sufficient to set the table in context, but would you suggest I expanded that further to discuss Equivalent narcotic depth? I agree that some images would be an improvement and I'll search for some that meet WP:IMAGES#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature: "Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly related to the article's topic". Complying with WP:ACCESSIBILTY does require certain changes that do not seem relevant to a sighted person. However, giving a table a caption allows anyone using a screen reader to jump directly to a table selected by its caption. More importantly, tables which have row headers allow a screen reader to navigate up and down a data column, while having the column header and row header read out to them. For example, going down the 'Clinical manifestations' column in Decompression sickness, they could hear "Clinical manifestations", "Musculoskeletal", "Localized deep pain, ranging from ...". Whereas without the row header, they would not hear that symptoms were musculoskeletal, and would have to navigate left and right to pick up that information. The way that Wikipedia treats table headers in a wikitable is to mark them up as bold and centred with a darker background. So it's not me that's producing the bolding and centring that you find problematical, it's the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet. There is a class provided to override part of that ("plainrowheaders"), but it's not mandated by our Manual of Style. I have noticed that numbers are almost always centred in featured lists, so although I could make the first column in each table normal weight and left-aligned, those with numbers in the first column would no longer be centred. I'm not sure if it would be acceptable to have a mixture of styles between the different tables. The signs and symptoms of oxygen toxicity is indeed taken directly from Professor Kenneth Donald's seminal study undertaken during World War II. During my research to take Oxygen toxicity to featured article, I was unable to find any significant controlled study on humans since then (probably because ethics would now forbid it). Almost all studies on oxtox are not related to CNS toxicity, but to pulmonary toxicity, so are quite irrelevant to diving. Smertz (2004) reviews a number of reports gathered from hyperbaric treatment, but says nothing of symptoms other than convulsions. Christian Lambertsen's wide-ranging research since around 1965 still adds nothing to Donald's observations of symptoms. In truth, every decent source on the subject relies on Donald's findings or on anecdote. I suppose I could just name the symptoms, but that seems so lacking in context, compared to Donald's results which I feel demonstrate the array of symptoms and the extreme variability in their onset, which is so characteristic of oxygen toxicity. I'm very grateful for your input here and I'd appreciate any further thoughts on the above – particularly on how best to fit in the consequences of WP:ACCESSIBILITY on producing a good-looking article. Finding a good consensus would undoubtedly be a benefit to the FL process, as complying with ACCESS will have effects on the visual presentation of many lists. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Further, I've now added a few images that I think are relevant. Feedback appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I've provided demonstrations of a consolidated format for the oxygen toxicity table at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders, both with and without plain row headers. Would either of those come closer to meeting your comments? --RexxS (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC) In response to both your comments and Axl's, I've set several of the tables to use "plainrowheaders", which would seem to be preferred. --RexxS (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments hello RexxS, good to see you here. Some comments. I think (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) that the alt text in the lead image is weak. After all, you don't mention the two chaps being trained... Stick to one version of English, seems that you have "recognise" and "localize" (and metre and disorganization) in the same article. "for each 10 metres (33 ft) of depth" could be me, but I'd say "for every 10 metres"... ", up to about 40 metres (130 ft)" I'm the biggest parenthesis-phobe, but in this case I'd say put that clause in parentheses so we can be sure that recreational depths are "up to about 40m", not that this is a subset of recreational depths. "Unfortunately, at extreme ..." Not sure you need "Unfortunately" - it's true that it's unfortunate, but it doesn't really seem encyclopedic. You have one reference in the lead, end of second para. Usually we'd go for referencing everything or nothing (in the understanding that it's a summary of the list and therefore all will be referenced later), so I think you should choose one approach. Caption - Lab -> Laboratory. Not convinced we need a link to itch. Some of the manifestations are complete sentences (e.g. "The pain may be reduced by bending the joint to find a more comfortable position") so should have full stops. However, re-reading that, it's less a manifestation, more a cure? Don't link to "pain" from "ache", especially on the second instance. I think our regular readers know what ache means. "Sensation of tiny insects crawling" - seems very specific... Also not sure you need to link cough. You have no alt text for the Pulmonary Circuit diagram (I'm shocked!) "particularly in a rapid ascent" no need to repeat, perhaps "particularly a rapid one" Caption says "Signs and symptoms" while table has only "Symptom" and should the caption say something about the fact that this shows the % of divers who suffered from it? Narcosis image caption needs a full stop. What is "idea fixation"? It's a red link and somewhat odd because of it! "Reasoning and immediate memory affected more than motor coordination." has a full stop, none of the other notes seem to. Be consistent. Not sure you need to link "death". EEG net image has no alt text (shocked? yep!) If you want to link hertz, then put (Hz) afterwards because that's what you use thereinafter. Same comment on alt text for the oxygen toxicity image. Not sure of the utility of a sortable table where you just have time and a free text (e.g. Lip-twitching and Severe lip-twitching sort far apart, should they?) Refs 4 & 5 come from the same place so could be generalised with just their page numbers used. And be consistent with page numbering, ref 4 has pp. 557–8 and ref 5 has p. 568–71, would use the same number of digits for these, and have pp. for ref 5. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC) Hi TRM, and thanks for your comments. I thought it would do me good to subject myself to this process, as I'm hoping to contribute more as a reviewer in future. Here's what I've done so far: Yes, the images were added after Arsenikk requested, and I was remiss in not providing better/any alt text. Arguably, an image with a descriptive caption doesn't need much help from alt text (as the two together are alternate text), but I think I've improved that aspect now. Both 'recognise' and 'recognize' are standard British English (en-gb), so it's not a question of version, more of style (and there's no conflict with 'metre' en-gb). I must admit, I'm not wholly consistent in my usage of -ise vs -ize; some words just look right to me with a particular ending. Nevertheless, being a foolish hobgoblin, I've now attempted to standardise on 's' rather than 'z'. Agreed & changed - 'for every 10 metres' is no more correct than 'each', but is more idiomatic. I originally set 'up to 40 metres (130 ft)' in parentheses, but disliked the doubled '))' that you get ({{convert}} places the inner parentheses by default). Thinking about it, 'up to 40 metres' is a subset of recreational diving depths in the UK (limit is 50 m), although not in the USA (limit 130 ft). Nevertheless, the point is that the phrase is meant to be illustrative, not definitive, so I've adopted your suggestion and the extra parentheses (ugh). I've copyedited out 'Unfortunately' and think it now reads better. Refs in the lead: that's what I get for following Arsenikk's advice to expand the lead, which was originally one paragraph (all sourced to Bennett & Elliott chapter 9). I'm loathe to lose that reference, as it refers to the crucial chapter in the definitive work on diving medicine, and for anyone wanting an overview of the topic, it's simply the best reading. I've added that for each paragraph and a specific ref for use of hydreliox, which B&E skims over. I've rewritten the manifestations to be noun phrases for consistency. If you can find a more comfortable position when bending a joint, it's an indicator for the diagnosis of DCS (as are all of those symptoms), and that's the point of it, rather than treatment (which is hyperbaric oxygen therapy). I've added a period to the narcosis caption, and removed the errant one from "Reasoning and immediate memory affected more than motor coordination" The source for the table in oxygen toxicity uses "Symptom" as the column heading; whereas they are mainly signs by a strict definition. I've amended it to 'Signs and symptoms' Making columns sortable is often helpful, but sometimes worthless. Taking your point, I've suppressed the sorting on 'Signs and symptoms', but retained it for exposure time, as it's possible someone may wish to see what symptoms arose as time increased. I've changed to "... during an ascent, particularly a rapid one," - much nicer. I've changed "|page" to "|pages" in ref 6 (was ref 5). I hope you'll excuse my unfamiliarity with the process, but these are the points I'd like to discuss further: "Sensation of tiny insects" is indeed terribly specific, but it's often found in the sources as a lay description of formication - which is derived from the Latin for 'ant'. I think I'd prefer to keep it (peculiar as it is), as I always try to explain the most obvious jargon. Okay, no major issue really. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Hz and hertz: This is what WP:MOSNUM#Conventions says: "In prose it is usually better to spell out unit names, but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a very long name) is used many times in an article. However, spell out the first instance of each unit in an article (for example, the typical batch is 250 kilograms ... and then 15 kg of emulsifier is added)'" I spelled out the unit 'hertz' at its first occurrence (and linked it as it may be unfamiliar to all readers) and used 'Hz' thereafter. Unlike acronyms, MOS doesn't ask us to parenthesise the unit symbol immediately after the first spelled-out occurrence (as in the example of 'kilograms' above). I can see the sense in adding the symbol for an uncommon unit in parentheses following its first spelled-out use, but I suspect that doing so violates MOS. Again, no major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I've thought hard about this, and searched MOS & MOSNUM thoroughly. My conclusion is that it doesn't violate MOS after all. I've now added '(Hz)' as I feel it is useful here; if it sticks, I'll have a go at changing MOSNUM to specifically mention the idea as an example of good practice. Thanks, --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Contrary to popular belief, table captions don't need to be descriptive or explanatory (that's the job of the summary element) and visually-impaired don't need to have the column headers pre-announced for simple tables with just two or three columns, as most folk can remember the order in simple cases. However, captions are very useful for blind readers because they are the identifiers for the table - hearing the caption tells a blind reader that they're in the right place for the info they want. I'd suggest that the captions I used are as concise but useful as I can make them. Understood. We have a way to go in completely understanding the real emphasis of WP:ACCESS. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Page ranges: I've always used the convention that you supply only enough digits in the second item of a numeric range to distinguish it. For example, 2885–2887 becomes 2885–7; 2885–2891 becomes 2885–91; 2885–2902 becomes 2885–902; and 2885–3002 is written in full. WP:MOSNUM is silent on the issue (apart from a single example of a date range), but I've seen both my style and the convention of using the last two digits argued over and accepted at WP:FAC. If the expectation here is that my style is not acceptable, I'll change it to conform with your norms, but it ought to be referenced to a guideline somewhere. Okay, no problem. I would prefer consistency in the range but you make a good point and I'll let it go. MOS should do better here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Let's see if any other reviewers want to comment on this. I'm content to go with whatever consensus can be found, and I'm also happy to raise the issue at MOSNUM if we can get more input. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Refs 5 & 6 (were 4 & 5) refer to different pages in the same chapter. The same is true for refs 10 & 11. I've often used {{harvnb}} in articles to condense such references – in fact I wrote a guide on how to do that at User:RexxS/Cite multiple pages – but I'm not sure the extra complication and difference in style is worth it when only two refs in each case are to be condensed. If there were several refs to the same chapter, I'd agree 100%, but how much would it help in this case? You're right, for two instances, it's probably not much of a gain, other than to remove all the repeated text in the refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Linking: Now, you'll have to explain this a bit more to me. I understand WP:OVERLINK very well, but my reading of WP:LIST seems to suggest a higher degree of linking is appropriate for lists than for articles, since the list also performs the task of navigation. I tried to ensure that any signs or symptoms were well-linked throughout, as I expected someone reading this article might want to actually read more about them (however mundane). Hence I made the links to 'cough', 'itch', 'pain', 'death', etc. - which I would not normally link in an article (common words). Ache isn't actually synonymous with pain, and I'm disappointed that the redirect is not better. One day we'll have an article or a better (section) link for ache, so I'd argue that it's a proper link to make. I won't argue with this. If I'm the only complaining about it, then it ought to stay...! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC) Thanks again for all of your help here – did I miss anything? Regards, --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In the section "Oxygen toxicity", the table of the case series symptoms does not help readers understand how likely or significant those symptoms are. The table should be removed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Axl. I'm willing to be corrected, but I don't believe anyone knows how likely any particular symptom is - and surely all observed symptoms are significant? Donald's work is still the best experimental evidence we have. Anyway, I've made an alternative formulation of the data at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders. Would that table (with a more detailed introduction) be more acceptable? --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The list of symptoms for "Arterial gas embolism" shows the frequency of symptoms nicely. If you tell me that the frequency of symptoms for "Oxygen toxicity" is not available, I'll take your word for it. [You are Wikipedia's expert on oxygen toxicity ;-) ] In my opinion, "lip-twitching" (observed at 13 minutes, 14 minutes, etc.) is less significant than "convulsed", but that may be original research. The tables that you added to the talk page are a little better because they give the reader a vague idea of frequency. It would be better to have the symptoms ordered by the frequency rather than the earliest appearance of the symptom (thus lip-twitching, convulsion, nausea, vertigo, etc.). A third column indicating the total number of observed events would also be helpful (thus lip-twitching 18, convulsion 5, etc.). I'm unsure of the difference between "blubbering of the lips" and "lip-twitching", but I don't suppose that Donald clarified that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The disorders apart from oxygen toxicity, are either common (like narcosis), or have longer-term sequelae (like DCS/AGE), so in many ways are more amenable to study, either as experiments or by collection of reported incidents. With oxygen toxicity, the really significant effect is the convulsion (as you say), which can end in drowning - anything short of that is unlikely to get much mention in an incident report. The other setting for CNS oxygen toxicity is, of course, in a recompression chamber, and many of the symptoms Donald's observed are reported there. Unfortunately, Donald showed early on that the onset of oxygen toxicity is quite different "in the dry" from underwater, so it becomes difficult to try to extrapolate from reports of symptoms during HBOT to the diving scenario. The best we can probably say is that "these are the sort of symptoms that are associated with oxygen toxicity; their onset is unpredictable; and we don't really know how high partial pressures of oxygen will affect any individual." Not terribly helpful, I'm afraid. On the other hand, we can say "Donald observed symptom X on Y occasions, during a particular series of experiments." In fact, you always make me think of better ways of looking at information (for which I'm grateful). I'll put together another table showing the relative frequency observed by Donald, and see if other columns like "earliest onset"/"latest onset" would fit in. The onset of toxicity is actually very interesting as it shows that some individuals succumbed in a few minutes, while others withstood the same conditions for well over an hour. That's the reason why we use such very conservative limits on ppO2 breathed - we don't know who the outliers are, nor what a "safe limit for 99.99% of the population" would be. Anyway, I'll also see if I can dig up some of the data from when the US Navy tried screening their divers - they eventually gave up because the screening provided to be of practically no predictive value. FWIW, Lip-twitching is far less significant than convulsion in its likely outcomes - and that needs no OR; but perversely, lip-twitching is probably the most 'characteristic' symptom short of convulsion, and it is significant because any other disorder is so unlikely to cause it that it confirms the diagnosis for all practical purposes. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Perversely, lip-twitching is significant because any other disorder is so unlikely to cause it that it confirms the diagnosis for all practical purposes." Okay, I take your point. (I approach symptoms from a different point of view.) I'll have a look at your revised table. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The points you make are sufficiently compelling for me to replace the previous table with a summary one, showing relative frequency as well as earliest and latest times of onset – thank you. I've included the latter two columns because the really key problem of oxygen toxicity is the massive variability in time to onset, which makes it so unpredictable. Divers are taught to scrupulously limit their ppO2 to 1.4 bar, even though some individuals may tolerate more than twice that for hours. I've provided a version of the new table with centred numbers and plain row headers at Talk:List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders. All of the tables are equally accessible, but any views on the best visual presentation would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The new table is much better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Has Arsenikk been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm always uneasy asking folks to invest more of their time, but I've "pinged" him now. Merry Bishmas and Happy New Year! --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work, different from our regular stuff, a welcome change. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. I did make one small fix a few days ago, but that was all I could find at the time, and there haven't been any more edits since then. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:38, 19 January 2011 [13].

---

Nashville Vols all-time roster

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the critera to be recognized as a Featured List. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

*I see some last-name-only players in the list; when I went to a general reference to find out more about them, I was presented with five general references, with no indication what was different between them. Are they proper for a specific timespan? If so, that needs to be clarified. You can't expect the reader to surf five similar links to find a bit of information. --Golbez (talk) 11:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Would providing references to Baseball-Reference profiles for players who are only known by last names be an acceptable means of identifying these players? NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I don't want to say yes and encourage you to do that before the main issue of having five general references that are indistinguishable from another is dealt with. :) If I knew which reference to look at for which time period, I might not need specific references for the ones with no first names. But I don't know which to go to; the article doesn't state when the team was in what class, and the references should themselves state, I think, what years they're relevant for. --Golbez (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I now see that the leagues are mentioned at the top of the article, and that's good and I apologize for not noticing that before; however, you're now asking people in the middle of the list to have to shoot to the top of the article, read the prose to find which league is relevant, and then jump to the bottom and find with reference to go to. The relevant years should be added to the five reference citations, so we don't have to hunt. --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I added year ranges to the general references and sorted them in chronological order. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC) Has Golbez been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Yes, just now. NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Two more things: One, does this really need to be split into four tables? Two, many of the names have been wisely blacklinked but there's still a few redlinks, but they all appear to be for people who went on to the MLB, so that makes sense, it makes sense they'd have articles some day, whereas the blacklinks are much less likely. So no complaint on that one, just more of a statement of acknowledgment. But still, #1! --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have combined them into one. It was split into four tables to ease load times during editing. Of course there shouldn't be a need to edit the table extensively as no one will be added. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Heh, I've been there. Support. There's a lot of empty space on the right but I'm not sure I want to say "add a few dozen more pictures". Certainly not going to cut off support for it. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments "the team was inactive in 1962" why? What does the affiliation mean (sorry, I'm a non-expert) and are the various affiliations referenced? Career columns don't sort correctly for me in Safari. I expect it's to do with some being pure numbers and some having commas/en-dashes. "Vols pitcher from 1913 toi 1914" typo. You may also benefit from being aware of the on-going "discussion" at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)/archive1 with regard to the use of baseball-reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support – I think this is a nice list, and I like the many old photos of the players. The one thing I will say is that the MLB affiliations part is a bit of an odd fit with the rest of that paragraph. Not too sure what can be done about it, though. Maybe move it to the next paragraph? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion. I started a new paragraph with the affiliation part. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • The lead seems to jump right in, without having that original introduction sentence. I'd tweak wording, something like "The Nashville Vols were a minor league franchise that played in Nashville..."
  • "All minor league teams are affiliated with a Major League Baseball team." not true actually; it wasn't until about the 60s that all minor league teams became part of major league farm systems. Reword.

Only issues I have; fix and I'll support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I made some changes. How does it look now? NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support, looks good now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support a quick revisit and nothing more to fix. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [14].

---

Grammy Award for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy-related lists with FL status, including Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance and Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. I realize second FL nominations are discouraged, but the other Grammy list is co-nominated and I am trying to squeeze in my last Grammy lists that I believe meet FL criteria before the New Year begins. Thanks to reviewers for your feedback! --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)

• Comment: Is it possible to move the pictures more to the left?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 16:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? The thumbs are aligned against the right side of the page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to this correction: To maintain consistency with all of the other Grammy-related featured lists, I think that it is best to keep to the image column along the right side of the page. For most of the lists I do not define column widths, allowing the table to become as wide as needed to accommodate the text. However, since this list contains two separate tables, I want the column widths to equal so that they align properly. If you or any other reviewers believe different column widths are in order, feel free to offer suggestions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: Unless formatting changes again, the two tables have been combined into one. This eliminates column width specifications and therefore resembles formatting used for the other Grammy-related featured lists. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments For criticism, I'd prefer more than one source. I know it's harsh but anyone can be published (even in the NYT) so some corroboration of criticism would be welcome. Doing... --Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Additional source added. Will continue looking for one more just in case... --Another Believer (Talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Don't like the table split at all. I would leave out those years that weren't awarded and keep the note you have. Like so? Do you think the years 1995 and 2004 should be linked, or is it best to unlink the other years in which the award was not presented? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Works for me, now deal with the criticism comment! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC) OK. Will see if other reviewers have a preference with linking the years (or not). Good call on the single table--I think it looks much better this way and improves sorting abilities. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Update: I went ahead and combined rows for years when the award was not presented and linked all years in the table for consistency. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support I can't really see anything I could beef. -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
*Comment "(he has also received three awards for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance)." could do with a citation. Courcelles 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Done. In addition to the general source, I added another Rock on the Net link specifically for the male award. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles 02:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Went through the list and found no issues to report. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [15].

---

List of Oslo Tramway and Metro operators

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This list presents the 14 companies that have operated the various tramway and metro lines in Oslo. With a complicated history of the operators, I hope this list helps make it easy for readers to get an overview of the field. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Nice list, but I think the image File:Oslo tram forskningenparken.JPG is a bit overused here on enwp. In addition to illustrate the Forskningsparken (station) article, is it used as a lead photo in History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro and as illustration in the body text of the articles Sognsvann Line, Ullevål Hageby Line, SL95, List of Oslo Metro stations and List of Oslo Tramway stations. Although a very nice photo, I would suggest replacing it with File:Tram in Drammensveien 1919.jpeg, File:Holmenkolbanen entrance at Nationaltheatret.jpeg, File:Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg or one of the other nice images from the articles on the list. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the perfect picture! Or more accurate: it is the only picture we have that shows both a metro and tram in it, which, as far as I am aware, is only phototechnially possible at that one station. I'll see if I can replace the image, though. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, it is a very nice picture, but I think the Tram at Egertorget in 1907.jpeg pic is somewhat more "operatorish" with the ads in the upper right corner. --Eisfbnore (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It was (and is, when it reopens) possible at Jar station also. Probably at Majorstuen if you take the picture from high ground which is more difficult. We/I could also take some other photos of the same object at Forskningsparken. Geschichte (talk) 13:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a really nice photo of Majorstuen station with the trams and metro trains from above, so that's absolutely a possibility. Someone with great photographing skills, could be capable of taking a photo of Storo station with the tram and metro from Grefsen Station. Also a picture of Johanne Dybwads plass taken from Saga kino with the tram stop in the foreground and the blue-white metro sign in the background would be nice. --Eisfbnore (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, seeing that you both live in Norway and are interested in this stuff, couldn't just one of you take a new image and upload it to wikipedia commons? --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, maybe. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm a mediocre photographer, and I've already taken som pictures of Forskningsparken. I think the pictures talk for themselves. --Eisfbnore (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added two new images, one old of a tram and one new of the metro. There aren't that many good pictures of the system—images that I'd proudly put in a featured article or list. Then again, taking good images is a challenge. I tend to reuse the good ones a bit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments Caption - "meets an" perhaps "passes" instead. Otherwise the results would be undesirable! New images, new captions. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) You link " Oslo Vognselskap" but it redirects back to Kollektivtransportproduksjon which is already linked. A touch confusing. Kollektivtransportproduksjon owns Oslo Vognselskap, and I havn't so far gotten around to making an article about the latter. Will look into it. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "of whcih three" typo. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "large parts of Oslo and parts of Bærum.[3][2]" parts is repetitive, and order those refs numerically. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Link Akershus on the first use. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) " who operates the ticket system and manages public grants" Ruter is singular so this should be "operate the" and "manage public" shouldn't it? I would have said it the way it was written, but perhaps my grammar is off. I've done as you suggest. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "parts of all of the network." do you mean "or" instead of "of"? If not, then just "parts of the network" is fine. Done. It was 'or'. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Note: "Kollektivtransportproduksjon" is the best word I have ever seen at FLC. That's what happens when you mix compound words with new public management. The word is just as silly in Norwegian as in English ("Collective Transport Production"). Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) "company only was an infrastructure owner" - do you mean "company was only an ..."? Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Repeated use of Aspenberg's reference, I'd be happy with "Aspenberg, p. 9" since there doesn't appear to be a need to disambiguate which Aspenberg reference you're using (i.e. you have only one) Done. It makes it impossible to "link" from the refs to the bibliography, but I guess that is a bit redundant here. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) format=PDF seems to be missing from PDF refs. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. Arsenikk (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support after a quick re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• "The private light rail lines were gradually nationalized and transferred to Oslo Sporveier, that operated the entire network by 1975." The flow of the sentence would be improved if "that" was turned into "which" or similar.
• "and an public transport authority". "an" → "a".
• "the latter which kept the Oslo Sporveier name." Add "of" before "which".
• The page ranges (more than 1 page) should have pp. in the citation, not p. I see the list uses a Harvard citation template, which I'm not too familiar with since I've never used it. There was a p. parameter; by chance, is there a similar pp. parameter? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Crisp text, clean design, and well-referenced. Well done. Haus^Talk 19:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, just a couple of comments/suggestions: "...was operated by Oslo Sporveier,[13] who...", possibly "who"->"which"?! Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) In my experience copy-editors don't like phrases like "The following lists companies..." and would add a noun such as: "The following table lists companies...". Not sure if it is required by the MOS, but you might give it a thought. Fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) The table is a little bit too wide on my screen. (about too wide by the width of the "Ref" column) I've shorted "commenced" to "com". While I don't like it, it is the one column in which the header is eating up horizontal space which the content is not. Otherwise, your screen should be adopting, and there are no hard spaces (although I agree that Kollektivtansportproduksjon is too long a word to help, although the daggering approach may have helped a little). Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I am unsure about the usefulness of combining different types (Infrastructure, Operator,...) of companies in one table. Maybe you could convince me?! I've expanded the explanation. The alternative is five separate tables, some with only a single entry, which would look cumbersome. It would also make it impossible to sort the table, for instance to get a chronology by year of commenced operations or year of ceased operations, or by owner. The current scheme allows a reader to quickly see which were private, or in which order the companies started operations, or even which ones were bought by Oslo Sporveier. With separate tables, this would not be possible. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) On second thought this makes a lot of sense to me now. bamse (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Do all the lines mentioned in the table still exist? Some to, some don't. I've added a note for those which have been closed. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Would it be possible to somehow distinguish between metro and tramway lines in the "Lines" column? Part of the problem is that while for instance Akersbanerne operated the Røa, Kjelsås, Sognsvann and Østensjø Lines, they were still tramways (or light rails, more accurately). Only after Oslo Sporveier took them over would they be rebuilt to metro lines. I've added a not to those which would later become part of the metro. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Thanks. Refs 3, 5, 14, 15 need a translation of the title. I haven't come across any requirements for reference translation in the MOS or other-place, and I don't really see how it helps the reader much, but if you want to, I can always translate them. Done. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) It has been requested in some of my FLCs so I thought it was a requirement. Thanks for translating the titles now. bamse (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC) In the table, could "Kollektivtransportproduksjon" (in "Owner" column) be replaced with Oslo Municipality? I was going to protest, but came up with a compromise which would solve the problem. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Good :-) bamse (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Terms like "Agency", "Integrated" and "Operator" in the type column should be better explained in my opinion or at least directly matched (using parantheses for instance) to the second sentence of the paragraph just above the table. I've made it more clear. Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) You use both "Oslo Sporvognsdrift" and "Oslotrikken" in the table which appears to be the same (correct?). To avoid confusion only one of the two terms should be used. Fixed. They just recently renamed themselves, causing some confusion (mostly in my head). Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC) There is still "Oslo Sporvognsdrift" in the successor column and "Oslotrikken" in the "company" column. bamse (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Now they really should all be gone. Arsenikk (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC) bamse (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks for the feedback :) Arsenikk (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Support now. bamse (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Shouldn't A/S Smestadbanen be included in this list? I know it didn't operate any trains, but neither did Tryvandsbanen... --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Does Tryvandsbanen have an article now? As I seem to have included the one paper company, I should add the other as well. I'm redirecting to Røa Line for the moment, but perhaps it is also worthy of an article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [16].

---

List of leaders of the Soviet Union

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status for a second time. --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment (not supporting or opposing yet):

• Done You should have a sentence at the start that mentions that which office served as the "leader" changed sometimes before launching into what those offices were.
• Done The dates in "terms of office" in the table should be centered, not left-aligned.
• Done Khrushchev- reword "removed from power after a trip to Scandinavia" to something that emphasizes that going to Scandinavia wasn't the cause/reason for the removal, they just did it while he was out of the country.
• Done Gorbachev- "and resign on 24 August", "the following the day the Soviet Union" - please get someone to copyedit the text, I doubt that these are the only two examples, just the ones I happened to spot as I skimmed the table.

• --PresN 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I've been asked to come back and look at this, and I must say it looks and reads a lot better now. --PresN 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment the table should be sortable. To do that, you will have to get rid of all the rowspans.—Chris!_c/t 01:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Were does it say that that is a must? I don't see it anywhere an there are many articles which don't use sortable tables.. In other words, I'm not changing it! --TIAYN (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sortability allows readers to sort the info on the table. Since all the rowspans is gone, it is quite easy to make the table sortable now. This is a simple request, so I don't understand why you refuse to do it.—Chris!_c/t 05:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I looked at making the table sortable, from a usability point of view. Unfortunately, it would only sort properly on the 'Name' as it stands. It could be made to sort on 'Term of office' or 'Congress' by using sort keys, but I'm not sure of what usability value any of that would add. Obviously, neither 'Portrait' nor 'Notes' will sort in a meaningful way. I've amended User:RexxS/List of leaders of the Soviet Union so that you can see what I mean. Given all that, in my humble opinion, I don't think this table would benefit from being sortable. --RexxS (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment talking accessibility, User:RexxS kindly knocked up this as an example of what that part of the project would hope to see. I rather like it, and would appreciate TIAYN and the community's comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done I can't say that I'm fond of the idea, but i've added his version... Question, should i add an image of a Troika member in each bar or should i leave it empty? --TIAYN (talk) 19:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Done The only thing I see there that I really despise is the bolding of last names. Seems to me to be nothing but extra work that makes the page ugly, and adds nothing. Courcelles 21:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All six of the leaders in the two troikas have PD or CC-BY-SA images, so I think it would be possible to create a collage for each troika, as the table looks like it's missing something where those portraits would be. You could perhaps just add images in each case of the two members whose image is not already in the list, if space is a problem. Please let me know if you want any help, should you decide to add such images. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles, I think the surnames were bold before the changes for accessibility were made, judging by the article history... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I deliberately preserved the original text formatting for my example (that's why the style="font-weight:normal" is there) in order to respect the author's intention. That's not to say I thought it was the best way of doing it. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I've solved the image problems regarding the Troikas now... I created an entirely new section for them... Are these new changes acceptable? If not, please say so ;) --TIAYN (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Few questions - You use the dashes to signify information missing in the congress column, shouldn't it be used in the same manner for the image column? can a better section header be provided other than "list"? you seem to begin to explain the process of how the leaders were elected to this position in the lead and "list" section, I was wondering if maybe this could be elaborated on more for the benefit of the user. Afro (Talk) 05:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Changed the header too "List of leaders", is that better? Secondly, there was no formal line of succession; the leader did however need the support of the Politburo, Central Committee and the Secretariat to hold power. --TIAYN (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Support - I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we include Gennady Yanayev into the list? I mean, he was Acting President of the Soviet Union; the most important and strongest office in the USSR at the time of the August Coup of 1991. Should we include him into the list??? --TIAYN (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Man, I'm confused. Aren't you the nominator? The champion of the article, its shepherd? Shouldn't you have answered this question for yourself before you brought the list to FLC?

Also, regardless of you marking my comments up above as done, you haven't gotten a copyedit. Please get someone else to look over the entire list, not just the few points I mentioned. The third sentence in the lead has a huge comma splice- I will leave it to the editor to figure what it is but it's not hard to see. Also! "tried out" is unencyclopedic, and the last sentence of the lead is uncited and, more importantly, just kind of dangling there, unconnected to anything.

I also don't like how the troikas are divided out into a different section. I know its a pain to slot them into the table, but given that its unsortable and arranged by chronological order, I feel that the troikas should be in the same table. --PresN 07:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But we will get the image problem again, which some other editors pointed out... When it comes to the inclusion of Gennady Yanayev into the list I am really, really unsure. On the other hand, I will try to find another editor to copyedit the article! --TIAYN (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

User Tuscumbia has copyedited the article; is the list well-enough written now? --TIAYN (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support and comment - I would like to see term "Gerontocracy" mentioned somewhere in the article because it was a real problem in the seventies and early eighties. Article already mentions the ridiculous age of some of the latter leaders so why not make this article bit more academical. In addition I fixed a typo. Utinsh (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks for the support. --TIAYN (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose lots of things, mostly very simple to fix though! Done Consider # linking President to the appropriate section of that page, i.e. President#Presidents_as_head_of_state Done Link Stalin in the lead. Done And Khrushchev. Done Perhaps a personal preference, but " which in turn played" would seem more appropriate as " which, in turn, played" Done "Lenin's health..." replace Lenin's with His. Done "Lenin's health at the age of 53, declined " comma before at. Done "from continuous effects" why "continuous"? Not necessary in my opinion. Done Which ENGVAR are you using (industrialization vs hospitalisation)? Done "pushed for rapid industrialization, nationalization" perhaps an "and" missing here. Done No need to abbreviate things if you don't use the abbreviation (e.g. NEP). Done "Stalin died in March 1953.[19] In the power struggle triggered by Stalin's death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev, after several years, emerged victorious against Georgy Malenkov.[20]" would merge these two sentences. Done "Many saw his de-Stalinization policy" no need to repeat this, perhaps "Many saw this approach as..." Done "A group known as Anti-Party Group tried to oust Khrushchev from office in 1957." and what happened? Done "First Secretary the very same day " remove "very", no need. Done "of the politburo" shouldn't that be Politburo? Done "Henry A. Kissinger falsely believed t.." there's no context to understand who Kissinger was and why his opinion counted for anything. Done "Mikhail Gorbachev" is overlinked. Done "1988 and 1989 saw the..." avoid starting a sentence with a number. Done (Birth–Death) -> (birth–death) Done Question: what happened in the 20th and 21st congress? Done "The following day of Gorbachev's resignation ..." ->"The day following Gorbachev's resignation as ..., " Done "Lasting" is not a good column heading. Done Ref 20 needs to be pp. not p. Done Ref 27 needs to be p. not pp. Done Ref 33 seems to repeat the year range. Done Ref 35 needs to be pp. not p. Done Ref 57 should be pp. 423–24 for consistency with others, not pp. 423–424. Done Bibliography doesn't need page numbers because you're stating those in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have The Rambling Man and Chrishmt0423 been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Top line of the infobox says "leaders of the Soviet Union" and the 2nd line says "Former Communist State" - this is very confusing since the Soviet Union was always a Communist state, and now Russia is a former Communist state. Smallbones (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet Union is a former communist state, it doesn't exist anymore! This makes the USSR a former entity --TIAYN (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Done "In the Soviet Union's seventy years history...". At a minimum, make "years" singular. I'd rather see "seventy-year history", with the hyphen. Done Typo in "General Secretary". Done "Following Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power in 1920s...". This is beggin for "the" to be placed before the year range. Fixed --TIAYN (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Done Summary: "The dissmantling of the principal defining features of communism...". Maybe this is just British English, but I thought "dissmantling" only had one s. Done In the table, move reference 53 after the punctuation, which would be better off as a period. Done Add a period before reference 55. Done Some of the short citations have periods at the end and some don't. It's best in situations like these to pick one style and be consistent with it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The First Troika tenure ended on 26 June 1953 in one column yet in the next it lasted until Beria's death (23 December 1953), clarification is needed. --88.111.49.180 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Done --TIAYN (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The name of the article should probably be without "List of". Nergaal (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Why? --TIAYN (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support After looking deeply into the article, I didn't find anything I could beef.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [17].

---

List of X-Men video games

Nominator(s): Guyinblack25 ^talk, Nomader, and -5-

Not sure what else to say other than that I believe that the list meets the Featured list criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC))

Also, for tracking purposes, I am co-nominating this article with User:Nomader and User:-5- who helped improve the list to its current form. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC))

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments A one-para lead is inadequate for a list of this length. Is there a good reason for the video game title to be (1) big (2) bold (3) italicised? I'm sure the answer will be "that's what the template does", if so, transfer my question to "why does the template do this to game titles"? "an eponymous comic book series, The X-Men" if it's eponymous, you don't need to repeat the name, just pipelink "eponymous comic book series" (or similar). Your lead avoids the cancelled 1985 effort. You link superhero, is there an equivalent for super villain? Lead image caption doesn't need a full stop. "Release years by system:" for "Arcade" is there a good link to "arcade machine" or something similar? Sometimes X-Men is in italics. Mostly it's not. Why? Xbox isn't linked. Nor Xbox 360. Nor Wii. If you had proposed system release in the first one which was cancelled, why not the same for those which are yet to be released? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC) I addressed your comments except the ones related to the template: title formatting and "proposed system release". I did not create the template ({{VGtitle}}) so I don't know the original reason. However, I've worked on the template extensively and can guess. The title is not bold, that is just how the font looks at that size, which is 125% of the default font size. As to why it is that size, I can only guess it was to make it stand out more. The template creates an html-anchor, so the increased size can mimic a heading. The title is italicized because WP:ITALICS says to do so for creative works like video games. Currently the template does not support something for future games, but I think I could work it in there. I'm a bit rusty on template code, so if you could I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know if these are deal breakers, and if so, what exactly you'd like changed. Like decreased font size and "proposed system release" for future games? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

; Comment from RexxS: The template {{VGtitle}} creates a separate table for each entry. I count 38 tables in the list. None of the tables have either column or row headers, so the "list" would not be easy for a visually-impaired reader to navigate using a screen reader, other than entry-by-entry. Although I would wish that our best lists were more fully accessible, I don't think it would make sense at present to object to this candidate, simply on the grounds of accessibility. There really needs to be a wholescale review of templates such as {{VGtitle}}, and (in my humble opinion) this is properly a task for Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics. --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

RexxS, if you leave me a note on my talk page outlining your concerns, I'll bring them up at the VG project. Standardizing the format of our lists has been a point of contention for a while now and some guidelines to adhere to could get the ball rolling in the proper direction.

This particular template could be possibly retooled to a different format, or retired if need be. But I've sure a solution can be worked out down the road. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC))

I created new templates that emulate the table format: {{Video game titles}} and {{Video game titles/item}}. The first is a basic table frame and the second is the syntax for the table rows, resulting in a single table rather a stack of multiple ones. Let me know if there's anything else. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Apologies for not revisiting sooner, but I'm pleased that my concerns about multiple tables has now been resolved with the creation of the new templates. I can see it's taken some work, but it will allow future articles from the project to more accessible, and the effort is commendable. In other cases I'd recommend the incorporation of column and row headers to further improve accessibility, but where there are only two columns as in this case, I don't think there's much to be gained. I've struck my original comments to indicate they are resolved, and I can see nothing from an accessibility point of view that should prevent promotion. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Have TRM and RexxS been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I dropped a note just now at TRM's page-- sorry, I haven't been around Wikipedia lately, college has been getting the best of me. I haven't left one at RexxS's page though, I felt like his comment was more aimed at redoing the entire table format for the video game lists than any objections to this particular one. I might drop a line at WT:VG myself if I get the chance about changing up the table format though. Nomader ^(Talk) 23:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - I have concerns over the template used, it seems to violate MOS:BOLD. Afro (Don't Call Me Shirley) 23:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I first thought it was because the font size was larger, but after looking at the template code I realize that I misinformed The Rambling Man above. I removed the bold from the title. Sorry about the confusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC))

• You reference some system releases (examples "X-Men: Wolverine's Rage" and "X2: Wolverine's Revenge") but you don't reference other systems releases (such as "X-Men vs. Street Fighter" and "X-Men: The Ravages of Apocalypse"), any specific reasons why these aren't referenced? Also another question about the notes, you reference some notes regarding the genre of video games (example all of the Wolverine games) but you don't reference most of the genres for the X-Men games and Related games why is this? Afro (Talk) 03:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• I do that to cut down on the number of citations. Everything in the list should be in the references provided, but if one citation can cover multiple bullet points then I try to cut down on redundancy. For example, the genre info for X-Men vs. Street Fighter is in the same reference as the heroes and villains content. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))

• Quick comments –
  • There's a typo in the developer of X-Men II: The Fall of the Mutants. It should be Paragon Software, not Paragron.
  • In the see also note, "a recreational animation software" doesn't feel complete to me. I know it's an afterthought, but standards should be maintained throughout. Should it be "a piece of recreational animation software", or perhaps "a recreation animation software package" (what's it's called in the linked article)? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I changed the list per your concerns. Nomader ^(Talk) 00:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Would like to see a more developed and informative lead. The current one is lacking--AlastorMoody (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm loathe to padding the lead just to make it longer when it doesn't need it-- do you have any details in particular that you think need to be added? Nomader ^(Talk) 03:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Nomader, mainly because I can't think of what else to add. If you have a specific suggestion, we can look into it. But as it stands, the lead summarizes the list and goes into some notable details. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC))
• Comment: The template {{VGtitle}} now supports a parameter for future games, per The Rambling Man's comments. Plans are also in motion to address the accessibility issue brought up by RexxS. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC))

Resolved comments from GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs)

• Comments:
  • 2000 – Game Boy Color, PlayStation[26][5] ref "5" ahead of "26"
  • Why is gamestop so much linked (in the reference section)?-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I switched the ref order per your comment. GameSpot's considered a reliable source by WP:VG, so we use it often to source release dates. They have a pretty comprehensible database-- it's one of the better ones out there and it has a lot of games listed there which may not be listed on other websites. I prefer consistency in my lists, and I feel that using the same site to verify the release dates of all of the items is usually preferable. Nomader ^(Talk) 12:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, no. I meant why there are so much internal links to gamespot? I think one is ok. Cheers.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I normally add internal links to every ref because I can't predict which citation a reader might look into. If you think it's a bad idea, I can remove them. But I think it's useful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC))
          • Only the gamespot as publisher in the first in-line citation should be interwiki-linked. All others not. That will be ''<ref name="GS-Uncanny">{{cite web| url = http://www.gamespot.com/nes/action/xmen/similar.html?mode=versions| title = The Uncanny X-Men Release Summary| publisher = GameSpot| accessdate = 2010-06-29}}</ref> |release= 1989 – [[Nintendo Entertainment System]]'' this one. This must be wikilinked, all others not.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Fixed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

• SupportNearly Support: I see no issues.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 19:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry to change my opinion, but a few publishers are wrong. The publisher of all refs with the publisher "GameSpot" are not correct. It is a work, not a publisher; the publisher is "CBS Interactive Inc.", seen at the bottom of the site. The publisher of GameFAQs is "CBS Interactive Inc.", GameFAQs is the work. The publisher of Gamasutra is "UBM TechWeb", this is the work. Allmusic's publisher is "Rovi Corporation", this is the work. The publisher of gamedaily is "AOL Inc.", this is the work. The publisher of marvelultimatealliance is "Marvel", the work is the page. The publisher for wii.gamespy is "IGN" not "THQ". uk.ps3.ign.com is "IGN" not "THQ". publisher=[[1UP.com]] -> work=[[1UP.com]]. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The VG Wikiproject has debated this before but did not reach any consensus. Our magazine citations are treated as you described, but the documentation for Template:Cite web previously left room for debate as to which parameter should be used. And it looks like the discussion at Template talk:Cite web didn't find a definite resolution.
    Dabomb87- I posted a note at VG project talk page. May I have some time for input from project members? Or is there another discussion that demonstrates a more definitive consensus? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC))
    • To chime in on the above, GreatOrange, I've generally used "publisher" for the website itself. As Guy mentions {{cite web}} has never been good at clarifying, and in the case of almost every website the owner isn't that germane to the degree of, say, a book publisher. As long as they're all consistently formatted thus, I don't see an issue with WP:WIAFA (especially as the templates don't actually explicitly output "publisher" when you render it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support now-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
• Why does the canceled "Questprobe featuring The X-Men" get its own section, but the canceled "X-Women" get a brief mention?
• I think the list would look better if you broke up the Notes sections into better labels such as "Genre", "Publisher", etc. The naming of characters and plotlines also seems arbitrary, and needs to be consistent throughout the list. Ωphois 18:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I addressed the X-Women game by making a section for the two canceled games.
  • The content in the notes is somewhat arbitrary because it is based on the most notable information that turned up during research. Also, the template uses a generic notes section because it was designed for series of games that share information like genre, developer, publisher, etc. (For example, List of Space Invaders video games and List of Wario video games) However, this group of games seems to break that rationale, so I will try to include consistent information like the genre and developer/publisher. Character and plot info might be another story as reliable sources don't always go into such game details. I will add what I can though.
    FYI- Because of the holidays, I have inconsistent access to the internet, and I will try to get to this in a timely manner. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC))
    • I tweaked the notes. I hope it is to your satisfaction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC))

Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

*Comments: I have to admit that I have concerns about how the table is currently. Are most VG Featured lists like that and I've just never noticed, or is this the preferred version? It's hard to get used to, but I can look past it. Will do a full review once this is answered. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Yep, this is how most of them are (i.e. List of Donkey Kong video games, List of Final Fantasy video games, and List of Space Invaders video games), although system lists use a more traditional format (i.e. List of Nintendo 64 games). With the way video game releases and re-releases occur over a number of different platforms, this format really is the most efficient way to list out games. A traditional table would have problems for games like Donkey Kong (video game) which have been released over fifteen times-- the cells would stretch and it wouldn't be properly sortable. The VGtitle template allows us to list all releases and add any notes as necessary, and although it seems as though the accessibility problem has been addressed, we're always open to more comments on how we can improve the format. Nomader (Talk) 04:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC) Sounds fine. Here are my issues: "the first such game was the 1991 Wolverine." I'd say 'the first was the 1991 game..' sounds better, a bit odd as worded now. "Action video game developed and published by LJN" LJN (shudder) should be linked. In the Uncanny X-Men above (and elsewhere), you can link the characters, but that could be considered overlinking so I'll leave that up to you. Anything on why a lot of Japan releases were after North American ones? Probably not, but that was very interesting, since usually it's the other way around. This list is good otherwise; once these are addressed I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC) I made the edits per your comments above. In response to your question, I guess because the characters might be more popular in North America and the developer thought it would be best to fast track on an English version. It's rare for a Japanese developer, but not unheard of: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

• Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 11 January 2011 [18].

---

List of battleships of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list has just recently passed a ACR under Wikiproject Military History and follows the established pattern for battleship related lists. (see List of battleships of Austria-Hungary, another FL of mine for a comparison.) Questions and comments are welcome. Thanks :) White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• List looks good but I have some comments:

• The lead says that the German gift significantly contributed to the Ottoman decision to join Germany, but later in the article this is not expanded upno. Meanwhile, the text says that the two ships seized by the Brits had a major role in the decision. Which one is it? And if the former, then please expand in the text.

• They were both major factors to the Ottomans joining the Central Powers. I'll add that later today :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I believe this issue has been fixed now. Please check back to make sure that you like it :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• These ship articles always lead me wonder why were their name chosen that way, but rarely say it. Here it is obvious that is the origin for Sultan Osman I but I would still like a note here on when did this person rule, or what sort of role he had. As for the likes of Reshadieh I have absolutely no idea for the origin of the name. Since it is the name of a class, some indication should be given.

• I'll try to add some notes about the names if I can find them.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• For example Barbaros Hayreddin came surely from Hayreddin Barbarossa. If you can't find a reference for it, try to add a footnote at least with the Pasha. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• These things are generally addressed in the individual articles. I could still add them in but one or two names may not be known...--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Try to improve the caption for the lead image. It is really dry right now. Also, the date in the image page is listed as 1911. Nergaal (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Added the date. Is there anything else that you want added?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 10:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've tried to expand the lead caption a bit. I don't know if it is really better, so feel free to change/revert it. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support all of my major concerns have been addressed. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments Per MOS, lead images shouldn't be more than 300px in general. "in total failure" is "total" strictly necessary? siezure - typo. "By the dawn of the 20th century" - very emotive, not very encyclopedic. What's a keel block? Where's Thrace? "4, Parsons" why comma? "She was scrapped on the slipway in 1914 along with Reshad-I-Hammiss" - you already said the Reshad-I-Hammiss was scrapped in 1912... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC) All you're comments have been addressed/fixed.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support no problems after a brief re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment.

Same table issues that were at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of battlecruisers of the Royal Navy/archive1. To save a repeat conversation, a discussion can be found in my resolved comments there with detailed info on what the problem is (see also the list's talk page) and how to fix it. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Switching the abbr to mos does not work for the displacement and armament....--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Displacement should now work following my request here. Main guns seems flawed as is "6 × 28 centimetres" is a bit ambiguous and could be a main gun 28cm long and 6 cm wide. Note the other list resorted to a manual "6 × 28-centimetre" style as it was deemed better (not by me). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed the displacement.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 16:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the main guns? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Still does not work....It comes up as a red link thing...--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 23:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. I think the inclusion criteria for the list should be mentioned on the page since it excluded the Ottoman battleship Mesudiye. While I understand your reasoning for excluding her, several notable naval publications such as Brassey's Naval Annual list her as a battleship. It would be extremely helpful to the reader to mention why she is not included on the page (because she was a coversion), despite the fact that several sources list her as a battleship. For example Lawrence Sondhaus's Naval warfare, 1815-1914 specifically states that she was converted into a pre-dreadnaught from a casemate type ship.XavierGreen (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 20:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Have Rambo's Revenge and XavierGreen been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Done.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 00:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, Exactly what i was looking for has been added, article is now complete in its scope.XavierGreen (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments – Reshadieh class: "However, Reshadieh was seized by the Royal Navy at the outbreak of the World War I...". Don't see the need for "the" right before World War I. Sultan Osman I: "the British government seized the vessel for fear of it being used against her in the conflict." Should we really be used "her" in reference to a government? I understand using it for the ships, but this might be a bit much. Yavuz Sultan Selim: "The German transfer of Goeben to the Ottoman Empire fulled public support...". Should "fulled" be something else? There doesn't appear to be anything citing the two footnotes. Since reference 3 has a page range, it should be formatted with pp., not p. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC) All issues have been addressed save for one footnote.--White Shadows Your guess is as good as mine 16:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) What has become of this uncited footnote? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC) The article on the ship is unsourced. I have no way of providing a citation. Should I remove the footnote?--White Shadows Those Christmas lights 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) I would suggest commenting it out; if you do find a source, you can restore it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC) It states the info in Sondhaus on page 218, a work you already have used as a source in the article. I added it to the note and made it visable again. If you need another source you can also consult the 1911 issue of Brasseys.XavierGreen (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• Clarify exactly ships are meant here. The three Reshadieh-class ships were ordered, not purchased. In order to update the fleet, the Ottoman Navy Foundation purchased larger battleships such as Sultan Osman I, three of the planned Reshadieh-class battleships, and one that had already been built. What ship is meant by this last bit?
• Clarify these two sentences so that the reader knows these were the only two ships nearly complete when war broke out: The United Kingdom confiscated the ships at the outbreak of World War I. Sultan Osman I was renamed HMS Agincourt while Reshadieh was renamed HMS Erin
• Fix this: Out of all the battleships legally owned by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the war, half were either scrapped or ondhausewere seized by the British in the early days of the conflict.
• You're mixing Brit and American English with centimetres.
• One too many ands in this sentence: This act outraged the Ottoman people and was a major factor in turning public opinion against Britain and helped to drive the Ottoman Empire into an alliance with the Central Powers--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all of these issues except for the centimetres one... What do you want me to do about it? make the article solely British or American English?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Pick one or the other; just be consistent throughout the article. If you want American measurements add |sp=us to the conversion templates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the status on this issue? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still in the middle of working on it. This is the last issue.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I added them into the article but I'm not sure if I did it right....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Overall, the list is in good shape. I think you could have easily gotten away with a short table, but this list provides good list-like information as well as historical. I think the key is very helpful. Below are the issues that stood out to me.

• I think a year in the lead would be helpful for readers unfamiliar with the time frame of the First Balkan War.

Done.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Similarly, wikilinking Royal Navy would help those unfamiliar with military history.

Done.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Any reason why the table widths are 98% instead of 100%?

I think I changed it to that so the table will not look messed up....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 02:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What makes Warship International from the Naval Records Club a reliable source? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
  • It's a published magazine; it's as reliable as any other published, non-controversial source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Just checking. I inferred something less professional from the word "Club". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
      • Understandable, they later changed their name to the International Naval Research Organization, probably for that very reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Support: 98% table width seems odd to me, but I don't think that warrants opposition or withholding support. Everything else looks good. I hope you consider 100% width because I believe most other lists use that formatting. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC))

• Support C'mon, close it. It's time to go and get the star.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 21:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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