Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2009

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 [1].

---

List of Luton Town F.C. statistics and records

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You use both "Luton Town have" and "Luton Town has" in the lead. Which one should be used?

Have. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• In "Managerial records", two parentheses are used directly after each other in the David Pleat sentence.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Periods should be used after full sentences in image captions such as "Curtis Davies was transferred from Luton Town to West Bromwich Albion for £3,000,000 on 31 August 2005"

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a problem with footnote C.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• A date in reference 26 needs to be unlinked.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TheLeftorium 17:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose General Fix the dead external link found in ref 32; dab links check out fine. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Lead In addition to Theleftorium's comments... 'Luton have played at all professional levels of English football, and will play in the fifth tier (the Conference National) for the first time during the 2009–10 season. Luton Town has competed in the Football League for 92 seasons – from 1897 to 1900, and then again from 1920 to 2009.' -- 1)Since its a pronoun, the 'the' in The Football Club should be capitalized. 2)The dash should be an emdash I don't understand the first comment... the second is a difference between AmE and BrE Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) As in, shouldn't it be "The Football League" as opposed to "the Football League"?--Truco 503 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, ok. You had a typo there. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Can the list not be expanded a bit to summarize their records, i.e. a brief summary of how bad/good they have done, or if they have gone to any finals, won championships, etc. See List of Luton Town F.C. seasons. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) That's no reason not to have a brief summary in the prose.--Truco 503 00:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC) There is one in the Honours and achievements section, isn't there? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Take Gillingham F.C. records as an example, it includes a brief summary.--Truco 503 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC) List There is an inconsistency with the references and their positions, they should all either be on the name of the cup or all positioned after the years. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Award winners Why are they bolded? No need for it. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Those are not brackets, they are parenthesis. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) This is a bit confusing 'Competitive, professional matches only, appearances including substitutes appear in brackets.' -- I don't really understand, can it be reworded a bit. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Images 'Steve Howard was the club's top goalscorer for five seasons in a row – 2001–02 to 2005–06' --> Steve Howard was the club's top goalscorer for five consecutive seasons—2001–02 to 2005–06. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 'Curtis Davies was transferred from Luton Town to West Bromwich Albion for £3,000,000 on 31 August 2005' -- Needs a period OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 'Joe Kinnear, an Irishman, is the only Luton Town manager to have come from outside the United Kingdom' -- Remove the links to the countries, per WP:OVERLINK OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Transfers Why arent the tables sortable? The currency could use a link. No need for the bold OK to all. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) European statistics 'Luton Town have also qualified for the UEFA Cup, as winners of the Football League Cup in 1987–88; however they were unable to compete due to the ban of English clubs from European competitions following the Heysel Stadium Disaster.' -- Comma after however OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) In the table, it would help to have the name or abbr. of the country next to the flag in the country column. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Footnotes Error with the formatting of note C. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 'Joe Kinnear was the club's first manager from outside the United Kingdom to manage the club in a match – Terry Mancini, another Irishman, had a spell as the club's caretaker manager (3–11 January 1990) but did not manage the club in a match.' -- 1)Remove the link to the UK 2)Use a emdash instead of a endash OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 'The lowest total not including point deductions is 37, in 1990-91.' -- Comma after 'total' and after 'deductions' OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) There is no need to link Luton Town so many times, or other terms that have been linked previously. Use only 1 link. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) References For the Soccerbase refs, the work is from Soccerbase but the publisher is either the Racing Post or the copyright company located at the bottom of the page. OK, cheers Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 23:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Support -- The lead still needs expansion (brief summary of records) but otherwise Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 15:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No need to link England. "and then again from 1920 to 2009." There seems to be little summary of the list itself. Expansion would be nice. You need to use symbols (e.g. * ^ #) in addition to color in the tables. In addition, you need a key for the flags. Don't use bold unless absolutely necessary per MOS:BOLD. Explain the equal signs, even if their meaning is obvious. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, all sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

*WP:MOSFLAG suggests that the name of the country should appear next to the flag for accessibility. It also says you don't have to repeat it. I note you've got it in the key at the top but since the icons are so very similar, perhaps you'd consider putting the nation name into the table as well. "appear in brackets" those are parentheses actually. Check others. "appearances including substitutes appear in brackets" and in italics. Transfer fees table - Nat doesn't sort for me. Find a suitable link for "caps" for the first time you use it. Be consistent with ordering of references and notes - you have [27][E] and [F][45]. Move note [G] after comma. "Record by opposition nationality" table goes mad when sorted because of the rowspan. Look at Rumford Prize for a way round this. Suddenly link Luton in [G]. Why? Same thing re:Collings book refs per other two FLCs. Same for Hayes and Bailey. What makes englandfootballonline, statto.com and englandstats WP:RS? Soccerbase and the FA website may cover what these refs are citing? You link BBC as a publisher but not FIFA? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) OK, all sorted now. On the Refs, Statto's data comes from Tony Brown, whose Soccerdata company published "The Definitive Luton Town F.C." along with more than 100 similar books. I'd say that his data's reliable, but if you have a problem with it I'll look elsewhere. England Football Online and England Stats can be confirmed as reliable here and here. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Note G refers to club simply as Luton, I think this is the only place it happens. Why is Wash's name repeated in ref 10? Is he his own publisher or something? Ref 70, work=Time (magazine) isn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Wash (Luton Town F.C.'s official historian) published the book himself in 2008. I'll take the "publisher" name off. I've fixed the note G and the Time thing. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead. Catalogue is spelt with a "ue" in BritEng. Honours and achievements. Are you sure Luton have won "several major honours in English football"? Don't think our Villa-supporting colleague who used to review these lists would have let me claim 1 League Cup, 4 Second Divisions, 1 Third and 2 Football League Trophies as "several major honours", and yours are on a similar level :-) Reference should come after any punctuation, not before their comma. Is there any reason for referencing each honour individually to various pages from Collings or FCHD or one BBC match report, rather than just referencing the whole section to FCHD? Flags. Need accompanying with country names, per MOS:ICON#Accompany with country names. Images. Per MOS:IMAGES, use the thumb parameter default, i.e. don't specify a width, unless there's good reason not to. At 1024x768 screen resolution, I'm seeing lots of white space where images push tables out of their way. Don't think decorating a list is enough to justify fair-use on the Morton and Turner images. They're not "historically significant photo[s] of a famous individual", they're just photos. Top goalscorers. Number column doesn't sort properly (if the 6= cell is at the top, it isn't recognised as numeric, so the column sorts as alpha rather than numeric). Transfers. Don't really see the point of making a five-line table sortable. Doesn't do any harm, obviously, but for information, if you've got any more lists to come, the criteria say "includes, where helpful, ... table sort facilities" (my highlighting), they don't require all tables to be sortable. International. First capped (Hawkes) and first int'l goalscorer (Payne). Sources don't verify facts. First int'l goalscorer. International has a spurious capital I. Linking England 3 times in 4 lines is probably twice too many (WP:OVERLINK#Link density). Club records. Be consistent about whether you're using Second Division or Division Two format. Again, once per section is enough for linking xxx Division. Record defeats. Wouldn't have been Leicester City in 1899. European statistics. The words might read better if you merged the never progressing past the group stage bit into the AngloIt sentence, along the lines of "As of 2009, the only European competition the club have taken part in is the Anglo-Italian Cup, but they never progressed past the group stage.", so you finish with what they have taken part in before starting to talk about them not being able to enter the UEFA cup. Suggest you let the tables have a bit more width, so the columns don't wrap. Footnotes. Note C needs another backlink. Though you could always get round the problem by putting notes which attach to column headings of small tables immediately below the table they attach to, without any complex mechanisms, as per HERE. Note G. Per WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words, comparable quantities should be all words or all numbers, so "thirty" should be written 30. References. #28 (Barnett) is missing a publisher. Ref #70 (Time) needs a publication date. Ref #77 (Guardian Weekly) needs a letter p before the page number, for consistency. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC) All sorted except the "Reference should come after any punctuation, not before their comma." Not before their comma? I can't see any references done incorrectly – can you be more specific? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 15:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC) That's because I fixed them :) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC) They seek him here, they seek him there… them coppers seek 'im everywhere… is he in heaven, or is he in hell? That damned … elusive … Dabomb87. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC) They'd have gone anyway, when you changed the honours section to just use the one reference. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I've capped the resolved ones, which leaves these. Flags. Need accompanying with country names, per MOS:ICON#Accompany with country names. Top goalscorers. Number column doesn't sort properly (if the 6= cell is at the top, it isn't recognised as numeric, so the column sorts as alpha rather than numeric). I fixed that by using {{nts}} and put the equals signs back, please take them back out if you don't want them. Club records. Be consistent about whether you're using Second Division or Division Two format. Again, once per section is enough for linking xxx Division. Europe. Suggest you let the tables have a bit more width, so the columns don't wrap. To explain what I'm seeing at 1024x768 resolution, in the main table, dates are wrapping to 3 lines, flags are breaking from their country, but there's 4cm of unused white space to the right of the table. Note I also needs a source for Luton Town qualifying for the UEFA Cup but not being able to enter, which I should have made clear. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) OK, all done now. :) Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support seems to meet the criteria now. One slight omission: please could you add a sentence at the end of the lead, or anywhere else suitable, which says something like "All records are correct as at the end of the 2008-09 season", or as at today's date, or whatever the case is. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• The Robert Hawkes photo has a problem with the public domain tag. It claims "life of author plus 70 years", but the given author is the nominator. Given his recent activity at FAC and FLC, I'm confident that he's still alive. :-) If the author can't be found, it's no problem because it was clearly published in 1909. However, the tag may need switching.
• Spell out some abbreviations in the references—namely FIFA and RSSSF.
• Remove all caps from reference 65.
• American people is a disambiguation link. The article intended to be linked is apparently at People of the United States.
• Several Statto links are showing up as dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed – the Statto links were never broken, if you use them they go through fine. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 04:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Looks good again. Just some minor style points and one small error (the "Record defeat"): Might be worth pointing out in the lead that the Conference National is a non-league division. (It's suggested but not explicitly mentioned.) Try to reword "...record goalscorer, scoring 276 goals..." and "...international caps gained as a Luton Town player, having made 58 appearances..." to avoid the "noun + ing" construction. The sentence "The first major final reached was the FA Cup Final in 1958–59, and the first major cup victory was the Football League Cup win in 1987–88." includes use of the passive voice; perhaps "Luton Town's first major final was the FA Cup Final in 1958–59, and their first major cup victory was the Football League Cup win in 1987–88." (note "the" → "their" in the second clause if you do that.) For consistency: because you used "tier" in the lead to describe the levels of the football pyramid, use the term again (instead of "level") in the "The Football League" paragraph. There is also inconsistency in the use of footnotes after jointly-held positions in the tables: "Top goalscorers" has note [D] accompanying the 6=, whereas "Record transfer fees received" has no note next to the 1=. Managerial records: "...between June 1947 to October 1958" → "...between June 1947 and October 1958", or for consistency with the others, "...from June 1947 to October 1958". "Record defeat: Small Heath 0–9 Luton Town". Should be "9–0", I presume. "FA Cup sixth Round Replay": capitalisation looks inconsistent. Not sure whether "Sixth Round" or "sixth round" is better, though. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Some good spots there. Thanks fella. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the quick turnaround. The passive voice of "The first major final reached..." is still bothering me; and in the new sentence in the lead, "outside of" should be "outside"; but all the above is resolved apart from those. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Better? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 04:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Supporting as above; all of mine dealt with. Good stuff. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 [2].

---

List of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City

Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-nomination. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is encyclopedic, equable, well-referenced, coordinated, and useful. Any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Showtime2009 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)

Comments from Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs) Review by --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC) About the content (compare your list with List of tallest buildings in San Diego): You have to provide coordinates for every single building. Try to get images for as many buildings as possible (search flickr and commons). If there isn't a free image for each one than ask for permission from users on flickr. They usually agree to relicense if u ask politely and show that it's for a good cause. Put more info in the notes (costs for construction, construction time ...) Create a category on commons and link to it at the bottom of the list containing images of Skyscrapers in Oklahoma City. About the style: "This list of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City" We don't do that anymore. Change it. The third paragraph is only two sentences long. Make it longer. Add non breaking spaces for the heights. I find putting the meters in brackets like 500 (152) better than the slash. Spell out feet in the table. The table in the second section should be turned into prose unless you have at least three buildings there. Hey I've made a bunch of changes and I would like your feedback on them. Of course, I'm not done yet I'm still looking for images. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC) It would be best to type done next to everything you've done. Till now there are positive changes, many things are still to be done though. Here are other pointers: remove the future buildings template (the section title takes care of it). Wikilink Oklahoma City at the lead. Remove the See also section (the link could be handled in the lead) The lead has improved a lot, great work on that. Could u add a better introduction? The current one is a little direct. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Hey I addressed the first four issues, however I'm not sure how to improve the intro. What specifically do you want to see done better? Showtime2009 (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Great work until now. This list has gone truly a long way and improved a lot. I have however still some things to comment on: The lead is too direct. I meant by that that it goes right to the subject. I'd feel better if it were "Oklahoma city has more than 40 skyscrapers ...". It would be even better if u added an introduction with the history, tallest buildings and the number of skyscrapers in one paragraph. I decided to move the second pargraph up front so what do you think? it is better? In the height column put "m" in brackets, remove the slash and add a non breaking space. Done Replace the convert templates with the actual numbers without non breaking spaces, feet outside brackets and meters inside, don't add measure names (they're already included in the header and are just repetitive.) Done The section "Tallest under construction, approved and proposed" would be better off merged in the lead. This would solve many structural problems. Done The current panorama image isn't really one that illustrates the skyscrapers of Oklahoma city in a panoramic way (The main attraction isn't in the center and it can be cropped to only show the skyscrapers.) I therefore think that removing the image would be better. Done

• Try to find a map showing the places of these skyscrapers. It's actually very interesting to the reader to know where these are and how they relate to one another. If u can't find any ask the graphics lab to create one for you.

I'm going to ask the graphics lab because I cant find one. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other than that keep up the good work.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More to do:

• center the numbers in the numbers in your tables, like in List of tallest buildings in San Diego
• Try to add more information in the notes column to buildings that don't have articles, because this would be the only place to find some info. Information like its uses would be useful.
• I think the lead is much better now.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Oppose I don't like how half of the coordinates are missing. One or two is fine, but half fails the Comprehensiveness criteria IMO. They are all filled now. Remove Downtown Oklahoma City from see also since you already link it in the lead. Done About.com is not a reliable source —Chris! ct 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Removed it and added reliable sources. Regarding Hines interest, it is the company that will construct the building.[3] Showtime2009 (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Looks better now, so I struck out the oppose—Chris! ct 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comment "This list of tallest buildings in Oklahoma City ranks" Featured lists don't begin like this anymore, see List of tallest buildings in San Diego as an example with a more engaging lead sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "There are over 40 skyscrapers"-->There are more than 40 skyscrapers "In the city, there are 16 buildings that are taller than 200 feet (61 m)."-->In the city, 16 buildings stand taller than 200 feet (61 m). "in downtown Oklahoma City." No need to repeat "Oklahoma City". "fifth tallest building"-->fifth-tallest building "and sixth-tallest building"-->and the sixth-tallest building "which was Oklahoma City's first skyscraper" "With the discovery in oil in the area, the population of Oklahoma City grew at a significant rate."-->After oil was discovered in the area, the population of Oklahoma City grew significantly. "Other contemporary skyscrapers began forming on the north and west sides of Oklahoma City over time and eventually into the downtown area."-->Contemporary skyscrapers began to be built in the north and west sides of Oklahoma City, and later in the downtown area. "of it's kind"-->of its kind "The Devon Tower, which is expected to be completed in 2012" (multiple occurences) "21st-tallest in the United States" No hyphen (multiple occurences) "155 foot (47 m) dome"-->155-foot (47 m) dome tall or wide? "with a 17 foot (5 m) tall"-->with bronze Native American statue on top of the dome that was a 17 feet (5 m) tall. Em dashes (—) in blank table cells, please. "The 54-story building will amass over 1,900,000 square feet (177,000 m2)" "amass"-->occupy Why are feet and meters capitalized and linked in the tables? De-capitalize, and see WP:OVERLINK on linking common units of measurement. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) All your suggestions are done. Regarding Em dashes (—) in blank table cells, please all the cells have now been filled. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 7 shouldn't be in all caps.
• What makes http://okc.about.com/od/attractionsandevents/a/okcdevontower.htm a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Both issues have been addressed. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know about the images. I contacted a guy in Oklahoma City who says I can use them. I just sent him the declaration and hopefully later tonight he will agree so I can send it to the OTRS. Showtime2009 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] feet/meter or ft/m. Your choice. ft/m Also change it on the lead. Link ft to Foot (length), and link m to Metre on both the lead and the table. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC) What cites the last paragraph? I merged "Tallest under construction, approved and proposed" section into the lead which has the sources for it. regarding In November 1999, The Sandridge Center received a "25 Year Award of Excellence" from the American Institute of Architects it is sourced by ref 12. The Oklahoma State Capitol saw a major renovation in 2002 after a 155-foot (47 m) tall dome was constructed above the roof with a bronze Native American statue on top of the dome that was 17 feet (5 m) tall is sourced by ref 22&23. I don't think sorting the coordinates is necessary. removed For the name sorting, "The" shouldn't be sorted. So for example, "The Classen" should be sorted as "Classen, The" Also for "The 360 at Founders Plaza". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I also don't think sorting the street addresses is necessary. Done Showtime2009 (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Fixed them myself. Nice work. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [4].

---

List of New York Yankees managers

Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Before I oppose or support here are a couple of comments.

• I recommend splitting the lead it seems a bit long and is extremely detailed to be the lead. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 72 appears to be a dead link. It gets a 404 error. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I shortened the lead and replaced the dead link. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
Comment I agree with the above that the lead is too long. Some items have 6 or 8 refs. Is it necessary? It affects the visual appeal —Chris! ct 19:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I shortened the lead and replaced some of the refs, so now I don't need as many. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - good work —Chris! _ct 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Unless there is a specific rationale for doing otherwise, references should be in numerical order. I know that some postseason links in the table are going to be out of order; the ones I am looking at specifically right now are in the footnotes. There has been a lot of debate over calling the World Series a "world championship" (though I agree with the usage); since it's really more of a marketing term, I would shy away from that usage. Prefer "World Series championship" instead. Because it's being used in potentially featured content, the New York Yankees managers template should use en-dashes, not hyphens. I also changed the box to link directly to this article. I fixed this with Brighterorange's script. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Blank cells should be em-dashes, not en-dashes. Other than that, this looks great. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 02:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally think the length of the lead is fine; it's very detailed. Therefore, I support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments General Dabs, external links check out fine. Lead 'The New York Yankees are a professional baseball team based in The Bronx, New York, the northernmost of the five boroughs of New York City. ' -- Is it really necessary to state the fact about the boroughs? It just seems irrelevant to me. 'The franchise's first manager was Hall of Famer John McGraw, who managed the team for one year and part of a second. The team moved from Baltimore to New York in 1903, ' -- If you keep the part in the first sentence, then remove the link to NYC here because its WP:OVERLINK 'Casey Stengel managed the team from 1949 until 1960, winning ten American League championships and seven World Series titles and won 1,149 games, which ranks 3rd among Yankee managers.' --> Casey Stengel managed the team from 1949 until 1960, winning ten American League championships, seven World Series titles, and 1,149 games, which ranks 3rd among Yankee managers. 'From 1974 until 1995 no Yankee managerial term lasted as long as three complete seasons.' -- Comma after 1995 'Joe Torre managed the Yankees from 1996 through 2007 and made the playoffs each season.' -- Well he didn't make the playoffs, but he managed the team towards the playoffs. 'His predecessor, Buck Showalter also was named Manager of the Year in 1994.' -- Comma after 'Buck Showalter' 'Torre left after the 2007 and was replaced by Joe Girardi.' -- I'm guessing this was suppose to read, left after the 2007 season? Notes 'The Yankees had three managers during their World Series Championship season of 1978, Billy Martin, Dick Howser and Bob Lemon. ' -- Use a colon instead of a comma after '1978' References Link MLB.--Truco 503 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Truco's resolved review. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

*Comments – "The team moved from Baltimore to New York in 1903, where it was initially known as the New York Highlanders." Shouldn't be having "where" come directly after a year like this. Maybe move "in 1903" to the beginning of the sentence? "Huggins won a total of 1,067 regular season games with the Yankees, which ranks 4th all-time among Yankee managers." Drop "a total of" and switch 4th to fourth. "until midway through the 1946 season, during which...". Sounds like he had all of his accomplishments in part of one season. Please clarify that this is for the entire period, as is intended. Cite for Stengel having a front office job after he stopped managing the team? Link the Manager of the Year Award in the lead. "and was replaced by Joe Girardi. Girardi is the current manager of the New York Yankees." Not great to have a word appear back-to-back like this. Redundancy: "Several managers have had multiple tenures as the Yankees' manager." Why not "Several managers have had multiple tenures with the Yankees."? Note c: "and Bob Lemon. Lemon...". More repetitive phrasing. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Found two more things on a second look: "and 1,149 games, which ranks 3rd among Yankee managers." 3rd → third. The dashes used in Joe Girardi's row don't match the larger ones used for everyone else. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Hope Rlendog doesn't mind, but I was looking for something to do besides the giant craziness in my sandbox, so I fixed these minor issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – As a Yankees fan, I'm happy that this list turned out well. Took a couple of readings, but I think it's there now. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Though a BoSox fan, I'm still a Wikipedia editor. Here are my comments: Best managers list by far. For the first paragraph, would be nice to include the current owner and current general manager. Could note the the Baltimore Orioles of 1901 does not have any relations with the current Baltimore Orioles. You didn't mention that the Yankees have the most World Series wins. You also didn't mention that Joe Torre leads in all the playoff categories, except for pennants. It would be nice if you could write more about Billy Martin supposedly replacing Bucky Dent for the 1990 MLB season. Sorry for the late comments. Hope you could finish these by 0:00UTC, and hope that Scorpion promotes this today. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the compliment and the comments. I believe I have addressed all the comments, except the most World Series wins. That didn't seem to fit so naturally in an article specifically about the Yankees' managers. Rlendog (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC) The Baltimore Orioles thing now needs a reference, the most World Series wins sentence could be added onto the first paragraph, and it's pretty funny how the fourth paragraph is talking about Torre in every sentence. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I took care of the 1st two items. I wasn't sure what, if anything, you suggest be done with the 4th paragraph, although actually, the 1st sentence is not about Torre and the last two are really about Torre's predecessor and successor. Rlendog (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Was just exaggerating. How does the reference for the Baltimore Orioles sentence cite the sentence? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC) It shows that the origin of the current Orioles is the old St. Louis Browns team, not the current Yankees or old Baltimore Orioles team.Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Though I still suggest you find a better reference for the Orioles sentence. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments re - John McGraw - you might mention that he managed the rival New York Giants during the period the Giants dominated New York baseball.
• re Billy Martin - I'd like to see a total of how many wins, how many losses and what was his winning .pct as a Yankee manager, perhaps as a sum up of his record 5 times as Yankee manager. I suppose you can also sum up Houk, Piniella, Lemon, Berra, Howser and Gene Michael, but Martin's record is significant.
• re-ownership of the teams...A mention of the different periods of ownership would be helpful - The Steinbrenner era, the Pre-Ruthian Era, the Ruth - Gehrig - Dimaggio Dynasty, The Mantle - Berra - Ford Dynasty etc....Modernist (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments. I added a comment about McGraw's future tenure with the Giants. I did not go into detail about McGraw's Giants' accomplishments though, since that is already addressed in List of San Francisco Giants managers, where it better fits. I think the information you are looking for on Billy Martin's and the others' totals is included in the section List of New York Yankees managers#Managers with multiple tenures. I did not really discuss the ownership eras because, other than Steinbrenner, I don't think any are particularly important to an article about managers, and the lead is pretty long already. After all, Jacob Ruppert owned the team from 1915-1945, but the team didn't miss a beat after Dan Topping, Del Webb, and Larry MacPhail took over that year. Also, defining eras by player combinations is somewhat arbitrary. For example, Huggins basically covers the Babe Ruth era, McCarthy basically the DiMaggio era and Stengel the Mantle era - but Houk and Berra also managed Mantle championship teams, others managed DiMaggio championship teams, and Huggins did not manage Ruth's final championship team. Rlendog (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seems to easily fulfill all the criteria. Ian Fahey (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "winning ten American League championships, seven World Series titles, and 1,149 games" Comparative quantities have to be spelled out the same (either all numbers or all words) per WP:MOSNUM. "He had a second term as Yankee manager" I think "served" is stronger than "had". "Torre also was named " "but he was fired" Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I have addressed them, although I am not certain that the numbers in the first example are really "comparable". I guess I get confused on that criterion. Rlendog (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I think they count as comparable because they are all under the umbrella of the verb "winning". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 [5].

---

Poker Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the latest of the Poker articles for FL consideration. ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - References need to be formatted properly. Some are missing publishers. Dates should be consistent. Publications need to be italized—Chris! _ct 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Ref 10 http://pokerworks.com/article-1081.html deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed dabs and ref.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(Copied comment from the poker project where I asked for a second set of eyes a week or so ago.)

The article looks pretty good to me. One thing, the line "Currently, the Poker Hall of Fame is virtual in nature." needs to be clarified/written in language that everyone can understand. It threw me when I read it, especially since it was tacked on to the end of a historical summary of casino ownership of the HOF. I tried to fix it but kept getting the fizzing Beavis and Butthead light bulb. Hazir (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Done---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. I hope that the next FLC you submit is a better-prepared than this one. All the same, good job. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "In 1979, Benny Binion, the owner of the Horseshoe Casino, created the the Poker Hall of Fame..." Ref? Ref added.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "In 1949, he convinced two of the biggest names in Poker" 1) "Poker" shouldn't be capitalized 2) "two of the biggest names" is rather unencyclopedic; try "two of the most famous poker players" Reworded, as I'm not sure how famous they were at the time. Made it more about the stakes.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "While many of the best known poker players in the world are part of the Hall of Fame, very little is known about some of the earlier members." "While"-->Although Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "While the original Hall of Fame was created by the Horseshoe Casino as a tourist attraction, the Hall currently does not a physical location." 1) "While"-->Although 2) delete "currently" 3) There's a missing word. reworded.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "physical location. It only exists on paper."-->physical location; it only exists on paper. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "Prior to"-->Before (multiple occurences) Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I would recommend copying the requirements and putting them in quotes. "Player must have stood the test of time." Doesn't sound encyclopedic anyway. Copied---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "mebers " Typo? Fixed---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "Main Event Final Table" Link? I can't think of an appropriate link, the only I would link to would be the WSOP main page, but that's already linked.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "Being admitted to the Poker Hall of Fame is considered one of the biggest honors in poker." Ref? done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) considers her induction as a "lifetime achievement honor."-->considers her induction to be a "lifetime achievement honor". done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "was an 8 inch tall piece of glass "-->was an 8-inch-tall piece of glass (and we need a conversion) Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "the winners name"-->the winner's name Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) "and the words, "Poker Hall of Fame" in a circle." No comma. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Em dashes in the blank cells. (—) Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Where's the main reference for all the Hall of Famers? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I'll try to tackle these tomorrow or Friday... I'm trying to finish up a 14 item DYK... which might become a 14 item FLC in the not too distant future. (Granted, I'll have to clean up the 14 items before the FLC... but just think what's in the works ;-) )---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Unexpected house guest, will try to take care of this this weekend.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 08:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Follow-up "Freeze out tournament" or "Freeze-out tournament"? I see both in the article. Freeze-out tournament---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "in the summer of 1949 Nick the " It's winter in half the world. added location as "summer" is as close as any source gets.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) " five month long poker marathon"--> five-month-long poker marathon done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Nick the Greek reportedly loss about $2 million to Moss and upon losing the final hand stood up and said" "loss" is the wrong verb tense. "upon" could be "on". done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "This event, which became a tourist attraction, is often cited as the earliest inspiration behind the World Series of Poker Which "event" was this? There needs to be a period at the end. changed to heads up match, but it is referencing the event just described.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Red Winn was one of the pioneers in poker and considered to be an all around great poker player.-->A pioneer in poker, Red Winn is considered to be an all-around great poker player. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) " twentieth century"--> 20th century done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "The hand has since been called the Dead man's hand" Needs a period at the end, and "Dead" shouldn't be capitalized. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "whist" Link? done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "from 1946-1982"-->from 1946 to 1982 done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Boyd is credited with spreading Robert Turner's game Omaha hold 'em into a casino staple."-->Boyd is credited with establishing Robert Turner's game Omaha hold 'em as a casino staple. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) " Poker Hall of Famer's" No apostrophe. (two occurences) done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Doyle Brunson wrote a book, Super/System" Book titles should be italicized. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) " At one point, Strauss was down to one chip, and he came back to win."--> At one point, Strauss had one chip remaining, and came back to win. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "A chip and a chair;"-->"A chip and a chair", done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "notoriety", not "notoreity ". done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Founder of the Horseshoe Casino and the WSOP." Shouldn't have a period at the end. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "Despite winning 3 bracelets" "3"-->three done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "cash game play"-->cash-game play done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC) "person ever enshirined in the Poker Hall of Fame."-->person to be enshirined in the Poker Hall of Fame. I forgot to fix this... but I already had fixed it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I'll return to look at "Thomas Preston" on down. Overall, I'm unhappy with the density of issues, many of which could have been picked up on a simple proofread. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Final comments "At one point, Strauss had one chip remaining, and came back to win.." Double period. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Slim also hosted the Super Bowl of Poker, which was the second most prestigious tournament of its day"-->"Slim hosted the Super Bowl of Poker, considered the second most prestigious tournament of the time." I also think hyphens are needed, but I asked Tony1 (talk · contribs) about exactly where. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "and then won the event again in 1996." done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "He and Johnny Moss are the only people" How about "players" instead of people? done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "with ten or more WSOP bracelets."-->with 10 or more WSOP bracelets. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Baldwin has held numerous positions at various casinos." What is meant by "positions" here? reworded---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "In 2004 he had the most WSOP cashes of any poker player." So did he win all those cashes in 2004 or did he have that much at a certain point in 2004? tweaked wording "upon his father, Benny Binion's death."-->after the death of his father, Benny Binion. done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! "only person to win bracelets"-->only person to have won bracelets done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Billy Baxter's note needs more context for those who don't understand US tax laws. How does counting poker winnings as earned income help the game or its players? done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "only woman to make it to the final table"--only woman to have advanced to the final table Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "at the age of 24" done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "youngest person to ever win the WSOP main event." done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "It was not until 2008, that this distinction was broken by 22 year old Peter Eastgate[27]" Missing punctuation after the sentence, remove the comma, and add hyphens: "22-year-old". done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "Tomko has also played in every"-->He has played in every done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "which is the longest streak ever." done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) "see players hole cards."-->see player's hole cards. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Comment on sources. I know it's frustrating, but we need to follow WP:RS. Unfortunately, "I consider [the source] reliable/established" is not good enough to prove its reliability. A large chunk of this is my fault for being lax and inconsistent on source reviews in previous FLCs, but we can't change the past. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following sources reliable (apologies if I've brought these up before)?
  • http://www.professional-poker.com/columns/paul-mcguire/poker-hall-of-fame.htm

This is the one I have the most question about, I'll try to find another source for this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Found better source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the replacement source? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

PokerNews.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC) NOTE: should you have questions about PokerNews.com, you should read this Bluff Magazine] article wherein PokerNews entered into an agreement with the WSOP to provide ‘play by play’ updates and chip counts for publication on the worldseriesofpoker.com website, as well as on PokerNews.com. Bluff Magazine also writes, that PokerNews has garnered a reputations for providing what many in the industry consider the best poker tournament coverage on the web. Part of agreement for the WSOP was that they translate in "near real time" the coverage into the 23 languages used by PokerNews.com.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Poker news has a similar agreement with the Aussie Millions tournament.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 05:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.pokerroom.com/newsroom/news/592/

While I think this source is OK, I'll try to find a different one for this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated with more reliable source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the replacement source? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Pokernews Also, this is common tale... one that could actually be argued to be common knowledge in the poker world.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/pokerpages06.htm I think I might have let this go before, but this makes me wary.

Most magazines/companies have guidelines on how to be published. I mean, you can write articles for written articles for professional journals or Newspapers or whatnot. Having a criteria for submitting articles does not disqualify a source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

One other thing to note on the page, There is no set rate of payment for articles. Payment will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Payment will be issued via check only, without exception, at the end of the month in which an article was published. They are not asking for people to write for free ala a wiki, they are looking to publish reviewed content. The articles have to pass the mustard. Furthermore, the fact that they don't offer a set rate is a sign of a more credible magazine. I know some pages will pay X dollars per article and those are generally a little more dubious in nature.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.ultimatebet.com/poker-news/2009/march/phil-hellmuth-new-official-web-portal

Ultimate bet is one of the biggest online casinos. I consider it a reliable, albeit not a top tier source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced with ESPN and PokerListings sources.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/player.php?a=r&n=230

The hendonmob is one of the most respected databases of poker results.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick search on "according to the hendon mob" will generate over 130K worth of hits. The Hendon Mob was involved in a legal case a few years ago concerning their data base. It was with either Poker Listing or Poker Pages, but it is generally considered to be one of the more complete repositories of poker results available. MSNBC relies upon them as does [AllIn Magazine and do just about all of the various poker cites (fulltilt, ultimate bet, pokernews, poker listing, pokerstars) and even the established blog writers (Daniel Negraneau, Barry Greenstein, Andy Bloch.) There are only a handful of databases reporting results, and the HendonMob is one of them. Poker Pages is another, but their data base isn't as complete---especially from older tournaments. Cardplayer also has one, but from what it looks like HendonMob/Cardplayer feed each other. For example, looking at the results for the 1991 SBOP, both websites have the same holes in their results. Most notably, neither one has results for the Deuce to Seven Lowball event. If you look at the 89 results, both are missing results for 4 of the first five events---but the Hedon Mob has the winner of one of those five, while Cardplayer does not. Earlier events are better covered by the Hendon Mob (see the 1981 event.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.tightpoker.com/news/mike-sexton-deserves-place-in-pokers-hall-of-fame-1074/

This is from a subsidairy of Party Poker itself, and as it is referencing a campaign by PP, it is a primary source. But I added a second source.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • http://www.pokerlistings.com/player-interviews/the-press-conference-part-1-this-years-poker-hall-of-famers Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Poker Listings is an established source. Zero doubt in my mind about it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Poker Listing is one of the more respected online websites for poker information. Poker listing staff] are full time employees travelling and writing for Poker Listings. In addition, they have an array of high caliber "featured writers" whose reputations are beyond reproach. Nolan Dalla is notable enough that I have the intention of writing an article on him one of these days. He's been the official press officer for the WSOP for years and can be seen working the floor at WSOP events. (When Hal Lubarsky was eliminated last year, Nolla was the person who gave a short speech commemorating the achievement.) Aurthur Reber is another big name for his published works. As is Gary Wise (who does Poker Listing's Hand of the Day) and is ESPN's poker expert. I don't know if it means anything, but if you goto GoogleNews, it is not uncommon to see pokerlistings.com as the reporting website. NBC has cited PokerListings.com. Here is an independent (although I don't know how reliable) source calling Pokerlistings the world's largest online poker guide. Another source gave a review, What sets Pokerlistings.com apart from the jungle of online sites promoting poker sites is the sheer amount of relevant and qualitative poker information they offer. Pokerlistings routinely gets interviews with the games top stars---moreso than you would expect from a website that is not respected in the field. In short, Pokerlistings is one of the premier online sources for poker information.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

*Oppose – Sorry, but I see too many prose problems at the present time, in addition to the source questions raised earlier. Remove comma after Nick the Greek. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Decapitalize Award in section header. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Space between initials for T.J. Cloutier. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Typo: "The award was was an 8-inch tall piece of glass...". Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "and had Binion's Horseshoe Casino logo in it." Add "the" before Binion's? Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Table: Picky, but non-breaking spaces are needed for dollar figures, such as this: $2 million (hit edit tab to see formatting). Done, learned something new.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Commas before and after Super/System in Doyle Brunson's note. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Jack Strauss note: "A saying that means as long as you have a chip and a chair you have a chance." Sentence fragment with a lot of repetition from the previous sentence. Reworded---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Fred Ferris: Space after the dollar sign in $ 10,000 Deuce to Seven Draw. Check elsewhere for these. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "Reese was best known for his cash game." If it wasn't literally his game, try adding "play" at the end. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Amarillo Slim note: Spell out tv, and add a comma after Super Bowl of Poker. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Berry Johnston note: "He has cashed in at least one WSOP event since 1982." I would hope so, if he's a Hall of Famer. Is this supposed to say he did so each year. Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Henry Orenstein note: Comma after "hole cam". Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Crandall Addington note: Typo in "1973 $1,000 No Limi Hold'em". Done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Phil Hellmuth note: Excess parentheses mark after Peter Eastgate. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC) done---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - made some fixes, but it looks good —Chris! _ct 01:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

• Why is there an image of the 2007 Main Event WSOP Bracelet on the article? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• The WSOP winnings aren't sorted properly. Also, why not use live winnings instead? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the 80,000 one that was appearing out of order. I can't figure out why the 0's are showing up at the end as compared to the beginning when sorting. Any ideas?

As for why I'm using the WSOP totals there are two reasons. First, the Poker Hall of Fame is now directly tied to the WSOP. Both were acquired in 2004 by Harrah's Casino. Second, there is a little more authority in that total. While there are other sources that present life time earnings, there can be significant discrepencies between the amounts. According to various sources here is Doyle Brunson's lifetime tournament winnings:

The Hendon Mob = $5,819,350.

Cardplayer = $5,305,447.

Poker pages = $5,215,256.

Bluff Magazine = $5,065,582.

PokerListings = $5,049,331.

Each of those sources is a reliable source, but because they have different criteria on what counts towards the lifetime earnings and because earlier results are not as well recorded, there are discrepencies. By using the WSOP Lifetime earnings, we have an authoritative figure; and in this case the one that is now affiliated with the Hall of Fame. If the Hall wasn't under the WSOP I would probably use one of the other sources for lifetime earnings, but as is I think the WSOP is the best option.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

See this comment by Scorpion regarding the wayward sorting. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorting fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't get why Dabomb87 commented on an FLC on my talk page, when he already knows I don't like it, but ehh...I'll support once everything has been resolved. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got everything covered to this point.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 [6].

---

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. --Kumioko (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand. How is the current post different from the previous titles that were abolished? Who selects the Sergeant Major? I'm not big on military, but I don't really see where the position/rank? fits in. You were more clear with the Commandant. Reywas92^Talk 16:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I will clarify that, just for info though he is appointed by the CMC. So when we get a new CMC shortly thereafter we will get a new SgtMaj also. From a rank billet standpoint, there are many sergeants major but only 1 sergeant major of the USMC at any given time.--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added a bunch of info to the lead and added some more inline citations. Let me know if you have any more suggestions.--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Much better. Reywas92^Talk 15:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Balloonman

• The transition from the second to third paragraph is very abrupt. In fact, I had to read it a few times to realize that Marine Corps Sergeant Major wasn't the titular predecessor to Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, but rather the first person with the title Sergeant Major.

I've done some re-wording, let me know what you think. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overlink... USMC and Sergeant Major are overlinked in the lead.

Corrected. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• There are no references for any of the Sergeant Majors or their tenures.

The general references points to it, do I need to add a reference to every single one?--Kumioko (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat new to the FLC review process. My understanding is yes, if there is a single source/a few pages in a book, you could put the reference on the column header. Of course, as a new reviewer I might be going overboard, so I'll leave this open to input from more experienced FLC reviewers.

Since the source is basically the same for all of them putting the ref in the column title is a really good idea. I haven't seen this done though so let me ask if that is acceptable.--Kumioko (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed a few FLs, I can say that general references are accepted for the list itself, unless the source differs for each listed item. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Each one has a biography on the History Division's website, I can have used those. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• What can you tell me about any of them? Were any of them particularly notable? Did they do anything in their roles? Were any of these individuals notable on their own prior to being appointed?

There are a couple that have some notibiliy as the First or current or the first African American but not enough in my opinion. I actually added a column and then removed it because I only came up with notes for a couple and they where pretty weak.--Kumioko (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see something in the lead about some of them... especially, if say they helped institute significant changes in the Corps.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not really part of the job description. They are primarly advisers to the leaders of the Corps, but don't act as policy-makers. They provide guidance, leadership, and advice to enlisted Marines, but don't actually have a hand in the leadership of forces. Whatever influence they do have on policy and changes is usually used behind closed doors. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm still not 100% certain I know what they do.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

* Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Sergeant Major is both a rank and a military billet, and he serves as " So the SMMC can only be male? You can fix this by eliminating "he", as the sentence still works through ellipsis. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think there is specifically anything that states that the Sergeant Major or the Commandant must be a male but in order to be the SgtMaj of the USMC or the Commandant you must have completed some things that would be extremely difficult for a woman to accomplish or because they are not allowed to do it(such as serve in certain billets in an infantry unit). Since these 2 billets are infnatry related its unlikely that a woman would be allowed althuogh I could see one becoming the SgtMaj so I will fix that since a woman can be SgtMaj.--Kumioko (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Just 50 years ago, the idea of an African American US president would have been unfathomable to most, but look where we are today. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Just to reiterate I didn't mean to imply that a woman couldn't do the job but since the billet requires a lot of time in an infantry unit it would be unlikely that a woman would be selected because they are prohibited by law (for know anyway) from being assigned the Specialties of Infantry, artillary or tanks. They could be assigned to an infantry unit doing support (supply, admin, truck driver, etc) but not in an infantry related billet. With that said there are A LOT of woman serving in infantry units doing other things and doing them well so I figure its only a matter of time before we see it happen. I made the change by the way. --Kumioko (talk) Kumioko is correct here: both the Commandant and the SMMC traditionally come from the infantry field, which is currently not open to women. While I don't think there is a firm regulation about that, there are no indications that tradition will be broken any time soon. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "and by 1899 there were five Marines with the rank of Sergeant Major"-->by 1899 five Marines held the rank of Sergeant Major Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "rank device" Link? Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "SgtMaj" You never defined this abbreviation. Done. I spelled it out. --Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC) A little more summary of the list is needed. Were there any especially notable SMMCs? Who is the most recent? Only as far as stating that they where the first of something (i.e. the first sergeant major, the first one not to retire since..., the first non white sergeant major, a couple where awarded Navy Crosses) nothing that I think is pertinant to the article about the Sergeant Major of the USMC. Let me know though and I can put some of this in.--Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I think I can flesh out some good details, but I'm not convinced I can get a remark for every single person. WOuld it be a problem to have a few blanks? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 16:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) No leading 0s in dates; i.e, "August 01, 1969"-->August 1, 1969 Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I also created an article for Archibald Sommers although its a stub at the moment. Once I can locate more info on the fellow I will fill it in.-Kumioko (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for some expert help in this matter. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Web title should not be in all caps (refs 4–19) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I just copied and pasted right out of the ref. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No big deal I fixed it, --Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Should the list be called Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps? I thought that also but was told it was fine, this also applies to the Commandant of the Marine Corps article that was recently promoted.--Kumioko (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Five paras in the lead seems a bit over the top. It was a lot shorter but several reviewers asked for more and more info so it grew.--Kumioko (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "In the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major is the ninth and highest enlisted rank, just above First Sergeant, and equal in grade to Master Gunnery Sergeant, although the two have different responsibilities. Sergeant Major is both a rank and a military billet, " is a direct copy-and-paste from the Sergeant Major article. Discouraged per GFDL. "sometimes informally abbreviated as SMMC or SgtMajMC" prove it. Done. I removed them because I couldn't find a reference althgough a couple of the references abbreviates them that way.--Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "One Marine is chosen by the Commandant of the Marine Corps to serve as his advisor, and serves as the pre-eminent enlisted Marine." is this the Sergean Major of the Marine Corps? It's not clear to me. Not sure how so. This line is in the paragraph describing his role, and woult adding yet another "Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" and sounding repetitive, I don't see how to confuse it with any other person/role/whatever. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "Sergeant Major in the Marine Corps " in or of? There's still an element of confusion here for me. A very clear distinction needs to be provided between the "Sergeant Major of..." and a "Sergeant Major in..." Done,I reworded this sentence a bit and clarified it. --Kumioko (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I thought it was pretty clear before because it did have an "in" instead of "of". bahamut0013wordsdeeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "rank insignia of the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" Rank. done. --Kumioko (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "first Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps in 1957, there have been 16 Sergeants Major of the Marine Corp" repetitive. I don't agree with this assessment, in the first part of the sentance we are saying that Wilbur Bestiwck was the first SgtMaj of the USMC and in the second half we are saynig there there have been 16. How is that repetitive? If it said of the 16 Sgt'sMaj he was the first and then it went on to say there have been 16 I would agree but in this case I don't. --Kumioko (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I'm saying the repetition of "Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps" is repeated and makes for boring prose. You could say something different like "16 men have filled this post" or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Done. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Are the See also's supposed to be other service equivalents to this post? If so then it's probably worth mentioning them in the lead. If not, what are their specific relevances to this list? They are the other service equivelants and I can mention them in the lead but as you pointed out its already quite large. --Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Why do have (in English) for most of the refs? This is English Wikipedia, the article is about an English-speaking subject. I would have thought it was safe to assume references were in English unless otherwise specified. It's one of the fields to fill in refToolbar, and I generally try to complete as many citation fields as possible. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 07:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I think it's unnecessary and clutters the references up. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Done I took them out. --Kumioko (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Over categorised - check which of those categories are super-categories to others and opt for only the most specific. Done. The last 2 categories had a subcat of Sergeants Major of the Marine Corps. --Kumioko (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I still find the lead a little, well, unclear. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 15:25, 30 June 2009 [7].

---

List of African American Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have completely reconstructed it using the standard format for the other Medal of Honor lists and along with other contributors have gotten it to Featured List quality. Kumioko (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Done.--Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The lead is on the short side. You might mention/summarize the wars the recipients fought in. Done. I combined the lead with the Medal of Honor section. --Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "one of 19 men"-->1 of 19 men or one of nineteen Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "to be awarded two Medals of Honor"-->to have been awarded two Medals of Honor Done. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "While it was common for Civil War Medals of Honor to be awarded decades after the conflict ended, Andrew Jackson Smith's medal was not awarded until 2001, 137 years after the action in which he earned it." The flow is off. Try "It was common for Civil War Medals of Honor to be awarded decades after the conflict ended; in one case, Andrew Jackson Smith's medal was not awarded until 2001, 137 years after the action in which he earned it." Done --Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Em dashes in blank cells please. (—) Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "Vernon Baker was the only living recipient - the other six men had been " Use an unspaced em dash, not a hyphen. Done.--Kumioko (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "Prior to"-->Before Done. --Kumioko (talk) 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "one of only nineteen men" Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 3 needs a publisher and last access date. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I removed this because it was basically a useless references anyway I and restructured the references section. I am also going to add a couple more references and expand the external links to include the publisher and access date. I also made some other minor changes that I noticed. --Kumioko (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I added references for the Medal of Honor citations for each of the wars that are listed on the list in the general sections. 1 question though and that is, should I put the inline citations first or the general citations? I think the inline should come first personally. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Comments from Balloonman (talk · contribs) Comments by Balloonman: You have a lot of quotes in the Notes section, but none of them are cited. I would think that a reference would be needed for each of the quotes. Saying they are derived from the citation isn't enough, IMO. Where is the citation found? Is it online? The general references cover these depending on the conflict or war.--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC) It was common for Civil War Medals of Honor to be awarded decades after the conflict ended citation? Based upon the above, it creates an interesting question, should we also have when the metal was awarded? Only so much will fit in the table without it being unwieldy, I think they can go to the article for that.--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC) "grasped the flag, led the way to the" Should that be a capital G? "remained steadfast at his post and" capital R? Several other places where the leading character should be capitalized. If not a full quote, I would think leading ... or [] with a capital would be needed? (I'm not an expert on the MOS, but that's my sense of things.) Need to go through and check them all (WWII and vietnam in particular) For thse the comments in quotes may not represent the entire quote however they are word for word sections. For example on the list Robert Blake starts with "in" and the fill citation reads "On board the U.S. Steam Gunboat Marblehead off Legareville, Stono River, 25 December 1863, in an engagement with the enemy on John's Island. Serving the rifle gun, Blake, an escaped slave, carried out his duties bravely throughout the engagement which resulted in the enemy's abandonment of positions, leaving a caisson and one gun behind."--Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Again, I'm not a MOS expert, but it doesn't look right to me... I would think that the correct format would be: "...in an engagement" or "[I]n an engagement". The first is *MY* preference, but I don't know which is correct. I only know that it looks wrong to me.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC) ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Link comments

• Medal of Honor should be linked in the first sentence of the lead.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• United States should not be linked per WP:LINK.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• African American should be linked on its first "appearance" in the lead, not in the last sentence of the third paragraph.

Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Medal of Honor is linked twice in the World War II section. Both links should be removed. TheLeftorium 12:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• More: World War II, United States armed forces, and "the Army" should be linked in the lead. TheLeftorium 13:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done--Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Balloonman, yes, either of those would be fine; I guess where space is tight, you might use the square bracket option, since that does show it as starting mid-sentence. Otherwise, a non-breaking space between ellipsis dots and "... in. I see quite a few quotations that might be mid-sentence starters (Smith, Veele?).

Just for clarification which is preferred, I can do the elipses or the square brackets, I just don't want to do one and have someone come back and say the other is preferred. Just FYI once clarified I will also carry these comments over to the other Medal of Honor list articles starting with the ones that are already featured.--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• It would work much better in terms of table layout to rob horizontal space from "Name" and especially "Date" to pay the "Notes" column.
• I've done a little cleaning up of the lead. "United States" three times in the opening sentence. Please check that it's "Army" but "armed forces" lower case. Plus other things. Next time, perhaps an independent set of eyes before nomination? It's an important list, culturally. We need to address this memory.``

Thanks, for the help, not sure what your saying about the Army, Armed forces comment could you clarify?--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Link to WW2: if there's a section of the WW2 article that is relevant, please pipe it there rather than to the entire, huge article.

I looked and I don't see anywhere better to pipe too. Please feel free to take a look yourself and if you see a good fit please feek free to make the link.--Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "several"—do we know how many? If not, fine.

Can you tell me where you are talking about on this one?--Kumioko (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "the medal", but "Medal of Honor". Can you audit the use of upper and lower case? It should be lower if a generic reference, but here I gather there is only one medal at issue. Tony (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry not sure what your trying to say here either, could you clarify?--Kumioko (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, if you are using Medal as shorthand for Medal of Honor, then it should be capitalized. If you are using medal to represent a generic medal that one might win, then it should be lower case. Think of the use of God vs god.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose "88 have been awarded to 87 African American recipients" well, I think 88 were awarded to 87 different recipients. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Consider linking United States Colored Troops. Done. Its already linked in the Civil War section. --Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "...prize rebel ram Tennessee ..." is that really a ram?! Done. Changed to ram --Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Same ranking issue with Trumpeter, and Fireman. Again, these are cited as the official ranks on the MOH citations although they are more like Navy rates (occupations) than ranks. Again I can move to the notes section and replace with an emdash for the rank if you think that would be more appropriate.--Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Not sure a link to German is really required. Done. removed the link --Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC) What is FMF? Done. Fleet Marine Force --Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "smothering 2 enemy " not a quote so "smothering two enemy" - check for others. Done. I didn't see any others but if you find one let me know. --Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Inline refs 1 and 5 need accessdates. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Confused about ordering of rank - Engineer's cook appears to rank higher than First Sergeant. Is this correct? And what rank is "Contraband"?

Well contraboand isn't a rank he was a captured slave but this is what is reported as the rank on the oficial MOH citation. If you prefer I can move to the notes section but I think it is noteworthy to mention that the medal was received by a person who was formerly a slave. Especially in the context of this article. --Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea what contraband meant so a note would be useful for that specific "rank". As for the other "non" ranking ranks, I'd make sure they sort lower than the actual lowest ranks, i.e. below Private etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I fixed the sort order by making them zero. --Kumioko (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Still no sign of a note for what contraband means. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [8].

---

List of Gold Glove Award winners at third base

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I can. Just kidding. Of course I wouldn't bring anything here that I didn't think met the criteria, nor would I nominate it if I didn't intend to address the comments raised. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Just a couple comments though,

• The first reference isn't working. There are no Disambiguous links, the table formatting looks good, I checked it through AWB and there are no general fixes needed, all the references have good formatting and the lead seems like a good summery of the article. Not much on sports data but other than that it looks like a good list. --Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The reference does work. If you checked it through the external link checker in the toolbox, it shows up blue because the SI archives block bots and scripts. If you click through directly from the article, you can see the reference. Can you clarify what you mean by "not much on sports data"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry I was referring to myself regarding the data in the table. I wouldn't know if its correct. Sorry I should have been more clear.--Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I understand. Thanks for your support! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments General Dabs, external links check out fine Lead 'Mike Schmidt is second in wins at third base; he won 10 with the Philadelphia Phillies and leads National League third basemen in Gold Gloves.' -- wouldn't it be the 'National League'? Not in this case. National League is being used as an adjective here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, right.--Truco 503 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'Hall of Famers to win a Gold Glove at the position include Robinson, Schmidt, Wade Boggs, and George Brett.' -- Link to the proper Hall of Fame? I knew I forgot something else when I forgot the Hall of Famers. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'Two National League winners have made six errors in a season to lead that league: Mike Lowell in 2005,[19] and Schmidt in 1986.' -- I don't think the comma is necessary, or is it? It is; these are items in a list. If there were three, it would look like it made more sense, but it is used properly here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Gotcha.--Truco 503 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'The most double plays turned in a season was 44 by Robinson in 1974; he turned 40 or more double plays during three of his winning seasons.' -- How about he turned at least 40 double plays? I can deal with that. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The rest of the list checks out fine.--Truco 503 23:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support main issues resolved. – (iMatthew • talk) at 14:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Hall of Famers to win a Gold Glove"-->Hall of Famers to have won a Gold Glove

• Changed to "who have won"; seemed a bit less awkward. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The least errors committed in a winning season is five" A bit too ambiguous; make it more obvious that you are referring to third-base Gold Glove winners.

• Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• "only pair of brothers to win Gold Glove Awards"-->only pair of brothers to have Gold Glove Awards Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I assume you meant "to have won"; done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes I did, sorry for the error. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Very good, just as the others in the series are. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [9].

---

List of CZW World Tag Team Champions

Nominator(s): --WillC 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... passes criteria, blah blah blah, everyone gets the picture, I've done this like 20 times already. Everyone knows the drill, you leave comments, I fix them. Say thank you because I'm grateful, tell you they are finished. Come back vote support, this list passes and I nominate another one. For the ones who understand that nonsense, you speak retardense, congratulations.--WillC 22:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comment. Recommend notes be filled in for the first table or else put emdashes. No disambiguous links and sources check out ok. I ran it through AWB general fixes and all was ok.--Kumioko (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Are Solie.org considered reliable sources?—Chris! _ct 20:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

They have before. Check this for more information.--WillC 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 00:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose Lead 'All title changes happen at live events, which are usually released on DVD. ' -- 1)Link to 'live events' 2)It would be better stated ..which are usually taped and released on DVD. Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'At 343 days, The Backseat Boyz (Kashmere and Acid)'s fourth reign is the longest in the title's history.' -- 1) I see no need for the last names again here 2)I suggest, due to my suggestion below, that this be reworded to The Backseat Boyz (Kashmere and Acid)'s fourth reign is the longest in the title's history, at 343 days. Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'Dahmer's and Rivera, Jr.'s only reign and 2 Girls, 1 Cup (Beef Wellington and Greg Excellent)'s first reign are tied for the record for shortest in the title's history at less than one day.' --> At less than one day, Dahmer and Rivera, Jr.'s only reign and 2 Girls, 1 Cup (Beef Wellington and Greg Excellent)'s first reign are tied for the shortest. Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 'Overall, there have been 42 reigns, among 56 wrestlers and 29 teams, and three known vacancies.' -- I don't like the use of 'known' here, it makes it seem like the history of the list is incomplete. Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Is there any other history to this title, for the beginning paragraph? Yes, but with lists just supposed to be a summary of the title's history as talked about on Talk:TNA X Division Championship, I cut some of it out.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, but you can summarize a bit more the history. It looks unappealing that small little paragraph.--Truco 503 20:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Added info I removed earlier I felt was too much.--WillC 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) That info is fine, it makes the article more interesting.--Truco 503 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC) List The Brothers of East L.A. should sort by B not T Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Add in the key what the stable name means under the name of the wrestlers. Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) In entry 26, I would link to the The Fabulous Freebirds#Freebird Rule. Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Entry 4: link to Three Way match Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The 11/99 vacation of the title does not need an "N/A" in the notes. Fixed, did it to show that it was unknown to why the title was vacated.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) For entry 8, if Justin Pain was the sole champion, did these wrestlers beat him in a handicap match as well? Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Notes Note 1: What other party sources? Third? Some from PWTorch but I have yet to find one that reviews a show where the belt was won. I'll look some more.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) No I mean like state what type of sources you are referring to in the article.--Truco 503 20:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC) My bad, misread. Fixed.--WillC 21:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Notes 2: It's unclear? Thats a bit biased, it would be better stated as unknown--Truco 503 22:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) All are fixed.--WillC 00 37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Truco. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

cautious support

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK

Comments – General The titles of the shows should be in italics or alternately in quotation-marks as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) - I think titles of teams could also fall in that category. Shouldn't all the shows link to "House Shows"? they happen to be taped for DVD but they're not specific television show, PPV or large annual event are they? Unknown, not a big fan of CZW. Some are annual events. Answered this in the other lists.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Why are so many columns centered? that's inconsistent with any other Wrestling FL not done by you. I agree with User:Crzycheetah, it's not the standard way for text in tables. Addition: I've checked several recent FLs on other subjects, they do not have centered text - in other words from what I can see your format falls outside both the pro wrestling MOS and the way 99% of FLs are. It should be changed to left align.MPJ-DK (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Answered this in the other list.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Why are there specific citations for champions #26 only? Are they not covered by the general references? Answered this in the other list.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I think that the annual show archive should not be under general but cited in the line it's referenced. It is after all not a source for the general page, just for the events that take place that one year. Answered this in the other list.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) You mention when there is only one person holding the team title, but not when there are three people holding 2 belts, not even a footnote or anything in the "notes" column. Since one situation is addressed the other should be as well. It is a tag team article and three men or more are still technically a tag team. But one man holding it is not, that is why it is mentioned and not the other.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) It's something that deviates from the standard, the standard is 2 men yet at one point there are three men listed without explanations or anything like that. That's just confusing and should at the very least have a note on it. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Will be noted. Got to work on a way to state it. Though I feel differently since in Mexico there are tios, but there are still Six Man "Tag Team" match, Eight Man "Tag Team" matches, etc in the states. So the definition of a tag team is a team of more than one wrestler.--WillC 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "Pain held the championship during his entire reign alone", may I suggest "Pain held the championship on his own during the entire reign" or something to that effect. I don't see a big difference here.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Not a big one, but a small one "his entire reign alone" does not read right, "held the championship on his own" is crystal clear. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "Overall, there have been 42 reigns, among 56 wrestlers and 29 teams" sounds like there were 56 individual wrestlers and 29 established teams, shouldn't it be "56 individual wrestlers, comprising 29 teams" or words to that effect? I just think "56 and 29" is a mathematical challenge. Changed--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Solie.org - I was under the impression it was only reliable if they state that the "Pro Wrestling Title Histories" book was one of their sources, this one does not state that and most of the reigns happen after the last "Pro Wrestling Title Histories" was published. Answered this in the other list.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not really pleased with how many primary sources are used, only 3 non-primary sources are listed, one I'm not convinced is reliable and the other mentions a specific title change, 1 out of 41. I would think Feature Lists would need to be better sourced than that. Answered this in the other list.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting How do you determine the sort order of teams which just have regular names? it seems to be mixed up if it's first name or last name used - which isn't right. I'd suggest last name of the first wrestler and ensuring that the wrestler listed first comes first alphabetically unless it's their actual team name. I try to go by the alphabet, but during the format change I may forget too. I'm assuming you are asking the order of the wrestler names in wins. Like Justice Pain would go before Super Dragon. I go by the first letter in the first name.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) You didn't always go by the first letter of the first name, and for proper names I do believe it should be last, but as long as it's ALWAYS one or the other I'm happy as long as you pick one. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) First letter of first name seems better IMO. I'll change the ones that don't go by this if there is any soon.--WillC 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Necro Butcher - sorts by Bucher, not Necro - Butcher isn't his last name. Fixed.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Justice Pain - same as above Fixed.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Combined reigns Key to explain "+" is missing Answered this in the other list.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting as above. Sorry can't support just yet. (I've watchlisted the page, I'll keep up with comments) MPJ-DK (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC) The comments made in the other list were answered there, I just answered specifics here. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Alright.--WillC 08:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 01:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• As per discussions at FLc: CZW World Heavyweight Champions, I give this a cautious support if you find a way to clearly indicate tag team names in the prose. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Will do and thank you for the support. Sorry for being a bit difficult.--WillC 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Pain held the championship on his own; from November 20, 1999 to January 8, 2000, " Remove the semicolon Fixed.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "The Thrill Kill Kult (Diablos Macabre and Midknight); the same team he defeated to win the championship." The semicolon should be a comma. Fixed.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "five a piece.-->five each Fixed.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "Overall, there have been 42 reigns; shared between 56 individual wrestlers and comprised of 29 teams; and three vacancies." "three"-->3 Fixed.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) The image caption should not have a period at the end as it is not a complete sentence. Fixed, my bad, must have just been a reflex from when I wrote the statement.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "Names in small print and underneath the individual wrestler's names was the team name for the group." "was"-->were (fix this in other FLs too). Fixed, first one to use it to see if it was good enough for the others since I forgot to mention that part of the format.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Em dashes in blank table cells please. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC) All already have them.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Not in the Notes column. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC) What exactly are you asking for? When you say em dash I think &m dash;, which I don't think would look very good in the notes section. If you are asking for &n bsp; then okay.--WillC 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I think em dashes look better. It also lets readers know that the cells were intentionally left blank, rather than there being missing information. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know how a dash is going to help. It would harm it in my mind more than do any good.--WillC 01:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks you for your comments.--WillC 15:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• World tag team championship is linked twice in three sentences.
• "a wrestler has held the championship by himself—Justice Pain. Pain...". Notice the repetition at the end, and try to avoid having a word appear twice in a row like this.
• Combined Days columns in two tables aren't sorting properly.
• Decapitalize "Of Reigns" and Days in "Combined days" in section headers. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All finished.--WillC 22:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [10].

---

2007 IIHF World Championship rosters

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another international hockey related list. this one is based on the recently promoted 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters (FLC). Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support based on the comments from Dabomb87 Although this is a well formatted list I really feel like the red links should have articles if we are going to make this a featured list. Not sure if that is a requirement per sey but it seems to me to be a 3a and 5a issue. Aside from that there are no dab links, sources look good and the AWB general fixes check went good.--Kumioko (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Red links are not a valid grounds for opposition (although see this discussion). The lack of an article on a given subject does not compromise the quality of this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I changed my vote to support, however I still don't like the red links, I think we should either create at least a stub for the article or else not link them at all. Everyone knows that its fairly easy to get a list to FL status but when we have a bunch of red links on one, IMO makes it appear like an unfinished list. Just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment at the discussion on red links, I think linking people's names is very problematic. You may not think there is another person with that unusual name, but who knows? By creating links now, you create the potential for an article to be created for another person that is unrelated to the one that you've linked. In fact, by simply linking every name, you have at least two three links to non-hockey players here.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Everyone makes mistakes. For now, there is nothing about redlinks in the criteria, so I don't think your oppose is actionable. I believe that every name should be linked because, in theory, most of them are notable and deserve pages because they play in pro leagues and participated in a major international tournament. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • To I'm Spartacus: What you describe doesn't sound like a problem to me. Yes, there is always a chance of multiple people of the same name. But you can't really account for that when creating an article. That's why disambiguation and page move exist and are important.—Chris! _ct 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • I'm going to let my oppose stand, if it is discarded, that's fine. But I don't think we should have people's names linked until there is an article. The problem with linking them in advance of an article is that we have no idea of who/when an article will be written or if it will be written on the correct subject. Disambig and page move are fine when dealing with two people who are of marginal notability, but when dealing with Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, Roger Moore, and Roger E. Moore there is one which a casual search on the name should pull up, and then goto a dab. If a person comes in and writes a fairly long elaborate article on a notable architect, the odds are that you are more likely to see {{otheruses4|the golfer|the showdog|Tiger Woods (dog)}} than a page move and dabs created. I am very opposed to the use of linking to people's names for that reason. But you account for it by not creating a dead link. If the article doesn't exist, don't create the link, that way you don't have to worry about an article pointing to an unrelated person. To me this is an issue.
      • Either way, you do need to go through your links to make sure they are pointing to whom you think they are. The three I found were near the top. I looked at the bottom and didn't see any issues working up (through the swiss team I think.)---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Just because they are notable enough for an article, does not mean you blindly create a redlink, that may or may not turn blue when an article on a hockey play/architect/poker player/criminal is created 2 years down the road. This is just asking for bad internal referencing.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I have gone through and fixed every misdirected link. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks... we'll have to agree to disagree about the redlinking, but I think it's wrong to relink people's names when there is no intention of writing an article on them in the near future.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support Seeing how its pretty much a copy of 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters, only with more images. The redlinks issue is not a major concern. I've tried creating articles on European ice hockey players, and the amount of reliable English-language sources is limited. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Although I didn't originally review the other, this is a great list with good information and lead. Please, don't feel the need to create articles just for the sake of having an article. People don't want worthless stubs that have only a single sentence like "XYZ is a hockey player for this team and played in this tournament" and the reference only mentions the name, especially if there are this many redlinks. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments Lead My main concern is how the list starts in past tense with 'A minimum of 15 skaters and two goaltenders, and a maximum of 20 skaters and three goaltenders had to be selected.' and then goes to all present tense explaining the rules and regulation for the rosters. Can this be addressed somehow? Or am I just misreading this. I switched everything I could find to past tense, except in the third paragraph. As it details a current set of rules, I think present tense fits. Images Caption:'Tomi Kallio played in all nine of Finland's games, and recorded a goal and two assist.' -- If I'm correct, it should be two assists You are. Fixed. Caption:'Marián Gáborík recorded five goals and six assists and led his team in scoring.' --> Marián Gáborík recorded five goals and six assists, and led his team in scoring. Done. References Link the IIHF once for the publishers, since you link CBC.--Truco 503 01:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Can you add the legend from 2008 IIHF World Championship rosters? An ice-hockey newbie like myself have no idea what "A", "PIM", and "GAA" stands for. ;) TheLeftorium 13:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I knew I forgot to do something... Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Can you create a template to navigate to other IIHF rosters? Done, but at the moment it's just a quickie job with only the existing pages. Once I have time, I will add in the redlinks for every tournament. "highest profile annual" Doesn't sound quite right; maybe "most well known annual" I prefer highest profile, I think it's less POVish than "most well known". "15 skaters and two goaltenders" "15 and 2" or "fifteen and two". Done. "20 skaters and three goaltenders" Same comment. Done. "team, he could not" So this is a males-only event, correct? Correct, but I switched to "they". As the rules apply to all IIHF tournaments, I'd prefer not to make it gender specific. "players life."-->player's life. Done. "Russian Andrei Markov was named top defenceman while Kari Lehtonen of Finland was selected as top goaltender." "while"-->and Done. "in save percentage with 0.957"-->in save percentage, with 0.957 Done. Just for the record, I don't see anything wrong with the red links' being there. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Refs 5–8 need PDF notices. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. As always, thanks a lot for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Once a player was registered to the team, they can not be removed from the roster." Tense issue here: singular (plural) matched with plural (they).
• Could link Rick Nash in the lead, though there is one next door in the photo caption. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Provisional support – One thing left: a dab link for Chris Mason. Everything else meets FL standards easily. The red links don't concern me, for the record. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [11].

---

List of Luton Town F.C. seasons

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Key section should locate above the list; see recently promoted sports list

OK, done.

I have to say, this doesn't make any sense to me. Why should anyone have to scroll down past a key that may or may not be of use to them before they get to the list itself? It's just daft. I say move the key back below the list. – PeeJay 16:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the key below. However, I'm not that fussed and am happy to go with whatever the official line is on the matter. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• The lead is short considered that the team began playing in 1885

If people want to know about the history of the team, then they can see the other pages on the club, surely? I deliberately wrote the lead to this page in the summary style, so as to get right to the point of the list of seasons. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is soccerbase.com a reliable source?

It is backed by Racing Post, the British newspaper. I would say it is reliable. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

—Chris! _ct 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Instead of emdashes, use endashes with spaces on either side, as is more common in Britain.

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "wasn't" should be "was not"

OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Some of the language in the lead paragraph seems quite awkward to me, but that's probably just my opinion.

I've re-written it, does it reach your satisfaction? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Is it really necessary to indicate the top scorers' nationalities? Not in my opinion.

I thought it was of interest, and spent a great deal of time adding them. However, I've now removed them. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Why are competitions like the Kettering and Luton Charity Cups and the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup listed in the same table as the Football League Trophy, the Anglo-Italian Cup and the Full Members Cup? Even the Watney and Texaco Cups are pushing it a little.

I've cut it down to only those cups notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. (Majors + Watney, Texaco) Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Other than those comments, this is a very good list, comparable with any other list of football club seasons. – PeeJay 00:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - My comments above have been dealt with well. I do think that the Key should be below the list, but I'm not going to oppose on that basis. – PeeJay 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments – Is "earnt" British English? Also, I'm not sure if "stormed to promotion" is formal enough for an FL. Otherwise, the page seems sound. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 17 is dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • No its not, that's just how it appears with the script, but the link is up and running correctly.

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments Lead I want something to be clarified, because I saw this in other lists, is the proper reference 'Luton' or 'Luton Town' or both? The club's official name is "Luton Town Football Club", however football teams in England are almost never referred to this way; the team is usually called "Luton Town", though you will often hear the shortened version "Luton" used as well. I've used the two different forms to try and create some variety. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 'After becoming the first professional team in the south of England in 1891,[2] Luton joined the Football League in 1897 before leaving three years later.' --> After becoming the first professional team in the Southern England in 1891,[2] Luton joined the Football League in 1897 before leaving three years later. Fixed. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 'The club rejoined the League in 1920,[4] and reached its top division for 1955–56.' -- The 'for' should either be in or by Ok. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 'However, a swift revival saw that the club was back in Division Two by 1970' --> However, a swift revival saw the club was back in Division Two by 1970. Ok. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Like Giants2008 said, is 'earn' British English? Because in American English the proper term is 'earned', but if it is then its fine as is. "earnt" is acceptable BrE. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 'A couple of financial crises during the 1970s saw key players sold,[10][11] and it was not until David Pleat's appointment in 1978 that Luton started to recover.' -- 1)It would be best to replace 'key' with a different term like important, notable, etc. 2)Explain who Pleat was. Ok. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 'Pleat's team stormed to promotion in 1981–82, and stayed in the top flight until 1992' -- Too wordy. --> Pleat's team stormed to promotion in 1981–82, and remained in Division One until 1992. Ok. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) 'Pleat's team stormed to promotion in 1981–82, and stayed in the top flight until 1992' -- Do you mean marked instead of 'masked'? No. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Season/list Why are the seasons in bold? To be in line with similar FLCs. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) That list was promoted about 2 yrs ago, per MOS:BOLD, nothing other than the noted exceptions should be bolded and table entries are not an exception.--Truco 503 15:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC) OK, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 15:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Footnotes Remove the period from notes B, K, N, O, Q, and U. Ok. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) There is an inconsistency with the linking of terms. Some footnotes link things in every instance, while others don't. I.e. The Football League and Southern Football League (which is inconsistently linked) Ok. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) References Ref 19, unlink the date. Ok, cheers Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) --Truco 503 01:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues clarified/resolved; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

"This is a list of seasons played by Luton Town Football Club in English football, from 1885 (the year of the club's foundation) to the most recent completed season." Featured lists don't begin like this anymore, see recently promoted FLs for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Better? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "the Football League" Should it be "The Football League"? No. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "However, a swift revival saw the club was back in Division Two by 1970." This is the second instance of "saw", a weak verb here, in quick succession. Can we rephrase? Yes. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "Another promotion was earnt four years later, to see Luton back in Division One for the 1974–75 season"-->Luton earned another promotion four years later, returning to Division One for the 1974–75 season OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "A couple of financial crises during the 1970s saw important players sold"-->A couple of financial crises during the 1970s led to the sale (reword as necessary) of important players OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) In general, the verb "to see" is used far too much in the lead. I see. Not no more. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "yo-yo between the divisions" Not the best phrasing; maybe "constantly change divisions" or something similar? Fixed. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) The lead image caption should have a period (full stop) at the end. It used to, and I seem to remember being told that it shouldn't have one. Oh well, back it goes. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "Top scorer shown in bold when he was also top scorer for the division."-->Top scorer and number of goals scored shown in bold when he was also top scorer for the division. Also, none of those fragments in the key should have full stops (periods) at their ends. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC) OK, all fixed. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing I saw: the lead is one long paragraph. Would it be possible to split it in two? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2 (talk · contribs)

• Lead. LTFC is a football club, not team.
• Link first promotion. And relegated, although it's the same wikilink.
• Key. (Rant alert!!!) There is no official line on where the key should go. The argument for having it at the top is presumably so the reader will see it before they get to the table, so won't have to keep scrolling down to it, to find out what things mean. If it's small, it's helpful to have it at the top, and there's a possibility the reader will remember what was in it so they really won't have to keep referring to it. If it's a screenful, as in this case, then the reader skips over it, or even if they do look at it, they'll be hard pushed to learn it by heart, so they'll have to keep flicking back up to it anyway. Which is no different from flicking down to it.
  I think perhaps reviewers of lists see things differently from readers of lists. If I'm reading a list-type article, only if a key-type item that I don't understand appears on a line I'm interested in do I even consider looking at the key. As a reader of a list, I don't need the key to be at the top. Rant over :-) ... but there really isn't a rule about where the key must go, so I'm not telling you where you should put it.

I don't personally mind, I just followed the comment above. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Table. Personally, I think lists of names (e.g. goalscorers) look better left-aligned, but that's a matter of taste.
• Those unlinked goalscorers notable enough for WP articles should be linked.
• The wording in the wartime gaps would be more accurate as "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the xxx World War".
• Footnotes. Letter M needs a source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, all fixed. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just on the linking of goalscorers, WP:REDLINK says that we shouldn't link to subjects which wouldn't pass the relevant notability guidelines, either WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE where footballers are concerned. Also, is your Fred Allen (1893/4) linked to the right bloke? if it is, please could you add his Luton details to the article, because I had no info as to what he did after he left Small Heath. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd think if they top-scored for the club, then they're probably notable... on the subject of Allen, there's nothing about him playing for Luton before 1892, so it seems likely to me that it's the same guy; he first played for Luton in the FA Cup in 1892 and left in 1895 after making six Southern League appearances. I'll add all this to his article. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the FL players are notable, but one goal in the 1886 FA Cup does not notability make, nor does doing anything at all outside a fully-pro league, unless there was an awful lot of press coverage, but I'm only pointing out the guideline in case you weren't aware. As to Allen, presumably your book has birth/death dates and places, previous club, something to confirm them as the same person? as Fred Allen's not exactly an unusual name? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll unlink a few then. On Allen, Bailey only gives these for FL players, while Collings gives only to players he deems "notable". He does, however mention in his prose that Allen was a "Birmingham native" and a "forward" – is this enough for you? Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, why not, Birmingham's only a little place... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be sarky my man – sod it, I'll unlink it for now and take his info off the player page until we can find some more info on it. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I really wasn't intending to be sarky, but I can see how it might have come across like that :-( I'd have thought his being a forward called Fred Allen from Birmingham having joined one club soon after leaving another is sufficient circumstantial evidence for their being the same man. Honest. I'll put the info back myself...

• Support seems to meet criteria now, after a fair bit of work. Well done (that's not meant to be sarky, either). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. :) Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

;Oppose from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) "Luton Town celebrate winning the Football League Trophy in 2008–09." well, they won it in 2009, but it was the 2008-09 season. I'd choose one of those. Accessibility - usually colour-only fields in a table need another indication for those readers who cannot discern the colours on their own, e.g. asterisks, daggers etc. "A couple of..." too colloquial for me. "important players" is that your phrase or a quote? "himself a former player" -> "a former Luton Town player". "won a famous " famous - is this your opinion or is it backed up with citation? "through the divisions constantly" not keen on constantly - maybe from season to season. Refs 16 & 18 should be BBC Sport as publisher to be consistent with 20 and 21. Check others please. Specific refs 1 to 8 don't (as far as I'm concerned) need the title of the book to be repeated each time as you have clearly stated what reference is being used in the General ref section. Is "Nat = Nationality " actually used anywhere? Perhaps covered before but why some top scorers red linked and some not linked? Some "more" notable than others? Ref 19 - is that a hyphen I see separating those pages?! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC) All sorted, though I've left some top scorers not linked if we don't know their full names (e.g. Dimmock). I've gone along with all of your comments except for the comment you've marked "Accessibility" – I feel that plenty of indication is shown other than the colours as to what is going on (for example the text, and the fact that the division is in bold whenever Luton change division). Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Nice seasons list; my only further suggestion is to consider placing dashes in blank columns. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done the em dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [12].

---

List of Luton Town F.C. managers

Nominator(s): Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm nominating this because I believe it's on a par with other Featured manager lists like List of York City F.C. managers. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 10:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • There is a very sudden jump in the prose between the management of John McCartney and Ned Liddell. It doesn't seem right for the text to talk about McCartney taking over as manager and then referring to "Ned Liddell's team". Also, it says that Liddell's team finished as runners-up in 1935-36, but the table says that the club had no manager during that season.

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • In the third paragraph, you use an emdash when it would be more appropriate to use an endash with spaces either side. Instead of "Though Pleat moved on in 1986, success continued—Luton finished seventh during 1986–87", it should read "Though Pleat moved on in 1986, success continued – Luton finished seventh during 1986–87"

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • In the final sentence of the same paragraph, you use the word "saw" twice in quick succession. Perhaps instead of "A disastrous 2000–01 season which saw three managers saw a fall into the bottom division of the Football League for the first time since 1968." try "A disastrous 2000–01 season – in which three managers took the helm at the club – saw Luton fall into the bottom division of the Football League for the first time since 1968."

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Mike Newell emerged..."? Not sure "emerged" is the right word there. Try "was appointed" or a synonym.

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Instead of "in March 2007 Newell was sacked in disgrace", try "Newell was sacked in disgrace in March 2007". Also, was he really sacked in disgrace? The source says only that his contract was terminated with immediate effect, not that it was in disgrace.

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Under Kevin Blackwell's bit, it should be "reins", not "reigns". Also, I would use a semi-colon between "on 16 January 2008" and "Former player Mick Harford".

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • In the table, where there is no manager, instead of putting "None", I would suggest using lower case and italicising, i.e. "none".

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Should finishing as runners-up be counted as an honour? I would suggest not, and that runners-up finishes should be removed from the table. Also, what is the "Southern Professional Floodlit Cup", and what is the rationale for listing it with the Football League, FA Cup, League Cup, Football League Trophy and Full Members Cup?

Okay, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hope my comments helped. – PeeJay 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - My comments have been dealt with adequately. – PeeJay 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – Note that these are from a quick glance and not an in-depth review of the writing. I'm curious as to whether "sacked" is considered formal enough for a piece of featured content. It wouldn't be if for an American coach or manager list, but from what I've seen it does seem common usage in Britain. Yes, it is. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Also not sure about the use of "Catastrophic". changed to "woeful". Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) In the references, use p. for single pages instead of pp., and have en dashes in the page ranges. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Does the website used for reference 43 have the right to reprint the Manchester Guardian Weekly article? I'm not certain, but I doubt it; I've changed it to a cite journal ref just to be sure. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17-14) 22:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Finally took some time to give it a full reading, and all I found in addition to the capped comments was one stray word (actually a letter), which I fixed myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "They were founded in 1885,[1] and currently compete in Football League Two." "The club appointed George Thompson as their first official manager in 1925, but he only lasted eight months." Remove "only". Change "but" to "and", as the first event did not contradict the second. "to challenge for promotion" Is there anything you can link to for "promotion"? Not everyone understands the relegation system of football leagues. EDIT: I see you've linked this later down. Move the link up. "during his eleven-year tenure"-->during his 11-year tenure "but was sacked mysteriously in May 2003." "mysteriously" is a bit too PEACOCKy for me, maybe "but was sacked for no apparent reason in May 2003."? Em dashes in the blank cells please (nationality column). Is there any reason why the honours and notes are unnecessarily typed in smaller fonts? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, comments all rectified. On the small font, it is done that way to be in line with other similar FLs such as List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers. I also think it looks best that way, on a personal note. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I know, but it makes it harder to read for those with visual impairments. In the grand scheme of things, accessibility is more important than visual appeal. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes Soccerbase reliable? Sorry if this has already been brought up. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Soccerbase is backed by the Racing Post, a British newspaper. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 06:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead. Should say something about how the club was managed before Thompson's appointment. OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I'd be happier if internal troubles intensifying had a source. It does now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Table. Presumably "all first-team matches" means "all competitive first-team matches"? and that includes Anglo-Italian and other such comps as well as League/FA Cup/League Cup? I worded it "All first-team matches in national or international competition are counted, except the abandoned 1939–40 Football League season and matches in wartime leagues and cups", which would include AngloIt/Watney/FLT/FMC etc but exclude County Senior Cups and suchlike, if that's any help. OK, I've used your example Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Layout. Would be cleaner if you replaced the tiny-print words in the notes column with footnote links, then in the footnotes you could explain what the words mean. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) MoS used to say, and possibly still does if I could but find where, that for reasons of accessibility we shouldn't be using reduced fonts without a good reason, and personally, I find that size print almost unreadable; the size used in reference sections is bad enough :-) Even in tiny font, David Pleat's one honour takes up six lines at one word per line, at 1024x768. If you abbreviate Matches/Won/Drawn/Lost to M/W/D/L and provide a small key above the table, there'll be enough width to use normal font. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Can you be more specific as to who or what performed managerial duties in the periods currently marked "none": i.e. committee, or directors, or secretary and captain... For instance, Luton seem to have gone through almost the whole of the 1958/59 season without a manager. Surely your books mention who was doing the job? The club was managed by commitee – I'll add some footnotes Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) This isn't a requirement, obviously, but consider making an article for Charlie Watkins, he looks quite lonely as the only entry without one. I will do at some point. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) References. According to the cite template documentation, publication dates should be in the same format as that used in the body of the article, i.e. international rather than ISO, but I don't know if that's insisted on at FLC, it's a long time since I've reviewed here with any regularity. I don't think it really matters that much, but if anybody else mentions it I'll happily go through and change them all. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) For consistency, wikilink The Independent. Alright. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Ref currently #46. Fuccillo's spelt wrong. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Ref currently #43, Manchester Guardian Weekly. For consistency, page number needs a letter p. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Struway2 (talk) 07:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "Woeful" is a touch emotive/POV, unless it's a direct quote from your source. OK Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) So if a direct quote, it needs quotation marks. Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) For clarification: in references, the work should be italicised but the publisher shouldn't. Newspapers are works, not publishers; with the publisher included, it should read something like The Independent. Independent News & Media. The cite templates do this automatically, without you needing to add any markup, so {{cite web |url=http://xxxxx |title=title |work=Soccerbase |publisher=Racing Post}} would generate the correctly-formatted "title". Soccerbase. Racing Post. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Where are the dates of appointment sourced from? Bailey. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Where are the figures sourced from? Bailey. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) And after 1997? Struway2 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) From the inline citations in the "notes" column on the right. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Seems a little odd to me, if Bailey's manager stats are supposed to cover all competitions, that they align quite so closely to Soccerbase. You're no doubt aware of "the Soccerbase problem": that it's reliable within its limitations, but it has limitations: 1) they only started covering the Football League Trophy in about 1997/8, and never covered the Full Members Cup, AngloItalian, etc etc at all; 2) if they don't know the exact date of a change of manager, they assume first/last of a month, and count accordingly; 3) a disclaimer on each Soccerbase manager page reads: "NB: Only games with a date in the database counted here". If you look at Luton's results/fixtures page for the 1981/82 season, not to go too far back, you'll see there are no dates for League Cup or even FA Cup games. Taking specific examples, easily checkable because the time periods don't involve part-seasons: David Pleat's second spell, four complete seasons from 1991/2 to 1994/5: You give 202 games played, presumably from Bailey, but so does Soccerbase. Going to their fixtures/results pages for the seasons in question, they list 202 games in the Football League, League Cup and FA Cup only. But Luton entered other competitions during these seasons, which Soccerbase wouldn't count, but presumably Bailey should? Or Neil McBain: Soccerbase has him leaving in January 1939, after being in charge for 23 games. You have him in charge for the whole season, but still those 23 games... Or 1959/60: Between Syd Owen's 39 and the committee's 3, Luton played 42 games, which is how many there are in the league programme. No FA Cup? Struway2 (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Strewth, you're right! I'd (foolishly) assumed the Bailey figures would line up... right, I'll have to go through and correct them, good spot! Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 11:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC) ...That was tiring. There we go, should be alright now. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 13:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Still not totally convinced, I'm afraid. Owen/committee seem to have too many games now, and McBain's only got enough for the FL. Bailey may have errors, or it may be counting things that you don't realise it's counting, or I may be missing something, or you may be in a bit too much of a rush, but there do still seem to be errors of content in there. Don't suppose you've got anyone at home prepared to proofread your figures? because I know how difficult it is to check one's own. I've resolved both of the comments you made there – the reason for the Owen/commitee problem was that I'd done those figures previously from Bailey and included the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup, which I do not now include. In McBain's case I had left out the FA Cup for some reason, but this is now fixed too. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Also, shouldn't all time periods without formally-appointed managers have lines in the table? Like the time before Thompson's appointment, and the two-year gap afterwards? I wouldn't think it'd be necessary before his appointment (this is a period of forty years!) – but I'll add one after. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Alright, I've sorted them. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kinnear "sacked for no apparent reason": the reference doesn't even say he was sacked, just says he left when new owners took over. I'd have thought it wasn't uncommon for new owners to want to bring in their own people?

I've added another ref saying he was sacked. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 08:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Still think "for no apparent reason" reads too much like commentary. Something like "was sacked by the club's new owners" is factual and still allows people to draw whatever inferences they choose.

OK, that's what I've put in. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Couple more comments. Matter of personal taste, I know, but are you sure runners-ups in major competitions shouldn't go in the Honours column? I'd have thought for a club of Luton's size (that isn't meant to sound disrespectful) to reach the Cup Final was quite an achievement. I headed the column Honours and achievements, and then included all sorts of stuff...

I completely agree with you personally, but I was told above only to include honours. Oh well, I suppose people can see the List of Luton Town F.C. seasons page for things like that. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between being told to do something because it's a Manual of Style requirement and someone suggesting something because it's their personal taste. And the seasons list doesn't tell the reader which manager achieved what, and it'd be informative if this one did. But it isn't compulsory :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

*CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489* (a Brighton & Hove Albion fan who saw the JPT Southern Area Final last season ... sigh!)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Now that the 2009/2010 fixtures are out, should Luton's current division be updated? I'm not sure what the protocol is in terms of updating promoted/relegated clubs during the off-season, but taking a random selection of other clubs' articles it seems that all now show their 2009/2010 division. They shouldn't until 1 July. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) George Thompson sentence: slight informality ("wasn't") and repetition of "appointed" could be avoided by recasting it as, for example: "The club appointed an official manager for the first time in 1925. George Thompson took up the role in February, but left after an unhappy eight months." OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "Duncan was sacked early on in the 1958–59 season". OK. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) From current ref [45] onwards (in George Martin's 1944–1947 row), there are some instances of "pp." being used when a single page is being referenced. "p." is used correctly up to that point, as far as I can see. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) OK, thanks for your comments. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 12:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks; all resolved. I thought there had to be some specific date when it changed, but I couldn't see it in the WP:FOOTY Manual of Style. Changing on 1st July is fine by me, accordingly. I tend to agree with Struway2's comment above about the use of "Woeful"; a direct quote from the source, or the use of a word such as "Poor", would be better. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) OK, it is now "poor". Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Now supporting as above. I like the addition of the "scalded by the experience" quote, by the way; it neatly expresses how overwhelming the job of football manager can be (not that I speak from experience!). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) The other LTFC list I just reviewed said LTFC was just a football club, this one says an association football club. While not directly related to this specific FLC, I imagine your aim is a WP:FT, so consistency across the articles/lists would be a good thing. Odd place to split to paragraph 2, you start talking about the original playing staff in the intro para then move to para 2 to discuss the original management. Would make more sense (to me) to keep this information together. Link "manager" to Coach (sport) "an unhappy eight months" is this a quote? Why unhappy? "Jimmy Ryan prevented relegation..." not literally. Under his leadership the team avoided being relegated. "five year spell " should some/all of that be hyphenated? "Internal troubles at the club started to intensify ..." I know you're trying to provide a good synopsis but this is really too vague for me to follow. I presume this list will be updated on 1 July to reflect the fact that the club have been relegated? Will you also expand the lead a bit to include the manager(s) who led the teams out of the league? "took up the reins" is a little journalistic for my taste. "highlighted in italics" - somewhat ironic that italics is not in italics here? I think you should force the "none" to sort last so the actual managers are sorted correctly. Same comment about Collings' book as in the seasons FLC. Ref 14 links BBC, ordinarily I'd use BBC Sport and not link it. I avoid linking works but that's personal taste. I would have thought Category:Luton Town F.C. managers is a sub-cat of Category:Luton Town F.C. so you don't need it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) OK, all sorted Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 16:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Note T - The Football Association has a capital T for The. Link all or none of the BBCs in the references. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC) OK, sorted. Cliftonian (Talk • Contibs) 07:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support my issues dealt with nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [13].

---

List of Chicago Blackhawks head coaches

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Never done these lists in quite a while, but I do believe it is better than my other head coaches featured lists. Grammar corrections can go straight to the article. Thanks in advance and happy reviewing! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support No dab links, no dead refs, reference format looks good, article and table format looks good, AWB general fixes ok, all refs have publisher and accessdate.--Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment The publisher/work info for NHL refs are not consistent Done. Chicago Blackhawk's website is also published by the team itself. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Not done. Ref 1 uses NHL Enterprises, Ref 13 uses National Hockey League.—Chris! ct 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) My bad. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Caption of first image: "Pete Muldoon was the Blackhawks first head coach, and is remembered for the Curse of Muldoon."; the second part about Curse of Muldoon needs reference, also link it to Curse of Muldoon. This is kind of obvious since the curse is named after him. But the "remembered for" is problematic. What's the second part? Either way, I'm sure everything on the lead has been referenced. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 19:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - ok, looks good now —Chris! _ct 00:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments Lead 'Also referred to as the Hawks,[3] the team began their NHL play in the 1926–27 season as an expansion team with the Detroit Cougars and the New York Rangers, and was one of the Original Six teams.' -- 1)The beginning of the sentence has no connection to the rest of the sentence, I recommend placing it elsewhere 2)'was' should be 'is' because they still are one of the Original Six. 'Having played in the Chicago Coliseum (1926–1929), and the Chicago Stadium (1929–1994), the Blackhawks have played their home games at the United Center since 1994.' -- Remove the comma after 'Chicago Coliseum (1926-1929)' 'The Blackhawks first first-place finish happened 40 years after that incident.' -- This is optional, but I think 'occurred' would be a better word than 'happened' 'Hughie Lehman, the Blackhawks third head coach, was hired after yelling at the first Blackhawks owner Frederic McLaughlin.' -- I don't really get this. So he was hired because he yelled at some guy? Clarified. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 'Billy Reay, who was the Blackhawks head coach for 14 seasons, is the franchise's all-time leader for the most regular-season and playoff games coached and wins.' -- These types of lists usually state the stats, i.e. how many coached/wins? 'Darryl Sutter and Brian Sutter are the only pair of brothers[12] to have coached the Blackhawks; both coached the Hawks for three seasons.' -- Did they do this together or on separate terms? '22 of the Blackhawks head coaches excluding Pilous have also spent their entire NHL head coaching careers with the Blackhawks.' -- Per MOS:NUM, do not start sentences with numerals, you need to spell them out. Notes 'A running total of the number of coaches of the Blackhawks. Thus, any coach who has two or more separate terms as head coach is only counted once.' -- Its best to have this as one sentence instead of two. References There is an inconsistency with the linking of publishers, such as the National Hockey League I think the better way to format the refs for the Blackhawks and from the NHL is by having the Blackhawks as the work and the NHL as the publisher.--Truco 503 01:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Done all, except for the ones I commented on. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues clarified/resolved; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiding resolved issue

Oppose per 5a. Take a look at how I see this page: click here.--Crzycheetah 02:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) This is probably because of your screen resolution. I think most people have a 17" screen or bigger, and I don't think 5a fits in this category, as it doesn't fail MOS. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) My screen is 19". 5a is about the layout. And, as you can see the layout in this page sucks big time.--Crzycheetah 02:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, then it's your screen resolution, since I'm using a 17", and mine works perfectly fine. Just so you know, my resolution is 1280x1024. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I have mine listed on my userpage among the userboxes. It's 1024x768. I also checked the MoS and noticed that this page fails it, as well. See, MOS:IMAGES.--Crzycheetah 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Could you tell me which statement is it, so that I don't have to search it, as I am pretty bust in real life right now. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC) 5th bullet, about "stack-ups".--Crzycheetah 05:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Should be fixed now for smaller resolutions. Also, I suggest you use 1280x1024, since it looks perfect on my 17". That resolution is also the resolution most square screens use. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I get the same problem and it's still there. TheLeftorium 13:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) If you're opposing because of this problem, then I think this is absurd in my opinion, since there is nothing I can do to make this any better. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not gonna oppose the list, but I think something needs to be done. 1024x768 is the most common resolution on the Internet. TheLeftorium 23:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Actually, although I don't experience his problem, I'm going to attempt to see this from Crzycheetah's POV. This suggests many others (~40%) use 1024x768 or lower. This is always a difficult criteria but I believe it could be actionable. Either all images could be removed or you could try and reduce the wide "Achievements" column which is mostly blank. This would reduce the table width and thus allow more room for images on a smaller res, thus preventing stack-ups. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks so much for the website info, and fixing the stack-up yourself. Hope Crzycheetah is satisfied with the list now that there isn't a stack-up... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately it isn't that simple I fixed "my" stack-up problem, Crazycheetah will still have his problem unless one of my suggestions is done. My fix was because I have a wide desplay so the prose spreads across and the images flowed over the next section. I believe that Crzy will have a narrow display causing the images not to fit alongside the table, and the stack-up he illustrated will still occur in that situation. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (→)All right, my concern can be easily addressed. All you need to do is remove the templates Rambo added(thanks for trying, Rambo!) and shorten the word "Reference" making it "Ref". I know it's easier done, than said, but still...--Crzycheetah 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I hate writing Ref, as it isn't even an abbreviation, and doesn't look professional, but ehh...Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Main issues resolved. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - My only problem with the list was the image stack-up, and that seems to have been fixed now (at least for 1024x768). TheLeftorium 11:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "They were first named "-->The team was first named "With three Stanley Cup championships, the franchise has the longest streak of not winning the trophy, lasting forty-nine seasons."-->The franchise has three Stanley Cup championships, as well as the longest streak of not winning the trophy, lasting 49 seasons. "The Blackhawks first first-place finish occurred 40 years after that incident." Can you rephrase to avoid the "first first" repetition? "who was the Blackhawks head coach for 14 seasons" "both coached the Hawks for three seasons respectively." "respectively"-->each "Twenty-two of the Blackhawks head coaches excluding Pilous have also spent their entire NHL head coaching careers with the Blackhawks." Why do you exclude Pilous in this number? "winning only 3 of them." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Done all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

*Comments – "when spelling found in the original franchise documents spelled the team name as the 'Chicago Blackhawks'." So the team changed its name in response? I don't understand what this is trying to say. Inserted explanation. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) The Blackhawks only have the longest active Stanley Cup drought. Any New York Rangers fan could tell you that. At first, I also thought the Rangers had a streak, but didn't bother to do the math. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Remove comma after Dale Tallon. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "the Blackhawks third head coach". Apostrophe for Blackhawks. Another one needed in the Billy Reay sentence. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Comma after "first Blackhawks owner". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "as so did twenty-two others." Lose "so". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "to have won a Stanley Cup championship while being the head coach of the Hawks." → "to have won a Stanley Cup championship as the head coach of the Hawks." Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Is there proof that the lead photo and first photo at the side of the table were published before 1923? No, but it was uploaded by an experienced editor named Maxim, so you could ask him how he identified that the photos were published before 1923. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I'll do that. If finding proof of publication is going to be difficult, it might be a good idea to remove the images for now. They can always be re-added later. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17-14) 21:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Muldoon one is undoubtedly a crop from a team pic like this one taken from here, thus it was published around the time it was made, thus PD-1923; the other one is an obvious PD-Canada (taken pre-1949, must have tagged PD-US accident). Maxim(talk) 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – I was waiting for the images to be cleared before returning. Now that they have been provven acceptable, everything appears to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [14].

---

List of tombs of antipopes

Nominator(s): Savidan 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This list is a spin-off from the recently featured List of extant papal tombs (nom). It basically extends the methodology of that list to antipopes, with a few notable changes. First, because likenesses exist for few antipopes and few of the tombs, I have not included those two columns in the list, preferring to place the relevant images to the right of the list. Second, because the chronological density of antipopes is much less than that of popes, it is no longer practical to section the list by century. Instead, I have arbitrarily divided it by qualitative periods. These are of little real importance except to break the list into visually manageable chunks. However, the divisions are significant to the context of antipopes as (1) the fall of the Roman empire, (2) the rise of the papal election, and (3) the rise of the papal conclave have large effects on the method papal selection, and thus the nature of antipopes. Savidan 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Ref 28 is missing an access date
• Is there a reason why items in the Common English name column are bold?

—Chris! _ct 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added an access date. My reasoning is as follows: there are many links and several columns; the bold gives more prominence to the antipopes themselves as opposed to the places and people tangentially associated with them. Savidan 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The bold has been removed. Savidan 01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 00:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

These have been corrected. Savidan 21:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments Lead Interesting and great written lead... The only thing I have to say is that in the sentence 'However, some antipopes received prominent burials, including one among the papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica (which were destroyed during the sixteenth/seventeenth century demolition).' -- its not the best way to start the sentence with 'However' because this is a new paragraph. Either merge this with the preceding paragraph, or reword to Various antipopes, however, received prominent burials, including one among the papal tombs in Old St. Peter's Basilica (which were destroyed during the sixteenth/seventeenth century demolition). [I changed the word some because its very WP:WEASEL IMO] List I'm not convinced with your reasoning about the bold, per MOS:BOLD, if you want emphasis use other ways but not bold, especially with links. Are these tables uncapable of being sortable? References Ref 28 is lacking a publisher.--Truco 503 01:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I have implemented all of your comments except the sorting. I just don't see anything that would be gained by adding the sort feature. Granted it wouldn't do much damage, but it would somewhat clutter the page, so I'd like to see somewhat more of a rationale before implementing it. Savidan 01:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Re to sorting: Well it wouldn't literally clutter the list, but I do see it benefiting sorting by the name of the pope and the dates. 1 more comment: do not link in the section headers per WP:HEAD.--Truco 503 01:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Very well. I have done as you suggest. Savidan 01:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC) One last thing, make the last 3 columns unsortable. For help on this, see Help:Sorting.--Truco 503 02:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Fine. Savidan 02:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 14:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) An excellent list; I have only two comments:

• "An antipope is a historical papal claimant not currently recognized as legitimate by the Roman Catholic Church." "currently" is a dated word, and is probably not necessary.
• File:VIIKelemen.jpg probably needs an OTRS ticket. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The image is not an immediate issue because there are plenty of other informative images in the list. I'm satisfied with its being commented out. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • OTRS permission has been received and the image readded. Savidan 13:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Dabomb87. I have sent a message to the image uploader on Commons and emailed the the address listed on the image page. If I do not receive a prompt response from one of them, I will remove the image from the article until permission is confirmed. As for the word currently, I believe it is justified in this context, although I generally agree with the policy you have linked. Perhaps some explanation is in order. The term "antipope" is by its very nature a retroactive term; the only objective definition of an antipope is one whom the Roman Catholic Church currently regards as an antipope. Several popes currently regarded as legitimate by the RCC were regarded as illegitimate contemporaneously and for varying periods thereafter; the converse is also sometimes true (for example, Antipope Christopher was regarded as legitimate during his 10th century rule, and continued to be so regarded by the Church for a millennium, until he was removed from the official list due to a retroactive rule change regarding the nature of licit election. Therefore, in theory, this article's inclusion criteria are entirely at the whims of Benedict XVI and his successors. Perhaps Tomorrow they will add other previously legitimate popes to the list or legitimize certain historical claimants. The only thing that provides a healthy amount of stability to the list is the church's well-known tendency toward inertia. With this in mind, I would be happy to accept an alternate wording that preserves the features I have outlined above. Savidan 15:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on "currently"; this seems like a case where we can make an exception. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I have decided to comment out the image immediately pending OTRS permission. Savidan 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support all issues resolved. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

;Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) - I'm sure most of them can be dismissed but things that struck me on my first viewing... Worth linking Pope into "papal" of "papal claimant"? Unlink "Unlike" in your "Unlike papal tombs" link. "his own burial on the spot" I read this (admittedly quickly) as "immediately" rather than "on the position". Perhaps a minor reword? "the first true antipope" perhaps this isn't the venue, but what do you mean by "true"? Were there previous not-true antipopes? Is Saint capitalised when used generally? Our own Saint article doesn't cap it... Any reason why you've split the tables up into these particular genres? Because of the sectioning, I get a lot of whitespace at the top of the Early Middle Ages section as a result of the images from the previous section leaking over. Isn't the image of Santa Maria in Trastevere in the wrong section? Forgive my ignorance but I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "no documentation of funeral of monument exist" - do monuments have funerals? Another issue with the subdivision of the table is that the average reader will not know what is meant by "In Nomine Domini" or "From the conclave". Refs 25 and 26 need to be moved to the other side of the full stops, per WP:MOS - could you check others please? "head of the effigy (pictured) remains" - don't think you've done "(pictured)" for all images you've used - I'd remove this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I have implemented your comments. In answer to your question, a certain "Natalius" has been included in the antipope article (which, sadly, is quite poorly written at the moment), but no good historian counts him among the true antipopes because there is no evidence he ever claimed to be "bishop of Rome"; being a schismatic bishop is not sufficient to be considered an antipope, there must be a claim to being pope. This definition has already been made clear in the list so I have removed the word "true". Savidan 21:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I removed a couple of rogue spaces but I'm fully satisfied that the list now meets our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [15].

---

List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria

Nominator(s): Russavia ^Dialogue 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of representatives of Russia (and its predecessor states [Russian Empire, USSR]) and gives a good overview of the presence of Russian representatives in the Austrian capital. After going thru peer review, I believe that this list is now at FL standard. Russavia ^Dialogue 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, has a strong lead and is comprehensive. Is FL material if you ask me. Tiptoety ^talk 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:LISTNAME, this should probably be called "List of ambassadors of Russia to Austria" or something similar. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Article has been moved to List of Ambassadors of Russia to Austria --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, having peer reviewed the article. As I said then, the only problem is lack of English references, but what you have is great and they'd be impossible to find. About the title, I'd go with Russian Ambassador to Austria, which is how all the US article-lists are. Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Russian–Austrian contacts" Why not link to Austria–Russia relations, a much higher-value link?
• "Since Peter the Great's reign, the ambassadors to Vienna are typically senior government officials and experienced Russian diplomats" "are"-->have been
• "he served for a total of 18 years"
• "The street where his ambassadorial villa was located, today bears his name"-->The street where his ambassadorial villa was located is named after him
• "and also commissioned Beethoven to compose
• "scientist and diplomat" Surely we don't need to link scientist? See WP:OVERLINK on linking common terms.
• "Austro–Hungarian monarchy"-->Austro-Hungarian monarchy since "Austro-" lacks lexical independence, we use a hyphen (picky, I know).
• More overlinking of common geographical locations: United States, United Kingdom, France
• Can you make the tables sortable? I'd also appreciate it if the dates columns were centered. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the nominator has made the fixes you specified above.—Chris! _ct 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why the sortability wasn't implemented? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sortability is not a big enough reason to block an otherwise good list from promotion, but I would prefer if it were implemented sometime (note:the list has been promoted). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• It'd be great to kill off the few remaining red links, but all in all this is one well-formed and comprehensive list with a strong lead. Definitely an FL material. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:48, June 27, 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [16].

---

List of Olympic medalists in badminton

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My second nomination involving Olympic medalists. I'm sure there will be sourcing comments, and grammar/copy-edit issues, so feel free to post your comments! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Reywas92

Comments That should be a Main article link in the lead, not a see also. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Focus on the history, winners, and tournament in the lead, not so much on qualification. It appears that's copied from Badminton at the Summer Olympics. I'd recommend having unique material. Tried to change the words...also, there's barely any history on badminton in the Olympics. The winners are already focused on the lead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) You may want to link to the Olympics articles for "since 1992" and the "following Summer Olympics". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) "Indonesia and South Korea are the only other nations to have won six gold and fifteen medals." should be simplified to something like "more than five medals." Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) In the table, link to the most specific article. For the Men's singles section, link to Badminton at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's singles, not just Badminton at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) How many different athletes have won medals? Do you know the oldest and youngest winners? There may be other good stats on the other FLs. I do know the youngest winner, but not the oldest. Also, after trying to fix the medals by year table, I'm really tired... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Mind doing Medals per year, medal sweep events, and a special TOC like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing? I think the medal sweep events are waste of space for this article, since there was only one. I'll mention it though it the lead. As for the others, Done. P.S. Please fix the medals by year table. I don't know how to fix it. Thanks. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Reywas92Talk 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC) That's fine if you don't want the sweep if there's only one. I looked at the medals by year but have no clue how to fix it. Ask Scorpion, who made the others. Everything else looks fantastic and thanks for your time on it. Reywas92Talk 15:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Is that what you're looking for on the medals by year table? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, but it was my first time making that kind of table, and took me forever, so I kind of rushed it. Also, thanks for fixing the table to be consistent with the other Medals by year tables. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support no further comments. Reywas92^Talk 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I do. Could you simplify the Medals by year table to hide the blank ones, like List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_short_track_speed_skating#Medals_per_year? Reywas92^Talk 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • • Great. I reaffirm my support. Reywas92^Talk 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment – Images need a check from a knowledgeable editor. The Lin Dan photo has "Me" as the author, the Taufik Hidayat picture needs an OTRS ticket number (assuming it received one), and I'm unsure about the mural image. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix the Lin Dan photo later, as I already know it was taken by the same person as the Zhang Ning photo (from quality of image, and same uploader). The T. Hidayat photo already has permission from the original source, though no proof that this is true, but I would probably AGF that. The mural image is probably a problem, since I don't know which 2 of the 4 brothers are on the mural, and it's also not a photo. I'll take that one off if you request me to. I don't know that much editors who know how to image check, so it'll be awesome if you know any I can contact. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

For a thorough image check, I recommend asking User:Jappalang, who does great reviews at FAC. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also David Fuchs (talk · contribs) and Awadewit (talk · contribs), although the latter is usually busy. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Asked Jappalang. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "This is the only Olympic sport to have mixed doubles." "This" is ambiguous, use "Badminton" instead. "though each National Olympic Committee" "although" is better in this register. "highest ranked competitor"-->highest-ranked competitor Image caption: "Zhang Ning won two consecutive gold medals from 2004 and 2008."-->Zhang Ning won two consecutive gold medals, in 2004 and 2008. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Done all. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This might be unpopular but it seems through discussion with Dabomb and others here and here that the 3 letter abbreviations do not comply with WP:MOSFLAG. From what I can gather either the flags need removing or the full country names need giving. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Replaced the IOC flag templates. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Could you remove the use of the word "and" from the tables? It's a tad distracting and I think they would look better with the names aligned. (so {{flagIOCteam|INA|1996 Summer}}<br>[[Antonius Ariantho]]<br>[[Denny Kantono]] rather than {{flagIOCteam|INA|1996 Summer}}<br>[[Antonius Ariantho]]<br>and [[Denny Kantono]]. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on an image:

• File:Taufik Hidayat.jpg: there is a claim of OTRS but that was since 20 April 2008. Even if the OTRS is received, the photo is suspiciously enough a scan from a magazine (texture, caption, and the orange border at bottom right—sign of a bad alignment and crop) that it should be nominated for deletion. The hosting webmaster is not the author of the scan (it was donated) and we should not assume he recognised a possible copyright infringment.

Other Images are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed image. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – I previously did some cleanup in the lead, and feel comfortable supporting now that the images have checked out. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

*Mild oppose sorry to be late here, just saw your note to Scorpion so I thought I'd better roll my sleeves up... a few points: Suggest you link demonstration sport. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Be consistent with either Year Olympics or Year Summer Olympics or Year Games ... Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Worth explaining how two people could get bronze in one year. Presumably there was no 3rd place playoff? Since it's 1:00am here, I'll trying to research about that after I finish sleeping. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Explained about the bronze medal situations in the 1992 Olympics. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "Malaysia joined the Summer Olympics" do you "join" or do you "participate in"? Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Singles tables have the country and country code in italics - should the doubles table have the players in italics as you have the country and country code in regular font? Well I'm trying to be consistent with other Olympic medalists by sport lists. Also, that's how Scorpion0422 formatted in List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "from 2000 to 2004" this is true but odd since there was only a tournament in 2000 and 2004, so perhaps "in 2000 and 2004". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Interesting starting order for medalists - most Olympic tables I see published place gold medal winners above those with only silver, silver above those with only bronze. Has this already been discussed? Perhaps a note to say the original order is in terms of total medal wins? Uhh...the table is by total medals, and I don't know if this has been discussed at WP:OLYMPICS. I also don't think a note is really necessary, but I'll notify WP:OLYMPICS after my sleep. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's my point. In the UK, we list Olympic medal rankings according to most golds followed by most silvers followed by most bronzes, i.e. someone with one gold will rank higher than someone with 50 silver and 200 bronze. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I've changed it to golds first, since that's how the IOC rank the nations, by gold. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Is bold-alone accessible? i.e. should the highest medal count countries been designated with an additional mark? I don't think so, since it looks pretty obvious, and the table only has seven countries, so...but if if think noting the highest medal count country is necessary, I'll add it into the list. 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Let me know as soon as you're done with these and I'll happily revise my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Interestingly if you sort by total you don't get it in rank (or reverse rank) order. Surely rank and total should provide the same sort, if this table relates to the total number of medals won? I made the ranks to ties, just so that the table will have the same sort. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 08:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Broken sorting now. Also not happy with Tx. Possibly better off not having that column at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed sorting. I kind of like the T# on the table, since they are ranked base off how many golds they have. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Rank still doesn't sort the same as either total medals or number of golds. Also, could you not use 4= instead of T4? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Was done two days ago. Sorry for the late notice. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support my concerns fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [17].

---

List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating List of Grade I listed buildings in Mendip for featured list because I feel it meets all the criteria, is well supported by references to reliable sources and has a selection of suitable images to illustrate the sorts of buildings included. It follows the structure of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor. — Rod ^talk 21:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "110,00." Is it British style to have the comma after every two zeros? No it was a typo now fixed "Most of them are" Done "Norman or medieval era churches, "-->Norman- or medieval-era churches, I believe this has come up in previous FLCs, you may want to make sure your future nominations implement this change Done & I will try to ensure I do this in future nominations "10th century Cathedral Church of St Andrew, Wells"-->10th-century Cathedral Church of St Andrew, Wells Done "and the 13th century Bishop's Palace."--and the 13th-century Bishop's Palace. Done There are several more examples where centuries used as adjectives should be hyphenated. See if you can catch the rest. I still find this counter intuitive, but have tried to catch them all & will try to learn from this "Glastonbury is the site of the Abbey where construction started in the 7th century[6] and its associated buildings and the ruined St Michael's church, which was damaged in an earthquake of 1275,[7] on Glastonbury Tor, although the site shows evidence of occupation from Neolithic times and the Dark Ages,[8] with the Chalice Well being in use since Pre-Christian times." A mouthful of a sentence. Split it up. Done "outside of the town" Done "the town with tithe barns being built at Pilton[10] and West Bradley[11] to holds tithes, and a Fish House[12] and summer residence for the Abbott which is now Manor Farmhouse[13] at Meare."-->the town; tithe barns were built at Pilton[10] and West Bradley[11] to holds tithes, as well as a Fish House[12] and summer residence for the Abbott, now Manor Farmhouse[13] at Meare. Done "Farleigh Hungerford Castle which was fortified around 1370"-->Farleigh Hungerford Castle, fortified around 1370 Done "and The George Inn at Norton St Philip which was used as an army headquarters during the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685, and then as a courtroom to try the rebels in the Bloody Assizes"-->and The George Inn at Norton St Philip, used as an army headquarters during the Monmouth Rebellion in 1685, and then as a courtroom to try the rebels in the Bloody Assizes Done "St Peter at Hornblotton which was built in 1872–74 by Sir Thomas Graham Jackson replacing a medieval church on the same site,"-->St Peter at Hornblotton, built in 1872–74 by Sir Thomas Graham Jackson to replace a medieval church on the same site, Done "which is more formally known as"-->more formally known as Done No ampersands (I saw one in the table. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I found one in the dates column & have fixed that one - I had fixed them all in article titles but if I've missed any more let me know. Response Thanks for these I hope I've fixed them all & will try to learn from your comment although I still find XXth-century grates for me.— Rod talk 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes [18] reliable?

• Cathedrals Plus is run by the "Pilgrim's Association". Membership of the Association includes almost all the Church of England cathedrals, three Anglican cathedrals in Wales and three in Ireland, three of the Metropolitical Roman Catholic cathedrals, the Methodist Central Hall and Wesley’s Chapel together with several Abbeys and major churches. It is governed by a Council of fifteen members elected for a three-year term on a rotational basis at the Annual General Meeting. It is a registered charity with the Council Members acting as trustees and is responsible to the Charity Commission for the proper conduct of its affairs. (see About the Pilgrims Association)

• Likewise http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/h8-glastonbury.html? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• This comes from the Internet Medieval Sourcebook in which Paul Halsall has collected together a range of relevant letters and texts into an accessible format, in which he cites all the original sources used. It is hosted by the Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies of Fordham University in New York. See [19] for information about the sourcebook, its editor, the sources used and selection process.
• If these are not seen as being reliable I will look for another reference to back up the claims.— Rod ^talk 16:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• No need; I'm satisfied. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

*Comments from Hassocks5489* Another good listed buildings list, with just a few points to raise from me. It's very pleasing to see how well Wikipedia's coverage of listed buildings is coming on. Lead: First three paragraphs jump from describing Mendip to explaining listed buildings then back to describing Mendip. Perhaps #3 could be combined with #1 to make a new larger first paragraph, which is then followed by the unchanged #2 paragraph (the one with the details about listing)? This would also flow nicely into the current paragraph #4, which starts "There are 90 Grade I listed buildings in Mendip...". Done The wikilink to Cathedral Church of St Andrew, Wells may be better piped as [[Cathedral Church of St Andrew, Wells|Cathedral Church of St Andrew]] to prevent repetition of "Wells". If this is done, the sentence would look better remodelled as: "In Wells these are clustered around the 10th-century Cathedral Church of St Andrew, better known as Wells Cathedral, and the 13th-century Bishop's Palace." (Something is needed to set off the Bishop's Palace clause from the Wells Cathedral info.) Done "Glastonbury is the site of the Abbey where construction started in the 7th century and its associated buildings." would read better with commas before and after "where construction started in the 7th century". My own writing style might even favour the stronger jolt of the em-dash, although I do tend to be quite "heavy" with punctuation. The problem with using an em-dash here would be that it would look nasty with the ref next to it (an annoying, eternal problem). Done The next sentences are a bit difficult to follow as well. Possible alternatives: "The ruined St Michael's church, damaged in an earthquake of 1275, stands on Glastonbury Tor, where the site shows evidence of occupation from Neolithic times and the Dark Ages." Done "The Chalice Well has been in use since Pre-Christian times." Done "Glastonbury Abbey had a wider influence outside the town: tithe barns were built at Pilton and West Bradley to hold tithes, and a Fish House was built at Meare along with a summer residence for the Abbot (now Manor Farmhouse)." (I "upgraded" the semicolon to a colon and corrected the spelling of "Abbot" as well as reworking the sentence.) Done In the sentence beginning "The most recent buildings included in the list are churches;", I would favour a colon over a semicolon again. Done Picture captions: Abbey Tithe barn: suggest "was used as a Tithe barn" → "was used as a tithe barn". Done Comma between "Wells Cathedral" and "which" would be better; or add a comma and eliminate "which was". Done Table: Year sorting looks correct; I assume from looking at various examples that e.g. "13th century" has been deemed to lie in the middle of the century for sorting purposes (so for example, "c. 1230" precedes "13th century", which precedes "c. 1280"). I agree with the logic. Everything else looks fine; [note]s all provide the correct extra info, clarifications etc. One minor point on [Note 9]: "...includes the stables which is now used as a study centre" → "...includes the stables, now used as a study centre". Done Typo in [Note 10]: "Orchadlea" → "Orchardlea". Done [Note 15]: "...with the link wall along east side." → "...with the link wall along the east side." Done [Note 17]: Better to spell out "Street" in "1 St Andrew St". Also, the abbreviation "Nos" has a full stop after it in the refs, but not in the text of the note. As far as I know, both variants are acceptable, so change whichever you prefer (adding one in the note would be quicker, otherwise you have about four to remove in the refs :) ) one I tried a random selection of the clickable grid refs, and the link to Google Maps worked correctly. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Response Thanks for your detailed comments - hopefully all addressed.— Rod talk 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – all comments addressed. I agree with your rationale for the two sources queried by Dabomb, so I can add my support. By the way, I corrected a damaged wikilink by adding "]]". Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Dabomb. – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support very good indeed, just one thing - not keen on the placement of ref 12 - shouldn't it be following punctuation where possible? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [20].

---

List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's the same as always, folks; review and enjoy! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Three Baseball-Reference links are showing up as dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Found a fourth, and fixed all. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Before finding the dead links, I was on the verge of giving a rare straight support. Great lists like this really make reviewing easy. Wish they could all be this simple for me. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Steve Garvey and Mark Grace have won four Gold Gloves at first base." You say they won four at first base. Does that mean they've won Gold Gloves at other positions too?

• No... I did explain below that Darin Erstad is the only one who has won at multiple positions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Re-worded slightly to be clearer. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 23 – use "page" instead of "pages" in the cite template, since you're using only one page. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, got it. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] ...the most "superior individual fielding performances" at each position... --> ...the most "superior individual fielding performances" at their respective positions... Says the same thing, but is wordier. The current wording is more succinct. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) winning season --> award winning season, since winning season may be misinterpreted that their team had a winning percentage of over .500. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Parker and Snow achieved a .999 fielding percentage in those seasons... --> Parker and Snow achieved a .999 fielding percentage in their own award winning seasons... Ambiguous; they won more than once. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I was going to come back to this nomination, but had plans this afternoon, which was why I couldn't reply back. Sorry for that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – (iMatthew • talk) at 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

*Mild oppose "to have the most" perhaps "to have made the most"...? Actually most superior sounds a little strange. Perhaps "judged to have made "superior fielding performances..."? That's a direct quote, so I'm not going to alter the inside. I'll take a look at altering it, though it will have to be changed in all 5 lists now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I made some additional changes here; turns out the "direct quote" that was originally in the main article isn't actually a direct quote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Is there a link for baseball fielding positions? There is. Link it first time, rather than second time. I linked it where I did because the word "position" by itself is ambiguous, due to non-fielding positions like the designated hitter. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Flipped order for clarity. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "commemorate the best fielding performance at each position in baseball", "only one Gold Glove per position was awarded to the top fielder at each position in all of Major League Baseball" repetitive - I know these are the bare facts but the prose is pretty repetitive. If the changes I've made are acceptable, let me know. I'm not going to change the other lists until I know this one is fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) What happened in 1985 and 2007? There were ties in the outfield, but they aren't particularly relevant to the non-outfield articles. The information about that is explicated in the main article. I could put a "see Rawlings Gold Glove Award" link if it would help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "though the circumstances were disputed; see below" - not necessary as you expand on it below anyway. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "Among winners" Among the winners? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) A direct article isn't particularly necessary here, and this is consistent with the way it's used in many other baseball awards articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) What's a DH? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Ref should be Ref(s) I don't think that's really necessary; "Ref" could stand for reference or references. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Youkilis image features more than one person. Which one is he? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC Nearly done "taking home 11 consecutive " a little colloquial for me. "taking 11 consecutive awards"? I worry about saying "award" too many times. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Then perhaps look at a different phrasing altogether. I'm still not really happy with the language here. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) How about now? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC) How about "...the most Gold Gloves at first base, capturing 11 consecutive awards in the..." The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) How about... yes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "the least errors in a season" should that be "the fewest errors in a season"? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) It should indeed. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support nicely done. Great constructive responses and edits to my criticisms, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [21].

---

List of current members of the Maryland Senate

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is modeled on a previous FL Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates. Credit should go to User:Marylandstater for maintaining it in my absence and providing the wealth of pictures. He's working on getting the rest of the pictures, but doesn't have them yet. However, I don't think the lack of a couple images detracts from the overall quality of the list. Geraldk (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - nice list, but images are way too small and the column should not be sortable.—Chris! _ct 22:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Chris. Either make room for larger images or remove them altogether. When do they take office after being elected? You may want to center the district and elected columns. Also be sure to improve Maryland Senate while you're at it. Reywas92^Talk 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for suggestions. Have implemented all of them, including doubling the size of the images. In the case of the question about when they take office, the only place I was able to find specific mention was in the state constitution itself, but it does not explicitly explain when those who are appointed to their seats take office, so I've not mentioned that. And I will definitely be getting to the Senate article - am slowly working towards a featured topic on the assembly as a whole. Geraldk (talk) 11:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Also, the page title and the lead both use Maryland State Senate, yet that article is Maryland Senate. What's right? I'd move this list to just List of current members of the Maryland Senate.
  • Vacant Seat in the composition table should not be colored, or better yet not even there.
  • The executive nominations column looks terrible because the dashes are centered but the words are to the left. I would just center the entire table with style="text-align:center;".
  • Rather than referencing column headings, those should probably just be general references.
• I think that's all. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All done. With the reference, I separated out as a general reference any ref that was on a column header. Unfortunately, a lot of those same references were used in portions of the lead, so the lead now looks under-referenced, but it didn't make sense to list a reference as both general and specific. Let me know if the current ref formating works or if I should look for another solution. Geraldk (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support looks good. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments The shades of blue and red in the map and in the first section are different than the ones in the table. Consistency? I've changed the first section to match the rest of the table. The map I'd like to leave be as the darker shades provide more visual contrast. The other option, of course, would be something like List of governors in Alabama, but I don't frankly think there's much reason to change it. Either one works pretty well. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Dashes are needed in the "Executive" column; blanks look incomplete. Done. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Is it really useful to sort the "Counties" column even though there are more than two on some rows? In some ways it is. It allows for the major delegations (Baltimore, Montgomery, Prince George's) to be sorted, although it doesn't sort as well for the senators who represent multiple counties. I'd like to keep it in the interest of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, but let me know if it's a major sticking point for you. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Online or On-line? The sources calls itself 'On-line' so that's the spelling I've gone with. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Notes should be separated from the references Done. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Why are general/specific shown as subsections? I doubt anyone would click on "specific' from the TOC. No longer a problem. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) The general reference is the same website as the current #2 website. I don't see any use for that "general reference". Eliminated. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) The See also section needs to go. That link is already in the template below. Eliminated. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) If you could find more categories, that would be great. After much hunting, found one more. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 05:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the thorough review and the comments. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) What does the green area in the map mean? It's the inset area for Baltimore City, which is separated out to the left. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) It could be mentioned in the caption.--Crzycheetah 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I don't understand what's the "Government Majority - 19" part supposed to mean. It's the difference between the number of Democrats and the number of Republicans. Geraldk (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) ...and why do I need to know that? --Crzycheetah 05:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Bah, you and your logic. Does there really have to be a reason for extraneous information that can easily be calculated by a reader? This is Wikipedia, where every piece of information, however trivial, can find a home... Dropped it. Thanks. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support and thanks for the compliment.--Crzycheetah 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 19:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Currently, 33 of those" "Currently" is a dated statement; use "As of...[date or month or year]" instead. "Senators are elected in even years"-->Senators are elected in even-numbered years "Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr." I'm pretty sure it's "Thomas V. Miller, Jr." (Mike) is his nickname. "Counties represented"-->County(ies) represented or something like that, since not all senators serve multiple counties. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Refs for the notes? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks very much for the comments. Fixed the first two and the last one. Senator Miller's official Senate page lists his name as Thomas V. Mike Miller, and from my understanding the Mike is actually part of his name. In any case, it is the common usage of the name - he is referred to informally as Mike Miller and not as Thomas Miller. Geraldk (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The information in the notes derives from the general references. Geraldk (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good enough. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'm basing my review off the List of current Canadian senators, which is also a FL.
  • I think that one looks tidier and is easier to read. I think the lack of coloured rows is a big part of it. Would you consider removing the complete colour from this list and switching it a method similar to what is used in the Canadian list? Some of the Governors FLs use a similar method, ie. List of Governors of Arizona.
  • Does the "Current party composition" need an entire section? I would almost argue that the table isn't needed, since there are two parties and the numbers aren't complex, but having comparative numbers is useful. Perhaps you could merge it with the "current leadership" section? (again, I would debate whether it is needed. Perhaps you could switch to a notes method like what is used in the Canadian list?)
• I hope that helps. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer not to reduce the color to a single column, but will if you insist. I'm looking to keep this list as similar as possible to its sister list, List of current members of the Maryland House of Delegates, and frankly I don't particularly see the reason for one method being chosen over the other. With the current party composition, again, it mirrors the sister page, and also I think it's useful as a quick glance chart for those who don't take the time to read through the entire lead. But, again, if you insist, I can merge it somehow. Geraldk (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

*Mild oppose Link Term limit. Under Current Leadership, is "District" a look-up for a particular district? Is there a reason why the actual name isn't there, or is it simply a case that there isn't a name? Could you put the jurisdictions in here? Our article on President pro tem does not capitalise "pro tem" - do you need to here? Any reason why the Current leadership table isn't sortable? Not necessarily related to this FLC but the George Edwards article is looking for a free image - you have one here... perhaps you could share! And maybe there are others... Senator name sorts by first name, not surname, you should be using {{sortname}} in my opinion. Table is sortable so link all instances of linked words, e.g. Baltimore County. Apologies for being late, but only just getting free enough in real life to hit the FLC backlog. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Give me a day or so to address all of these. Geraldk (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Have addressed all except the second. Didn't quite understand what you were getting at there. The district column is for that Senator's district, which has a number and not a name. I can add the jurisdictions as well, but it will just repeat information in the main table. Geraldk (talk) 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 22:39, 27 June 2009 [22].

---

List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for a featured article Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "an ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of" "originating from". Or perhaps "descended from"? There is no mention of the Medal of Honor at all in the lead. Remember that the lead is a summary of the article. Done. --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "Since the American Civil War when the Medal of Honor was instituted 21 American Jews have received the Medal of Honor for their actions, three of them were posthumous."-->Since the American Civil War, when the Medal of Honor was instituted, 21 American Jews have received the Medal of Honor for their actions; 3 were posthumous. I feel there is too much detail on American Jews. The second paragraph is unnecessary, IMO. Its gone. --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "As a contrast, Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the Israeli Jewish population was 5,435,800 in 2007 (75.7% of the average population)."-->In contrast, Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics estimated the Israeli Jewish population to be 5,435,800 in 2007 (75.7% of the average population). Where's the ref for the quotes (or the general ref)? Check the toolbox; there are two disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Both fixed. --Kumioko (talk) 15:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 7 needs a publisher and last access date.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• In ref 1, the Bartleby link to "Jew" only goes to the main page. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This has not been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. Sorry it took me so long I couldn;t find it on the web and I was struggling with the Note formatting. I had to change it to a book citation and I wanted to verify that it was actually in the book. If you look up Jew in The free dictionary it uses the same verbage taken from the same book (older version though). Let me know if its still not right.--Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Names are not sorted properly. It's probably because the people who were award posthumously are sorted wrong somehow. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Its because I had the * before the nowrap. Its fixed now--Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• There should not be a space between "Jew" and the footnote in the first sentence.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• "absorbed into the Jewish community throughout the millennia" - Which millennia? The millennia Before Christ too?

Done. I reworded this.--Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Quotations should be cited in the lead per WP:LEAD.
• "This along with the * , indicates that the Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously" - I don't think a comma is needed here.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:JackHJacobs.jpg needs a non-free use rationale.

Done, I don't usually mess with images though so someone should take a look and make sure I did it right.--Kumioko (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than that it looks pretty good. Nice work! TheLeftorium 09:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, balloonman (talk)

Comments from balloonman (talk · contribs) Comments from Balloonman: "The United States currently has the second largest Jewish community in the world (after Israel) depending on religious definitions and varying population data." ---> "Depending on religious definitions and varying population data, the United States currently has the second largest Jewish community in the world (after Israel)." Done. I combined the first to paragraphs in the lead to flow better.--Kumioko (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, the entire first paragraph of the American Jew section is redundant with the lead. One of those two sections needs to be cut/trimmed. This is a side note, but I think the 1993 study should have an article. Thats a good Idea, I don't know if there is enough info on that one specifically without violating the no orginial research covenant but if it covered the contraversies in general including perhaps the purge that was done (in the 50's I think) it could be very good I think.--Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Same note as the African American medal of honor winners. Quotes that don't start at the beginning of the sentence need to be identified via brackets or "..."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Done. I went with the brackets.--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Again I have questions/concerns about the references and quotes, but I'll defer to more experienced FLC reviewers on this.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I put the reference in the notes column. Hopefully that will be ok.--Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose for the moment. The lead is very strange for me. One para on Jews, one para on the medal of honor. Is there any significance in Jewish MOH winners? What makes this group so significant? Is there a list of Catholic winners? I'd like to be convinced in the lead that this list is really needed. This is going to be a bit of a long comment but here goes. There is a jewish list for a couple reasons, 1) an assessment was done and it was determined that this minority group in the US had some recipients that where not awarded the Medal of Honor due to the fact that they where Jews. 2) there has been documentation written specifically targetting this population where as there has not been for other religious groups, 3) If someone wrote a book about catholic recipients or if there was some way to determine who they are I would be glad to make a list about them. For the time being there is not. Additionally, since this is considered a minority group in the US inline with Women, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc saying this list is no required would be a defacto statement saying they are not required which outside the US they may not be but within the US they are (IMO).--Kumioko (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Okay, I'm not 100% convinced but it won't stop me supporting, as long as everything else is dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Provided I can be convinced this list is required, the remaining comments should be dealt with. The only part of the lead which integrates Jews and MOH is the very last sentence re: Rubin's award. What's USO? I clarified it and linked it to the article --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Is there a link for Grand-Pre? And Eclisfontaine? Not in the English WP. In the french they are only stubs from what I can find and since its an American related article it wouldn't (IMO) link to an article or reference that most would not be able to read. --Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) "Shiloh, Tennessee, Vicksburg, Mississippi, etc." what does etc. mean here? Done, this is what the Medal of Honor citation had but I removed the etc, I doubt anyone will miss it. --Kumioko (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The links in the references shouldn't be in-line. You need to use the "#tag:ref" thing. Not sure what you mean could you clarify please? --Kumioko (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Look at the way the [nb]'s are referenced in John Wark for a couple of examples. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I am still confused, can you give me an example of a ref I need to fix? --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Your refs 4, 5 and 6 have nasty links [en.wiki.x.io ] for instance. Look at John Wark's nb references which are footnotes with correctly formatted references as well. You need this #tag:ref trick. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Ok I fixed these, I expaned 2 of them as cite web references and I moved 2 of them into notes and created a seperate notes section. I also moved ref1 to the notes section because it appears to be more of a note type reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumioko (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Ref 11 = External link - why the repeat? I deleted the External link section. --Kumioko (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support good work on addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 21:53, 23 June 2009 [23].

---

List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that I originally opposed the creation of this list. I felt it was recentism and going overboard, since we already list winners by sport and nation. However, I now believe that a big master list of medalists does have it's uses (and I doubt it would be deleted, so if it has to exist, I might as well try to make it as good as I can). I originally tried something different with the lead image, and tried to make it random, so that every time you visited you would see a new image. This was because there are a bunch of similar images I wanted to include but have no room (and it would also appease any anti-American/Phelps IPs that complain about the lead image. As silly as it sounds, this was a huge issue with the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table during the Games). I eventually removed it because it didn't appear to be working (I kept getting the same image over and over again) and I would be open to re-adding it if I can get it to work. Enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I tried the random image out in my sandbox. It works when you go to the page initially. But if you want to see another image when you are at the page already, you have to purge the page. Refreshing the page won't work.—Chris! _ct 21:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I just realized that this works the same way with the Template:Wikipedia ads, so maybe could ask someone there to help you. I personally think this is a good function to have. Olympics is an international event, some diversity is a good thing.—Chris! _ct 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Great list! I would only like a few more statistics in the lead. How many medals were awarded in general (a team medal counts as one; same as national sums)? How many total (counting every winning team member/athlete)? How many different athletes won medals? I also think there's a list of 2008 records set that you can link to. Everything else is fantastic. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I was hoping nobody would ask for a total number of individual athletes. I can add how many medals were awarded, but adding how many individual athletes won is a lot harder. I looked for a source, but couldn't find one, so that would mean I would have to do it by counting manually. This would be immensely difficult (because of repeat winners) and I have neither the time or the will to do it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I hate doing long tasks like that too, like copy-editing Simpsons episode lists and ridiculously long ice hockey articles :). Do just a few sports a day, and keep track of your count via hidden comment. It will make things easier to manage. I wouldn't mind if you finished counting after FLC; I don't think it's a dealbreaker. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • 1,881 people won a medal in 2008. I told WP:AWB to find all the links on the page, and I removed those that weren't medal-winning athletes. I could be a couple too many, but I'm pretty sure I got them all. They take up 41 pages when I copied them to Word! Reywas92^Talk 00:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • That's the number I get too. Thanks for the suggestion. I added in some more stats. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Support Everything's great! Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments. Here are the things I spotted that could be resolved. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Overall, 302 events in 28 sports were held. 165 events were opened to men(...)" — you could link both sentences; they're related.
  • Done.
• Place a source supporting that Athens 2004 only had 301 events (easy, just put the IOC 2004 Games page).
  • Done.
• "Nine new events were held, which included 2 from the new cycling discipline of BMX." — spell out single-digit numbers.
  • Done.
• "Women competed in the 3000 m steeplechase for the first time." — spell out meters/metres.
  • Done.
• "(...) namely baseball and boxing; while one sport (...)" — replace semicolon with regular comma.
  • Done.
• Two instances of both "baseball" and "softball" point to the same link. Leave the first instance linked.
  • Done.
• There's a bit of info duplication in the first sentences on the 3rd paragraph, when you state the number of countries that won medals. Perhaps you could merge some of those?
  • Done.
    • This change shifted the NBCOlympics ref to source the first sentence about the 1,881 medal-winning athletes, when in fact it does not.
      • Fixed.
• "Athletes from (...) won their first Olympic medals." — I suggest "won their NOC's first Olympic medals".
  • Done.
    • Don't forget to place the acronym after the first instance of National Olympic Committees in the lead.
      • Done.
• Any special reason for the weightlifting table layout to be different from the rest?
  • You can thank Prapawadee Jaroenrattanatarakoon. I wanted to make sure all of the tables were equal in width, and that one wasn't, so I had to make the winner columns wider and the events column narrower.
    • Too bad. It looks kinda awkward because it's the only one different. I've tested inserting a break between both names; it didn't look bad apart from the extra white space in the other event's medalists cells. Damned Thai names.
      • The other option is to use the {{small}} template on her name, but that may cause confusion/outrage amongst users as to why her name is smaller than the rest. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Medal winner changes
  • Note A → any developments on the Belarussian hammer throwers appeal?
    • Not that I could find.
  • Note B → "athlete" is linked here instead in the previous note. Also in this note, "International Olympic Committee" is not linked here but it is in note D below.
    • Fixed.
  • Note D → Correct "Kim Jong Su" to the previously linked "Kim Jong-su" spelling.
• In the "Notes" section, capitalize "games" as it refers to the Olympics, and perhaps replace "football games" with "football matches" to avoid any confusion with the (Olympic) Games.
  • Done.
• I found both "program" and "programme" variants.
  • Switched to programme. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • You're very much welcome. I'm ready to give my support once you've addressed these new minor points. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – I'm curious as to why the first sentence has dates in American format, while note 1 has them in international format. Human error. Fixed. Decapitalize Softball in second paragraph. Also, the sentence is redundant; to fix it, try "as the International Olympic Committee voted to remove them from the programme of the 2012 Olympics." Done. "won their NOC's first Olympic medals." Since this applies to more than one nation, move the apostrophe in NOCs to after the s. Next sentence needs a similar adjustment. Fixed. Medal winner changes: "had tested positive for the banned substance of propranolol and thus stripped of his two medals from the 2008 Summer Olympics." Missing word? Giants2008 (17-14) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Two of the International Herald Tribune links are dead. They're moving all the article to the New York Times website. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 01:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Good work. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) A few too many issues in the lead for my taste, but... "8 August to 24 August, 2008." In international format, no comma after the month. Done. "Nine new events were held, which included two from the new cycling discipline of BMX."-->Nine new events were held, including two from the new cycling discipline of BMX. Done. "In addition, marathon open water swimming events for men and women, over the distance of 10 kilometres, were added to the swimming discipline." "In addition ... added" The repetition is annoying. Do we need those two words? Removed the "In addition" "Equestrian is the only sport where"-->Equestrian is the only sport in which Done. "Baseball and softball may have made their last appearances in Olympics history during these Games, as the International Olympic Committee voted to remove them from the programme of the 2012 Olympics." If the IOC voted them off, why is their uncertainty ("may have made") The two sports are applying to be re-added in 2016. "Chinese athletes won 51 gold medals and 100 medals altogether, and the United States won 36 gold medals and 110 total medals." You might mention that they won the most golds and most medals, respectively. Fixed. "Athletes from 87 countries won medals, 55 of which won gold medals, both setting new records for Olympic Games." This isn't worded right; sounds like 55 of the medals won gold medals. Took a stab at re-wording. "won their NOCs first Olympic medals. "-->won their NOC's first Olympic medal. Done. "won their nations first gold medals."-->won their nation's first gold medal. Done. "Phelps also set a new record for most career gold medals (14)" Comma after here. Done. "tied or bettered" I think "surpassed" sounds better than "bettered", although that's just me. Agreed, switched to "surpassed". "Tanya Harding of Australia won a bronze, all have four career medals"-->Tanya Harding of Australia won a bronze; all have four career medals Done. Don't change it if it breaks a precedent, but wouldn't it make more sense to link the events (in the tables) themselves, rather than having a "details" link? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) It might, but that is the convention for all of the pages.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC) *Ref 5 needs to denote that it's a PDF (add format=PDF to the cite template).

• "Federation Internationale d'Escrime"-->Fédération Internationale d'Escrime Dabomb87 (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [24].

---

List of Gold Glove Award winners at second base

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, again (I'm going fast with this project!). Enjoy the read; comments appreciated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "usually referred to simply as the Gold Glove" "simply" is unnecessary here—the more concise wording implies simplicity. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "all of Sandberg's awards came with the Chicago Cubs."-->Sandberg [or he, your choice] won all of his awards with the Chicago Cubs. Reworded a different way. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "Only one winning second baseman has ever had an errorless season" Removed "ever"; kept "only" for emphasis; this is a rare feat. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "He committed only four errors and amassed " Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "Morgan set the National League mark with 417 in 1973" Comma after "mark" for consistency, since you use commas to set off nonessential clauses in other sentences in the lead. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Why don't you have a template for the Gold Glove winners at each position, as you do for Silver Sluggers? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Because it would currently be a template full of mostly redlinks. As I did with the Silver Sluggers, I will add the navbox when all articles are moved into the mainspace. If you'd like to see the navbox, it's in my sandbox. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment –

• "Ryne Sandberg has the second-highest total overall, and his nine awards are the most by a National League player, having won them with the Chicago Cubs." I thought the last part of this sentence was awkward. Can the team be mentioned earlier? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• How's it look now? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Looks fine, just like the rest of the list. Another great baseball awards list. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support No issues remain here, good job! – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [25].

---

BBC Sports Personality of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been a while but this is the last list in the SPoTY awards topic I have been working on. I had some early discussion with Scorpion about how to format it, and hopefully it is now okay. If there are still problems I guess the images could go. Also note that Checklinks for me is indicating that a Times article is dead even though it isn't. Thanks in advance for any comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Oppose – Found quite a bit to do throughout the list, so I'm opposing for now. Of course, I'll reconsider once these are done. Some inconsistencies when it comes to numbers. I see 30 and two uses of ten. Is the latter your limit for spelling out numbers? Yes, per the MoS. numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words hence ten as words, 30 as numerals. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Not a big deal, although I thought thirty was only one word... :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Spelled out thirty now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC) "in the result of a tie at the end of the nomination process". "in the event of" is a more common phrase. I haven't seen "in the result of" before. Not saying that it's wrong, but it does strike me as unusual. Done Italics needed for Radio Times. Done "Since then, numerous other awards have been introduced to the ceremony which now consists of eight awards." Comma before "which". Done "The oldest recepient of the award Dai Rees who won in 1957 aged 44." Missing "is" before name and comma after. Done Another comma after Ian Black. Done Table: Is the Union in Rugby Union a proper noun? If not, decapitalize it. Done Captions need a few more commas after before "who"s. Question. I might be being thick but I've never heard of this. I thought the comma came after the name and before who, like they currently are. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I think he meant after "who" too. Take a look at the lead caption. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Actualy, I think he put an incorrect suggestion above. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Done Note 1: "Before her marriage 14 November 1973". Is "on" missing? Done Note 3: "However the BBC deemed this to be against the rule...". Either change to "rules" or say what rule was violated. Done Reference titles shouldn't be in all caps, even if the sites present them that way. Done

• What makes http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/spoty.htm (ref 3) a reliable source?
  • I would consider it a WP:SPS by Laurence Marcus, who has become somewhat an expert in the field. Him and his site has gained coverage in reliable third-party publications like The Times and the BBC. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Reference 47 should have publisher (Hello!) in italics.
  • Done

Giants2008 (17-14) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments. They have either been addressed or commented on. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak support – Maintaining some caution because of the one source I'm hesitant about, but everything else is good. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "a panel of 30 sports journalists each put forward a list of ten contenders." Suggest "submitted" instead of "put forward". Done "The shortlist is announced at the beginning of December, and on the night of the ceremony a public telephone vote during the live show takes place to determine the winner." This seems wordy. Suggest "The shortlist is announced at the beginning of December, and the winner is determined on the night of the ceremony by a public telephone vote." Done "who had the idea while he was editor"-->who thought of the idea while he was editor Done "For the first show, voting was by postcard"-->For the first show, voting were sent by postcard Done "innaguaral " Misspelled. Done "Three people have won the award more than once"-->Three people have won the award multiple times Done "HRH The Princess Anne (1971) and her daughter Zara Phillips (2006) are the only example of two members of the same family winning the award."-->HRH The Princess Anne (1971) and her daughter Zara Phillips (2006) are the only pair of award-winners to be members of the same family Done "Out of the fifty-six recipients, thirteen have been female."-->Out of the 56 recipients, 13 have been female. Query. I'm not sure about this, all through the lead it is talking about number of recipients in some form, be it country, sex, sport etc. Aren't they all just comparable quanities and therefore should be consistent (i.e. spelled out)? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Yes. The MOS also says that numbers over ten should be in numeral form. Change this throughout the lead (except where changing this would create inconsistencies in the sentence). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Not often I disagree with you but here I do. Firstly, both ways comply with MOS per or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words. However I actually think it should all be spelled out because from the third paragraph onwards "Three people" is comparable with "fifty-six recipients" which is comparable to "forty-six English winners of the award: four Scottish, ...". Or at least that is my interpretation of Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) "Counting them separately, there have been forty-six English winners of the award," Colon, not comma, at the end of this phrase. If you say so "Greg Rusedski is the only winner not to be born in the British Isles"-->Greg Rusedski is the only winner who was born in the British Isles Assuming you meant Greg Rusedski is the only winner who was not born in the British Isles then done. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, I did, thanks for seeing through my mistake. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "became the most successful British Olympian for 100 years." "for"-->in Done I know I haven't mentioned this before, but you need to make a key for the flags and spell the countries out in full per MOS:FLAG. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Um I believe it does comply with MOSFLAG. Scorpion and I discussed this (see intro not) and I (not saying "we" as I don't want to misquote him) believe that the three letter codes after the name cover this. I know WP:OSE but this seems to be a method used in current (recent) FL List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and current FLC List of Olympic medalists in badminton. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I'm still wary about this. I'll ask the good people at the MOS. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) See this. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The people there actually recommend that you lose the flags altogether. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Okay assuming the flags are lost do we want linked abbreviations, abbr. linked on first occurance or full names? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Actually someone pointed me to the Country can sometimes be omitted when flag re-used' section in MOSFLAG, which says: "for example {{flag|Japan}}, or its shorter variant {{flag|JPN}} should be used first". This seems to indicate three letter abbreviations are acceptable. Obviously if people still deem a change necessary there are the options given in my struck comment. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)\ If the flags go, I would recommend just using abbreviations. I'd also like to see links only on the first use, if they are necessary at all. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) I really don't have a beef with the flags; I just want to make sure everything is accessible to readers and that there is consistency across articles. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC) As always many thanks for the comments, I believe I have addressed or queried each one. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments Well constructed list In November, a panel of 30 sports journalists each submitted a list of ten contenders. - A very confusing sentence. Does this happen every year or just last year? 30 sports journalists of BBC or other companies involved, as well? Rather luckily for me the beeb have just updated their page for the 2009 ceremony. So these were the rules last year, and they are the same this year. As a result I've changed to the present tense "submit". The journalists are "from a selection of newspaper sports editors (national and regional) and magazines." I could add that in but I think it is unnecessary. Does it still need clarifying that they are general sports journalists? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC) a panel of six former award winners determines the nominee - How about 1958? There were no "former winers", what would happen if there were a tie? Done, added "currently, ..." There are only two red links here: Marion Coakes and Paddy McMahon. It's not a requirement, but since there are only two, it shouldn't be a problem to get rid of them. Okay, I'll work on that in a bit. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Done, although Marion Coakes is an example of why I don't usually make stubs for redlinks as I spend hours googling some vague person and try to add everything in existence about them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support As for the flags, I think both should stay: flags and linked abbr. In a sortable table, abbreviations without links are useless.
  • I'm staying out the flag thing now. As my sandbox shows, I'm willing to make changes if deemed necessary. I just await an outcome from discussion between reviewers. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Comments from Hassocks5489 – I am close to supporting. Table format looks appropriate and logical, and is consistent with similar lists. I don't have a strong preference about the flags issue, but I'm inclined to agree with Crzycheetah's comment (so I approve of how it is at the moment). In the lead, "Torvill and Dean are the only non-individual winners of the award, having won in 1986" might be better as "Torvill and Dean, who won in 1986, are the only non-individual winners of the award". Done In current ref [18], "Gareth A Davies" has no full stop after the A; in ref [29], he has one. Done, good spot. After "Three people have won the award multiple times", I would prefer a colon to a semicolon, otherwise it gives the impression that the following clause is not related to it. Done The main thing I wanted to ask: is there a reason behind the choice of the word "athlete" rather than "athletics" to pipe-link to the sports of the various athletes? "Athletics" is used in the "By sport" table, and by other lists in this series. Sorry if this has been discussed before; it's the first time I've reviewed one of these lists :) It hasn't been discussed before and you are quite right, it was just a mistake I made. Thanks for spotting it, it has now been corrected. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Many thanks for taking a look. You comments are much appreciated and have hopefully now been resolved. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – everything resolved. The AWB replacements of "Athlete" with "Athletics" broke one external link, which I repaired. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [26].

---

Orange Prize for Fiction

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I'm just really looking for things that are off my radar. In a few hours, I've tried to turn this from a collection of 3,145 bytes of unsourced facts to 14,329 bytes of extensively sourced information. The list is the article, i.e. this is no content fork, so hopefully it meets the expectations of the community, not only WP:WIAFL. So, all criticism gratefully received, and I'll do my best to act on all comments as soon as possible. Cheers y'all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments What was the award's name when it was founded? The Orange Prize for Fiction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) An image in the lead would be great. Indeed, and I've looked. Any suggestions for an image I could use would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Come up blank on Flickr... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The first three columns can be sortable to find the entries easier. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Those three works that are redlinked can become stubs. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) In 2005 the "Orange of Oranges" was awarded to Levy for Small Island - what's "orange of oranges"? Why is it listed in the 2004 row? Some explanation is needed Explanation in lead. It is in the 2004 row because it's relevant to Levy and Small Island. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Could you come up with some notes for 2005 and 2008? I hate seeing blank cells. I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC) No more blank cells. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 21:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The infobox is good enough for me.--Crzycheetah 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the Nominees column would look neater if you put names in bullet form —Chris! _ct 04:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but it would also unnaturally elongate the table. I'm not that keen to implement this as the main focus should really be on the winners anyway. But perhaps we'll see what others think. Cheers for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. No objection to the list... but regarding the text, would it be possible to provide more context? The second paragraph has a lot of criticism but it could be more balanced with defenses or explanations of what they are referring to. What does "Lemon Prize" mean? is that supposed to be disparaging? The critics call it "sexist", is there a defense on why it was created for women only? It is a lot of criticism for something that is "one of the UK's most prestigious literary prizes"...basically why is it so prestigious if all the criticism is negative? Other suggestions:
  • "sponsored by Orange since then." - context on what Orange is.
  • "literary prizes, awarded annually for the best original full-length novel written in English by a female author" - perhaps "awarded to a female author for the best ..." would be a better order since the prize is awarded to the author, rather than the work. --maclean 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey maclean, thanks so much for your comments. I've tried to address them as best I can - I've added some references for why the prize exists, both from the Orange website and an interview with Mosse. I've linked the "lemon" quote to Lemon (automobile) which, on the face of it may seem odd, but the meaning is correct. I've given Orange some context, i.e. what they actually do as a company, and I've reworded according to your second specific point. The prestige side of things, I had hoped, was covered by the four different references I have in the opening sentence of the lead. Are the edits I've made satisfactory, or could I do more? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• I still find it unbalanced. 'Prestigious' is a subjective adjective and what I'm looking for is why is it described as such. Yes, several media outlets label the award "prestigious". But they don't explain why it is prestigious. Is it the oldest? most lucrative? most sought after? does it have the largest following? BBC News has some redeemable content with its quote on why the author finds the award useful. However, the rest:
  • Irish Times - article about 2009 shortlist - does not expand beyond labelling the award "prestigious" in article title.
  • Telegraph - article about a winner - calls it powerful and prestigious and ends there.
  • Guardian - article about non-fiction - calls it "prestigious" and never comes back to it.
  • BBC News - article about 2007's winner - calls it "prestigious" and backs it up with quote from a past winner who believes the award led to more people reading her book.

From what I'm reading, half of the text is given to negative criticisms, and only one word of positive recognition. I get the Lemon thing now - I was totally on the fruit aspect and didn't think of the car connection (...so it is a hunk of metal that people accept not knowing it is defective and will cost them thousands of dollars to fix?). ----

Thanks once more maclean for your help. I've been away and I'm exhausted but I will do my best to read through the really helpful articles you've sent me in order to extract some nuggets that I can include that will meet your expectations of a fully balanced article. Any suggestions as to how best to phrase and structure the lead would be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding those advantages to the prize (significantly increased readership and sales). On the comprehensive side, could you also add a bit about the role of Mitsubishi (the Women's Studies article should help here) and Orange Broadband. Also, please clarify this sentence "libraries ... reported that "48% said that they had tried new writers..." - the libraries tried new writers? --maclean 07:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully I have covered these issues adequately now? Cheers once again. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) No need to link United Kingdom, or English language for that matter. Removed links in lead, left links in infobox, is that okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "The award was co-founded in 1996 by Kate Moss" Do we know the other co-founder? I'll go look. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Rephrased and cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "internet service provider"-->Internet service provider Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "The 2005 winner, Lionel Shriver, revealed that she changed her name from Margaret Ann Shriver because she believed "men had an easier life"." Interesting, to say the least, but it seems out of place in that paragraph. Perhaps you could put it in the Notes section of the table? Okay, will do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) More context on what a "leading" woman is? Well it's a quote. I'll see if I can find an example of what this means, although it's borderline WP:OR if I decide who is a leading woman. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "along with the Man Booker Prize and the Costa Book Awards and whose nominees' sales are significantly boosted." Doesn't make grammatical sense. Tried a rephrase. Still yucky... Suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "The 2007 shortlist was decried being derived from '... a lot of dross ...' by" "...decried for" Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) In the table, "This was Tremain's 14th novel" should have a period at the end. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. Those I haven't immediately addressed will be attended to as soon as I feel better. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)

Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) Good work, don't know how much you've had to change, but it is definitely in a good shape at the moment. Here are my nitpicks: The winner is selected by a board of "five leading women" each year, can you expand a touch, because i'm guessing they are leading in something. I know the ref is vague, but I'm sure some wording can be found to show that they are not five leading gymnastics champions. Actually they seem to drawn from all walks of life, I only use the quote because I believe that anything else I may write would be original research, i.e. second-guessing what Orange believes a "leading woman" to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) £, this is one of my pet hates. I think a reader would find the currency, £, more relevant than the sign. Fair enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) in comparison to slightly over half a million – This is pretty arsey but I'm not sure I'd call 15½% more (577,691) "slightly". The preceding almost one million copies is about 8% which I'm slightly happier with. Okay, I'll remove "slightly"...! Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Valerie Martin's 2003 success saw her novel sales increase tenfold after the award,[17] and British libraries, who often support the prize with various promotions, reported success in introducing people to new authors: any chance you can replace one of the "success"'s (probably the first) to avoid repetition of words in a sentence. success->award. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I think This was Tremain's 14th novel. and Robinson's third novel in 28 years is bordering on trivial information. Is it particularly relevant? I (personally) think the relevance is clear enough, that Tremain's award came after a very long time and that Robinson took a very long time to write three novels, the third of which won the prize. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Okay I must admit I have no idea what a "normal" rate for writing books is. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I guess it varies from once per lifetime to once per six months. I felt that these two stats were sufficiently interesting (and are cited) so don't do much harm...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Prize renamed "Orange Prize for Fiction".This 2003 source seems to indicate it was already called "Orange Prize for Fiction" in 2003 Yes, it was renamed in 2007 for the broadband portion of Orange, before being renamed back in 2009 to simply Orange. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry I must of missed that, I'll leave it up to you whether you think the rename is worthy of inclusion in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I believe it is since when I picked this list up, it was called the Broadband Orange Prize... so I think it's useful information. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry maybe my response was a bit criptic. What I meant was it isn't currently mentioned in the lead, and I'll leave it up to you whether to include it there as well. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Ahah. I've now added a comment into the lead sentence about its former name. Hope that does it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Yep, that'll do it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC) "Winners, shortlisted and longlisted books 1996 – 2007". Orange. Retrieved on 7 June 2009. Should have an ndash between dates—I also think there may be a case for taking liberties and making it "2008" per the refs content. Actually I never change the title of web pages to match Wikipedia's MOS, the title is a copy-and-paste of the webpage's title. I don't recall a requirement for references to meet WP:MOS other than in their formatting, not their content. It's a little like quoting somebody who has made a grammatical or spelling error, all reference titles, dates, author names etc are [[[sic]]]. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I'm fine with not changing the title to 2009, but still think it should have a ndash. I think that change is analogous to changing allcaps references. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I haven't explicitly cross-checked the names and books with the references but will AGF for now. Jolly good. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) –Capped 22:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. My comments were very picky in the first place, mainly because I couldn't find any obvious faults. All my comments have had an adequate response, and although I have responded to a couple they're all pretty much a matter of taste. This meets the criteria, so congratulations TRM on improving another list, which I believe should hopefully become your first FL since your return. I hope to see many more... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As a compromise I'll modify that reference to comply with the MOS. No harm done either way really and if makes you happier then so much the better! Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [27].

---

List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove

Nominator(s): Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Here I go with this epic! Credit should go to Vox Humana 8', who had the idea for this list and started it a long time ago; and Kierant, Circeus and Aldux, who have spotted all sorts of errors, inconsistencies and additions that I had missed as I went along. This started as a prose article, with each church under a second-level heading; then I went for a prose-cum-list sorted by denomination; then I finally decided to put it in true list format after finding a workable design when doing the equivalent list for Crawley. A lot of this spadework went on in sandboxes; ask me if you want to inspect the edit history (I would need to find the sandbox in question!). Some points I need to make first:

• The order of the two tables is quite complex and has been deliberately chosen. "Denomination" is the first criterion, in descending order of number of churches of that denomination, then alphabetically by denomination name; then within each denomination, listing grade (I/II*/II/none), then alphabetically by church name. I hope this is suitably logical!
• Every church with listed status has an article, as do one or two others with enough notability. Churches with no articles are not notable enough to be mentioned separately outside this list.
• I am happy to create a "Refs" column and consolidate them in that if preferred. (As demonstrated here.)
• I know ... it's huge. Sorry! There are so many places of worship in the city...

All comments will be attended to promptly. Thanks for your interest. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - nice list, but it can be better if you actually explain some of the things clearly to readers I have no idea what the grade means? Is it for preservation? Who grade them? Some churches also have no grade. Why is that? What does the asterisk means? Might be helpful to explain all that by adding a key section —Chris! ct 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) →Good point; I hadn't added context. I have put together a paragraph explaining listed status and the grades. "Grade II*" (with the asterisk) is one of the grades. The last part of the second paragraph of this new section does not have a reference at the end, because it simply represents a count of the number of churches/places of worship listed at each grade. Is that acceptable, or shall I leave that bit out? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 20:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC) You don't need to add a reference if it can by verified by the list.—Chris! ct 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 20:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) This is very good for a list of this size. "which between them serve a wide range of Christian denominations and other religions" "between them" is probably unnecessary, and "a wide range" could be shortened to " a variety" "There are also more than 20 former religious buildings which, although still in existence, are no longer used for their original purpose."-->More than 20 former religious buildings, although still in existence, are no longer used for their original purpose. "mentioned in the Domesday Book" Publications such as books should be in italics. "and those of the nearby villages which are now " "which"-->that "where 71.74% people identify themselves as Christian" "where"-->in which "It covers 28 extant churches and nine which are no longer used for worship." "which"-->that. Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities should be formatted the same. "one of 13 deaneries in the Diocese of Arundel and Brighton." "one of 13"-->1 of 13 or one of thirteen →Corrected all of the above. "when the Church of Our Lady Star of the Sea and St Denis in Portslade was declared redundant " "was"-->were →"Church of Our Lady Star of the Sea and St Denis" was the name of one church, so the singular is correct here. (It is a strange, unwieldy name!) "Also in this network is a Baptist community in Woodingdean which does" "which"-->that →Corrected. I need to one of those "which/that" exercises ;) Could I ask you to red-link the buildings in the table that stand a chance of having their own article created someday? Research shows that red links help Wikipedia grow (WP:RED). →From my research, I feel that every building which could have a viable article written about it, has had one written. In all the other cases, the prose in the "Notes" column is all that can be written about the church/place of worship using reliable sources, unfortunately. "a combined parish which existed from"-->a combined parish that existed from "the style of a Greek temple which collapsed " "which"-->that "a medieval village which became depopulated "-->a medieval village that became depopulated →Corrected those. "which at the time was a poor, densely populated area"-->that at the time was a poor, densely populated area →I've put a comma before the "which" here instead. "That" doesn't quite look right here. "The church, which dominates one of Hove's main crossroads" It's not clear what "dominates" means here. →Intended to give an indication of its size; but reworded anyway (to "on one of Hove's...). "and parts of the chancel of the present building are 12th-century."-->and parts of the chancel of the present building are from the 12th century. →Changed (but to "date from" rather than "are from"). "This was opened in 1987 in the grounds of the Grade II-listed Hanover Chapel, " on the grounds, surely? →No, it was built in what had been the garden of the Hanover Chapel, and the buildings now stand next to each other (well, the Hanover Chapel is behind the new church actually). I think "in the grounds" makes more sense in this context. "This chapel is one of 24 in Britain which belongs" Refer to the "one of 13" comment above. Also, "which"-->that →Changed. "It has a particular emphasis on youth work."-->It has a emphasizes youth work. ("emphasis" is particular, don't you think?) →True; I have a preference for "has an emphasis on", though, so have just removed the redundant word. "The small red-brick church was built in 1887 for £1,535 to serve local" Consider using {{inflation}} "was only the fourth Catholic church to be consecrated " "electrically-lit Catholic church." -ly adverbs should not have hyphens following them. "met in various public rooms until they" →Changed the above, including adding the present-day £ value. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC) There's one disambiguation link; check the toolbox to your left. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC) →I've removed the disambiguation link to Church of God on the basis that the church identifies itself only with the general "Churches of God" movement rather than with a particular denomination within that body. "Churches of God" currently redirects to "Church of God". Found a few other fixes to make as well: incorrect use of "date" parameter in refs, and some redundant use of "website" in other refs (must have missed those first time round!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• In references in which the website name and the publisher is the same, it is redundant to have something like "Fabrica website. Fabrica." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

→All examples removed, I think; I have left the JCR-UK examples (3 in the synagogues section) as I'm not sure whether they are redundant or not. Thanks for your helpful review. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] How are you sure that you've include all the places of worship in that area? The google link is dead. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) →The Google and Bing links are working for me; they generate this url. It seems to be temperamental occasionally; could you try again and see if it's still not working for you? →There is no reliable single source showing all current and former places of worship in the city – not that I have found anyway. I have therefore had to research very widely to pull all this together, although two sources were particularly useful in confirming details on existing churches, ones that have been demolished etc.: Carder's Encyclopaedia of Brighton and Middleton's Encyclopaedia of Hove and Portslade (15 volumes and about 3,000 pages). I have been through both at some length, and am confident that no building that is within the scope of this article and within the present city boundaries has been missed out. (The intended scope is the same as that of the List of places of worship in Crawley, so no demolished churches, and no school, hospital or cemetery chapels.) It's a difficult question to answer, really: would you like me to clarify further, and are there any specific concerns you have about possible omissions? Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) It's just that I thought there would be at least one Buddhist temple on Brighton and Hove, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) →Ah, I see what you mean, with the relatively high proportion of people affiliated with Buddhism as per the census. As far as I know, and have been able to research, the only Buddhist-type "venue" in the city—and I say "venue" because it does not appear to offer any worship in the way a dedicated Buddhist temple would—is the Brighton Buddhist Centre down the North Laine. Funnily enough I used to walk past it every day when I worked down there, at the end of the same street! Anyway, it appears that it doesn't function as a temple. Hopefully in my ongoing research into Sussex places of worship (more of these lists are brewing), I will find out where Sussex Buddhists can actually worship!! Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'll just AGF the references, as I'm sure you live there, and know the places more than I do. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support All issues resolved, good to go. – (iMatthew • talk) at 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:28, 23 June 2009 [28].

---

List of CZW World Heavyweight Champions

Nominator(s): WillC 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. This list was once an FL under the CZW World Heavyweight Championship. Bad sourcing and prose problems caused it to be delisted. Having noticed this, I looked for new sources and expanded the lead and other sections into a list. I was not the user who got the title to FL the first time, but I hope to be the second time. The main article has also been expanded.WillC 00:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – John Zandig, Drake Younger and Nick Gage all have multiple links in the lead. Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Table note: "later on the same day as Zandig defeated him to win it." → "later in the same day that Zandig defeated him to win it." Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Another table note: "Zandig won the championship at a Irish Whip Wrestling event." Change "a" to "an". Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) List of combined reigns: Decapitalize Of Reigns and Days in the headings. Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Combined Days column isn't sorting properly. Fixed.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC) What makes Online World of Wrestling.com a reliable source? Giants2008 (17-14) 22:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC) The website is still in question. I removed it, it was only in to help establish notability a bit more during its DYK nomination.--WillC 23:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – My comments have all been taken care of, and so have most of Dabomb's. The lone exception is the source query, which I posted a note about below. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The championship has been defended and lost in countries other" "defended and lost" seems wordy. Perhaps "has been contested"? Link something to Wrestling weight classes, please. "between different wrestlers involved in pre-existing " Consider the opposite: "...between identical wrestlers..."? This should be fixed in your previous FLs also. "All title changes happen at live events, which are released on DVD, with only a handful of exceptions"-->All title changes happen at live events, which are usually released on DVD make this change in your previous FLs as well Em dashes (—) in the blank table cells. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC) All finished.--WillC 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/DVDs_-_VGames_-_Books_25/article_15971.shtml reliable? Sorry if I have asked about this before. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Supposedly because it has credible editors and a long lasting news letter.--WillC 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • According to the always-handy User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet, the site is acceptable for non-contentious information, such as match results. Apparently it is the website of a printed publication. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks Giants; I always forget to check the cheatsheet. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose

Unresolved comments from Crzycheetah

I don't think you needed to split this one. The main article is barely start-class, yet it's expanded as much as it could. I highly suggest merging this table with the main article and nominate again. --Crzycheetah 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) The main artice can be expanded more. I just didn't look for alot of information. The main article should be about the championship, not the wrestlers who held the championship in my opinion.--WillC 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) What else can you add? All the info that is currently mentioned in the main article is needed here, as well. See Calder Memorial Trophy for an example, where there's the lead section and the History section that explains everything a reader needs to know. The way you're using, a reader needs to go back and forth between this list and the main article. That's why I believe we need to merge this list into the main article to make things more comfortable for readers.--Crzycheetah 01:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) There is no limit of characters at GAN so with third party sites added to the CZW Title it could become a GA. This list also passes the criteria for a stand alone list. Plus this list is long enough as is, and WP:PW agreed that a list of champions can be broken off at 10 champions, as long as the main championship article is expanded, which it has.--WillC 01:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I consider the main article a stub really, so the table would help.--Crzycheetah 02:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Well that is a matter of opinion. I consider Calder Memorial Trophy a bit long, but I'm not asking for it to be broken off. Most championship histories are broken off into their own lists though when coming to pro wrestling.--WillC 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC) You're right, this is a matter of opinion or taste. I am going to leave my "oppose" though, the FL director can disregard it if he shares your opinion.--Crzycheetah 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Well I understand you oppose. And you are welcome to your vote.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (→)*Comments I am going to comment on this list anyway Why is there a subsection "Reigns"? I don't see any other subsections or any text after the "title history" section. Maybe you meant "List of combined reigns" to be a subsection instead? I usually have a names section but since this title had no other names mentioned in the sources I didn't have one. I left the subsection in there just to give a quick directory to where the list is at. I'll remove it if you wish?--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) "Numbers in bold indicate that a reign is current and changes daily" - I don't see any bold numbers My bad, I use the same key over and over. I just noticed that. Fixed.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Please consider WP:98WIDE, the width of the table should be no higher than 98%. Fixed.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The names should be left-aligned rather than centered. It was suggested on a previous FLC of mine that they should be centered since everything else is centered.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Usually, text should be left-aligned and numbers centered. I don't know what you last nom. was, but I just checked 3 pro wrestling WP:FL's and all have their names left-aligned.--Crzycheetah 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Check User:Wrestlinglover/Awards and Accomplishments. Most of the FLs are out of date. The most recent ones have been by me and another user. Some are done by preference. I use to do mine based on the other FLs but was told differently and grown foundly of this format. So I guess it is my preference now.--WillC 03:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think preference matters in this case. We all follow the preference of professional writing. In professional writing, text is always left aligned at all times. You can check any newspaper or magazine that is respectable. Centered text is for the fan sites. Last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a fansite.--Crzycheetah 05:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but is there a rule about it? I don't think it should be changed since I feel with them centered, it looks better.--WillC 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Centered text may look beautiful and pretty, but it hurts readability. With centered text, your eyes always work to find the starting point of the word. After a while headaches start coming and going. There's a reason why whenever you type a word in Excel, the deafault alignment is left.--Crzycheetah 06:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I've never had a problem come up about the center text till now. Maybe once before but I believe that was "why is everything centered" but that was someone's perfence to have one of the columns right aligned. Didn't stop them from feeling it passed the criteria though. Maybe it is just you in all honesty.--WillC 07:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The "wrestlers" column is too wide, while the "location" column is too narrow. Fixed.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) You have "N/A" under "Events" for # 17 and 18, but at the same time in the "notes" column it's mentioned that the event was the Irish Whip Wrestling event. It's very confusing. Not sure if this was just a plain house show, a tv show, a PPV, etc. Just did N/A instead of doing OR and just saying it was a house show.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) What are the citation #2 and 3 for? I can easily check the info from the general references. Am I missing some thing here? To show notability. Third party sites were requested in a DYK. Also in previous FLCs third party sites were asked for.--WillC 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• • My primary concern is the lack of background info, which can be achieved by merging the list into the main article.
  • My secondary concern is the centered text mainly in the "Name" column that should be left-aligned for easier reading.

--Crzycheetah 01:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Well this one passes the criertia for a stand alone article and nearly the same info is mentioned in both articles so I don't see the lack of background comes into play.--WillC 02:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] The first paragraph is way too short. Suggest you expand about the history of the championship. Well seeing as the list should only summary the history of the belt, I placed all the important information in. The rest belongs in the main article.--WillC 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I just really think the first paragraph looks, well, kind of unprofessional, fully because of the length, but ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I would also like it to be longer but I have someone watching me I believe and watchlisting all articles I edit, so it seems they are watching my edits. I would expand it but there was a discussion about length already and it will just start an edit war probably.--WillC 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Uhh...leave that to others? How about solving it now? I'm 100% sure writing a better Wikipedia article is better than being obeying the wikihound. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I was meaning proving he is watching me. But I'll add more info to the lead.--WillC 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Expansion is complete.--WillC 03:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I'm sure it wouldn't, since if someone is wikihounding you, then they could be blocked for harassment. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the info but I have no proof at the moment. Just that when it comes to championships this user removes everything he doesn't agree with though it could have a source. I would rather not get involved in politics anyway. Best to leave that to others.--WillC 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Remove the "Key" title, as I think it's pretty obvious that it is the key. Fixed.--WillC 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) There has never been a vacated reign, so there's no need to explain what — is. Fixed.--WillC 00:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Also, please read people's boxes on the top of their talk pages, as I'm trying my best to not get any comments on my talk page that are "reminders", since I always watch the FLCs I comment on. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Since Crzycheetah's comments are minor, and can easily can handled with, I'll just go ahead and support. Hope to see more from you. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You will. I have many many many more planed to come. I was going to start reviewing FLCs but with this one and the tag title having alot of problems, I'm not sure I know what an FL is yet. One I have planned is List of Pro Wrestling Guerrilla employees.--WillC 07:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support per Dabomb and Giants' reviews being completed. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

cautious support

Resolved comments from MPJ-DK

Comments –;;General The titles of the shows should be in italics or alternately in quotation marks as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) Well this wasn't a tv show, this was a event. Similar to a PPV which we aren't supposed to have in italics.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Why shouldn't it be? I'd say it falls under one of the following categories listed on the page "Feature-length films and documentaries"/"Multi-episode television serials"/"Plays"/"Television series" - So why should wrestling shows not be? MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Well all you mentioned above are available on free television at some point or another. Now a PPV may at some point but I've never heard one ever being shown in full length on free television nor have I heard of a live event sold on DVD aired on free tv.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) You're using an argument that's irrelevant, it doesn't matter if it's on "free tv" or not, the italics rules do not even mention that at all. It falls under the same general sort of product as I listed and thus should be italizied just like they are, PPVs should actually ALSO be italizied according to WP:ITALICS. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) That was one thing I had to say. That wasn't the reason. You asked why, that was the first thing that popped in my mind. I wrote that at 3 or 4 am since I can't sleep. So I'm not all here. None you said does live events or ppvs fall under. TV series, the closest one that events may fall under. They aren't films, they aren't documentaries, they aren't plays though that is somewhat arguable, and they aren't tv series; I somewhat said how they aren't tv series.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't all the shows link to "House Shows"? they happen to be taped for DVD but they're not a specific television show, PPV or large annual event are they? That would be overlinking.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) So you underlink?? and "overlinking" does not apply to a sortable table. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I thought you meant for prose, plus the house show link isn't really proper. The event isn't seen just by those in attendance. So I wasn't sure if it works to link the event title. Your opinion a bit more on why. I'm willing to do it, just unsure.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) True the house show definition is not totally fitting, I guess there isn't really one definition that fits at the moment. Leave it unliked then. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Alright, though if you wish, since this is why I like to discuss all things first, I'll add event after each one and link it to house show? I agree with using the link, just thought it wasn't fitting.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Question - why are so many columns centered? that's inconsistent with any other Wrestling FL not done by you. I agree with User:Crzycheetah, it's not the standard way for text in tables. I was told it makes it better to see the text. Check the ROH Champions FLC. Plus I tend to like it better.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Addition: I've checked several recent FLs on other subjects, they do not have centered text - in other words from what I can see your format falls outside both the pro wrestling MOS and the way 99% of FLs are. It should be changed to left align.MPJ-DK (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Well all lists tend to be different. Most of the project's FLs are either out of date or done by preference. I did mine like all the others until I was told center would be better. Changed it and grown fond of this format.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) "Makes it better to see the text" - I disagree with that. Yes one person said "Center it", now at least 3 people, the wrestling MOS and general rules on writing say the opposite, that person seems outvoted. "I like it", cannot take that seriously, it's not consistent with the Featured Lists on wrestling nor it's MOS. Comment & oppose of the format still stands. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I hate to tell you, but most of the wrestling MoS was not written on consensus. The current version I know of was written mostly by Truco and I don't remember a discussion done on sorting, lists, etc. Plus I like it nor I don't like it wouldn't be a deal break on either end. You don't like it is an opinion and I like it is an opinion. I don't know if there is a rule on which to do. So I'm not sure what to do here. If there was a rule against it, I would change it. But otherwise I put alot of effort in the change of format plus I tend to still like it so I would rather not change it. Opinion?--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (Unindet for easier readability) I know perfectly well that WP:PW generally can't come to agreement on most anything, but what everyone who's ever produced a championship list (and you infact up until recently) have agreed on is that the text is left aligned - it's consistent and there has not been any good argument made to change it. I did not say "I didn't like it", I said "it's harder to read", "It's not consistent with other FLs", "It's not consistent with title lists" and "it's not in the MOS". You keep countering with "but I like it", fine - you like it, I get it. No wonder no consensus can be reached when "I like it" is your reason for not following the generally accepted standard. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) You seem a bit pissed. Anyway, I'm stating my stance on why I do not wish to change it. There are also other reasons. Most of the other lists are not sorted fully, are poorly sourced, the format is wrong, and do not pass the current FL criteria. Saying well this one is not the same as those are is like saying after and before. The standard on tables is to go left and no one thought to change it so that was the consensus. It was never considered if that format was better or not; that I know of. Consensus can also change. I'm willing to change it, just for you to know. But I don't see the reason why. Changing to an out of date format is not what I believe is best for the article.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Why are there specific citations for champions #23 and #25 only? Are they not covered by the general references? I also personally think that the annual show archive should not be under general but cited in the line it's referenced. It is after all not a source for the general page, just for the events that take place that one year. To establish notability. Nothing more. Third party sources. General refs are cleaner than inline.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Establish notability? You randomly source two title changes by linking it to show recaps to establish notability? That just verifies dates of change. It's just so random that it stands out like a sore thumb but alright. You miss the point, they're not "general sources", they're specific sources for a limited section of the article.MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I've never read the MoS, AAD kind of stops me from getting passed one page and even that is hard. Plus those two are the only ones I found that the title changed at from PWTorch and Slam didn't have a one I found, though I may have missed one or two on both sites, maybe even more.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (Unindent) So... general sources for something that cites something very specific because of AAD?? MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I have ADD so I've never read the MoS. I don't know the point of the general and specific sections because of that. I follow other's advice, so my info may be wrong and it may be correct half the time. It took me a year before I got an opinion on what may be right and what may be wrong.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) There is no source for what CZW considers a "Heavyweight" or even if they have a weightlimit defined for the title. Not stating they have one. Just stating what a heavyweight usually is in wrestling. An interesting note.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) An interesting note that states a very specific rule, one that has not ever been relevant to heavyweight titles in pro wrestling like ever and a very specific weight limit that again I have not officially seen stated. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Removed.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) The claim of who is under the weightlimit is supported by a source that does not mention it at all, nor does it mention the weight of the champion. I'll remove it again, I did not have it in but it was asked for more info.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Solie.org - I was under the impression it was only reliable if they state that the "Pro Wrestling Title Histories" book was one of their sources, this one does not state that and most of the reigns happen after the last "Pro Wrestling Title Histories" was published. Check their main title page.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) You tell me what makes it reliable, all the page states are the names of the people who compile the list, not how they're compiled, fact checked etc. It may as well say "List complied by MPJ-DK" but that doesn't confirm whether I'm a reliable source or not. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) It should state how they compile their champions articles. I'm never sure how to prove fact checking. Not my thing. Mostly people tell me what is reliable and I go along or I find it used in other FLs and use it. Sorry I can't answer this. I believe there is something about getting info from the companies and dvds or something along those lines in there. I started reading it and never got through it. Probably should have.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Yes it should state how they're compiled, "Mr. X sent it in" does not state how Mr. X compiled it though, there is no defined editorial process in place, heck it sounds like the site just takes the submissions in good faith. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) We do the same is all I have to say besides it is used in other FLs. I don't know if it is reliable or not. It seems that it has been agreed upon that it is reliable enough to use.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not really pleased with how many primary sources are used, only 3 non-primary sources are listed, one I'm not convinced is reliable and the other two mention a specific title change, 2 out of 30. I would think Feature Lists would need to be better sourced than that. Well I stated about why I have two PWTorch links. Plus the company site is always the best site to use here.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Why is the "company site always best to use"?? I'd think on the contrary, the company site should only be used as a last resort - it's biased and being a wrestling company not above "working" fans. I'm not saying they're wrong, I'd just like to see more 3rd party sources on Featured Lists. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Since it is a primary source it is best to source something they own. I agree it is not the most truthful since all companies want to rewrite their history. But this is still an indy company and third party sources are hard to come by. With PWTorch in there and Slam Sports, etc having other reports, just none that regard any events this title changed at. If cagematch.net was proven reliable, I would use it.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (unindent) primary sources are allowed on wikipedia, they don't have to be removed as such but it's not a good thing when the overwhelming majority of the sources are primary it becomes a bit of a problem. You even admit that the company is not the most reliable source. Your argument is "I can use an unreliable source for FL because no reliable sources exist", my counter is "If there are no reliable sources then it cannot be a Featured List". MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not saying it is an unreliable source. All sources have a bit of incorrectness within them. I'm saying that promotion's tend to rewrite history. I don't like using multiple primary sources and I've talked about this before.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting Super Dragon should not sort by Dragon but by Super - it's not a proper name with first and last name Fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Justice Pain sort by Justice, not Pain Fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) the Messiah - sort by Messiah, not the. Fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Combined reigns Key to explain "+" is missing It is in the first key.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Yes but you use it again on a different table. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) The first table is supposed to tell what everything means from now on.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) then you need to add the two keys from the second table if that's the logic you're going with. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I would but what would be the point if they aren't going to be used until the second section. All in the first table are used in the first section while only one is used again later. It seems mentioning it twice is redundant.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Sorting as above. Sorry can't support just yet. (You don't have to drop me a comment, I'm watching this page) MPJ-DK (talk) 11:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC) All are replied too/fixed.--WillC 00:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Cannot say that the replies convinced me that this is FL quality yet.MPJ-DK (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know what my replies would have to do with anything. It is mainly if it passes the criteria, which I only see it violates maybe two at most of. Most of the problems are debatable IMO. But these are your observations so I'm willing to continue. I await your replies -Will.--WillC 08:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Well considering you don't seem willing to change the format of the show titles in face of policy, the formatting of text in cells for no other reason that like, the specific sources put as general, that I'm not convinced solie.org is reliable and you think it's okay for over 90% of the sources to be primary sources, your replies have everything to do with my opposition I'm afraid. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm willing to change anything, but I disagree with some of the changes. The italics I do not believe are policy, I've been told only tv shows should be italics and not PPvs. I feel live events are just like PPVs. Plus like has somewhat to do with it, but I see no policy regrading it other than me hearing preference. I've stated around two of three times, if a policy was shown that said they should be left aligned, I would change it right away. I also feel the only reason you want it changed is preference as well. I somewhat feel solie is reliable and has been used in multiple FLs. I'll remove it though it sources minor things seeing as the promotion's site is also there and it is only a back up. Plus there is nothing wrong with using mainly primary sources. There are two other third party sources within the article to establish notability and since you are also from the project you know CZW is reliable how hard it is to find sites regarding indy promotions. Plus per the wrestling MoS it says that the promotion's website is the best one to use. I'm willing to change anything to get your oppose changed to a support, but if I feel it doesn't improve the article, then I probably will not comply. I will discuss any changes as well so I understand the reason too and to explain to others why it was changed. I don't mean to be difficult since I kind of feel I'm seeming like that. But I'm trying to get this to become an FL plus I want it to be the best it can since there are very few good indy articles.--WillC 12:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright breakdown time

• Italics, skip the shows it's a minor thing really. In the tag article I think you need either quotation marks or italics for team names to make it clear "This is their team name".
• Alignment - well if that's all we end up disagreeing on then I can live with that.
• Solie.org's "Reliability" - Considering that Solies & CZW's own site state the exact same data from the looks of it (I didn't compare every single entry) it can be left in and apparently used in other FLs I'll withdraw my objection.
• I think we'll have to disagree on the use of primary sources, they're okay up to a degree IMO. But I do definitly know how much of a pain it can be to find reliable wrestling sources and well I'll remain neutral on that instead of oppose on that front.MPJ-DK (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks you for the support. Even people who seem to be having the same abbjective tend to disagree and it was bound to happen sometime or another. I understand all your opposes on the format, just for you to know. I also agree on the Solie and CZW site sourcing. I don't like using alot of primary sources, but all I got at the moment. I'm unsure of Solie's reliability but I don't know how to check that so I'm not sure. Used in other wrestling FLs so I use it.--WillC 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [29].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (engineers)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is next in my series of US service academy lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well done, the topic seems hard to make a good list on, but it has a comprehensive lead and the table is sufficient, thus I support. No need for any color codes IMO (which I have been nitpicking over in the last few candidates I've reviewed). Hello32020 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The Academy was the first engineering school in the United States and the Academy still places a strong emphasis on the sciences and engineering." Too repetitive, try "The first engineering school in the United States, the Academy places a strong emphasis on the sciences and engineering."
• "Army ranger" Shouldn't it be "Army Ranger" since it's an official title?
• "for his for actions at the Battle of Malvern Hill though acutely ill" Suggest "for his for actions at the Battle of Malvern Hill despite acute illness" Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

All fixed, and you missed that I had "for his for" ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support. I checked the references, checked for disambiguous links and spelling errors and I ran the page through the general edits of AWB and it came out clean. The one issue that I have is that it may not qualify due to 3a. since the list is incomplete. Other than that It seems good to go and I will let someone else decide the symantics of whether it meets FL without being complete.--Kumioko (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what the dynamiclist template is for. Lists such as this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I changed my comments, learn something new everyday.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support It's certainly passable when a few things are fixed: a good list. I like the arc of the lead, where you focus the reader on the list itself only by the second para.

• "of the United States' five service academies"—Saw someone call that a hissing apostrophe the other day (odd description); it's a little ungainly—please consider "of the five American service academies".

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why are words as terms (within quotes) given an initial upper-case letter (e.g., "Cadet")? The "official" endorsement, ref 1, leads to a page that doesn't confirm this usage (in which case can you specify in the footnote which part of that site does?).

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "its predecessors"—excellent use of a pipe (single word may have been misleading).

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The first engineering school in the United States, the Academy places a strong emphasis on the sciences and engineering."—Two issues: we've been told already that it's the oldest ... is that the same? Second, the two ideas in the sentence don't really fit together—no logical connection, so a comma is not a sufficient boundary, I think.

CE'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• "remained" --> "was".

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• End of first para: amazing claim, but I'm not doubting it. "the bulk of" could be "most of" if you want. (Bulk wheat)

Done. Makes sense since it was the only engineering school in America for so long. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "chiefs of engineers"—this came up last time. I think you might switch to lower case default for generic usage. See MoS: kings of France, but King Louis XIV. Same with "Class of".

I checked with a wiki user who is a West Point grad and instructor there. He says if you refer to the class itself, capitalize it, but if to someone's class, lower case. So, it should be "The class with the most generals was the Class of 1915" but "Joe Blow, class of 1915...". I will fix this in this list and my others later. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Three-item list: "is fourth on the list of total winners for Rhodes Scholarships, seventh for Marshall Scholarships and fourth on the list of Hertz Fellowships." Can you make all three "for"?

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do we have a convention about where to place the "incomplete list" statement? I'd have thought at the bottom, but please correct me if not. It's just a bit negative at the start.

Don't know. The other lists that use it that I've done all have it in this spot, as do several others, and no one has said anything about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tony (talk) 13:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've forgotten to mention this for all your previous alumni lists, but per WP:MSH, we shouldn't repeat the articles' titles in section headers. So, for example, "United States Military Academy engineers" should be "Alumni" or "Engineers". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, how can so many people miss something on so many lists? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We're human, and don't have the multitudes of MOS pages memorized :) Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This still needs to be remedied, even if it is an obscure rule no one ever cares about that was not enforced before. I'd be willing to make the changes in the other lists, if that's the reason for hesitation. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to enforce it, do it across the board, not just this list and not just the US service academy lists; you'd at least then be consistent. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: Would you rather the section title reflect the occupation (e.g. "engineers", "academics", "MOH recipients") or just "Alumni"? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alumni is too boring. So, engineers, MOH recipients, Chiefs of Naval Operations, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, please tell me if I've missed any article. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy alumni (academics), plus whatever non-service academy lists. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support All problems seem to be resolved. – (iMatthew • talk) at 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [30].

---

Commandant of the Marine Corps

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to meet the criteria to be a Featured List. Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I do not deem this as a problem per sey I am requesting comment on the title. I submitted the article with the title it was created with but I think it would be more appropriate as Commandants of the Marine Corps.--Kumioko (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest either Commandants of the Marine Corps or List of Commandants of the Marine Corps. Geraldk (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The current title is fine. WP guidelines say to never have a title be plural, and it doesn't have to have "List of" just because it includes a list. cf. the FL Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The article is about the position, but it's not long enough to have List of Administrators split off from it, just like your article. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the main article on the Commandant of the Marine Corps, so we don't need to pluralize nor add "List of". Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

It's a great list, but I can see more coming from it, namely a short history of the position. You reference a 580-page book devoted to the Commandant, so I'm sure some more info could fit in here. In a paragraph in the lead, include the first and current Commandants, as well as the longest/shortest-serving Commandants. Has/will President Obama nominate a new one? Looking through the names, note that Anthony Gale was the only one to be fired. It's in the see also, but note that the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps is next in line and many of which were upgraded. You've listed the home, but also include that the office is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And is the home an actual house provided for him where he would live? These shouldn't be too hard to expand on. Otherwise, this is an excellent article! Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add some more details. You mention some trivia type things such as first, current, longest serving, etc. I will add in a column for notes to cover some of these and I will expand the intro and opening paragraphs to cover more details. Not sure if the president is planning on picking a new one yet but I would expect it in the future at some point. Yes he actually lives in the house.--Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that 1936-1972 his term was three years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 and 1972-1999 it was four years from July 1 to Jun 30. Does this have any significance, and should it be in the lead? You've added some great interesting notes! Reywas92^Talk 16:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if that is by design or by accident and I cannot find anything to state either way.--Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if it's related, but Barrow's note says "Was the first Commandant to serve, by law, a regular four-year tour as a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff". I made a few further copyedits, shortened long notes, moved HQMC to the lead. I Support this excellent list. Reywas92^Talk 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, I doubt it will happen soon. In recent times, the Commandant usually serves for several years, and then retires (or steps down in the case of Gen Jones) at the time of his choosing, and not at the behest of the President. There is also some info in United States Marine Corps#Leadership that might be adapted here. I'll also note that I support this nom, but I'm incredibly biased here. :P bahamut0013^words_deeds 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "highest ranking officer"-->highest-ranking officer Done:--Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Three consecutive sentences start "The CMC". Can we mix it up a little? Done.--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC) File:FlagCMC.PNG needs a URL for the source. "the CMC also designates Marine personnel and resources" Done.--Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The quote in the lead is nice, but can you introduce it better? Maybe, "According to [insert something here], '[quote]'". "Start of Tenure"-->Start of tenure; "End of Tenure"-->End of tenure Done.--Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) "Chose Semper Fidelis, Latin for 'Always Faithful', as the official Marine Corps motto" Use double quotes, since you use them in the lead. Done.--Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) "As of 2008, there have been thirty-four Marine Corps Commandants:"-->As of 2008, there have been 34 Marine Corps Commandants: Done--Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Can you put em dashes in the blank cells? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Done. I think this is done if I understand the comment correctly. You might want to take a look and make sure I interpretted what you where asking for right.--Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Looks good. I'll come back later for a follow-up runthrough. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• There must be something notable about Pate. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought so too along with Gen Hagee but aside from serving there doesn't seem to be any source that mentions duing anything notible during his tenure.--Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Although the list portion of this is an excellent list, there is a fundamental problem with the prose portions. If this is meant to be the main article about the position of the Commandant of the Marine Corps, then there should be a lot more content relating to what the office is, what its history is, what commandants have done in the past, how their office is set up (see Chief of Naval Operations), what happened to former Commandants (see President of the United States), etc. This is one of those cases where there needs to be a lot more prose to make this a featured list. I would advie the creation of a new section or two between the lead and the list to accomodate this. Further, the lead right now, especially near its end, is a series of short, choppy paragraphs and the transitions between sentences could use some work to make it flow more smoothly. Finally, the responsibilities section should not simply be one long quote from the US code. That can be turned into prose that offers much more description than dry legalese bereft of context. Geraldk (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I believe therre needs to be a bigger better article about what the commandant is, what its history is, etc this is intended to be a list of commandants and not the full article. I will fix the prose and clean up the lead. I expanded it based on other users recommendations.--Kumioko (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the lead just needs some clean-up and you will still likely want to turn the responsibilities section into a short, prose section of the lead. It also seems to me the article is misnamed after all. If the intention what you are nominating is just the list of Commandants, then by definition the list would need to be separated from the main article. I'm going to mention the question to the other reviewers to ask how they would recommend dealing with that. Geraldk (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It's fine how it is now, and I might even oppose if there was a split. Currently, there is not enough information to really need a separate article and list. Maybe in the future when more info is added, but if the list were to be split out now, all we'd have is a stub about the position and a list with a lead that is redundant to the former. Sure, you can add more about the history, but one page is fine. There is no problem with having an FL for a main article/list. Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, then my original opposition comment stands. If this remains the main article for the position of Commandant, then it needs a lot more about the position itself before it meets the prose (1) and comprehensiveness (3) standards for FL. Geraldk (talk) 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not meant to be a comprehensive article about the commandant. As Reywas92 stated there just isn't enough info at this time to have a seperate article. We can add a seperate article in the future when more info is added but for now we just don't have it. I believe that perhaps with some minor pruning of the lead this is a good list, I agree that it does not have enough content for a full article. I understand your comments but again this is just meant to be a list.--Kumioko (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but unfortunately right now this is the article about the Commandant of the Marine Corps. I have no problem with there not being a split, but split or not, in the meantime, for this to meet both the prose and comprehensiveness requirements, it needs more thorough information about the office, its responsibilities, etc. Specifically, it needs:

• a rewrite the responsibilities section so it is a prose explanation rather than a block quote of the US Code.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• more information about the nomination and confirmation process.
• more information about how the commandant's office is organized, like with Chief of Naval Operations
• more information about what happens to most commandants - do they retire? why? after how long? have any ever been pushed out?
• the lead should encompass some information from the table, for example first, most recent, only one to be fired, etc. (and why was he fired in the first place???)
• there's really nothing interesting about Hagee or Pate?

Unfortunately, not really.--Kumioko (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean, no problem give me a day or 2 and I will get that taken care of. By the way the CNO article doesn't have much more than this one.--Kumioko (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding how the office is organized: a few people have looked to Chief of Naval Operations as an example, but the equivalent to that section for the Marine Corps is at Headquarters Marine Corps. And I would be very opposed to a merger here. In any case, there isn't a great deal more information at the CNO article than the CMC article... not that there is a great deal to add. The role of the Commandant hasn't changed much in 234 years. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned CNO because it included a small bit of information that was lacking in this article. That's the reason I only mentioned it in regards to one suggestion for improvement. And I don't think all the information from the HQMC article should be merged either as much of it is simply a list of offices. Whether or not the role of the Commandant hasn't changed much since its creation, the article needs to be clear about what that role is, both in its immediate sense as a position and in a historical sense as that position has interacted with historical events. As an example, see President of the United States, though there's no reason for this article to be anywhere as long as the POTUS one. There are a lot of topics that can be covered about a position like this one. Or for other featured lists about positions with leads that provide a lot of depth see List of French monarchs, List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty, or Monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Geraldk, take a look at it now and see if you want me to add anything else. I need to add a couple references to the data I just added but let me know if you want any more content. Again, this is just a list and I can create a seperate article for the Commandant. --Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's coming along. Take a look at User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a, especially the section on flow, for more on what I mean about the lead being choppy. Geraldk (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I rephrased the lead a little bit and I see a couple other small changes I am going to make but I am still opposed to making this the main article for the commandant. I think that this list has about as much as it can hold before it becomes more about what the commandant is and less about the commandants as a list. I created a seperate article to discuss the commandants history, election process, organization, etc here. I still have a lot to do to flush it out but it will give you an idea about what it will look like.--Kumioko (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - much improved lead and prose. Geraldk (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks..Whew. --Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Prose needs work.

• You might remove "also" in the first and second paragraphs. It's up to you, but two of them is too much. I'd use neither, unless is feels clunky without.

• Done. I think it turned out ok. I also reword something else that seemed unnecessary.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The Commandant is nominated by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate[3] and by statute, the commandant is appointed as a four-star general." Thought it was a comma splice. It's not, but needs a comma boundary before "by". But why not get into semicolons, one of which might provide just the right strength of boundary here: "... Senate [3]; by statute, the ...".

• Done. I took out the "by statute, the commandant" I think it flows better. --Kumioko (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd remove "total", and "located" (which is missing anyway from the second "in").

Not sure where you are talking about for this one.

• MUCH prefer US without the fly-specks, but we're in a bind in citing legal code names. The inconsistency is odd.

Not sure what you mean could you clarify please. Are you referring to the U.S.?--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he's saying there is an inconsistency between US and U.S. in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This humungous quotation from the Code is totally inappropriate. If you really want the text, please footnote it. But frankly, it's such s... that it needs WP to bring it down to earth by simple paraphrasing: "As stated in the US Code the Commandant shall preside over the Headquarters, Marine Corps, transmit the plans and recommendations of the Headquarters, Marine Corps, to the Secretary and advise the Secretary with regard to such plans and recommendations, after approval of the plans or recommendations of the Headquarters, Marine Corps, by the Secretary, act as the agent of the Secretary in carrying them into effect, exercise supervision, consistent with the authority assigned to commanders of unified or specified combatant commands under chapter 6 of this title, over such of the members and organizations of the Marine Corps and the Navy as the Secretary determines, perform the duties prescribed for him by section 171 of this title and other provisions of law and perform such other military duties, not otherwise assigned by law, as are assigned to him by the President, the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of the Navy." Can you remove the legal stuff the readers don't need to know ... simplify, get rid of the repetitions, the clunky language, remove 3/4?
• "As of 2008, thirty-four [5] men have been appointed as"—what, some were appointed but didn't take up the position? (It does happen.) "served as".

• Done.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• "also sometimes"—remove the redundant word. Can you run through these exercises some time?

• Fixed this.--Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Love the fact you've got pics for each guy, nicely nested in the list. Tony (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I also do this for the Medal of Honor lists when enough images are available.--Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:32, 20 June 2009 [31].

---

List of Philippine–American War Medal of Honor recipients

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I have spent a lot of time and made a lot of edits to it to bring it up to where it is. Kumioko (talk) 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Several of my comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)/archive1 apply here. Edit as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks,I don't mean to sound ungrateful but could you paste a few of the bog ones here.--Kumioko (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on your comments from the Vera Cruz list I changed some things: I added spaces before and after endashes for date spans, merged the medal of honor section and a couple other minor tweaks. I would still appreciate some more comments though.--Kumioko (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the lead could use with a little expansion (especially take out the "This is a list of" start that has been deprecated at Featured lists). Also, this is more general, but is there any way that you could make {{Medal of Honor recipients}} collapsible? Right now, we're in a dilemma: The {{clear}} causes a lot of whitespace to appear and makes the lead look small, but removing it would squash the table badly, impeding readability and detracting from visual appeal anyway.

I took out the "this is a list" bitand I spent the last few hours rebuilding the Medal of honor template into one that can collapse (it took me a while to get a format I liked and to get things lined up pretty.--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll be back with more comments in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't start lists with "this is a list" in the prose part anymore. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'll be back for more. The template looks a lot better, nice job! Thanks,--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) No need to link United States of America, and I think we'll be fine with "United States". Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "between 1899 to at least 1902"-->from 1899 to at least 1902 Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) There needs to be more summary of the list. How many total MOH recipients from this war; who was the first; who was the most recent; any especially notable ones? I added a summary of the number of recipients and mentioned the more notable ones. — jwillbur 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The table should be centered. See the Vera Cruz list for the syntax that I added to the table. I will do that if its required but to be honest I don't like how it looks centered. on my monitor it makes the dates, units and locations look screwy.--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) No need for it then. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) USMC needs to spelled out, or you should make a key. Again I can do this however I would argue that USMC is a common knowledge term that nearly anyone, including those from foriegn counties would recognize.--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Notes that aren't complete sentences shouldn't have periods at the end. Done, I left some periods but only where it appears to me to be a full sentence.--Kumioko (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "With 11 other scouts, completely routed about 300 of the enemy" "routed" means what here? Captured, killed, injured? Good question but this is what the MOH Citation reads, I can change it if necessary but I would prefer to keep it.--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) OK, that's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "Single-handed, he defended"-->Single-handedly, he defended? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Again, this is what the MOH Citation reads, I can change it if necessary but I would prefer to keep it.--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) OK, that's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Can you put em dashes in the blank cells? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) For the ones that are the MOH Citation would it be better to put in quotes?--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Of course, anything that is directly lifted from the source should be in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Done.--Kumioko (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC) "Swam the San Juan River in the face of the enemy's fire and drove him from his entrenchments." Who is "him" Him is the enemy, but again this is what the MOH Citation reads.--Kumioko (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This is vague enough that I think it is alright to alter the quote a little (in brackets) to help the reader. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Done I think but take a look and see if that will work.--Kumioko (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 5 needs publisher and last access info.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 6 has a double "pp." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• File:Edward E Lyon.JPG – there is absolutely no proof it was taken before 1923. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what I need to do about this, if I remove the image would that be accesptable?--Kumioko (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find the source for the image, you'll have to. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I commented it out so knowone would add it back in later and as a placeholder to know its out there somwhere.--Kumioko (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Strong oppose I'd like to see the first two paragraphs merged; they're too short. Done.--Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) List of recipients → Recipients I can make it italics but I do not agree that it should be upper case.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I am saying the section should be renamed to just List of rRecipients.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Done.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC) "Place of action"? What action? Is it the place where they fought? Yes it was the place where they fought.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "Date of action"? Huh? Was it the only day they fought? Yes it is the date they fought and some was one day, some where multiple days.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) This is really shocking to me that these men received a medal for a one-day battle. I'd like this to be mentioned somewhere, this is really interesting.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah that used to happen a lot but you won't see that after about WWI. The American Civil War ones where the worst.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The link in the see also section is already in the template, so there's no need for that section. See also section removed.--Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) What are the notes talking about? Some don't make any sense, especially those in quotation marks. If they are in quotations marks they are most likely the actual medal of honor citation.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) You might note (in the article) that quoted material is taken directly from the Medal of Honor citation. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Louis Gedeon's note is at the neighbor's house Fixed this. Also fixed the note on the next one down.--Kumioko (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC) in 1999, the U.S. Library of Congress reclassified its references to use this term - Where's the citation? This is meant to be a note to clarify the conflict itself, not a citation. I removed it though--Kumioko (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Did you really remove it? I can still see it.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry I must not have saved it, check it now.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC) For some, there's a whole paragraph written as a note; while for others, there are only several words. This is because some citations are very short.--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Is "Grandson of Admiral David Dixon Porter" a citation? Did David D. Porter receive his medal because of his grandpa? These "citations" that you're talking about here need to be explained a little in the article.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Done I added a note to the legend to explain the notes section. Let me know if there is a better way you would like to see this done.--Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The table's width should be set to 100%. There's a very annoying horizontal scroll-bar. Fails 5a not sure how to do this, can you give me an example?--Kumioko (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) List of submissions to the 79th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film is an example. WP:98WIDE is an essay written about this problem.--Crzycheetah 01:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This is my first time reviewing these "medal of honor" lists and I am very disappointed. I felt like I went back in time. I see a vertical navigational template on top and many general references with no inline citations for the table. If there were one or two general references, I'd understand, but five? That's a little too much.--Crzycheetah 06:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC) My opposition remains until the table width is fixed and the references are better displayed.--Crzycheetah 03:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC) The table problem should be fixed now.--Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) No, it's not fixed. My guess is that those nowrap templates don't let the table be at its natural width.--Crzycheetah 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I guess maybe I don't understand what your asking for then. The only scroll bar I see on all 3 of my computers is the scroll bar on the right to go up and down. Are you seeing a different one?--Kumioko (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Because of the {{nowrap}} template, there's a horizontal scrollbar that goes left and right. The whole "Notes" column can only be seen when I scroll the page to the right.--Crzycheetah 02:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Also, just to let you know, I checked all MoH lists and this is the only one that produces the horizontal scrollbar.--Crzycheetah 02:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I made the width 98% on all the other lists after you told me about the problem but I am not sure why it does that for you on this one. I don't get it when I see the list.--Kumioko (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I was just comparing this list to the Korean one and the only difference I noticed is the "service" column. There's "Army" there, but "U.S. Army" here OR "Navy" there, but "U.S. Navy" here. That's inconsistent! Plus, there's no {{nowrap}} template used in the Korean list's "Service" column. I am pretty sure that's the problem.--Crzycheetah 06:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (Undent) If you want me to pick one way to identify the service thats fine, but whatever we decide I will go and change it for all the Medal of Honor lists so they are all consistent. Most of them use [Service] vice [U.S. Service] so I would recommend sticking with [Service] since the Medal of Honor is only granted to US service members (except for the tombs of Unknown soldiers for a couple countries). Also, in regards to the nowrap thing, the Vera cruz and iwo jima lists are also featured and use this template so see if you have the problem on them as well. I do not see what you are seeing on my computer so I have to conclude that its at least possible that its something to do with the settings on your computer. --Kumioko (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) As I mentioned before, all lists other than this one look fine. For our info, there is no {{nowrap}} in the Veracruz and Iwo Jima lists for the "service" column, that's why I'm guessing that this "nowrap" thing makes this table longer than needed.--Crzycheetah 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Take a look now. I took off the nowrap and I removed the U.S. from before them like most of the other lists are.--Kumioko (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks, it looks much better, but still not good. The scrollbar got shorter, but it's still there. I actually figured out how to get rid of that scrollbar, I just removed the only instance of the {{USS}} template from the "Place of action" column, that was in the Fitz row. What do you think about removing that template?--Crzycheetah 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Thats fine.--Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support The references look much better, as well.--Crzycheetah 16:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. How would you feel about re-naming the list. At present, reading it quickly it's easy to think you're about to see a list of American Medal of Honor recipients of Filipino descent. There doesn't seem to be a definite convention on naming these (of the three FLs of this type, I see three different naming patterns), so how about List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Philippine-American War (currently a redirect)? Cool3 (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally I don't care but it had that name a while ago and it was changed to its current name because of comments raised by another user.--Kumioko (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 20:47, 16 June 2009 [32].

---

Rawlings Gold Glove Award

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. The lead article for a second baseball awards featured subtopic and an important article in the overall scheme of the main awards topic. Comments welcome and will be addressed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Would you consider adding a color corresponding with the † symbol? I realize it is a little complicated because the annotation with the * and ** symbols is often noted on the same player, but perhaps you could add a color field for if both apply. Meh, I may be making more trouble then it's worth :) Hello32020 (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I considered the option when building the Silver Slugger list, then realized that because some of the players who lead their position are also Hall of Famers, so it makes it eminently complicated to have two extra sets of colors for the sake of adding one thing. The rationale behind excluding it is basically that being a Hall of Famer is important, but it's not essential to the understanding of this list, so the color was excluded. However, it's still noted for accuracy purposes, and the names of all Hall of Famers by position will be outlined in the new winners by position lists that are soon to come. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Makes sense, well otherwise the lead is terrific and the table is very comprehensive so I will now support. Hello32020 (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – "and the Rawlings Gold Glove was born," Why is there a comma at the end? :-) There's not? I see a period/full stop. A peek in the history shows that you're right. Oops. :-( Giants2008 (17-14) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Are four cites really necessary to prove that Palmeiro's win was controversial? Probably not completely necessary, but I would rather that be overcited than have somebody say there isn't enough evidence to call it controversial Fair enough. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) All-time Gold Glove team: "The team was selected by thefans". This word can be safely removed to make it less wordy. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Comma in the middle of "at United States Postal Service offices and at sporting goods stores." Not necessarily required, but I used the serial comma earlier, so done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) A couple of reference use pp. for a single page. Change it to a singular p. by tweaking the page parameter of the template. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, I didn't know you could do that. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – All looks well after the changes. Looking forward to many more reviews of other lists in the topic in the weeks ahead. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "a walnut base, and the Rawlings Gold Glove was born." Sounds very nice, but the journalistic personification "and the Rawlings Gold Glove was born" is not appropriate here :) Left over from before I started working on this. Reworded now. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "Some critics have called for awarding a single" You could probably do away with "some". Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "resulting in some controversy." Here, it really isn't necessary. Replaced with "a". Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) The lead image caption is not a complete sentence; there shouldn't be a period at the end. (nice image by the way) Another leftover. Done (and thanks, I wish I could have found one of the Silver Slugger). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC) "Aurelio Rodriguez "-->Aurelio Rodríguez "Tony Fernandez"-->Tony Fernández "Juan Beniquez "-->Juan Beníquez Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Done all names. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 20:47, 16 June 2009 [33].

---

List of Mexican National Trios Champions

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the standards of Featured Lists. It was listed once before but due to one editor it was closed and not promoted even though all issues were either addressed or needed to be clarified by the FL-Reviewer. I believe this is ready. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Well that one reviewer was me, you could have came and notified me about it. Actually it wasn't you, there was someone who left a bunch of comments, some a bit vague or confusing who never answered back. I even left a mention on his talk page. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Lead Why do you not mention the first champions under the CMLL upon the creation of the title? Good point fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 'Blue Panther, Fuerza Guerrera and El Signo is the team with the longest reign of 1,728 days while Los Payasos held the title for only 26 days, which is the shortest time of any championship team.' -> The team of Blue Panther, Fuerza Guerrera and El Signo held the title the longest in it's history at 1,728 days while Los Payasos held it the shortest, at 26 days. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) There is an inconsistency with the use of last names and full names upon the second occurrence of the name, for example Sangre Azteca is simply referred as Azteca on the second occurrence, while Fuerza Guerrera is referred by his full name again up his second occurrence. Be consistent. You're right, I've been preaching consistency to others, gotta take my own medicine ;) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Key Add what + means in the table.--Truco 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I removed "+" from the main table as the template counts and is always up to date, left it in the "combined" lists as it doesn't always count automatically. Added explanation, Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support after 2 full reviews; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 21:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Oppose (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission) - (Spanish for ...) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Because the championship is operated in professional wrestling, it is not won or lost competitively, but instead the result is determined by the bookers of a wrestling promotion. - I have no idea what this sentence means. Could you reword it, please? Well since it's professional wrestling it's not a championship that's won by sporting competition like the SuperBowl or a boxing title, the outcome is after all predetermined in pro wrestling and as such wikipedia articles about wrestling need to make that clear. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I reworded the first bit of the sentence.MPJ-DK (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Why is the word illusion linked to Sports entertainment? Because "Sports Entertainment" explains how wrestling is technically not a competitive sport, it only maintains the illusion that it is. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre - Spanish for ...? Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) the Commission - why the capital "C"? In the first paragraph, there's the commission sanctions the title.... Consistency is needed Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) ...champions crowned ... - "champion crowned", this is a team championship, right? Why is there no translations for "Los Infernales"? Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) CMLL controlled the championship from 1985 to 1994, when control was turned over to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA). - Another poorly written sentence. Reword! Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Asistencia Asesoría y Administración - in English? Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Too many short sentences at the end of the second paragraph. They need to be merged. I looked at it and frankly I can only see the need to perhaps merge two sentences into one, the rest look fine to me. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC) longest in it's history - "longest in its history" Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) "Los Payasos" should be in italics, shouldn't it? Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) What does N/A mean? Is it that you just couldn't find the information or it's impossible to find the info? Here it means that even the most reliable printed source on wrestling championships does not have that information listed, if it's documented it's very hard to find. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) List of Championship reigns by combined length is too long, "Championship reigns by length" would be just fine. It's pretty obvious that the length should be combined. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) List of individual Championship reigns by combined length same as above --Crzycheetah 04:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "wins" - why the quotation marks?
    • As above, it's not actually won - the results are pre-determined so no one technically wins the title. MPJ-DK (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it be better to say, "the title is awarded to the chosen champion after the match is finished to maintain..."?--Crzycheetah 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I am still not satisfied with the prose in the lead, but I can't help. I'll reserve my judgment after someone with copyeditting skills reviews this page.

--Crzycheetah 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well there is an alternative, in quite a few FLs the concept is described in a different way, would this be better?:

Title reigns are determined either by professional wrestling matches between different wrestlers involved in pre-existing scripted feuds, plots, and storylines, or by scripted circumstances. Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches for the championship.

That one was made by SRX just for everyone to know. There is one I came up with that is a bit smaller that goes directly to the point which I use in the main championship article since I haven't tested it out that much yet but hasn't gotten any complants by users yet. It is this: Being a professional wrestling championship it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline.--WillC 07:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that one, I've used it in this article, hopefully it meets with approval, thank you Will. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Since the Mexican National Trios Championship is a professional wrestling championship" "Since"-->Because (for clarity) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL; Spanish for World Wrestling Council) was given the promotional control of the title, and the Commission only being asked to approve the champions." The last phrase "The Commission only being asked..." is not grammatical. Rewritten, to me that helped a lot. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "The team of Blue Panther, Fuerza Guerrera and El Signo held the title the longest in its history at 1,728 days while Los Payasos held it the shortest, at 26 days."-->The team of Blue Panther, Fuerza Guerrera and El Signo held the title for the longest period, at 1,728 days, while Los Payasos have held it the for the shortest period, at 26 days. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Can you add a footnote explaining the N/A for the readers? I put the specifics in the key for the table, I thought that'd be better. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) In the "Individual Championship reigns by length" table, you need a symbol to accompany the color. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "reigns with the exact number mean they are tied for that certain rank." "exact"-->same Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – (Spanish for The Infernals;MS-1, Pirata Morgan and Satanico). Space after the semi-colon? Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) In the lead, I see both "The first champion crowned was" and "The first champions of the AAA-controlled era were". Choose one of these two styles to use throughout. Fixed, I chose singular "Champion" Table note: "During this title reign the title became AAA operated". Hyphen for "AAA operated", and remove the first "title" to avoid a redundancy. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Later note: Not sure about "no-showed a title defense". Also, a semi-colon is needed before "however" in the second sentence of the note. Reworded, better? MPJ-DK (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Several of these notes need periods. Fixed. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Not sure how actionable this is, but the amount of parentheses in the lead really bothers me. I guess the Spanish translations are mostly responsible for that. Seems like a necessary evil, but I may as well mention it while I'm here. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I agree that there is a high number of parenthesis, but like you said they're kinda needed, unless there are no translations at all. MPJ-DK (talk) 06:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Took a while to get this one up to scratch, but I believe it's there now. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:42, 16 June 2009 [34].

---

The Simpsons (season 14)

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous nomination failed because of a lack of polished language. I have since copyedited the text and I believe that it ha simproved. Enjoy! -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• It's a great list, but the episode descriptions just seem bland. They seem generic and incomplete. I've seen most of these episodes and their summaries don't cut it. WP:SPOIL it a little bit. They all have good, identifiable short summaries, but they should go into a little more detail.
• Write the external links as external links, not as references.

Excellent list overall, but I want more of what transpires in the episodes. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the external links and I tried expanding the summaries. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Much better. Reywas92^Talk 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment there should be a Reception section too. Nergaal (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't the awards section enough? TheLeftorium 12:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant something like Ratings in the The Simpsons (season 5) list. Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It seems a bit odd that two consecutive paragraphs in the Awards section begin with "Other nominations include:". Support otherwise. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Those two paragraphs were almost exact copies of one another. It was an error on my part [35] and I'm not entirely sure how that happened. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking better, and I'm doing some copy-editing of my own. "When the stunt ends badly, Krusty gets in trouble and is forced" What kind of trouble? With the law? Physical? Clarified. "live in the manner that people did in the 1800s" I assume you're referring to frontier settlers? No, 1895. I clarified it in the article. More comments later. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments so far. -- Scorpion0422 19:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)' Is there any way that you can say whom the guest star acted as? If they were themselves you could say "as [himself/herself/themselves]". Only when it isn't already clarified (e.g. Blink-182 is fine as is). "when he gives her a thoughtless present." I don't quite understand "thoughtless"; maybe "undesirable"? "Homer and Lisa to go on the run as fugitives" Missing or extra word, perhaps? Fixed. "Marge gets mugged and becomes so traumatized that she becomes agoraphobic." "becomes" ... "becomes" repetition annoying. Fixed. "She becomes so strong that she is able to leave the basement." I don't understand this. What was keeping her from leaving the basement before? Did she gain mental or emotional strength from working out? Switched to "She becomes so strong and confident that she is able to leave the basement" "When his house becomes too run down to live in" This is because Homer is neglecting his chores due to his prayer, right? Please clarify. Switched to "Meanwhile, the Simpsons discover that tree roots have clogged up their plumbing. The house becomes too run down to live in, and Homer prays for a solution." "to turn the lights down during the night" Hmm, you can turn lights off or you can decrease the light's intensity. Done. "One night, she meets Clara and gives her the wrong directions." To where? Clarified. "that she begins hurting Homer subconsciously." Looks like the sentence was cut off. Removed. "where Fat Tony's gang gets into a gun battle" With whom? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Clarified. Thanks for the comments. -- Scorpion0422 01:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Lots of stuff here, much of it simple copyediting things.

• Probably want to link show runner, it's a specialized term.
  • Done.
• In the production section, can'tyou link to the appropriate section in the recurring Simpsons character article for characters like Agne Skinner and Maude Flanders?
  • Done.

More in a few minutes... Geraldk (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• when you're listing the annie awards, either drop the colon and semicolons for commas, the only way a colon works is if the first clause in the sentence is, "The show won four Annie Awards", which starts the previous sentence. While you're at it, starting two consecutive sentences with a variation of 'the show won' doesn't flow well.
  • Done.
• "in the category" should be 'that category'
  • Done.
• The last paragraph where you list other nominations needs rewriting. It's doesn't flow particularly well. Too many commas, too many clauses.
  • Done.
• "whose ghost, along with other infamous criminals" was it other criminals or the ghosts of other criminals?
  • Fixed.
• "The rock stars ask Homer help out at a concert" - missing a 'to'
  • Fixed.
• "After Grimes is arrested, Bob tries to kill Bart, but he finds that he cannot do it." - could use clarity. Physically can't do it? Moral qualms?
  • Fixed.
• "to nominate her for Teacher of the Year Award" should be 'a' or 'the' teacher of the year award
  • Fixed.
• Also in Special Edna, one sentence says that Skinner was given a trip to Epcot, another says he followed Edna there. So did he go for free or stalk her? It's a little unclear.
  • I'm not sure who added that, but Skinner followed Edna there. Fixed.
• 'The Dad Who Knew Too Little' needs work. They didn't go on the run because of the bill, they went on the run b/c Lisa was accused of a crime. Also, there's little in the summary about the last half of the show and the whole circus scene.
  • Expanded.
• In 'Pray anything', first two sentences start with 'Homer'.
  • Fixed.
• "Tony Hawk lives on one of the above floors" - floors above?
  • Fixed.
• "he will never ill-treat him again" is unwieldy, try 'will never treat him badly again' and in the previous sentence, you have a stary them that seems to be referring to only Homer, so specify 'his family' if that's who he says it to
  • Fixed.
• "Homer decides to quit give ownership back to Burns" missing 'and'
  • Fixed.
• "and suggests that pick one career" missing 'she'
  • Fixed.
• "only results in a rise in the crime rate" 'an increase' works better than 'a rise'
  • Done.
• "Meanwhile, Bart and Homer go to war with a group of beavers" <--- just about the funniest line I've ever read on wikipedia. May need a tiny bit more explanation, otherwise it's just pretty damn random.
  • Well, the subplot itself is pretty damn random. I clarified it a bit. The problem with these summaries is that you need to keep them short, and some of them have very complex storylines that require explanation. One way to shorten them is to avoid too much detail about any sub-plots.
• "Old Yeller Belly" and the last two episodes also need more about the end of the episodes.
  • Done, done and done.

I know that's a lot. Sorry I didn't get around to reviewing it sooner. Geraldk (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just glad you took a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - a well done list. Geraldk (talk)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:42, 16 June 2009 [36].

---

List of members of the International Ice Hockey Federation

Nominator(s): Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another list relating to international hockey, enjoy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Why are New Zealand and Norway in the same cell? Error or intentional?
• For some strange reasons, both Men's and Women's Ranking columns only sort correctly for the first time.

—Chris! _ct 20:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any error with the New Zealand or Norway cells, they both look fine to me. I fixed the sortability. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I still see the error, but the wikicode seems correct. So I don't know. Purging the page doesn't help either.—Chris! _ct 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No longer a problem; probably it is just a bug—Chris! _ct 19:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, I'll support.—Chris! _ct 00:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Is there a rationale behind the initial order? The first table isn't in alphabetical order on first-load, at least not for me. Am I missing something? They should be in alphabetical order, but the two Koreas were out of place. How out of order does it look? I checked it again, and that was it, just the two Koreas. Was/is there a reason for that? My guess would be that the user that put together the original list put them in order by the code that was used. North Korea's listed code is DPR and South Korea's is KOR. -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC) That would make a lot of sense. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Are some of these redlinks planned to be filled in in the near future? Possibly. Users have been recently creating more national team articles. At one point, I was going to create a stub for all of the federations, and I suppose I still could. It certainly won't hold up a support !vote from me, in any case. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) The only other thing I can see is that we can't use bold that way (see MOS:BOLD). I'd consider a switch to italics. Otherwise, good work, boss! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – Ice Hockey World Championships is linked twice in the lead. Fixed. Actually, I still see two links. One is IIHF-sanctioned World Championships, and the other is Men's World Championships, the subject of the linked article. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Watch that the table column headings don't have non-proper nouns capitalized, like "Date Joined". Fixed. The last two tables aren't sortable. Do you think they're too small? I had actually just forgotten to add sortability, but I would say that it would have minimal use since the tables are very small. Every reference is a primary source. I'm sure the IIHF has been discussed in media outlets. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Indeed it has, but I think a primary source is perfectly acceptable in this case since it is non-controversial information (and I doubt that I'll be able to find a better one for any the table data, the exception being the former members section). Is there any specific that you think needs a third party source? Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. I don't think anything here is too controversial. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – I'm not overly concerned about the primary sources, and everything else appears to be fine. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "Belgium, France, Great Britain, Switzerland and Bohemia (now the Czech Republic) " Aren't there more focused links we can link to than the country names? Maybe the national teams, but nothing that sticks out. My main goal was to link Bohemia, because a lot of users may not be familiar with it, and it looked better to link all of the nations. I removed most of the country links; the less diluted the text is with links, the more likely it is that readers will find the links useful and spot the ones they really need. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC) "and only one"-->and the only one Done. "regularily " Misspelled word (multiple occurences). Yeah, those "ily" vs. "ly" words always get me. Fixed. In the key, you explain bolded links (bold should not be used anyway), but I don't see any. In the teams column. A template is used, and it might not be working properly. For example, the Australia row should look exactly like this: M · M–U20 · M–U18 · W · W–U18 · inline Why are en dashes used? "World Under–20 Championships" I just copied the article title. I've given up trying to understand the dashing policy. Anyway, they should be hyphens. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC) "Reunification of East and West Germany." No period. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Done. Update: I have fixed the hyphens, and I have switched the bolded links in the table to italics (note that it's a template, so you may need to purge to see the change). -- Scorpion0422 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• 'It is based in Zurich, Switzerland and maintains the international ice hockey rulebook, processes international player transfers, and dictates officiating guidelines and is responsible for the management of international ice hockey tournaments.' --> The 'and' in 'and dictates officiating' should be removed because the 'and' between 'guidelines' and 'is responsible' do not relate to each other

• Done.

• 'The IIHF was created on May 15, 1908 under the name Ligue Internationale de Hockey sur Glace (LHG).[1]' - Maybe explain what language this is in?

• Can the language which the name was originally in not be noted?--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whoops, missed that. It's in French. I'll add it.

List

• Whats the point of gray links? I don't really see it well in the explanation you gave above.

• The gray links are in there to make it easier to differentiate between active teams and non-active teams. otherwise, it's hard to pick out (especially with italics) and it looks messier.

• Oh, I see now. Can you denote that in the key or something?--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll add something to the key.

• One more question, what does it mean "they participated in that event"? What does 'that event' refer to?--Truco 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• It means that that team was active in 2009 (so, the Croatian men's national participated in the 2009 tournament, but the inline team did not). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I understand that but in the key "did not participate in that event in 2009", like what is "that event" referring to in general?--Truco 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try to fix it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

References

• Can you add a source that is not from the IIHF itself? --Truco 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is there anything specific that you think requires a non-IIHF source? Thanks for taking a look. Good to have you back. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I can't find the guideline but there was a guideline that stated that refs should not come from 1 source, but I can't find it. Is there anything that can just be replaced by 1 non-IIHF ref? If not, its ok. Also, thanks! It's great to be back, but it's taking awhile to catch up with all these noms =P--Truco 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think that guideline is meant more for articles than lists. As this is non-controversial info, and any source would be based on the IIHF list anyway, I think it is acceptable. However, I will see what I can do. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments I think you need to include a note or mention in the lead that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania had their memberships expire during the Soviet era. Could you explain why some links are red and some grayed out in the "Teams" column? --Crzycheetah 03:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The italicized links (I prefered bold, but oh well) indicate that the team participated in the 2009 World Championships (so it's active). A lot of the teams don't yet have pages, so they are red. The grey links are teams that did not participate this year (inactive). I have added a note about the Baltic states. -- Scorpion0422 04:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I must be blind because I can't see any note about Baltic States. As for the grey links, I think it's confusing; italics is good one to indicate the active teams.--Crzycheetah 04:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC) You checked to quickly. I wrote that first and figured I'd have it done by the time you came back. I'm not sure why grey links is confusing, I could delink them, but some links do exist (most of the nations do have men's national team page), so it does help to link them. -- Scorpion0422 04:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I am not saying you should delink. I just want to see either red links or blue links - no gray links. Links in italics means that the teams are active; link in normal/non-italics mean that those teams are inactive. Am I right? So why make those links gray?--Crzycheetah 04:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Because the active teams would be much easier to pick out. I tried it before, but it was very confusing with both italicized red and blue links and non-italicized links. -- Scorpion0422 04:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC) It's just not common for Wikipedia articles to have gray links. When I first saw this page I thought it was just gray text and not a link. I was surprised when I clicked on one of the gray links and the page opened. Also, per this, we should probably avoid gray links.--Crzycheetah 04:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose The gray links should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because of visibility issues.--Crzycheetah 04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I feel that without the gray links, the table would be more messy and complicated and would fail 5a. For example, every row would look something like this: M · M–U20 · M–U18 · W · W–U18 · inline And having every row like that looks horrible and is very confusing. -- Scorpion0422 15:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC) To me, gray color or any other color but blue and red is confusing because those are two Wikipedia colors for links: Blue for working links and red for non-working links. When a third color is added, it will confuse regular readers because they're not used to it. Gray links in the light gray cell are very hard to notice for people with bad vision. That's why I believe this page fails 5a.--Crzycheetah 17:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC) How about just normal black then (although that would also cause confusion because one would assume that black text is not linked)? -- Scorpion0422 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Black is worse. Any third color is confusing. Let's say you're reading this list and you notice those gray links and you click on one of them, then Oops, there's no such page. What would you feel about Wikipedia? One of the greatest things in Wikipedia is that non-working links are colored in red, so that readers don't click on it unless they want to create that page. You're basically hiding the fact that those team pages are not created. I am not even talking about the fact that 29 out of 68 members don't have a page in Wikipedia. --Crzycheetah 19:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC) But that's not my intent. When I first added those teams, I found that it was immensely confusing to have bolded and non-bolded red & blue links. But, the bold was a lot easier to pick out (which was why it was used in the first place). Now for some reason, I can't use bold, so now the active teams are even harder to find. But, that's okay, because I made the non-active teams gray, but now I'm being told to remove them and use a version I immensely dislike. 99% of the gray don't have pages, but I wanted to include links anyway. How about I delink the gray text? I'd rather not, but it would solve the three link colour debate. -- Scorpion0422 19:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) No, delinking will not solve the problem. The most optimal version right now is the one you mentioned above:M · M–U20 · M–U18 · W · W–U18 · inline. Italic text indicates active teams and regular text the inactive ones.--Crzycheetah 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Late comer to the discussion, and I could frankly care less about the grey links, but I think there are two compromises that will work: A. do something similar to what Cheetah suggests, drop the gray, turn into redlinks, but add an asterisk or ref label note to mark those teams which did not participate to add more emphasis than just the italics, which frankly given the size of the text is hard to see. B. Ignore MOS:Bold - it seems to be written with prose articles in mind rather than lists, banning bolding to avoid confusion with its use to identify article topics, which is not a confusion likely to happen if the bolding is inside a table. It's a risk that KV or someone else may then oppose, but I'd chalk it up as being bold. No pun intended.

A couple other comments too that don't rise to the level of opposition. First, at some point you should make a version of the map that is usable by people with color blindness. Second, there are far too many redlinks here. You should fill some of them in. Geraldk (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I know you aren't opposing over it, but I just want to clarify that red links aren't justification for opposition. See WP:RED. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the map myself, and my map making skills are very limited, so I just used the most obvious colours I could. What would be the best ones to use? As for redlinks, I will try to create some more stubs for the national federations. Also, I would be willing to go back to using bold, and then removing the gray. Crzycheetah, would that be acceptable? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Update The organizations for all of the full members now have small, crappy, stub pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

For the map, I wasn't thinking of completely changing it, I like the one you have. But because it's so useful, I think Wikipedia:Colours#Using_colours_in_articles comes into play. What I've seen on other lists in the past is the creation of a version with different contrasts to help the color-blind, linked to from the thumb caption underneath the main map. Just can't find an example of it right now. As I said, not a reason to oppose, but maybe a good diea for future article improvement. Geraldk (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, bold would be better.--Crzycheetah 01:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, switched back to bold and removed the gray. Personally, I think it looks worse without the gray, but oh well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Thank you!--Crzycheetah 04:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment/Question - How many of those redlinks can actually become valid articles? If the articles cannot be turned into notable articles, could you please delink them? Thanks. NW (Talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that there will never be an article for any of the under-18 teams and a majority of the non-full member teams will never have pages either, but if you start selectively delinking, it causes confusion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Nice find! Much better now.--Crzycheetah 02:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] I don't think "Key" and "In the Teams column" is really needed in the article. Could be argued, but from the list, it looks like it's obvious that the everything on the key is on the Teams column. If you're not going to remove those from the article, then "Key" should be ===Key===. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Are you talking about the removing the entire key or just the title "key"? -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Laugh out loud. Just the titles. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Done. -- Scorpion0422 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC) "National federations" --> "IIHF members". This is because if you include the Unified Team (see last comment below), then not all of them would be national federations. I still think it's better having the section be titled "IIHF members"... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Went with "members" -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) The "President" column needs to be sorted by Template:sortname. Done. The men's and women's rankings should be noted by "As of..." Done. You only noted on the IIHF Full Members list. Should be on both the Full Members and the Associate Members. Or, you could just put the note at the very top of the section. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I forgot about the other table. I'll just add it to the key. -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) The category should be Category:IIHF instead of Category:Ice hockey governing bodies. Done. Why is the article in the Category:Ice hockey governing bodies? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Because it is basically a list of national governing bodies in ice hockey. As such, I think it has a place in it. I still don't get why the IIHF wouldn't transfer Czechoslovakia's membership rights to both the Czech Republic and Slovakia...Would be nice if you could find the reason for this, but don't worry about it, as it won't affect my decision. For the former members section, why isn't there the Unified Team and West Germany? Added West Germany. However, as far as I can tell, the Unified Team was never actually a member of the IIHF. It was just the combination of several existing IIHF members. Well from the IIHF navbox, it lists the Unified Team as a former member of the IIHF. Suggest you remove that from the navbox if it is false. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Says teams, not members. My bad. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Would still want to know how the membership transfers from one to another. Do they do this formally, or do they just list it, without media attention? Ehh...I Support. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Finally got around to reviewing this article, but something sticks out for me. In regards to the national federations, some are listed in English (Iceland, Hungary, etc) while other are listed in their respective official languages (Germany, France, etc). I'm going to assume this is because the IIHF lists them as such, but perhaps some consistency would be appropriate for the article? Maybe keep them all in English, which is logical, or find their official name in whatever language used, which could be an issue for countries that use a different alphabet (Russia, China, Thailand). Other than that, the list looks great. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've fixed some of them, but I haven't been able to find English translations for all of them. Do you know of any sites that might be of use? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I went through and translated most of the ones left. However, my knowledge of Spanish is non-existant, so there are only 3 left (Mexico, Spain, and Macau (Written in Portuguese, not Spanish)). So if someone who knows Spanish is available, then it should all be cleared up. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [37].

---

List of Washington Metro stations

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The first time I've nominated a transportation list, so be gentle. Note that there's been a debate about including the row of images on the right. Reviewer input on that issue would be helpful. Should they be there? Geraldk (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment "The Yellow Line terminates at Mt Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center during peak hours (5:00 AM - 9:30 AM and 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM Monday through Friday)." needs references Referenced now. Geraldk (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Don't see how flags are useful in this case - per WP:FLAG, flags shouldn't be used for decorative purposes Eliminated, fyi WP:FLAG goes to a disambig page. Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Opps, didn't know that. I meant Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons).—Chris! ct 06:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I don't think abbreviating District of Columbia in the list is a good idea, some may not know what DC stands for Fixed Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC) I am confused by the fact that several stations are listed separately because it have two levels. Aren't they still the same stations? Or Washington Metro considered them different stations? You should clarify this by adding a note Clarified through notes Geraldk (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Images are too small - should be set as thumb size so that others can set their own preference Done Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Tables in Top stations by ridership should be sortable Done Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC) No need to put parenthesis between the "Systemwide" column in "By jurisdiction" table Done Geraldk (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Chris! ct 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Done! Thanks for the suggestions and taking the time to review it. Geraldk (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 06:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Hassocks5489. A pleasing and attractively designed list. I am close to being able to support.

Resolved comments from Hassocks5489

Prose-type things: "...and was partially financed by using funds originally slated for highway construction." Perhaps "...partially financed with funds..." would be better, otherwise it could imply that the whole project was only partially financed, as it were. Also, speaking from a British English perspective, "slated" sounds a bit informal. Comma after "in 1969", otherwise the brain interprets the clause as "Construction began in 1969 and in 1976" and gets confused—well, mine does :) There's a stray "(" before "New York Ave-Florida Ave-Gallaudet U". That sentence might be better as "Since then, only three stations have been opened, all in 2004: the extension...", because it looks a bit unwieldy with lots of commas. In the next paragraph, to reduce commas and remove the unloved ", with" construction, you could try: "There are currently 86 stations on the five lines in the Metro system. A further 11 are proposed as part of the planned Silver Line, which is projected to open in the early 2010s." (I suggest changing one of the instances of "planned" as well, perhaps by replacing with "proposed" as above.) Last para of lead: "DC." should be "D.C." for consistency. Again for consistency, line names (Blue Line etc.) seem to be capitalised in most places, but are in lower case in that paragraph (in the sentence discussing Metro Center station). In the sentence above the "Lines" table, "metrorail" is uncapitalised. Under "Planned stations", the first sentence ("Eleven new stations are currently planned for the system, creating a new line to be called the Silver Line.") is a bit awkward. Perhaps something like: "A new line, to be called the Silver Line, is planned for the system; it will have eleven stations." Under "By jurisdiction", "metro" needs to be capitalised. Table layout and contents: All looks good. Colour is used effectively, and coloured cells/rows have the correct accompanying symbols for compliance with Wikipedia:Accessibility. I'm intrigued by the codes, although it's mainly out of personal interest (the first Wikipedia article I ever wrote was National Location Code, which is basically the more complex British equivalent of this code system, as far as I can tell!). Would you be able to find anything to provide a sourced sentence or two about what the codes signify? (For comparison, NLCs in Britain were originally introduced for accounting purposes.) Sorting appears to work correctly in all cases. Scope: Looks fine. The history which has been added, referred to by SREKAL24, provides useful context. As well as the essential Lines and Stations tables, I (as a reader of the article) appreciate the inclusion of the Planned stations and Ridership sections. These help to satisfy the "comprehensiveness" criterion, in my view. The map also helps in this regard. To me, images are really important in a List of things like buildings, stations etc (my main area of "work"). The two approaches I have used in the past are the strip of images down the side, as on this list, and an "Images" column with a fixed-size (usually 100x100) image (as here). I have a slight preference for the latter, but it needs images for every item in the list otherwise it looks inadequate. The strip-down-the-side method looks good as well, and works well in this instance. I am currently viewing this list on my work computer, which has a relatively narrow screen resolution, and there are no problems at all with the layout of the pics in relation to the tables. I'll have a look later when I get home and go on my wide-screen, higher-resolution computer, and I'm sure it will look fine there as well. (To answer your question at the top!) References: All look suitable. In ref [2] (Schrag's book), "ISBN" is duplicated: when using the "cite book" template, you only need to enter the number in the ISBN field.

Thanks for your work on this list. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• And thanks for the excellent and thorough review. I've made all the corrections you suggest. As to the codes, I was also intrigued by them. I'm a local and rider of the system and had never known there were codes for the stations until I started working on this list (they were there when I started). The only place I've been able to find the codes is on the track shcematic used as a reference, I searched pretty hard to find something on the WMATA website and couldn't. So I assume they're an engineering or maintenance-related identification system used for internal operations only, but have no proof of that. Geraldk (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on the above so quickly. I am now at home and can confirm the images and table layouts are fine on the much higher resolution I use here; and I accept your rationale for the codes mystery. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Just a few comments here, but on first glance, the list is extremely pleasing aesthetically and does an excellent job of conveying information in an efficient style. "five rail lines were open" - opened Washington, D. C. linked multiple times in lead. What is an "in-fill station"? "A further 11" reads a bit awkwardly, what about 11 more? "2010's" - 2010s Congratulations on the correct plural "termini" - you don't know how many people I have heard try to say "terminuses"! "A sixth line, the Silver Line is currently under construction" - "the Silver Line" is parenthetical, so it needs a comma before and after. Since you use the asterisk to represent something in the key, I wouldn't use it to denote a footnote. You've already made this into a footnote for another location, so there is no reason to state it twice; just insert another "ref label" template to link to the note. Is there a reason that the "Planned stations" section has a key for one line? The other lines don't have keys like this. I think that the termini should be included in the table, and the Silver Line should just be linked in the lead sentence. One of the navboxes doesn't link directly to this article, so remove it or add a link. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the commentsuses. I've addressed all of them, and appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Although I don't know if I had the best possible solution to the question about in-fill stations. Should I keep the original language and make it a note instead? Or perhaps just link it to Glossary of rail terminology#I? Geraldk (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I think linking is sufficient in this case.—Chris! ct 04:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with linking to Glossary of rail terminology#I as described. The definition there is clearly written (speaking as a lover of rail jargon – LOL). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Switched it to the link. Certainly makes the prose better. Geraldk (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) A few minor things that I noticed on a check-over: "it will have eleven stations" - 11 per WP:MOSNUM "five rail lines were opened," - this comma should be a colon, as it is followed by a list After the resolution of these two minor issues, I will wholeheartedly support this nom. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for catching both. They're fixed now. Geraldk (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment You've got a lot of dash problems in the table. Whenever the separated elements have internal spaces (e.g. Addison Road–Seat Pleasant), then there should be spaces around the dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority doesn't use spaces around the dashes in the station names? Geraldk (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I think correcting the dashes and avoiding ambiguity is more important than staying true to the names. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Geraldk (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm a column with the residential area to which station pertains should be listed also. Say somebody travels to Washington, and knows that he is in the town/residential area X, he should be able to easily find in this list if that X has a metro station. Nergaal (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. The stations are nearly all named after neighborhoods, towns, or geographical features of one kind or another. I could link it to more local jurisdictions (i.e. Montgomery and Prince George's County, Maryland instead of just Maryland) but those are fairly large jurisdictions and would have a number of stations in each. If we did it by city (according to the postal service), we'd still have the problem of every DC station being in Washington, DC, since it is one, large, 800,000 person postal city. Geraldk (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, listing "neighborhoods served" could be original research, unless specified by a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "further stations were opened both in the city and the suburban communities of Arlington County, the City of Alexandria" "both" is redundant. "further" could be changed to "more" for clarity, but I won't push it. "and Fairfax County in Virginia and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland." Too many "and"s, maybe change the first to "as well as"? "Since then, only three stations have been " "New York Ave - Florida Ave - Gallaudet U, all in 2004." Should be spaced en dashes. "currently" (I see multiple occurences) is a dated word, and is often redundant when used in conjunction with the present tense. For example, "There are currently 86 stations on the five lines in the Metro system." If the number is subject to change often, use "As of..." "11 more are proposed as part of the planned Silver Line, which is projected to open in the early 2010s." "11"-->Eleven (per MOSNUM, we can't start sentences with numerals). Also, "which is" can be deleted. "A further ten stations are termini, stations at the end of lines." "are located in Washington, D.C" Can you center columns with figures in them? It looks much neater. Instead of having the color extend over the entire row, can you get it to extend through only the first three cells? See List of Washington Wizards head coaches#Coaches if you don't know how to code it. Dabomb87 ([[User :Thanks for all the comments. Have addressed all but the bg colors, which I'm currently working on. A couple notes so far though, first, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean, the station name you reference in the lead already uses en dashes. I checked the mos to be sure and copy/pasted from there. Second, with the centering, I centered the columns with statistics but not the station codes or ranks because I don't think they look good. Let me know if that's adequate. Should have the background colors done in the next couple of hours. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Done with adding in the colors. In order to avoid color clash with the lines column, I restricted the bg color to just the station name. Let me know if that works for you. Thanks for the idea. Geraldk (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC) talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24

Comment - It would be nice if you could talk more about the history of the lines and stations, like in List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Have added a paragraph on history to the lead. Great suggestion, thanks for the review. Geraldk (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC) More comments from -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]][c] Mount Vernon Square/7th Street–Convention Center is a terminal too? It's not at the end of a line... See note A. It's a terminus during rush hour. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) the Lines column should be unsortable, as sorting the column is kind of unnecessary redundant. I'm not sure what you mean. The lines column can be sorted to look at stations by line so, for example, I can locate all of the red line stations more easily. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Look at the Yellow and Orange Lines when sortable. They're all over the place! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC) They're divided by that sorting into stations which are solely on one of those lines and stations which sit on two lines (blue/orange v. orange, green/yellow v. blue/yellow v. yellow). While I wish there was a better way to sort them, I still think there's significant utility in being able to sort by line. I just don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Geraldk (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Instead of the state, why not name the county? It's doable, but if it's done I'd argue for including both the county and the state, since the names of counties will have little meaning to people from outside the US (or even outside metro DC). For that same reason, I frankly don't think it will add much if any utility to the list, but let me know if it will stand in the way of the list's promotion and I'll work something out. Geraldk (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Just wanted to know why you didn't. And yes, if include, definitely put the state with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I think I'd prefer not to because there's limited utility to it. But let me know if it's something you would insist upon. Geraldk (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 14:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nice job on the list. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [38].

---

List of State University of New York units

Nominator(s): MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I created it several months ago and have put many hours into making it a useful and visually pleasing list. I believe it meets all of the FL-criteria and have fixed the problems noted at its peer review. MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support

*I don't know if male/female ratio is an important enough statistic to even be included here, but they should definitely be merged into a single column, as they are simply inverse to each other. *County is probably fine, but I would think the town/city the college is in is more important. I think the lead and everything else look fine. Just combine those two identical columns. Reywas92^Talk 02:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I will merge the m/f column tonight.
• My thought on the towns was that many schools have multiple campuses in multiple towns. I suppose I could add a column for the main campus town. I'll think more about it today. MBisanz ^talk 11:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• On further thought I went ahead and added the town information. MBisanz ^talk 12:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I support. Reywas92^Talk 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also, there are an awful lot of references on the page. Do so many all need to be linked to Collegeboard, College Navigator, and the Carnegie Institution lookup? What do others think? Reywas92^Talk 02:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• reference column doesn't need to be sortable
• link for ref 124 doesn't work

—Chris! _ct 03:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed reference column.
• Fixed ref 124. MBisanz ^talk 11:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• In the third paragraph, "despite the fact that" is not the best structure possible. "although" or "even though" are both less wordy.
• Comma after "The largest institution is the University of Buffalo"?
• First sentence of the fifth para needs a couple more "the"s before associations. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed all three. MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "plus 1.1 million continuing education students spanning 64 campuses across the state" "attending" seems better than "spanning". "There are a large variety of colleges in the SUNY system with some overlap in specialties from site to site." Could you be a little less vague? How did they vary (subject matter, location, admissions, etc.)? "four distinct categories" "university centers/doctoral-granting institutions" Spaced slash per MOS:SLASH "with its statutory colleges which embeds state-owned, state-funded colleges within other institutions such as Cornell University and Alfred University. "-->with its statutory colleges, which embed state-owned, state-funded colleges within other institutions such as Cornell University and Alfred University. "are entirely different university systems, even though both are public institutions which receive funding from New York State." You could do awat with "entirely". "which"-->that "which was founded in 1816" You can apply this change to a similar construction later in that paragraph. You might link "County" in the column headers to List of counties in New York (also a featured list). Can you center the em dashes in all the columns? File:OCC Entrance Sign.JPG doesn't have any licensing info. I don't have time to go through all the images, but please make sure everything is in order. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC) I fixed everything except the image which already had a PD license tag. MBisanz talk 02:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Change ref titles that are allcaps to title case, even if they were like that in the original (refs 3 and 124). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [39].

---

List of United States Military Academy alumni (athletic figures)

Nominator(s): — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Another list in the series of West Point alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a short list but it looks good to me.--Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 The "class of 2011" can't be alumni; it's only 2009. Alumni do not have to be graduates. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Well, color me surprised; I was totally unfamiliar with the other definition. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You have a "dual-and" construction in the list of alumni to compete at the Olympics... sounds like we're out of breath. Consider the following: "Mike Krzyzewski (Class of 1969) as head coach of the men's basketball team, Stewart Glenister (Class of 2011) in freestyle swimming, and Stephen Scherer (Class of 2011) in air rifle." Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Instead of "American Presidents", use "Presidents of the United States"; the term "American" is ambiguous. Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "(1981– );" either the space needs to be non-breaking, or insert present here Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "men's bastketball" - just a typo? Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Some WP:MOSNUM issues in the table: there are quite a few "5th", "6th", "8th", etc. These should be written out. They aren't comparative to anything. You use "US" and "USA" in the tables; the preferred usage for both is "U.S.". I see "50 m", "10 m", and "10km". Shouldn't that be "10 km"? List is looking good. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC) All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "General references" should just be "General reference" or "General" (reference(s) is redundant to the section header) That would be inconsistent with the other FL lists in this series and I don't see why "reference" is not redundant but "references" is either. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Technically, both are redundant, but it's been done that way for so long that people continue to do it. It should still be "reference" if you are going to leave it in there because there is only one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I've gone through every military alum FL and made the formatting of the ref sections consistent. No worries :) Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions

• I agree with Killervogel, either use General reference or General because there's only one general reference. I tend to use the latter, but it's simply a stylistic thing between the two.

Is this done with "External links" when they only have one link too? But Dabomb has now made them all "General" in this topic series. This sort of reminds me of the issues that the date delinking arb case was about, thankfully that case is about to close ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• The difference in the sizes of the two images in the lead is visually disconcerting. I would suggest either increasing the size of the logo slightly or decreasing the graduation picture slightly so they are more equal in size. That, or you could drop one of them, but I think they're both great images.

I think they're fine. But I've made the smaller one a bit bigger, the same size as the smaller one in the USMA Astros list. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why on this list is the default sorting by year of graduation rather than name? It makes sense to do it chronologically on the superintendant list (where you are listing the holders of a single office chronologically) or even on the list of medal of honor winners (where again the list is sorted into chronological sections based on the wars where the medals were earned). However, there seems little reason for that sorting here, so it would seem to make more sense to sort in the default method for lists of people generally, that is alphabetically by last name in the first column of the table.

Consistency in the USMA alum topic. I'm making them as similar as possible. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

...and I guess it's moot because of the sortability. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's a hanging semi-colon in James Hartinger's entry.

Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• In the notability for some entries you lead with information about athletics (Ronald Zinn), and in some you lead with information about their military careers (Doc Blanchard). It's debatable on the grounds of notability, but personally I would begin with their athletics information because that's the topic of the list. I know for some of them they are more notable for their military careers, but readers of this specific list are likely to be most interested in the athletics.

It can also be argued that since it's a military school the mil info should be first. I've added mil info where it's known on those who had it missing. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking for internal consistency. Fine now. Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The Academy was founded in March 1802 and graduated its first Cadet in October 1802." - in the second paragraph of the lead but repeats information in the first paragraph.

Cut the dupe in second para. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please include more information in the lead about the athletics program at the Academy. You mention the academic curriculum, but very little about the athletics program. Is athletics an emphasis at the Academy? etc.

Added a para. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Geraldk (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Geraldk (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'd recommend including John Roosma. He's a member of the Basketball Hall of Fame, [40] [41] and Army's basketball MVP award is named after him. [42] Zagalejo^^^ 02:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was Roosma at The Point 5 years? I added him. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, exactly. I'll see if I can find more information. Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The Academy is a member of the Division I Patriot League in most sports,[1] while its men's ice hockey program competes in Atlantic Hockey." "while"-->but "The Academy fields a total of 24 club sports teams" Not sure what the difference is between a "club" sports team and a regular sports team. I think that you need to revise your linking and wording in the notes a little bit. For example, the George S. Patton could be changed around in linking and wording so that we link to one higher-value link rather than two more general link. See this edit You need to establish that you are referring to American football. Ronald Zinn: " Captain; killed in the Vietnam War; race walker in the 1960 Summer Olympics and 1964 Summer Olympics, 6th place; killed in action in 1965 during the Vietnam War" It doesn't make sense to split up info about his service in the Vietnam War with Olympic achievements. "Gold Medal " Don't capitalize. "Last pick in the 1997 NFL Draft" Decapitalize "Last". John Roosma: " Colonel; World War II;" Was he a colonel in World War II? "four time national champion and five time SEC champion at Tennessee"-->four-time national champion and five-time SEC champion at Tennessee "two time national champion"-->two-time national champion "three time NCAA national champion"-->three-time NCAA national champion Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC) All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Do we know how P.C. Hains did at the Olympics? No. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) "Lieutenant General" -->Lieutenant general (in Bill Carpenter) That would be inconsistent and incorrect. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Forget I said that. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC) "race walker in the 1960 Summer Olympics and 1964 Summer Olympics, 6th place" Is there a specific name for this event? Race walking, but the participants seem to be called racewalkers (one word). Tweaked his entry. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comment – There are several categories for Army Black Knights athletes and coaches in use here; football players have one, for example. Has an effort been made to check these categories for possible additions to this list? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, what I did here was list people noted for outstanding athletic achievement (ex: Patton, placing high in the Olympics) or noted primarily for their athletic achievements (Anita Allen, a noted world class athlete). I've just added the dynamic list tag, which is very applicable to a list such as this. Many of the people in those lists are not noted for athletics, they just happened to play on a team at West Point (ex: Eisenhower and Schwarzkopf). If I missed someone who was in the Olymipics or otherwise athletically notable, we can surely add them. Merely having played on a team does not warrant inclusion in a list such as this in my opinion. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) PS, I want to add Eddie Doyle (American football) but I can't find his year of graduation. And I think Ed Beard (American football) was Class of 1964 but I'm not sure. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Good. Now that I know it's not for just regular athletes, I can move on to offering my usual review. At the start of the second paragraph, there is one sport that isn't covered by the leagues mentioned: football, Army's most historically famous sport. Could this possibly be given a tweak? "Three alumni are recipients of the Heisman Trophy". Should probably be said that this is a college football award to benefit non-college football fans. I'm guessing it could be "of college football's Heisman Trophy", but adjust that as needed. The Heisman bit is repeated in the third paragraph. Don't they qualify as athletes? Mike Krzyzewski note: "men's basketball gold medal-winning team head coach 2008 Summer Olympics; three time NCAA national champion NCAA national champions." Two glitches here; I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what the first one is. Second one is that there should be a comma or "at" before 2008. Not sure about a couple of these sources. Hickok Sports (ref 16) has been questioned more than a few times at FLC, and we can probably do better than Coach K's official site (ref 37). Giants2008 (17-14) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC) All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) The sources above are still being used, in unison with new references. If the new refs cover everything, I'd be inclined to remove the old ones. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Since the old ones concur with the new ones, what's the problem? — Rlevse • Talk • 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) We should be careful about using questionable sources, especially if better ones that cover the same territory exist. If the old sources don't back up anything more than the new ones, why are they even needed? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Dabomb said "Sources look good" so it seems he disagrees with you. Maybe they're not so questionable. I'll let you two work it out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I said "sources" look good because I thought the old ones had been replaced. There's no reason really to keep the [old] sources. It also looks better when the sources we use are all high-quality. Remove 'em, I say. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC) OK. Rm'd them. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Nice list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [43].

---

2008 IIHF World Championship rosters

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

With the conclusion of the 2009 IIHF World Championship at the start of May, and the effort involved in maintaining articles regarding the tournament, I got the idea to work on the roster article for the previous year and get it up to be a FL. I have spent the past few weeks working on it, and the result is totally different than what existed before. All comments will be addressed as soon as I can address them, and I look forward to hearing them. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

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

• Add importScript('User:Splarka/dabfinder.js'); to your monobook to fix all the redirects.

Don't quite understand what this is for.

It is to fix all the redirects...add it to your monobook, refresh, and it will appear on your toolbox (left of screen, below interaction). -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• No references for the lead? General references don't cite the first half of the first paragraph.

Added some references, should be good now.

• Could add some images beside the rosters.

I looked through Commons for images of the participating players wearing international jerseys, and this is all that currently exists. If more are added, they will be placed into the article.

They don't have to be in their international jerseys...An article will just look bland with barely any images. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I added some more images, so there is now one per team, except for Italy, which has no images uploaded. Added the tool suggested, and everything seems alright. So, all comments addressed again. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't fix the redirects...It's Jonathan Toews, not Johnathan Toews. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a case of me not knowing how to use these crazy new tools. I thought I pressed it, and when nothing showed up, I figured it was good. But it has been taken care of now, and anything left is either because the team name has changed, or a left the "HC" instead of changing it to "Hockey Club," as most teams are known by the abbreviation, not the full name. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Check the toolbox, there is one dab link. "399 players on sixteen national ice hockey teams. "-->399 players on 16 national ice hockey teams. No need to link Canada. In general, I see inconsistency in number formatting in the lead. Some are written out, others are in numerals. Follow WP:MOSNUM: numbers over ten should be written in numeral form; numbers under ten should be written as words; make comparative quantities in a sentence consistent. "Russia won the Championship, the second time they had done so, the twenty-fourth title including those won by the Soviet Union." The punctuation makes this sentence very haphazard. Also, who has twenty-four titles? "Prior to"-->Before Seeing as "he" is used extensively, can I assume this is a males-only competition? No links in section titles per WP:ACCESS. See WP:CAPTION; image captions that are complete sentences should have periods (full stops) at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Addressed all your comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, we can't use {{flagicon}} either; see this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC) This hasn't been addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The general references need to be formatted with publisher, access date, etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any reason why goalies are also included in the skater section? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Its what the IIHF does, so I followed suit (see Canada for example). It also enables the showing of goalie statistics like assists and PIM, which would look unusual in the goaltender section. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Another comment I've been working on the 2007 equivalent of this list, and I've been wondering if it would be useful to have a team summary table near the top. Something along the lines of:

Rank	Nation	Head coach	Captain	# of players	GP	W	L
9	Belarus	Curt Fraser	Some guy	25	6	1	5
	Canada	Ken Hitchcock	Shane Doan	25	9	8	1

And if you wanted, you could throw in something like leading scorer, leading goalie, etc. This table would accomplish a few things, it would give users a quick reference point for rankings, it would allow a convenient place to link to national teams (since they can't be linked in headers, and using {{main}} 16 times looks weird) and a better place for coaches (because as it is now, they look randomly thrown in). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, except the only problem I can potentially see is that I don't know if there is any sources regarding the captains of the teams, especially for a team like Italy, Norway or Slovenia. I'll look into it over the next few days, and hopefully it is out there somewhere. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If it comes down to it, Captains could be eliminated. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

After looking it over, I'm going to suggest that this may not be the right fit for the rosters list. Seeing how it is about the rosters, it is not as relevent to the article. That said, I would definetly say it should go on the main article, as it would be better placed there. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• Move the full name of the IIHF to an earlier use.
• "If a country selects fewer than the maximum allowed, they must choose the remaining players prior to the start of the tournament." I think this would be better if it was switched to past tense. There's another sentence like this at the end of the second paragraph. Are these intended to be for the tournament in general?
• Can some uses of "country: in the third paragraph be changed to something else? There's just so many of them that it becomes tiresome to read after a while.
• "This switch may only happen once in the players life." Missing apostrophe. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressed comments. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support – Didn't have many comments to begin with, and they're all addressed now, so I'm happy to support. Great idea for a list. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [44].

---

List of PWG World Tag Team Champions

Nominator(s): WillC 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it passes the criteria and I'm trying to get title histories to FL. Seeing as List of PWG World Champions is doing pretty good with two supports, I thought to go ahead and nominate this one.--WillC 03:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GaryColemanFan

Comments from GaryColemanFan The verb tense switches back and forth in the second section of the lead. My biggest concern is that the following sentence is in past tense for no apparent reason: "Wrestlers were portrayed as either villains or heroes as they followed a series of tension-building events, which culminated in a wrestling match or series of matches for the championship." Fixed.--WillC 04:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The caption for the image implies that Scott Lost is also a co-owner and 5 time champion. Is this the case? It was not intended to mean he was a 5 time champion and co-owner, just a five time champion. But Lost is also a co-owner of PWG. Along with Dragon, Excalibur, and Joey Ryan. If you wish, I'll fix it to where it only means he was a 5 time champion?--WillC 04:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I have always found that saying that things happen as a result of "plots and storylines" is redundant, as a storyline is a plot and a plot is a storyline. This is just personal preference, though, and I understand that the current phrasing is used in many professional wrestling articles. Fixed.--WillC 04:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "All reigns are won at live events" - The reigns aren't won at live events, but the title belts are. Fixed. Any better?--WillC 04:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "for unknown reasons" - inaccurate, as I'm sure PWG has a reason. If the reason is not known to Wikipedia, there is no need to include the last three words. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, fixed. Thank you for the comments.--WillC 04:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - Not weak because of anything wrong with the article, but simply because I try to avoid supporting or opposing wrestling articles to avoid any semblance of a conflict of interest (it has been stated in the past that members of the professional wrestling project is the only wikiproject that shouldn't be allowed to comment on lists nominated by its own members). I feel that it meets the criteria, though, and all of my concerns have been addressed. I was hoping someone else would stop by and comment, but it has been 16 days, so supporting a list that meets the criteria makes more sense to me than allowing it to fail because nobody else is willing to comment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Some of GaryColemanFan's comments apply to your earlier FLs. Please edit them as necessary.
• "history at 1 day"-->history at one day
• I'd rather that em dashes rather than en dashes were used in the blank cells.
• "reigns with the exact number mean they are tied for that certain rank." Insert "that" after "mean". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• All are finished.--WillC 23:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – Redundant "professional wrestling" usage in the first sentence. To fix it, try using "by the Pro Wrestling Guerrilla (PWG) promotion". Fixed.--WillC 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) There are out-of-order references in the middle of the second paragraph. Not a big deal, but worth mentioning. Fixed.--WillC 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "The record for most reigns for a single competitor is tied between Super Dragon and Lost, with five." Don't like "record" ... "is tied". Can it be reworded? Fixed.--WillC 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "are tied for shortest in the title's history at one day." Add "the" before "shortest". Fixed.--WillC 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Table: One of the rows in Location has a faulty wikilink. Fixed.--WillC 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) By team: Combined days column isn't sorting properly. By wrestler table is the same. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Still isn't properly sorting. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Not sure why it isn't. I've tried everything I know. Not sure what else to do.--WillC 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you.--WillC 00:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – My concerns have all been addressed, and everything else appears to be in order. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General Gosh I hate these promotions that don't have links to their PPV's =P It's so distracting =D Okay. *looks around thinking you are weird*--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Lead 'The championship later changed hands for the first time outside the United States on October 27, 2007 at PWG's European Vacation II – England event—at that event then-champions Kevin Steen and El Generico were defeated by Richards and Super Dragon in Portsmouth, England.' -- 1)Comma after 'at that event' 2)IDK, it's just me but I think The championship was later won for the first time outside.... would sound better. Fixed.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 'PWG publishes a list of successful championship defenses (victories against challengers for the championship) for each champion on their official website, unlike other professional wrestling promotions.' -- This statement might need rewording because ROH publishes a similar list, so I think it would be better worded as unlike major professional wrestling promotions or something along those lines Fixed.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 'At 273 days, Arrogance (Bosh and Lost)'s first reign is the longest in the title's history.' -- I see no need to mention the members of the team again. Fixed.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 'The Aerial Xpress (Quicksilver and Scorpio Sky)'s only reign and Richards' and Roderick Strong's only reign are tied for the shortest in the title's history at one day.' -- 1)The 's should be next to the name of the team not after the parenthesis 2)This would be better worded as The Aerial Xpress (Quicksilver and Scorpio Sky) and Richards and Roderick Strong's only reigns are tied for the shortest in the title's history at one day. Fixed.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Table I hate having the thing center aligned, but if the other columns are like so, you should also do it for the event column, its no need to have just that one column left aligned (excluding the notes) Fixed.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Notes 'Arrogance's reign as a tag team officially begins on October 9, but Lost's third reign officially began on September 4.' -- Be consistent with tenses its either both as 'begins' or 'began'--Truco 503 18:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) All are finished.--WillC 00:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved/clarifies; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [45].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Snow Patrol

Nominator(s): Suede67 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is satisfying all the rules to be a featured list, it is comprehensive and easy to read. Suede67 (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment, leaning oppose: I'm not sure that this needs to be a separate list. See FL criterion 3b; this list of awards could be conflated into one table and kept on the main article. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know this is not that long of an article, but there are FLs of about the same size, like this one. Suede67 (talk) 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The criteria changed recently, and there are many current awards list FLs that can be merged; we just haven't brought them to FLRC yet. I think this list is in—as they call it at RfA—the "discretion range"; you could go either way, but I'm leaning merge. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If the article was merged into the main article... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is acceptable. In comparison, I've seen pages about actors which included filmographies that were a lot longer than that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the list could be separated from the main article? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that I like your sample merged version and I think it is perfectly acceptable. I apologize for the confusion. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would like to see the list on a separate page. As you said, some filmographies are longer than this, that's fine, but we dont have control over a band winning awards or getting nominated. If they've been nominated 25 times, thats it. By the way, is it just the length of the article that's a problem? is there a specific word limit that must be reached? I cannot find any info on this. Suede67 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because a separate list can be created doesn't mean it needs to be. Unfortunately, although it would make it much easier if we had a firm limit on listed items, there are too many exceptions and factors to consider to set a boundary. So, we at FLC have to play it on a case-by-case basis, which is a real impediment to editors, but I'm not sure what we can do. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—3b. After hearing the opinions from the two above and seeing the version of the main article with the merged awards table, I don't think this list needs to be on a separate page. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose for now, taking into consideration the new awards added. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! So is this the final verdict? No merge? Suede67 (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Fine, is there no way it can have a standalone article for itself, if not a FL? It's long enough I think. Also the merged article, as we see doesnt show what nomination was for what award, it looks incomplete.

By the way is this deserving a place on the awards list? Suede67 (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but still wondering about this - the merged article doesnt tell us what nom/win was for what award! Suede67 (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Calm down...it was just an example. Besides, the main articles with awards just add what award it was with the award category. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh,i see, sorry for overreacting. By the way, added 2 more awards, is it good enough now to keep it? Suede67 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding two awards in the article will IMO barely change peoples minds. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Dabomb87" did struck his oppose, though. I think he's waiting for others' opinions. Suede67 (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

--I'm back online, just so you know. Suede67 (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - per 3b - after reading the entire discussion, I still don't see why this can't be merged with the main article. As far as I can see, this only has a few more item than List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt, which is currently at FLRC. What I am wondering is why we should make an exception for this particular list?—Chris! _ct 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Abstain - I think per 3b and the FLRC precedents, this list shouldn't be promoted. But the list itself appears to be long enough to stand on its own. Since I don't know what to think, I prefer to stay out and not !vote. But this is not an oppose.—Chris! _ct 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Chris, as per 3b, it's not long enough to be featured, thats fine, but is it not long enough to have an article of its own? Suede67 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you are trying to say that you're going to withdraw this nomination... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what left to do, isn't it? They dont have any more awards to my knowledge that I can add so that it becomes long enough. Suede67 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit: On wait, i found info about 2 more BMIs, here. Let me add them. Suede67 (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Done and added another IFPI (sorry), never found about these beforeSuede67 (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - I am going to coin a new term - let's call it 3b creep. Def. 3b Creep, n., 1. A process whereby FL reviewers begin to reject more and more lists based on criterion 3b under the justification that the list under review is only slightly longer than a previously rejected or de-listed article. Over time, this results in longer and longer lists being rejected, due to the inherent ambiguity in criterion 3b. The illogical extreme of 3b creep will result in lists of any length being rejected. All joking aside, I believe that this is an extensive and detailed list. In my opinion, it easily qualifies under 3b. And this becomes yet another example of how 3b is currently overly ambiguous and a problem for editors seeking to submit content to FLC. Geraldk (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:Thank you, Gerald! Suede67 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To Geraldk: Well, List of awards and nominations received by No Doubt, which has a few items less than this one, is currently at FLRC and received several delist votes per the 3b criteria. My oppose is based mainly on those FLRC precedents. Though I kind of agree with you that the criteria is currently unclear and can be subjected to different interpretations. I think you should take it to the talk page if you really disagree with the current criteria. Cheer—Chris! _ct 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but I'm an incorrigible mergist. I feel that SREKAL's example of a merge looks just fine. I think it's excessive to have every different type of award having its own section and intro with info that can be found elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, the article now has two more awards than my merge example. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Five, actually, 2 BMI's and three IFPI's. Suede67 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I still think it could be reasonably merged, but I will support this list. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Meets all the criteria at WP:WIAFL. Regarding 3b, I feel that adding this list (even as one table) into the existing Snow Patrol article will make it too list heavy towards the end. I also think Geraldk makes a valid slippery slope argument above - it may be one or two now but in a few months it could easily be a lot more than now. --JD554 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JD! Yes, I am hoping the band would get nominated for some award for their latest album, so it may very well get expanded. And added 2 more IFPI, Eyes open went 3x in 2009 and final straw 2x in 2008 and a BMI. Suede67 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Thanks Reywas92 and Chris! Can we finally have a final verdict on this one? Suede67 (talk) 18:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment to FL directors Please hold off on promotion or archiving; I intend to do a full review here later. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am a huge 3b supporter! That being said, I believe this list length-wise, at the current version, can and should be a stand-alone list; thus, passing the 3b criterion. At the same time, the problem I have with all these awards pages is the visual appeal (5a criterion). Out of 12 awards, six have only one nomination and, of course, a table with one row, which look very dull. If someone could come up with an idea how to avoid those one-row tables, that would be great! --Crzycheetah 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The one thing I really like about these awards lists is their ability to go into more detail about the awards. For that reason, I find the award descriptions that precede the tables useful. Of course, if the list is too small, the content-fork concerns outweigh the usefulness of having separate awards lists. However, that doesn't seem to be a problem here. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you really like these descriptions that are on this page? In most of them, there are two sentences only. The first one usually states something obvious about the awards and the second one states the fact that is already listed in the table. Do you call that "into more detail"? Is it really useful to state that the BMI awards are awards by BMI? or the MTV Japan awards are organized by MTV Japan? Are there really some people who would think that the MTV Japan awards are organized by an organization other than MTV Japan?--Crzycheetah 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Some of them are blatantly obvious, but others aren't so self-explanatory, e.g. Choice Music Prize and Meteor Awards. I think it's important to know why some of the awards are worth mentioning, especially the less well-known ones. I'm biased, I know; having seen (and allowed) dozens of these awards lists to pass through FLC, I've grown used to the format. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) – a real review Please delink 1994, it has absolutely nothing to do with the content in the list. "The band has released five studio albums to date, which have been released either by Jeepster or Fiction/Interscope labels." Insert "the" before "Jeepster". "Snow Patrol has received one "Ivor Novello Album Award" (in 2005) for their album Final Straw and four "BMI Awards", two for the song "Run" (in 2005), for being the "College Song of the Year" and "BMI Pop Award", and for the songs Chasing Cars and Hands Open being performed a total of one million times in the US (in 2007). --> "Snow Patrol has received one "Ivor Novello Album Award" (in 2005) for their album Final Straw and four "BMI Awards", two for the song "Run" (in 2005), one for being the "College Song of the Year" and "BMI Pop Award", and one for the songs Chasing Cars and Hands Open being performed a combined times in the US (in 2007). " Don't use ampersands (&) per MOS. "They have also received four "IFPI Platinum Europe Awards", two for the album Final Straw (in 2004 and 2008) for crossing the two million sales mark in Europe, and the other for the album Eyes Open (in 2006, 2007 & 2009) for crossing the three million sales mark in Europe." I only count three awards being described. Maybe "The band has also received four "IFPI Platinum Europe Awards", two for the album Final Straw (in 2004 and 2008) for crossing the two million sales mark in Europe, and another for the album Eyes Open (in 2006, 2007 and 2009) for crossing the three million sales mark in Europe." In the award descriptions, the repetition of the award name is annoying. Take the BRIT Awards for example. Instead of saying "The BRIT Awards are the British Phonographic Industry's annual pop music awards. Snow Patrol has been nominated for six BRIT Awards." try The BRIT Awards are the British Phonographic Industry's annual pop music awards. Snow Patrol has been nominated times. Take a look at other music awards FLs if you don't understand what I mean. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Comment: (For Dabomb) - The Metro is a newspaper Metro (Associated Metro Limited). - About the reliability of sources, I think they are. Is there a way I can check this? But Jeepster is good, its the home page of their previous label. And that ref is from their Snow Patrol news archive. - The pdf part, I'm not aware how to add it to the ref, I tried. Can you do it yourself please? - The IFPI awards. One is wards AS the album reaches a million, then two, three. So they all are separate. Otherwise, I think I've addressed your concerns. Suede67 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC) are mostly good, but I'd like more opinion on the sources that aren't struck.

I found new sources, one is Contactmusic, which was already being used for ref on the same page, and the other is "winter music conference" which is the homepage for the "international dance music awards". I think this will do. Suede67 (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So this means the review is over? It gets featured?!Suede67 (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A featured list director (either Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) or Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)) decides if there is consensus to promote or archive and closes the nomination accordingly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Should I notify one of them? Or they'll know? Anyway, thanks for your help. Suede67 (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they read FLC around 0:00 UTC Sundays and Wednesdays. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see, thanks again. Suede67 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Spell out publisher abbreviations such as IFPI and BMI.
• What makes the following sites reliable:
  • http://www.businessofcinema.com/news.php?newsid=8054
  • http://dancemusic.about.com/od/conference/a/IDMA2k7Vote.htm
  • http://www.jeepster.co.uk/site/jeeep.php?pg=http://www.jeepster.co.uk/site/newsarchive.php?id=82&currentsection=snowpatrol
• Ref 22, is Metro a magazine? A link would be useful.
• Ref 24, add format=PDF to the citation template. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good except the sources. Jeepster should be fine, but we need to know the fact-checking methods of the other two. To determine the reliability of the sites, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message. The "Businessofcinema" site seems reliable, as per here (First link in the "about us" part. As you said, backed by a company). And "About.com" the other site referenced, if you scroll all the way down here, on the bottom right, its written "a part of The New York Times Company". Will this work? Suede67 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment for Dabomb87: Just in case you missed my message on your talk page. The "Businessofcinema" site seems reliable, as per here (First link in the "about us" part. As you said, backed by a company). And "About.com" the other site referenced, if you scroll all the way down here, on the bottom right, its written "a part of The New York Times Company". Will this work? Suede67 (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Businessofcinema should be fine, as long as it's not used for negative BLP material. For about.com, see this discussion. In a nutshell, the author of the cited article from about.com must be proven to be an expert on the subject per WP:SPS. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • P.S. You still haven't spelled out IFPI and BMI in the sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Sources mean the ref template, right? I did that now. About "about.com", here is the link to the article. If we click the link to the author, thats' here, i think thats a reason enough we need. He has experience and is a regular writer, for others as well, apart from the stated website. Suede67 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments There's no reference to check whether Final Straw was nominated at the BRITS awards. The Choice Music Prize is a music award given annually to the best full-length Irish album based on artistic merit, regardless of genre, sales, or record label - Very specific description, where's the reference? In that ref #8, there's no such description. Here I read that the Choice Music Prize is the Irish equivalent of the Mercury Prize. Yet on this page, there's that specific description for the Choice prize, but not for the Mercury. Why not? Meteor Ireland Music Awards or Meteor Awards? or Meteor Music Awards? The current ref#18 does not state what album was nominated or the year it was nominated. The "title" field in the {{cite web}} should state the title of the article and not a useful description. --Crzycheetah 03:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Comment: (For Chetah) Final Straw was indeed nominated for a BRIT, ref 3 does say it - "The band were nominated for 'Best British Group', 'Best British Album' and 'Best British Rock Act' at the launch party..." (Album). How do I know which album? MAybe it's When It's All Over We Still Have to Clear Up?--Crzycheetah 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Ref 8 doesnt have that description, yes, I took it from Choice Music Prize, as I was unaware at the time what the award is for. Per, WP:SELF, do not use other Wikipedia articles as a source.--Crzycheetah 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) "I read that the Choice Music Prize is the Irish equivalent of the Mercury Prize. Yet on this page, there's that specific description for the Choice prize, but not for the Mercury. Why not?" - I didnt quite get what you're trying to say Why isn't it mentioned that Choice Music Prize is the Irish equivalent of the Mercury Prize? Why the Mercury Prize;s description doesn't state the same description that Choice Music Prize' does.--Crzycheetah 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Meteor Awards problem - Done. Fixed ref for mercury I will change the titles of all refs later, within a day. Dont have that time right now. Please go through the article again andleave your comments. I will address these when I get back. Thanks Suede67 (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Comment: CrzyCheetah, addressed your concerns. Suede67 (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support I still can't fully support theses awards lists, but I am trying...--Crzycheetah 01:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General I feel that this list passes 3b and should not fail due to that, I've seen way shorter lists than these in this type of genre. Lead 'Snow Patrol is a Northern Irish alternative rock band formed in 1994 in Dundee, Scotland as Shrug, and consists of vocalist and rhythm guitarist Gary Lightbody, lead guitarist Nathan Connolly, bassist Paul Wilson, drummer Jonny Quinn and keyboardist Tom Simpson.' -- 1)What does 'as Shrug' mean? 2)I feel that this sentence could use a split before mentioning the members. 3)No need to link Scotland, per WP:OVERLINK. 'Snow Patrol has received one "Ivor Novello Album Award" (in 2005) for their album Final Straw and four "BMI Awards", two for the song "Run" (in 2005), one for being the "College Song of the Year" and "BMI Pop Award", and one for the songs Chasing Cars and Hands Open being performed a combined times in the US (in 2007).' -- 1)Why are the titles of the awards in parenthesis? No need for it. 2)This sentence is just a run on, it needs to be better worded/formatted. I recommend splitting it.--Truco 503 18:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Truco: I have addressed your concerns. I removed the "Shrug" part, ultimately. I feel the lead can do without it. Suede67 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco ₅₀₃ 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Wooo! Thanks Truco! Suede67 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [46].

---

Roberto Clemente Award

Nominator(s):  iMatthew :  Chat  13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Same reason as always. :)  iMatthew :  Chat  13:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I made some copyedits, and everything looks fantastic! Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'The Roberto Clemente Award is given annually to a Major League Baseball (MLB) player selected who best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual's contribution to his team.' -- The bolding of the article name is awkward, Roberto Clemente Award should be the only thing bolded. 'MLB has presented this award, originally known as the Commissioner's Award, since 1971.' -- IMO it would read better as Originally known as the Commissioner's Award, MLB has presented this award since 1971. 'In 1973, the award was renamed after Clemente after he was killed in a plane crash while delivering supplies to victims of the Nicaragua earthquake.' -- A link to plane crash isn't really needed. Is there a link to an article about his specific plane crash? If not, its best to remove that link. 'In the past few years, the player with the highest amount of votes received online via MLB.com gets one vote in addition to the votes cast by the panel' -- Is there a specific time frame, because 'past few years' is a bit WP:WEASEL. In addition, this may sound a bit unnecessary but instead of 'via MLB.com' it would be better to state it as via MLB's official website, MLB.com, 'Since 2000, the winner receives a trophy and $25,000 donation from John Hancock Financial Services (JHFS) that goes to their charity of choice. ' --> Since 2000, the winner has received a trophy and $25,000 donation from John Hancock Financial Services (JHFS) that goes to their charity of choice. The lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list more, ie. First, most recent winners, and any other significant winners. Stats may also be worth mentioning, like who was the first of such and such to win the award, etc. Award winners Add a key explaining the positions Consider linking each year to that year's MLB season? References The ESPN ref should have ESPN.com as the work and the publisher as ESPN Internet Ventures. For the Baseball-reference ref, the publisher is Sports Illustrated LLC, while Baseball-reference is the work.--Truco 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I think I got everything. Let me know if anything else isn't right. Thanks!  iMatthew :  Chat  19:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Well you get my first support since coming back =] Great work on this list that meets WP:WIAFL. You might want to consider, however, splitting this table into tables from the AL and NL since its a bit longer than your other FLC.--Truco 18:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 Sports Reference LLC, not Sports Illustrated "one player out of 30 nominees" - comparables, 1 or thirty "Teams chose their nominee during the regular season" - everything else is in present tense, "chose" should be choose "Now, tThe player with the highest amount of votes" If MLB.com is going to be linked in the Hank Aaron Award, it should be linked here. "the winner has received a trophy and $25,000 donation" - a $25,000 donation "The nominees that don't win" - no contractions Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Think I got everything.  iMatthew :  Chat  15:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The Roberto Clemente Award is given annually to a Major League Baseball (MLB) player selected who best exemplifies...". The "player selected who" part is awkward.
• "the award was renamed after Clemente after...". Don't like two "after"s in three words.
• "out of 30 nominees, one nominee from each club." Remove second "nominee" as redundant.
• Remove space before reference at end of second paragraph.
• Don't think the table should be split because there is only one award for the whole league, as opposed to most other baseball awards. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Got everything, thanks.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 11:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There needs to be a note about where each hidden year link goes to—see Silver Slugger Award. "The Roberto Clemente Award is given annually to a Major League Baseball (MLB) player selected who best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual's contribution to his team." Since this is basically a direct lift from the source, can you use quotes? "The Roberto Clemente Award is given annually to a Major League Baseball (MLB) player selected who "best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement and the individual's contribution to his team". You also need to mention that the awardee is selected through voting. See Silver Slugger Award again as an example for the wording. "Originally known as the Commissioner's Award, MLB has presented this award since 1971." Dangling modifier, sounds as if the MLB was originally known as the Commissioner's Award. "1 player out of 30 nominees"-->1 player from 30 nominees "The player with the highest amount of votes received online via MLB's official website"-->The player who receives the most votes via MLB's official website "The first winner of the award was Willie Mays, while the most recent winner was Albert Pujols. " "while"-->and "The first pitcher to win the award was Phil Niekro in 1980, while the first catcher to win the award was Gary Carter in 1989." Same thing. Also, I'd appreciate it if the inline citations were put in numeric order. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I got most of this, except the second part of bullet 2, and the entire bullet 3. Please help me with those? I don't understand what you mean. Also, I've used that source in other FL's and it's never been a problem. I'd say there is nothing to make it un-reliable.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 11:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC) For bullet 2, do the same thing you did for the Hank Aaron list. I'll rephrase the sentence with the dangling modifier. For the queried source, we need to know the site's fact-checking methods and/or if they are supported by a well-known third-pary institution. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for more information. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.baseball-almanac.com/awards/aw_moy.shtml a reliable source? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• I fixed everything, and got the source removed. I forgot this was still open. Sorry for the late replies!  iMatthew :  Chat  17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [47].

---

Duffy discography

Nominator(s): Dt128 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the discography is well-referenced and definatley a worthwhile candidate to be a featured list. Dt128 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is no (as far as I know) alternative to this link, as it is a certification. Instead, I have placed {{dead link}} on the reference. I realise this is most likely to be unacceptable. Any suggestions? Dt128 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Weak Oppose Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General comment As for the dead link, try using the internet archive to see if an archive of that link is available. Nothing at internet archive Dt128 (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Have you tried searching on their site?--Truco 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Depends what you mean, on the internet archive there is currently no archive of this website Dt128 (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I mean searching on the original site to see if they have that article somewhere else, since some websites change their domains or URLs frequently.--Truco 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Just a note, the BPI no longer publishes its certifications without BPI membership, meaning it is impossible for me to obtain a direct BPI source. Therefore, it has been removed and the ChartsPlus reference has been left. Dt128 17:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Lead 'Duffy range of musical genres incorporates styles such as blue-eyed soul,[1] pop and rock'n'roll.' -- I don't understand, do you mean Duffy's range of musical genres? Also what verifies pop and rock'n'roll since blue-eyed soul is referenced? Done Dt128 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 'Motown is seen as an influence in Duffy's music.' -- 1)This seems out of place because Motown Records is the proper name and if she's signed to it then their isn't really a surprise that it is an influence 2)The quote/ref doesn't really show or say/verify this statement. Removed, I can't really see a way of getting round this Dt128 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Extended play needs to be formatted as extended play (EP) on its first occurrence because the acronym form is used later throughout the prose. Done Dt128 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 'It released by Welsh music label Recordiau Awen Records.' -- Add was before 'released' Done 'The EP became popular within the Welsh community, securing a place at number-one on the "Siart C2" chart.' -- Its a bit POV-ish to say that it became popular in that community by ranking #1 on that chart only, and is that chart even a major chart? I don't really see another way in which Duffy could be proved popular in the Welsh community Dt128 (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Well, how notable is this one chart that you mention in the above statement?--Truco 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Unsure. However, I do know it is a chart that gauges the sales of [up-and-coming?] Welsh artists, in Wales. Dt128 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC) It would be best to remove the part that states that she became popular, because by ranking on one chart it would be biased to say that she became popular.--Truco 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Done Dt128 17:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 'Following on from this release, she was discovered singing Richard J. Parfitt's "Oh Boy".' --> Following this release, she was recognized by singing Richard J. Parfitt's "Oh Boy". Done 'Her performance brought her to the attention of her current manager, Jeanette Lee, of Rough Trade Records.' -- Remove the comma after 'Lee' Done UK should be spelled out as United Kingdom on its first occurrence. Was this done?--Truco 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Wasn't sure if you meant "UK Singles Chart" but yes, the first occurrence of "UK" was changed to United Kingdom 'Her follow-up single, "Mercy" was internationally released, reaching number one on nearly twenty worldwide charts.' -- Comma after the name of the single. Done '"Mercy" was the third biggest selling of 2008 in the UK,[10] after staying at number one on the UK Singles Chart for five weeks.' -- Biggest selling what? In addition, the 'after staying at..' part of the sentence doesn't really connect with the first part, either add a transition or split the sentences. Done 'Her debut album, Rockferry was released on 3rd March 2008, and became the biggest selling album of the year in the UK.' -- 1)Either remove the comma before the album name or add one after the album name. 2)'the year' should be that year Done 'Her follow-up singles, "Warwick Avenue" and "Stepping Stone", did not replicate early success, but still sold well. ' -- Add her before 'early success and reword the last part to although they still sold well. Done 'Her fifth single, "Rain on Your Parade" was released in December 2008.' -- 1)Remove comma before album name or add one after the name 2)What's so notable about this single that you need to mention it in the prose? Done 'Rockferry was the fourth best selling album of 2008 Worldwide, as according to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.' -- 1)Do not capitalize 'Worldwide' 2)Remove the 'as' Done Extended play (notes) 'Aimée Duffy was released under the name of Aimée Duffy,[6][7] Duffy's full name' -- Needs a period and 'full name' should either be real name or birth name Done The other notes also need periods. Done Other appereances 'The following have been officially released, but do not feature on a release by Duffy.' --> The following have been officially released, but are not featured on a release by Duffy. Done References Rolling stone is the work and RealNetworks, Inc. is the publisher. Removed anyway 1)What makes chartstats.com reliable? 2)It should just be Chart Stats in the publisher field. Done - ChartStats.com is used in many, if not most, other FL discographies, see Rihanna discography or Eminem discography for an example. Dt128 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Billboard is the work but Nielsen Business Media, Inc. is the publisher. Done What makes Promo news reliable? No suitable alternative. Dt128 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Was it removed?--Truco 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) No, take a look at this Dt128 (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Well that doesn't really prove anything IMO, but I will let Dabomb have a say on this.--Truco 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC) What makes adriapretty.com reliable? Adriapetty.com is the official website of music video director, Adria Petty, meaning it is unlikely she has lied about the music videos she has filmed. Dt128 (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.--Truco 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 46 is a online store, it shouldn't be used to verify information like the existence of an album or stats of an album. Used allmusic instead Ref 35, why is The Independent in bold letters? (FIXED) --Truco 20:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The discography of Welsh singer-songwriter Duffy " Can you make a note of her real name? Done Dt128 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Aimée Duffy, her debut extended play (EP), was released in 2004, following her success on the Welsh talent show WawFfactor in 2003.[4][5] It was released by Welsh music label Recordiau Awen Records." Can these two sentences be combined? Done Dt128 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "a place at number-one"-->a place at number one Done Dt128 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Following this release, she was recognized by singing Richard J. Parfitt's "Oh Boy"." I don't know what you mean by "recognized". How about "discovered"? Dt128 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) But who "discovered" her? And "discovered" makes me think she was lost. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Following this release, a performance of Richard J. Parfitt's "Oh Boy" brought her to the attention of Duffy's current manager, Jeanette Lee of Rough Trade Records. Dt128 09:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Sounds fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC) "nearly twenty worldwide"-->nearly 20 worldwide Done Dt128 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ""Mercy" was the third biggest selling single of 2008 in the United Kingdom."-->"Mercy" was the third-best-selling single of 2008 in the United Kingdom. Done Dt128 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "3rd March 2008" No ordinals. Done Dt128 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Her debut album Rockferry," --> Duffy's debut album Rockferry, Done Dt128 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "fourth best selling album "--fourth-best-selling album Done Dt128 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "The album went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album at the 51st Annual Grammy Awards, which were presented 8 February 2009."-->The album won the Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Album at the 51st Annual Grammy Awards, presented on 8 February 2009. Done Dt128 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Radio 1's Live Lounge - Volume 3" Should be an en dash (–). Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Live From London was released exclusively to the iTunes Store." What is the source for this? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Done Dt128 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• No need to spell out MTV, as it's better known in its short form.
  • Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Italicize all publications (books, magazines, newspapers, journals). Example: "New Musical Express".
  • Done Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• What makes [48] reliable?
  • Official website of the Warchild series, this source lists Duffy as recording the song for the specific album. Dt128 17:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Likewise for [49]?
  • Replaced with PromoNews reference. Dt128 17:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• The dead link still needs to be resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a note, the BPI no longer publishes its certifications without BPI membership, meaning it is impossible for me to obtain a direct BPI source. Therefore, it has been removed and the ChartsPlus reference has been left. Dt128 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• What makes ChartStats reliable? Usage in another discography FL does not mean it is reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Unsure, however, I have found that all chart positions listed correspond with those listed at aCharts and the like. The problem is, this is one of the very few UK chart archive websites. However, it is listed as a reliable archive site at the Wikipedia chart sourcing guide. Dt128 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll let it go for now. Not striking though. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Looks good! All my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Drewcifer

Comments I have to admit, I'm getting a little tired of these barely-big-enough-to-warrant-their-own-page FLCs, but that said I won't hold it against you. Overall, the discog looks pretty good. I only have a few comments and concerns: Featured lists don't usually start as "The discography of", as it is a boring and uninspired lead-in. Take a look at some other FLs for examples of how to reword a little better. Done. Dt128 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Abbreviating "Danish" as "DK" is a little confusing to the average English-speaking reader (such as myself), and the fact that it is linked to Tracklisten doesn't help. Most discogs abbreviate Danish as simply "DAN", which more closely resembles the English word for stuff that is from Denmark, rather then how the Danish themselves put it. Along those same lines, we usually default to three-letter abbreviations. I'd also suggest changing "NET" to "NLD" "U.S." to "US", and "IRE" to "IRL", just to be clearer and more consistent with past FLs. DK --> DEN, NET --> NLD, IRE --> IRL Dt128 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Put a line break in the second Danish column. Done. Dt128 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) "Rockferry - Deluxe Edition" should use an en-dash (–) not a hyphen. Done. Dt128 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The first external link would benefit from something like "official website", rather than just her name. Done. Dt128 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Reference #14 isn't published by Grammy.com, but whatever organizing body is behind the Grammys. Done. Dt128 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The US column in the first tbale doesn't need two references, since there's only one fact that's being referenced anyways. Done. Dt128 08:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Same with the second table, actually. Done. Dt128 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC) It looks like the whole Singles table uses a smaller font. I don't think this is necessary, since there's alot of horizontal space that's being wasted anyways. Messing around with the column widths a bit should help free up some space for normal-sized font. Unsure what is meant here? Dt128 08:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, I think I was seeing things. Looks fine. Drewcifer (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The list is also inconsistent with the abbreviation of the United States. I see it spelled as "U.S.", "US", and "USA". For consistency with the other country abbreviations, and other FL discogs, I'd recommend sticking with "US". Done. You don't need to wikilink the RIAA in the singles table, as it's already linked in the albums table. Same with Polydor in the "Live from London" cell. Done. Dt128 20:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Drewcifer (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC) That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments Hi!

Resolved comments from Kiac

Minor thing: Abbreviations in the 'publisher' field should be extended; BBC → British Broadcasting Corporation, MTV → Music Television. BBC --> British Broadcasting Corporation. There was previously a point made as to whether MTV should be Music Television, and it was decided it schould remain as MTV. Dt128 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC) If that's due to the rationale proposed above, then that's a tad hyprocritical. RIAA, ARIA and RIANZ are all better known than their extensions as well. Nevertheless, no big deal. Stating her full name is not really required here since this is a list about the artist's releases, not her. Perhaps change the lead to just: "The [[discography]] of [[Duffy (singer)|Duffy]], a Welsh singer-songwriter, who has released..." Then in the last sentence, "She has also released one extended play using her birth name, Aimée Duffy." Done Dt128 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Is it really necessary for that first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead? A discography's lead should be concentrating on its content, not the genre of the artist. I think its necessary because it is giving a brief description of the subject/page in question. If you look at many FL discographies (see Rihanna discography for an example) you will notice that many have this "genre" sentence". Fair enough, it does establish the topic more precisely I guess. Three separate citations for the minor release of an EP on a Welsh record label? Not really required. One ref removed. Dt128 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC) The EP was well-received within the Welsh community, securing a place at number one on the "Siart C2" chart. - am I missing where this is referenced because I am not seeing anything? How is this chart verifiable and reliable for inclusion? (eg. Who publishes it, how are they reliable, etc). Also, the name of a chart should not have quotations around it. Thats because the only reference I could find was here. This is a persistent problem that has cropped up a few times. I'm considering removing the sentence all together. Yes, remove it. You have international publications that have reported on the EP, its appearance on a (possibly?) minor chart in Ireland that cannot be verified shouldn't need to be included. Removed. reaching number one on nearly 20 worldwide charts - "Worldwide charts" indicates charts which record international sales, there is not one of these, it's wrongly worded. You were obviously indicating it was 20 different countries' charts, but you only have four countries in the table that have it at number one. Where are the other 16 referenced? Her follow-up single, "Mercy", was internationally released, charting inside the top ten on 15 international singles charts, as well as reaching number one on eight of these.[10] Just a thought, you could also have used one of the Ultratop links. Added. [[Mercy]] → [[Mercy (song)|Mercy]] Done. Dt128 18:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC) UK Singles Chart is wikilinked twice within three sentences, remove the second wikilink. Done (Firefox just crashed on me, but thank god for its restore feature!) ) the [[ International → the [[International Done. Is the Grammy Award really appropriate? The "presented on "8 Feb" part definitely isn't. Removed the "presented" part. In my opinion, the grammy award helps illustrate the subject. Note in general: With the Template:Cite web, it is generally encouraged that you use the 2009-06-07 method for "accessdate", rather than typing out the date in actual words. Not that I am telling you to go through and change 50-odd references. I apologise if I have just reiterated other points reviewers have made. Keep up the good work Dt, I know from experience how frustrating these FLCs can be! k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Extra comments, back for more. The Citation numbers in the tables look disarmingly small and hard to read, for me at least. Perhaps look at some other discographies for different coding styles, which may be more reader-friendly. Could just be me of course, but it is unusually small. Are the abundance of invis tags (<!-- LEAVE AS — -->, <!-- LEAVE CERTIFICATIONS HERE SEE Rihanna discography FOR AN EXAMPLE -->) really necessary for a FL candidate? This, to me, indicates that the list is violating FL criteria 6: Stability. If this is not the case, then they should be removed. At one point, this was necessary. It is no longer. Removed all but one for each table. Consider adding Rs discog as a general ref, not just an External Link. And also this official website link as a gen ref. And Musicbrainz as an external link]. Added music brainz as external, and Duffy's website as general ref. AOL → America Online Done. That is all. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 14:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• did not replicate her early success, although they still sold well. - What says they sold well? Use some examples from the sources you have, eg. "although they still sold well, as "Warwick Avenue" entered the top ten in Denmark, Netherlands and the UK."
  • working on this.
    • How about Her follow-up singles, "Warwick Avenue" and "Stepping Stone", did not replicate her early success, although they still sold well, for example "Warwick Avenue" charted at number 3 on the UK Singles Chart.[14]

• Mainly seeking clarification from other reviewers here, what is the situation with the Dutch Singles Chart? There was a brief explanation at WP:Record Charts, saying that we should be using the Top 40 as opposed to the Top 100.
  • Unclear on this.
    • This just seems to be a trivial issue. Technically the Top 40 Singles Chart should be used, unless the song didn't chart in the Top 40 - which would mean you should use the Top 100. They are derived from different methods, apparently the Top 40 is more notable. You could also use acharts, compare the acharts and dutchcharts.nl peaks to see what I mean.
      • Duffy has charted higher on the Top 40 chart, however I am unsure whether the chart positions/refs should be changed?

k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 04:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:34, 13 June 2009 [50].

---

List of Medal of Honor recipients (Veracruz)

Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it appears to meet all FL criteria, is a complete list and is well formatted. Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"This is a list of United States military personnel who received the Medal of Honor for their actions during the United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914." Featured lists don't start like this any more, see recently promoted lists for examples of more engaging starts. Also, why is the date linked? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the date link but I am not sure what you want me to do for the title. If you have some suggestions for a better title please let me know.--Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See List of Hispanic Medal of Honor recipients—it's not a featured list but is still a good example. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

See it for the title or the format?--Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been clear: I've been referring to the first sentence of the lead. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I expanded the beginning a bit.--Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - title of the article is a bit long, just wonder if there is a way to shorten it.—Chris! _ct 01:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree and if you have any suggestions I am open.--Kumioko (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about it and what if I say something like "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)".--Kumioko (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the title is fine personally, but if you want to shorten it, consider this:

• Did the US occupy Veracruz more than once? If not, you can remove the year.
• Has anyone other than the US occupied Veracruz? If not, you can remove United States.

Just some things to consider. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure of anyone else occupied it but I think the US was only there once.--Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the United States occupied Veracruz in the Mexican-American War, and aside from the Spanish, the United States, and Mexico, the French occupied Veracruz in the French intervention in Mexico. mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know.--Kumioko (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Captain is a disambiguation link; please fix it. There is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed captain and a couple other ranks, I also fixed a broken link in the references section and cleanup some dates. Not sure about the broken link in the toolbox. I clicked them all and they all seem to work for me.--Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - a few points that stand out:

• Both Veracruz and Vera Cruz are used in the article. Please choose one and use consistantly throughout.

Done, I chose Vera Cruz.--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you chose Vera Cruz, shouldn't the article be moved to List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz? mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 22:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We can if everyone thinks thats best. Its ok with me either way.--Kumioko (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is "Vera Cruz" the article should be renamed List of Medal of Honor recipients for the 1914 United States occupation of Vera Cruz. Same with "Veracruz". Point. Blank. Period. Any other way, all uniformity is thrown out. mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 00:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats cool with me, if thats what it takes to get this to featured status. It's a en second change, just tell me what the consensus is and I'll make the change.--Kumioko (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Endashes (–) should be used in the Date of action column rather than "to".

Done--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• Were any of the awards posthumous? If so, this should be signified in the columns in a simular mannor to that in List of Medal of Honor recipients for the Battle of Iwo Jima.

No--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• The two images in the "Medal of Honor" section do not go well with the section and create quite a bit of white space. I suggest they be moved or removed from the article.

I removed them.--Kumioko (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The incident came in the midst of poor diplomatic relations"-->The incident occurred in the midst of poor diplomatic relations Done. --Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) A little background on what the Tampico Affair would be helpful. "In response to the Tampico Affair" This phrase is repeated twice. Can we change it up a little? Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "fifty-six Medals of Honor "-->56 Medals of Honor Done.--Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "In total 63 Medals of Honor were received for actions during the occupation," Use a colon instead of a comma. Done.--Kumioko (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I'd rather that the stand-alone section about the Medal of Honor be merged into the third paragraph or inserted before it. I am ok with doing this however this was done in the same way as the other Medal of Honor lists that already are featured so I would like to keep it consistant with the other articles. If I have to change it thats ok but if I do I would also change the others as well.--Kumioko (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I think the others need to be changed too. I think moving the paragraphs will improve flow. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I moved it and reworded some things slightly so it would flow better.--Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The images need to be checked by a third party. For example, File:Badger OscarC2 USN cropped.jpg: There is no proof that a US government or military official took that picture. When you say proof, what do you count as proof? Is simply finding it on a government website enough or do you need more proof than that. If necessary I will remove that image until proof can be determined.--Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC) We need more proof. The fact that the government uses it isn't a guarantee that it can be used; we don't know who actually took the picture. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) There needs to be spaces on both sides of the dashes in the date ranges. Done--Kumioko (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I'd appreciate it if the middle five cells were centered. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Could you explain this a little more please I don'tunderstand.--Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "in a daring and dangerous night landing in 1914" This doesn't quite sound encyclopedic. Are you sure it's not quoted material? "Veracruz Mexico"-->Veracruz, Mexico Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'd go with "List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz)", MOH tells you it's a US thing, not someother country, and dates of actions will tell you when. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In regards to changing the name of the Article I changed it to List of Medal of Honor recipients (Vera Cruz). I also changed the link to the article from the List of Medal of Honor recipients article and the link in the Medal of Honor template.--Kumioko (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose with comments
  • I prefer linking Vera Cruz first time, rather than the second time in the lead.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Quick search (and some comments above) reveal this Wikipedia actually calls the place Veracruz - not sure which is "more" correct but would prefer to see this list use whichever one is...

Done. I do not know either however I changed all to be a standard Vera Cruz.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • The table is sortable so I would link all instances of things you have linked because there is no guarantee that the first instance will be the linked one.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Link Josephus Daniels.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "In total 63 Medals of Honor were received for actions during the occupation; 1 Army, 9 to members..." reads strangely and perhaps needs to be fixed in your other lists - "received" and "to" here. Perhaps "received" and "by" or "presented" and "to".... do you see what I'm trying to poorly explain?!
  • Why is "(Medal presented...)" in parentheses? It is a note, after all.
• Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I know it's linked but no explanation as to what USMC means.

Done, Changed to Marine Corps.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This came up before in another article also. I can chaneg this however WP states that common abbreviations are ok (although I cannot remember where) and I would argue that just about anyone anywhere in the world would know what USMC means. I have been to countries where all they could say in english was American USMC or American Marines. If thats what it takes to pass it though I could change it to something like U.S. Marines. Would that be acceptable?--Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "April 22, 1914" under "Date of action" vs "22 April 1914" in notes. Occurs more than once - I'm not bothered on the format you choose, just be consistent.

Done.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I can change the date in the notes however most of the notes are the actual verbatim citation and I hesitate in changing it. Would it be more appropriate to put it in quotes?--Kumioko (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "leading 3 picket launches" - three, and what is a picket launch?

Done. I reworded this.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "of the 22d and " 22d?
  • Not sure the repetition of Vera Cruz, Mexico is required on every single line. Perhaps the col is needed for the topic to remain consistent but maybe just lose the Mexico each time?

Done. I left it as Vera Cruz, Mexico but I linked all of them.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • " 21-22 April" - en dash required.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Moffett's entry contains "Vera Cruz" three times and "Mexico" twice - overkill?
  • "Vera Cruz 21 and 22 April 1914." no comma, "Vera Cruz, 21 and 22 April 1914." comma... consistency?
  • "Vera Cruz Mexico" comma?
  • "...of the USS Florida's landing..." shouldn't that Florida be in italics?

Done. I also italicized several other ship names as well.--Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "Bio Citation" - can we make these references using {{cite web}} please?

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "On board the USS Florida, for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession during the seizure of Vera Cruz, Mexico, 21 Ap

ril 1914." - odd carriage return in there, and same comment about italics on the ship... check others if need be.

Done. --Kumioko (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "One of five pairs of brothers to have both won the Medal of Honor." minor point but probably needs a specific reference.
• The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I also changed some other things such as reowrding some of the notes slightly, removing the periods from none full sentences in the comments and some other minor edits.--Kumioko (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I started adding "align=left|" to the notes column, see my sample edit; please finish that up. Is this material copied directly from the MOH citation? If so, it needs to be in quotes. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed them although I still don't agree with centering all the data in the table. I think it looks ugly and is the reason we have to make this kind of change. I will check on the notes but I think most of them are reworded abbreviations of the citation. --Kumioko (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you can remove the centering if you want. I'm not going to force that on you :) Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if we need to have it ok I just don't like it (it displays the data poorly on my monitor and makes it look messy) and it seems counter-construcive to center the table and then have to go back and align certain things to the left because of it. I am also concerned that the more additional formatting we include the less likely it is for non expereinced editors to make changes without breaking it. The required formatting is confusing enough without adding more. Not trying to be argumentative here its just a perception that I have.--Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Please remove it; I wouldn't want your display to be messed up because of a stylistic issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I removed the alignment formatting and I went through the notes and put anything that needed it in quotes.--Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a comment: Overall, the list presents a comprehensive view of the topic at hand, while supplying an equally good description of those awarded the award down in the table. Regardless of my support, I believe you should add a very brief description of the Tampico Affair into the lead, instead of just a link to the article itself. Hello32020 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment if the Wikipedia article for this location is Veracruz, shouldn't the title here be fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also update the medal of honor recipients template--Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 20:38, 9 June 2009 [51].

---

List of U.S. state and territory mottos

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a whole lot of work on this list a while back and had two peer reviews, but then didn't bother to nominate it. I think it is fully referenced and accurate and ready for FL. I know I've got all the mottos, but, as explained in the article, the years are more difficult. Some states have made the motto official, but for others it's just part of the seal, complicating things. Anyway, lots of researching states' dissimilar websites led to what it is now. Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I hope to eventually work on List of national mottos. Do think it would be acceptable to not have the year? US states were okay, but finding some of them was tough enough. Years of adoption (or even no official adoption) of a motto or seal of countries with other languages, bad websites, etc. could be impossible to find. Reywas92^Talk 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - After reviewing this at peer review and making some fixes, I think it fulfills all criteria - though I think empty cells in translation column should have emdashes also to ensure consistency—Chris! _ct 02:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried the dashes and they don't look too bad, so I kept them. Reywas92^Talk 02:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - well done. Looked hard for some improvement that could be made, came up empty. Geraldk (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Check the toolbox, there is one dab link.
• "All of the United States' 50 states have a state motto, " You link "United States" and then "U.S. state" soon after. Why not ditch the link to the United States, since U.S. state has a direct link to United States anyway?
• "State mottos can often be found on state seals or state flags" "often" is subjective. Maybe "sometimes"?
• "which was proclaimed by Congress and signed into law by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on July 30, 1956."
• "which do not have any mottos, official or unofficial." Ditch the last three words. No mottos means no mottos.
• "most used languages"-->most-used languages
• "which was granted"
• The images need a licensing check; for example File:Arizonastateseal.jpg has an obsolete tag.
• I'd prefer if the em dashes were centered. It looks better and makes them more noticeable.
• Notes 3 and 13 need refs. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • All done except the dashes and 13. I'd rather they be less noticeable, and everything else is also left-aligned. I can't find a ref that explicitly says that Washington's is the only one not official, but it make sense since all others are. I could just link to the ref used in the table[52] just like all the other notes.
    • The dab link hasn't been addressed either. If you can't find a more specific link, you might as well just delink it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, got it. I had Eureka (word) correctly linked in one place, but didn't notice the Eureka link in another.

Sources

• What makes http://www.netstate.com/states/mottoes/ok_motto.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it is a great informative site. It cites its sources and has all important information. The only reason I'm using it is because the book and the state site have nothing regarding the dates. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, a site being informative doesn't necessarily make it reliable. I think I questioned this site during the peer review, too.—Chris! _ct 04:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Then I don't have a source for the original year. I have searched and searched but can't find anything.
        • Print sources too? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I've added some other refs, though it wasn't the type I was looking for. Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/emblems/flag.htm (ref 44) deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/emblems/flag.htm worked just fine for me. Try again, maybe that site was having errors. Reywas92^Talk 17:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep, it works now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support but I would prefer

Only six states and territories use another language, of which each language is only used once.

having those six languages listed. Also, please change "Date" to something like "Year chosen" or something more specific. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to list all six more languages because that just repeats the table further. The Rambling Man changed it from Year to Date because often more than just the year is given. Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 20:38, 9 June 2009 [53].

---

List of Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating List of Grade I listed buildings in Sedgemoor for featured list status because I feel it meets all the FL criteria. It follows the format of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in Taunton Deane. — Rod ^talk 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "low lying area"-->low-lying area Done "World's" Why the capitalization? Changed "Castle Street was built on the site of the demolished Bridgwater Castle, in 1834,"-->In 1834, Castle Street was built on the site of the demolished Bridgwater Castle Changed "Outside of the town of Bridgwater the largest concentration of Grade I listed buildings" Comma after "Bridgwater", delete the "of" after "outside". Done "are in the village of Cannington where the 12th century Cannington Court[18] and 14th century Church of St Mary[19] were both associated with a Benedictine nunnery."-->are in the village of Cannington, where the 12th-century Cannington Court[18] and 14th-century Church of St Mary[19] were both associated with a Benedictine nunnery. I'm not sure about this one. Should centuries be hyphenated? I've used them in FLs & FAs without the hyphens without having this query. Checking Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) the examples given in Longer periods -> Centuries and millennia do not include hyphens. May I comment? MoS on hyphens ... 13th-century X ... the century is a double adjective qualifying X, so should normally be hyphenated. But "in the 13th century, Europe was in the ..."—"13th" is the adjective, "century" is the noun. The hyphen makes the reading just so slightly easier when a double adjective is involved. US editors would insert it, even though AmEng uses fewer hyphens than UK/Austr./Sth Afr. English. Tony (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. I'm not going to claim I understand but hope I've done this hyphenating centuries in the lede, but not in the list - is it now correct? As an aside would it be useful to amend the MOS page I referred to to explain this?— Rod talk 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC) "Cannington is also the site of the 13th century Gurney Manor"-->Cannington is also the site of the 13th-century Gurney Manor See above "Blackmoor Farmhouse which was built around 1480 with its own chapel."-->Blackmoor Farmhouse, which was built around 1480 with its own chapel. Done "Norman or medieval era churches"-->Norman or medieval-era churches (you may need to add a hanging hyphen after "Norman" depending on whether you meant to say "Norman-era"); also, add a comma after this phrase. Done "The most recent building is the Corn Exchange in Bridgwater which was built in 1834."-->The most recent building is the Corn Exchange in Bridgwater, built in 1834. Done Several of the footnotes require references, for example "The entry for Castle Street, Bridgwater includes Numbers 1-14 and number 16 and their attached walls and outbuildings. Number 10 is now home to Bridgwater Arts Centre.", which also has a typo and needs an en dash. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I'm having problems here - I can't see the typo or need for en dash & when I add refs to the notes I get an error telling me they need a closing "/" when they are already properly formatted - this may be because they are already within<ref group="note">***</ref> tags. I will investigate the referencing in footnotes issues further but would appreciate help. En dashes for ranges: WP:MOSDASH. Tony (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks now got the typo & I hope I've done the right dashes.— Rod talk 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Response Thanks for your comments, I've accepted & changed several but am unsure on hyphens in centuries & can't get the refs to work properly in notes as described above.— Rod talk 20:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Refs in Notes - this appears to be a known bug see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Known_bugs. The workaround seems to involve #tag magic word, but I can't get this to display them properly at present.— Rod talk 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC) More Refs in Notes - I've tried a workaround & added it to Castle Street but I think it it makes note 3 look bloated & messy - what do others think?— Rod talk 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) General There is one dead link to a ref, see the toolbox at to the right. This link seems to have disappeared - I've used a ref from New Scientist which says oldest in Europe rather than oldest in the world.— Rod talk 16:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Lead 'In 1834 Castle Street was built on the site of the demolished Bridgwater Castle, as homes for the merchants trading in the town's port.' -- Comma after 1834 'Outside the town of Bridgwater, the largest concentration of Grade I listed buildings are in the village of Cannington where the 12th-century Cannington Court[18] and 14th-century Church of St Mary[19] were both associated with a Benedictine nunnery.' -- Comma after Cannington 'The most recent building is the Corn Exchange in Bridgwater, built in 1834.' -- What do you mean by 'most recent', the most recent to be listed? Images The first image caption needs a period to separate the two sentences.--Truco 16:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Response. Thanks all changed I assume you mean 2nd pic caption?— Rod talk 16:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 03:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support appears good to be a FL. Nergaal (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 20:38, 9 June 2009 [54].

---

List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty

Nominator(s): Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets all the FL criteria and it is the final piece to the puzzle in passing my Han Dynasty featured topic! Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments leanning for support but:

• the intro should contain some mention of the more notable emperors (longest reign? founders? etc)
• it would be nice if there was some sort of a link to help readers with the Chinese characters (something like the pronounciation column in this list).
• try using more noticeable colors for the breaks in the table (darker grey?)
• most of the current monarch lists have some columns with some small pictures. I know that most of the current entries don't have any pictures at all, but try adding some for the ones that do have.

Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nergaal. I like your first suggestion very much, so I added a new paragraph to the intro. This should be sufficient. As for helping readers with pronunciation, I am no linguist, so I don't even know where to begin. Wouldn't I need proper citations for that sort of thing, too? It could be considered original research if I don't provide a source which outlines the proper way to pronounce, although it may be common sense given that the Hanyu Pinyin tones are available in the Latin-based translations. As for the colors for breaks, I am no expert with tables. Could you show me how to choose a better grey and where I should put it? Also, there are no pictures of Han emperors. I repeat: none. Han artists did not make any artistic renditions of Han emperors that I am aware of. Professional portrait painting did not exist in China until the 6th century; painted artwork of tomb murals that have survived from Han usually just show people riding in chariots, eating at banquets, hunting and performing archery, and other general scenes. It is rare to ever confirm who the paintings actually portray. Three-dimensional art of statues and the like were also never used to portray Han emperors; they almost always portray nameless servants, soldiers, officials, commoners, mythical animals and beasts. Sometimes devotional statues were made to honor sages and philosophers of the past, but these statues were often carved hundreds of years after said persons lived. There's no point in adding any more pictures.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the break more noticeable.—Chris! _ct 22:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I find it a bit overzealous to have references like "

Bo Yang (1977), 467–468. ^ Bo Yang (1977), 468. ^ Bo Yang (1977), 468–470. ^ Bo Yang (1977), 470–471." Is it really necessary to get 100+ notes by doing this? Other users might think differently, but wouldn't it be enough to merge all the notes by say chapters? Nergaal (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't own the book and I did not use it either. I asked User:Nlu for help on this, since he has access to Bo Yang's book. I can't single out the book chapters which have said page ranges. I could ask him to include the book chapters used instead of page numbers, but personally I think it is better to be precise. You don't want people bugging you later about which exact pages were used, and then tagging the article with a bunch of "page # needed" tags. I've seen this dozens of times on Wiki and it is not pretty.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It looks good for a FL. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for reviewing the List article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• CORRECTION: I have a correction to make (reading into several sources). Although portrait painting as an art did not flourish until the 6th century in China, portrait paintings of emperors did exist during Han, although the originals are lost. For example, Anthony Barbieri-Low, in his book Artisans in Early Imperial China (2007), says that the Han scholar Cai Yong provided eulogies and painted portraits for five generations of the Yang clan, which produced many prominent military officers and civilian officials. Before Cai Yong's combination of writing the eulogy and painting the portraits himself, it was always the lowly artisans who painted the portraits (no wonder their work does not survive!), while the distinguished scholar-officials wrote the poetic eulogies. According to Rafe de Crespigny in his Biographical Dictionary of Eastern Han (2007), there was also a 'Cloud Terrace' built in the capital Luoyang which housed portraits of the emperors and their assistants.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - some more images would be good, but as so few Emperors have images of them I think that to add them to the table would be disruptive, maybe add some higher up in the text? rst20xx (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, dude, there are no contemporary images of these emperors. There are some paintings of them done several hundreds of years later, as well as some woodblock print illustrations of them in books of the Ming Dynasty. But no, there are no Han-era depictions of these emperors. We have no way of knowing how they truly looked, and I find much later depictions of them kind of irrelevant, since the artist couldn't possibly know how they looked either. However, since both of you are now instisting that a picture should be placed somewhere, I added a much later portrait painting of Emperor Guangwu by the Tang artist Yan Liben (lived 600–673 AD).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise that the portraits are from later on but still think it's a good idea to include a few - rst20xx (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I added another picture. However, the article's prose size isn't very large; wouldn't adding a bunch of pictures push the images down far enough to mess with and overlap with the table below?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Jappalang over at Wikimedia Commons has identified a major problem with File:HanZhaoDiLiuFuling.jpg, which I have removed from this article until the issue can be resolved. According to one scholar, Chen Baozhen, the painting supposedly represents Emperor Zhao of Han. However, since the caption provided is possibly an interpolation by later scholars after Yan Liben died and the painting itself is of a middle aged man, not a twenty-some year old like Emperor Zhao (who died as a young man), it could even be Wang Mang! Paludan notes that it is Emperor Guangwu, but her book, published by a commercial publisher and not a credible university press, is peppered with factual errors which throws much of her material and assertions into question. Therefore I am keeping one image which Paludan most likely mistakenly captions as Emperor Wen, when in reality it is Emperor Guangwu. Unfortunately, the website for the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, where the scroll is physically located, is not of much help as they do not provide adequate descriptions for the emperors in the scroll (at least on their website).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I think this is an excellent list, and extraordinarily well-referenced. My two cents on the images discussion - if it would be historically misleading to show images of emperors by later artists who have no idea what the emperor looked like, and I think it would, then I would focus the images on things related to the emperors, for example palaces, capitol cities, any existing works of art that may have been associated with the emperors or their reigns (I know this is later than the Shang, but an example from that time period that comes to mind would be oracles bones). Geraldk (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny enough, the Han court still used oracle bones, but even then plastromancy was considered an archaic practice. Michael Loewe (1994) says that oracle bones dated to the Han are very, very rare, since the use of oracle bones during Han was very, very rare. Nevertheless, I'll try to find another picture that is suitable to the topic of Han-era emperors of China.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have found a suitable replacement indeed. Have a look!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! And you've taught a number of new things about the Han. Gotta love wikipedia. Geraldk (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm glad you're satisfied with the picture and caption.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I read the article and the prose seems very good. One final ask: Is it possible to list the regents somewhere? I realise this may be difficult to do, in that it may often be unknown/ambiguous as to who the regent was at any particular time, if there even was one, but as they were the de facto rulers they are very important, and with this list at only 30k there's plenty of room to add them in - rst20xx (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...wouldn't that alter the original purpose of this article? In other words, wouldn't this article's title have to be changed to something wordy like "List of Emperors and Regents of the Han Dynasty" in order to include regents?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I guess it depends on how many regents there, which I have no idea about; if there aren't that many at all then probably not but if there are quite a lot then you're right. My thought process was more along the lines of that that information deserves to be listed somewhere and that this is probably the best place for it given the current article structure. I'm not going to oppose over it or anything so don't worry about it too much but if there's something you can do then that would be great - rst20xx (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we know which empresses dowager and their relatives held power over very young emperors, but there wasn't always a very young emperor on the throne. In the prose text, I could mention the most prominent case of an empress dowager's male relative regent, Huo Guang, who unofficially reigned in a brief triumvirate with Jin Midi and Shangguan Jie before assuming total power as the sole regent. For all the empresses dowager that were regents, I will simply include two more links in the "further information" template at the top of that section on regents. Plus, the History of the Han Dynasty article linked there already explains who the regents were. This allows readers to search elsewhere in more relevant articles about regents.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK that's good enough for me, thanks - rst20xx (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I feel my concerns have been addressed sufficiently, and hence am now happy to endorse, very well done - rst20xx (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I'm glad that I have addressed all of your concerns. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I made some minor fixes, but it is a really nice list, good work.—Chris! _ct 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article! And for fixing a few things in the process. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support

• I think it would be worth noting somewhere that the years indicated in the table do not correspond exactly to those of the Western calendar. For example, the first year of the Jianwuzhongyuan era of Guangwu went from May 4, 56 to February 22, 57 AD (see this date conversion site). I don't mean we should give the exact dates all the time: just make clear at the beginning of the table that these are approximate dates.
• The Yuanshi era of Pingdi is currently said to start on 1 BC. I think it should be 1 AD. Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao 中国历代年号考 (a work on era names) supports this (the date converter I just cited also agrees). Could someone check out Bo Yang's book? If Bo Yang is already saying 1 AD, all we need is to correct the table, not the footnote.
• Because most sovereigns started a reign period at the beginning of a new lunar year, we have dates like 28-25 followed by 24-21 and 20-17 without overlap. But I also notice that some years do overlap. For example the year 61 BC was part of both the Yuankang reign and the following Shenjue period. Can this issue be clarified? If necessary, I will provide the necessary info from Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao 中国历代年号考, which indicates the (lunar) months in which some reign periods were changed in the course of a year. If we don't want to burden the table, we can explain at the beginning of the table that a few era names were adopted without waiting for the first month of the following year. A general indication at the beginning of the table would also take care of the following problem.
• The only place where months are mentioned right now is in the very last reigns of the Western Han, where they are mistakenly indicated as "October," "November," and "December" of AD 8. They should actually be 10th month of Jushe and 11th and 12th months of Chushi: these months do NOT correspond to Oct.-Dec. of AD 8. For example, the 11th month of Chushi went from December 17, AD 8 to January 14, AD 9. The date we give for the reign of Ruzi (6-9 AD) actually takes this into account already. Now if we don't correct these months, we'll have inaccuracies ("Oct.-Dec."), but if we do we'll have misleading and cumbersome entries like "Chushi: Dec. 17, AD 8 - Jan. 14, AD 9" that break with the style of the rest of the table, where specific months are not mentioned anyway.
• So my suggestions to take care of these minor problems are: 1. indicate (just before the beginning of the table) that the years of the Chinese calendar are lunar-solar years that do not correspond exactly to the years given in the table; 2. also at the beginning, explain that some years (e.g.: AD 143, 74, 61, etc.) are counted in two reign periods because some new era names were adopted in the course of those years instead of waiting for the beginning of the following year as was customary; 3. remove mentions of "Oct.-Dec." in Ruzi's reign because explanation 2 would already take care of it; if necessary, mention in a footnote that Wang Mang took over in the 12th month of Chushi, sometime in January or February of AD 9.

If these minor concerns are addressed, I will gladly support the current nomination. Good job, PoA! Madalibi (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have followed your suggestions except for one: instead of making a note in the table, I have created a new "note" link in a relevant spot located in the introduction of the article, which redirects readers to a "notes" section just above "footnotes". User:Nlu used Bo Yang's source to cite the date ranges for era names, but I can check back with him to verify the exact date ranges if necessary. Also, feel free to cite Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao (中国历代年号考) in the article where necessary.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Nlu responded on his talk page yesterday to my request, but he said to wait until tonight for any help. He must have been busy. In the meantime, feel free to cite Zhongguo lidai nianhao kao (中国历代年号考).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The new note sounds useful. Thank you! Now I don't know how readers will approach this List, but I assume that many will skip the intro and jump straight to the table itself. This is why readers will be more likely to notice the new note if it's located near the beginning of the table than if it's in the lead paragraph. (More below at the end of the next point.)
• To turn to the content of the note itself, I have a problem with the first sentence: "The naming convention that should be used for the table is "Han" + posthumous name, excepting Liu Gong, Liu Hong, Ruzi Ying, the Prince of Changyi, the Marquess of Beixiang, and the Prince of Hongnong." I can figure out what this means because I know some Han history and I know that these guys, for various historical reasons, didn't have a posthumous imperial title, but I doubt non-initiated readers will understand all this just by reading that sentence. Also, saying "the naming convention that should be used" sounds like you're finding fault with the current table. Readers may just ask: if this is the form that "should be used," why not just use it? You could say something like this instead: "the conventional way of referring to these rulers in Chinese is "Han + posthumous name" (for instance "Han Wudi," "Han Jingdi")." The examples and the mention of Chinese conventions would make the sentence much clearer. You could then explain why some rulers included in the list reigned as emperors, yet did not have such a title because they were overthrown by usurpers, died young, etc. The note would become longer and should probably be split. I think the part on the conventional way of referring to emperors could be included on top of the column on "posthumous names" in the Table itself. The explanations on the lunisolar calendar and the overlap of some years over two reign eras should appear next to "Range of years" in the table too. This is where they will be most relevant and most likely to be noticed.
• And one more thing: what about adding a brief explanation of the functions of the Han emperor, as in the List of American presidents, which explains the presidency in some detail? You already have an explanation of naming conventions (including the term "huangdi" itself), but very little about what emperors did, how they were selected, how many of them there were, etc. The lead paragraph would look more substantial (and arguably more interesting) if you borrowed some content from Government of the Han Dynasty to flesh it out. What do you think?

Madalibi (talk) 02:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm game; I like your suggestions. When I made that note last night I was really tired, about to go to bed, and very congested (I have a really bad cold right now), so I didn't put too much thought into the note. Let me see what I can do now.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It's done. I moved the info about "Han + posthumous name" into the table where it can be seen at the top. As for the discrepancy about date ranges for era names, I moved that note from the intro to the right of the label "era names" at the top of the table. As for expanding the prose text info on the emperor, I will get right on it.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on the emperor's various functions as a supreme head of government is finished and moved to the introduction of the article. Everything good?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, everything is now clear and good! I have changed my assessment to "Support" accordingly. Good job! Madalibi (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for reviewing the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Latin abbreviations (such as "c." and "r.") should be italicized. "regent" needs to be linked on first appearance. "fifty-four years."-->54 years (per WP:MOSNUM) "The last Han emperor, Emperor Xian (r. 189–220 AD), was more or less a puppet monarch of Chancellor Cao Cao (155–220 AD), who dominated the court and was made King of Wei. " I'd like an inline citation, namely for the puppet monarch bit. "His also functioned as a lawgiver" "He"? "and high priest of the state-sponsored religious cults." Why do you link to a Song Dynasty article? "on average 60 cm (24 in) in height" Spell out the primary unit on first appearance. "title of 'emperor' " Double quotes per some MOS page. (multiple occurences) "which were first used during the reign" "six year period"-->six-year period Image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods at the end. Your dash spacing is off in the table; for example, "179 – 164 BC": Both 179 and 164 are years in BC, so the dashes should be unspaced. More specifically, every range except for that of Pingdi should have unspaced en dashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I have amended the article according to your suggestions, except for one. You write: "regent" needs to be linked on first appearance. I agree, this should usually be the case. I would have linked regent on its very first appearance, but Wikipedia:Linking says not to put linked phrases together. Incidentally, "regent" just happens to be right next to where I first link Wang Mang. Besides, "regent" is linked in that very same paragraph in the introduction. Is this really cause for concern?--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look at the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not too bothered about the linking issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for reviewing the article and pointing out these mistakes. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Support A little late, but I think this list looks great! Good work, especially with organizing those cites. --haha169 (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for reviewing my list. And I love your user page! It's gnarly. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Another brilliant article Pericles! Keep them coming....Zeus1234 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I try my best. I'm glad you took the time to review the article. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, it's been twelve days since I nominated this list. If this thing has enough supports now, can we get this show on the road? I hate to hold up the nomination for the Han Dynasty featured topic any longer.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 04:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of the bot processing schedule, FLCs are only promoted or archived around 0:00 (UTC) on Sunday and Wednesday. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Well that's kind of lame. Thanks for telling me, though. I hate being at the edge of my seat waiting for things to pass.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Which really means the article needs to be ready on Saturday/Tuesday, not Sunday/Wednesday.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OpposeNeutral for now I'll look this over a little closer right now, but that table is extremely hard on the eyes. I really did not like it. I noticed that the first four or five columns always use the same exact source accross the record. Rather than citing each and every cell, try putting the reference in a new field called reference. Take a look at how I did it on List_of_World_Series_of_Poker_Main_Event_Champions#World_Series_of_Poker_Main_Event_champions. Makes it much easier to read, as is, I would not consider this one of our best pieces---too many unnecessary references. Also, could you standardize the size of the pictures. The lead one can be larger, but the subsequent ones would look better if they were the same size or put into a gallery.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Nice work on List of World Series of Poker Main Event champions. About the citations: yes, there are several rows which utilize the same inline citation, but not all of them. I would like to be concise and allow the reader to know where each bit of information came from. In regards to rows that do not use the same citation for each cell, how would a reference column accommodate them? I'm not sure how that would work. Also, the table already has eight columns; wouldn't adding a 9th column bunch everything together even more? In regards to the pictures, you will notice that only the lead picture has forced image sizing. According to Wikipedia:Manual of style, no other picture in the article should have forced sizing. Even though it looks as if this is the case in this article, it is actually not. They use the "upright" option, which is totally acceptable. The text looks like this for the first image in this case: [[File:Han Guangwu Di.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Emperor Guangwu of Han]] (r. 25–57 AD), as depicted by the [[Tang Dynasty|Tang]] artist [[Yan Liben]] (600–673 AD)]] I originally did not include the "upright" option, but one of the reviewers here insisted since his monitor was very wide and the images were forcing down the table as he viewed it. I did not want to get rid of any images either, since other reviewers showed concern for having too few images in the article and wanted as much as possible. I also don't think a gallery is the best option, either, since galleries are rather discouraged at Wikipedia, with a few exceptions. I hope you understand that I must accommodate and show thought for every reviewer's concerns. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

How about consolodating references for each row. EG you have a cell with a reference, and in the reference you indicate that the name came from source 1, the chinese spelling came from source 2, and so on. Visually, I find the references overwhelming the content of the table.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That could work. Let me see what I can do. Hold on...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Who would've thunk it? The table actually looks a lot better without all those citations. I hope that, with their removal, you will now consider supporting the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, I woulda thunk it ;-) It is vastly improved... but there is still something visually that I don't like. I can't put my finger on it right now, so I'm going to go Neutral on this for now. I'll take a look at this tonight and see if I can figure out what I don't like and if it can be solved.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

...Ok? I guess it's better than a stick in the eye. Is it perhaps the lack of pictures in the table itself? Aside from the reference column, I'm trying to think how the table in this article is really any different from any of the tables you utilize in your featured list articles. So far I can't find the difference.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the little boxes with the random numbers (e.g 高帝). ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Great list, I particularly liked the Naming Convention section. I saw the comment above me, but I believe the current format of the table is fine. I was considering asking if a color code for Emperor's who were infants and couldn't act as Emperor, and for other circumstances, but I suppose that would make it too complicated. Hello32020 (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, others might complain if that was the case; there's already appropriate color breaks in the table with headers and normal cells. Thanks for supporting the article!--Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:51, 6 June 2009 [55].

---

Rolaids Relief Man Award

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I found this page around less than a week ago, and felt like making it into a featured list. Of course there are some grammar corrections needed to be done, so any grammar issues can just go straight onto the list instead of posting it here. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - the first paragraph has no references—Chris! _ct 22:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced by the general. I'll try to find more that could fit into the first paragraph. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Because the first closers were nicknamed "firemen," a reference to "putting out the fire" of another team's rally, the trophy is a gold-plated firefighter's helmet."

"Unlike other awards such as the Cy Young Award or the MLB Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award, the Relief Man of the Year is based objectively on statistical performance, rather than subjective opinion."

These two in particular need reference; otherwise it constitutes original research.—Chris! _ct 22:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It was on the site, but on another page. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also helpful to note those who win multiple times.—Chris! _ct 00:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about...I already did... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 00:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean in the list, like Bill Russell NBA Finals Most Valuable Player Award—Chris! _ct 01:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that after the Lakers game. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, never mind. The reason why there are no notes of multiple winners on the tables of MLB awards is because of the AL and NL. For example, Rollie Fingers had 1 from AL and 3 from NL; some readers will probably look at the table and be confused. i did though denote the BHOFs and active players. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You can still do it within AL and NL. Rollie Fingers is really the only exception since he won from both AL and NL.—Chris! _ct 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So what do I do with Rollie Fingers? Lee Smith also has won the award in both leagues. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also, merged the two, and added a lot more stuff. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'Because the first closers were nicknamed "firemen," a reference to "putting out the fire" of another team's rally, the trophy is a gold-plated firefighter's helmet.' -- What are 'closers'? Linked closer. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'Unlike other awards such as the Cy Young Award or the MLB Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award, the Relief Man of the Year is based objectively on statistical performance, rather than subjective opinion.' -- Comma before 'such' Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'Beginning in the 1987 MLB season, the statistic of a blown save has counted as negative two points.' -- 'in'--> with Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'In the 2000 MLB season, Rolaids began awarding four points for a "tough save" when a relieve pitcher enters a game with the tying run already on base and gets the save.' --> In the 2000 MLB season, Rolaids began awarding four points for a "tough save", which is when a relieve pitcher enters a game with the tying run already on base and gets the save. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'Todd Worrell have won both the Relief Man of the Year and the MLB Rookie of the Year Award in the 1986 MLB season.' -- 'have' --> has Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Its not clarified as to who were the first winners. What do you mean? Do you want me to add who won the first awards? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Yezzir =]--Truco 18:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Sound like Hitler. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine, good work =] --Truco 19:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 I would make the numbers in the table small, but that's just me, for aesthetic reasons. Somewhere in MOS says that you shouldn't make things small for appearance. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Why the double dagger instead of single? Also, that should be superscripted because it looks cramped and ugly when it's normal-sized. Because the original dagger looks like the guy died. Also, other baseball FLs use this one. For your second comment, ehh...doesn't matter. I like it when its normal. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Other baseball FLs use the single dagger too. The dagger doesn't have the editorial connotation of death here. The thing I worry about is formatting. This article is intended to be part of a featured topic eventually, which means they should use the same formatting. The Silver Slugger Award lists are the first completed part of the topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) So why not just change the Silver Slugger Award daggers to this version? This version won't have anything bad to blame about, as in the single one, looks like a death sign, said by one of the FL reviewers (forgot who). -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Change 9 promoted FLs or 1 candidate? The choice is relatively clear here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I thought we were talking about the daggers? o.O -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Uh... I was... see above? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Let's just wait until Truco or Dabomb87 comments on this, since I truly believe that we should use ‡ instead of †. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think this is worth arguing about. Since we have a consistent trend, might as well use a single-cross dagger. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Changed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "The player(s)" - ambiguous, be clear, make the sentence all plural or all singular Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "Dan Quisenberry has won the award with five times; Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter and Mariano Rivera have won the award four times; Lee Smith has won the award thrice; Bill Campbell, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Righetti, John Franco, Éric Gagné, Randy Myers, Trevor Hoffman, and Francisco Rodriguez have won the award twice." - no reason at all to have three semicolons in the same sentence. Aside from making a run-on, it's very grammatically incorrect. Consider Dan Quisenberry has won the award five times, and Rollie Fingers, Bruce Sutter and Mariano Rivera have won four times. Lee Smith is the only three-time winner; two-time winners include Bill Campbell, Dennis Eckersley, Dave Righetti, John Franco, Éric Gagné, Randy Myers, Trevor Hoffman, and Francisco Rodriguez. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "MLB.com" isn't needed as a disambiguator in the references. This is only necessary if it's hosted by a subpage of MLB, like "Brewers.MLB.com" or "Angels.MLB.com". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – "Dan Quisenberry has won the award with five times." What is "with" doing here? I have no idea. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "Lee Smith has won the award thrice". Why not just "three times", or "on three occasions" if you want to avoid repetition? Both of these two were marked as done above in my comments and weren't completed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) KV5, you're used your suggestion, but kept the thrice, since I kind of like the word. Since both of you want it to be changed, Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "Todd Worrell has won both the Relief Man of the Year and the MLB Rookie of the Year Award in the 1986 MLB season." Remove "has". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Giants2008 (17-14) 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose – One more thing is very close to the source: "when a relief pitcher enters a game with the tying run already on base and gets the save." Swap "reliever" for "relief pitcher" and you've got an exact copy of the citation. Normally I'd never oppose over one issue, but I don't want this to be promoted until this is re-phrased. Please let me know when this is done, because I'm ready to support otherwise. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) To be honest, I can't think of any other way to change that sentence, while having the same description. If you can, you're probably a genius, and I won't really care if you edit the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Though I did change the sentence while having the same explanation, I'm still not a genius. :D. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Better, but the "Rolaids began awarding four points for a tough save" bit is still identical to the source. Also, I think the paraphrased part has had its meaning changed. The points are awarded when the tying run is on base when the pitcher comes in, not having the tying run on base on general. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Shit...any suggestions? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) This was the best I could do... Hope it's done... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – There was another bit that was identical to the source, but I took care of it myself so as to not hold this up any more. Please ensure that a better paraphrasing job is done in future nominations. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The Rolaids Relief Man Award is an annual Major League Baseball (MLB) award given since the 1976 MLB season to the top relief pitcher of the regular season, one in the American League (AL), and one in the National League (NL)." Commas after "award" and "season". Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Can you explain in the article what a relief pitcher is? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm concerned about the close similarity between the source text and the article. Here is an example (italics mine for emphasis): Source: "The Rolaids Relief Man Award® is based objectively on statistical performance, rather than subjective opinion." Article: "Unlike other awards, such as the Cy Young Award or the MLB Most Valuable Player (MVP) Award, the Relief Man of the Year is based objectively on statistical performance, rather than subjective opinion." This is much too close to the source text. Please see WP:PLAGIARISM and paraphrase. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Rolaids began awarding four points for a "tough save", which is when a relief pitcher enters a game with the tying run already on base and gets the save." Too JARGONy: "tying run ... on base" will make little sense to those not familiar with baseball. Linked run with Baserunning. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Campbell went on to win another one the season after."-->Campbell also won in the following season. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "The most recent award winners were Rodriguez (AL) and Brad Lidge (NL)." "were"-->are Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Can you center the year column? I don't understand why some columns are centered and others aren't. Ehh...you don't have too, but I centered the years anyways. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Denotes the number of times the pitcher has won the award"-->Denotes winning pitcher and the number of times they had won the award at that point. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support I see no further problems. Reywas92^Talk 16:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [56].

---

Manager of the Year Award

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Another baseball award-related list. Comments will be addressed by me. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – "while leading a team who finished outside the top two spots in their division". "who" → "that". Also change "their" to "its" for tense purposes. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Buck Showalter is linked twice in the lead. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I find the beginning of the third paragraph to be misleading, because the wild card playoff berth has only existed since 1994. Therefore, second-place teams before then couldn't make the playoffs. Regardless, second-place teams couldn't make the playoffs, so it's not incorrect. Removed last clause, though. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Consider moving the photos of National League managers next to the NL list. I tried it before nominating; it causes bunching issues. They are essentially next to the NL list as it is. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Might be a good idea to add a note for the 1996 AL Manager of the Year, saying that Oates and Torre tied in the voting. In fact, that might be worthy of mention in the lead. Added a note. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The record columns are not sorting properly. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC) What makes http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/8-18-2004-58021.asp a reliable source? Giants2008 (17-14) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Replaced. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Good work on fixing the issues. Looks like a great list overall. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The award is voted on by 28 members of the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA)." The award, or the awardee? Changed to "winner". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "managers of the league-leading Yankees" Explain what "league-leading" means here (wins, I assume). Actually, they were just "leading the league", so I think it was winning percentage; not all teams had played the same number of games at that point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "Number of wins by managers who have won the award multiple times"-->Number of wins (at that point) by managers who have won the award multiple times Seems unnecessarily wordy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Not essential, but I think the tables would look better centered, at least the "Year" and "Record" column. I could, but I'm following the Silver Slugger lists design. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Source for the formula? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Would this source work? BP indirectly clarifies that they use the same voting system as the BBWAA. [57] KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't use parentheses in the captions. Say "Joe Maddon, 2008 AL Manager of the Year" or other.

• For what reason? This is a common format; nothing wrong with it as far as I can see. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Parentheses are to set text apart from others, usually subsidiary and less important. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but they signify the parenthetical text to be excess. Just being set off by a comma keeps that info important. Parentheses signify "John Maddon (Oh, and by the way, he was 2008 Al Manager of the Year)", whereas a comma says, "This is John Maddon, and he was 2008 AL Manager of the year". Punctuation really does make a difference.

• According to the article you link to, "parentheses … contain material that could be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning of a sentence … [and] to add supplementary information". Noting when they won is redundant to the table; it's purely supplemental and merely a helpful reference. Therefore, it can be omitted without destroying or altering the meaning. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, the parentheses aren't wrong, but a single comma is much cleaner.

• I'd rather the formula for the scoring be in the lead, not a note. Also, don't make it mathy, just say 5 points for first place, 3 points for second, and 1 point for third.

• The formula was removed from the lead because it broke up the prose. Since it is a formula, it's mathematical by nature, which is why it's shown as such. The same thing is done with ERA and other elements that require calculation in other baseball lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well I don't think you really need to include a formula at all and especially not in that formatting. Neither reference given does it that way: one is 5-3-1, and the other gives it in plain words. "five points for first-place votes, three points for second-place votes, and one point for third-place votes." is a lot simpler than "The formula used to calculate the final scores is Score = 5F + 3S + T, where F is the number of first place votes, S is second place votes, and T is third place votes." People really don't want some math formula; you're just making it more complicated. I think that info is vital to the text and shouldn't be a note; honestly, when I first read it I wondered how the score was tabulated - it just went from voting to the highest score without any indication of why. When I noticed the note, I was like "Oh, why the heck didn't he just say it up there?" Reywas92^Talk 21:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• If I copied the references, it would be plagiarism. Speaking to "what people want" isn't objective. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't say to copy the references! But that doesn't mean it hs to be more complicated. Isn't it simpler to just tell them, not have a separate note for an excessive formula?Reywas92^Talk 02:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding your last edit, making the above changes before consensus is reached isn't cool. That's why we are discussing here, to make a decision. This isn't the place to make unilateral changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think everything else looks great. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'Lou Piniella won 116 games with the Seattle Mariners in 2001,[2] the most by a winning manager, and Joe Torre won 114 with the New York Yankees in 1998.' -- The 'and' before Torre should be a while Actually, that's incorrect. It took me some time to break myself of that habit, but I've tried my best, thanks to Dabomb87 catching it every time I do it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Truco, "while" is usually used to signify contrast. Here, there is no particular contradiction or difference between the two bits of information, so "and" is more appropriate. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for the clarification. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Well my bad, I'm a bit rusty from reviewing. --Truco 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 'Three National League managers, including Dusty Baker, Whitey Herzog, and Larry Dierker, have exceeded the century mark as well.' 1)Reword to Three National League managers (Dusty Baker, Whitey Herzog, and Larry Dierker) have exceeded the century mark as well. 2)What is the century mark? A common moniker for the number 100. I used it in List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, but looks like I neglected to link it here. My bad. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 'Baker's San Francisco Giants won 103 games in 1993;[6] Dierker's 1998 Houston Astros won 102 and Herzog led the Cardinals to 101 wins in the award's third season' -- What is meant by 'award's third season'? Like the third year the award was given out? Yes, but just a more streamlined way of saying that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 'In 1991, Bobby Cox became the first manager to win the award in both leagues, winning with the Atlanta Braves and having previously won with the Toronto Blue Jays in 1985.' -- It would help the reader if they knew which team belonged to what league here. Easily discovered by clicking on the links to the teams. It's clear that they are in different leagues from the wording; I don't know that it's terribly important which team is in which league, and the table tells the reader that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) References What makes baseballprospectus reliable?--Truco 23:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC) They are accredited by the Baseball Writers Association of America and are one of the country's foremost authorities on baseball sabermetrics. See the Baseball Prospectus article for a complete list of their published works, which certainly establishes their reliability. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Oh okay.

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [58].

---

List of Grand Rapids Griffins players

Nominator(s): Zeagler (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Churned this out in a week, following along with List of Chicago Blackhawks players and List of Detroit Red Wings players and their FLCs. Zeagler (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment – The disambiguation link-checker indicates two dabs that need to be fixed. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —Zeagler (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "but moved to the AHL following the IHL's folding in 2001." "but"-->and "In addition, seven Griffins" You need to make a separate color code for players who both appeared in a Griffins game during the 2008–09 season and made their NHL debut after playing for Griffins. In the notes, why is "Team Captain" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Just tell me what you prefer. I changed it to "Team captain"; "team captain" looked pretty sorry. Other three items addressed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Team captain" is fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• The first general ref needs format=PDF added to it.
• The Grand Rapids Press citations should be formatted consistently. Either all cites have the publisher info, or none. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's sufficient to give full details in the first instance only. Is there some guideline I missed? Other item addressed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for your support, and for taking the time to review. —Zeagler (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'Ninety-eight Griffins have gone on to play in the National Hockey League (NHL);[a] forty-nine of them made their NHL debut after skating for Grand Rapids.' -- 'Ninety-eight Griffins' is not proper grammar, because you should refer to them as players. For example, you wouldn't call Berlin Thunder players Ninety-eight Thunders Okay, maybe the real question here is whether it is proper grammar to refer to them as just 'Griffins' and not Griffins players That's what makes Thunder and Lightning and Avalanche, etc., lame team names. ;) I think referring to them as Griffins is fine, but I added "players" anyway...it does keep it in line with the list title... —Zeagler (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, I just went back and fixed a few more instances of this, and now I'm not so sure I like how it reads. What do you think? —Zeagler (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Me neither, but if you can show me a reliable source that shows that just calling them 'Griffins' is proper, than you can just use that. For now, you can use just players and Grand Rapids to replace some of the instances of 'Griffins players', like Grand Rapids alumnus, or Ninety-eight players.--Truco 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The current Griffins beat writer for the Grand Rapids Press does it here. —Zeagler (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Hmm. Well then I will say its fine to use that as well, just don't use Griffins in every instance.--Truco 15:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Tweaked. —Zeagler (talk) 16:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Notes 'Overtime losses occurring in the AHL before the 2004–05 season are worth zero points and instead counted in the "losses" column.' -- You need to add an are before 'instead counted' 'During the 2007–08 season the Griffins rotated the captaincy among Mark Cullen, Ryan Oulahen and Garrett Stafford on a five-game basis.' -- Comma after 'season'--Truco 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Both items addressed. —Zeagler (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 16:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your help, Truco. —Zeagler (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support – Spotted no problems when I went through it. Why can't all reviews be this easy? Giants2008 (17-14) 17:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [59].

---

Hank Aaron Award

Nominator(s):  iMatthew :  Chat  18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it should meet the criteria.  iMatthew :  Chat  18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'The Hank Aaron Award is an annual award in Major League Baseball awarded to the top hitter in each league.' -- I like how you started your other list, Such and such Award is given annually to a Major League Baseball (MLB) such and such player. Think I got it?  iMatthew :  Chat  22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) How about instead, The Hank Aaron Award is given annually by the Major League Baseball to players selected as the top hitter in each league.--Truco 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 'The award was also the first major award introduced by Major League Baseball in more than 25 years.' -- If you take my suggestion above, you can use the acronym here instead. What?  iMatthew :  Chat  22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Never mind.--Truco 18:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC) 'In 2000, the system was changed to a ballot where each club's radio and television play-by-play broadcasters and color analysts voted for three player in each league.' -- 'player' should be plural 'Their first place vote receives five points, the second place vote receives three points, and the third place vote receives one point, and again the winner is the player with the highest point total.' -- The last part of the sentence that starts as 'and again..' isn't needed and sounds more like a rulebook than a encylopedia. Either mention that sentence here and not earlier or mention it earlier but not here, or simply reword this statement. 'Beginning in 2003, fans were given the opportunity to vote through the MLB.com website.' -- Like I said in your other list, reword the MLB.com part to via MLB's official website, MLB.com, 'Fans' votes accounted for 30% of the points, with broadcasters' and analysts' votes accounting for the other 70%.' -- 'accounted' should be in present tense Lead needs to be expanded to summarize the list more, ie. first/most recent winner, other significant winners, stats of award winners like the first such and such person to win the award, etc. Award winners Consider linking the years to the respective MLB season? References Like in your other FLC, ESPN.com is the work and ESPN Internet Ventures is the publisher. Likewise, Baseball-reference is the work and Sports Illustrated LLC is the publisher.--Truco 19:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I got most of it, left a few comments.  iMatthew :  Chat  22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Sports Reference LLC is actually the publisher for Baseball-Reference.com (both this and Clemente Award). By the by, I appreciate the help on the baseball awards! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Woops, sorry about that I got the names mixed up for the publisher =P--Truco 18:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved; article meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 15:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak support, Could the table be split so AL and NL winners are split as this would look better and make the list easier to read and understand. This my view it would be interesting what you think, this does not affect my support. It will be a normal support if you state good reason for not following my suggestion or do adopt the idea as i think it is a potential issue in my opinion.02blythed (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like some other opinions on this before I make the change. It sounds workable, but I'm not sure.  iMatthew :  Chat  22:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think that's necessary IMO. I've seen it done in other lists but this one is a bit shorter so I think one table best presents the content.--Truco 18:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As i said it was only a suggestion if others do not agree then i fully support the nomination. 02blythed (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "second most" should be second-most, compound adjective Years in baseball should be changed to Major League Baseball seasons. "RBI's" should be "RBI", it's already plural "through the via MLB's official website, MLB.com website" - eh? The key should contain what HR and RBI mean. I would probably make the number in parens small, but that's just me. Aesthetics and all. Also, I probably would have done separate tables by league, but I think this format is fine. Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Is the Baseball Almanac reference necessary? We aren't really sure about its reliability as a source; it's been debated a lot, and it doesn't verify anything independently.
  • Done, except the source is needed, and as far as I know is reliable.  iMatthew :  Chat  15:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Why is it needed? It's always paired with another source, and if it's unreliable, it can't be used in featured content. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Copyedited previously, and I see no further problems. Reywas92^Talk 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The Hank Aaron Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball players selected who are the top hitter in each league." Change to "selected as the top hitter in each league." Also place the MLB initials in parenthesis.
• To avoid ending the second sentence with a number, try "surpassing Babe Ruth's career mark of 714 home runs."
• "via MLB's official website, MLB.com website." Remove second "website"?
• "with broadcasters' and analysts' votes accounted for the other 70%." "with" → "while" to ensure proper tense and the best possible sentence structure.
• Barry Bonds is linked twice in the third paragraph. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, everything.  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Link "Hits" to Hit (baseball). Same comment as in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Roberto Clemente Award/archive1 about mentioning in the first sentence that the awardee is determined through voting. Add a "(MLB)" after the first appearance of "Major League Baseball". "The award was also the first major award introduced by Major League Baseball in more than 25 years." I'd prefer if "to be" was inserted after "award", it just sounds better in this register. "In 2000, the system was changed to a ballot where each club's radio" "where"-->in which; "club"-->MLB team "Beginning in 2003, fans were given the opportunity to vote via MLB's official website, MLB.com website. Fans' votes accounted for 30% of the points, with broadcasters' and analysts' votes accounted for the other 70%." Repetition of "website". Why is "accounted" in the past tense, has the weight of each group's votes changed? "and Manny Ramírez in 1999 has the most RBI." "RBI"-->RBIs, since "RBI" stands for the singular "run batted in". Comment: RBI can actually stand for "run batted in" or "runs batted in", so technically, RBI is correct here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) "Denotes the number of times the player has won the award."-->Denotes winning player and number of times they had won the award at that point. Same comment as from the Roberto Clemente Award FLC about adding a note to where each year link goes. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Done with everything but the second one, still don't get it..  iMatthew :  Chat  (Review Me) 12:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Append something along the lines of "as voted on by baseball fans and members of the media" to the end of the first sentence. Basically, we're trying to stress that the fact that the winner is determined by people, not on an objective basis. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Got it.  iMatthew :  Chat  22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [60].

---

List of counties in Alabama

Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it turns out that it really sucks editing Olympic medals tables. Also, this one's ready for FL, newly referenced and fixed up. Tompw, as always, deserves credit for his excellent work on this and other county lists. Geraldk (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments The lead is too long. This should focus on the counties, not the history of Alabama, so I'd cut most of the first two paragraphs. I don't think I see any other problems. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Lead looks good now! Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments/Questions Could you get rid of the parentheses in the second sentence? I'd like to see a sentence explaining for non-Americans what the word county means. mi² => sq mi (both in the lead and in the table) The (XXZ999Z is followed by XXA0A0A) part should be written in a sentence. I am also more inclined into combining the first two paragraphs. Shouldn't this website be a reference for the license numbers? I don't know maybe it's temporary, but the Alabama QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau doesn't work. All people from "Etymology" have dates, but John G. Cullmann, why? Citation #10 is really a note, shouldn't it be presented as such? Is the "formed from" part really necessary? --Crzycheetah 07:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Support I'd just delink those landowners in the second table as non-notable, but it's no big deal.--Crzycheetah 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Just fyi, out of town for the weekend with limited computer access. Will address all comments and concerns by late Monday evening or Tuesday. Geraldk (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC) I believe I've incorporated all comments. With the lead, I tried to limit the discussion to anything related to county formation, avoiding the more general historical information. Thanks both for useful comments. Geraldk (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Strong Oppose The whole "Formed from" column is unsourced. The reference you cited does not state anything related to "parent" counties.--Crzycheetah 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Searching for replacement. Give me a couple days. My apologies - missed that completely. Geraldk (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Fixed. Didn't need a couple of days after all. Glad I was checking my watchlist form the library. Found a source that includes all the information on formation (and also could have been used for a number of the other parts of the table). My apologies again. That's something I should have caught before nomination. Geraldk (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Is this the book? If so, I can't find any info there, can you mention the page number for one county at least?--Crzycheetah 03:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Back to support! I found the book's first pages.--Crzycheetah 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "The U.S. state of Alabama has sixty-seven counties." "sixty-seven"--67 (per WP:MOSNUM) "The land enclosed by the present state borders was joined to the United States of America piecemeal." Sorry if I'm being dense, but what does "piecemeal" mean here? "West Florida became a possession of Spain" A more specific action is needed here (e.g. captured or sold to). I don't think West Florida just turned into a territory of Spain. "divisions which have survived to the present"-->divisions that have survived to the present "By 1830 there were 36, with Indians still occupying land in northeast and far western Alabama." The noun + -ing structure ("Indians ... occupying") is ungrammatical; see this tutorial on how to fix it. "Alabama's sixty-seven counties"-->Alabama's 67 counties "standard automobile license plates bearing a one- or two-digit number "-->standard automobile license plates that bears a one- or two-digit number "The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) code, which is used by the United States government to uniquely identify counties" Link County seat in the table. "The FIPS code links in the table point to U. S. Census "quick facts" pages for each county." I'd rather that this be a footnote, but it's not a pressing issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Done and done. I left in the FIPS code line because I feel it's more useful to the reader as a part of the lead than a note, simply because navigation would require that the reader link to the note, link back, then click the external link. But if you feel it's essential, let me know. Took care of the italics in the refs, though that was being caused by the cite web template I use from Wikipedia:Citation templates. And thanks for the link to the editing exercises. That page is very useful. Very much appreciate the review. Geraldk (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing in the refs should be italicized. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think List of Alabama county name etymologies can and should be merged into this list. I doubt anything needs to be done, just redirect it. Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Merged. Thanks for the suggestion. Geraldk (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- The only thing that stands out is whether the lead image can be decreased because there is some whitespace left in the lead between it and the TOC table. In addition, a citation may be needed for the note.--Truco 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Working on finding a way to get the size reduced. Also, in searching for the reference for the note, found a source which actually does give a death date for the Colbert brothers, so the note is moot and I'm updating the two articles. Thanks for the suggestions. Geraldk (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reduced the size of the template slightly. Geraldk (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [61].

---

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)

Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 03:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

First nomination in almost a month. The prose and referneces were written and researched by me in less than 6 hours, and had a minor copy-edit from Dabomb87. Also my first nomination related to record charts. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 03:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking of putting the albums of the number-one singles, since I feel that they are important, and are related to the article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Restarted on 19:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Personally, I would switch the two paragraphs around. The article is about the number-one singles of 2007, not the Hot 100. It's not actionable; you don't have to do it. Just something to ponder.

I, personally, like to introduce the bigger "item" before the specifics. Also, most lists do this, so... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Remove the easter egg link (2007) which no one will click on. You already have it in the See Also section, which is the right place for it.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• I think it would be relevant to include info on the "Canadian content" requirement.

I was trying to find more information about how the Canadian content criteria works on the online version, but I couldn't find any relevant sources to it. If you could find the criteria for it, then go ahead and add it on to the article.

• "single of 2007, beginning its run atop the chart for the last nine weeks of 2007, and the first four weeks in 2008."-->single of 2007; it was the number-one single for the last nine weeks of 2007, and the first four weeks in 2008.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Plain White T's' "Hey There Delilah", and Kanye West's "Stronger" all stayed at number one"

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "having been on the chart for 12 weeks."-->and his singles were number-one for a combined 12 weeks.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Britney Spears' "Gimme More" is noted for its jump from 25th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, making it the largest leap to 1st place in 2007."-->Britney Spears' "Gimme More" went from 25th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, the largest jump to the number one in 2007.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Rihanna, Fergie (with the Black Eyed Peas), and Britney Spears all have had another number-one single on the Canadian Hot 100.[5]" This is unclear, do you mean "multiple number-one singles"?

I meant that they all had another number-one single on the Canadian Hot 100. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• "first ever number-one single."

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources

• What makes http://acharts.us/song/12504 reliable?

What makes it not reliable? To be honest, I have no idea how I found it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

They don't have a reputation for fact-checking. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you could at least AGF on the source, since I don't really see anything wrong with it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 23:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

At the highest level of quality content, I can't just "AGF"; we have to use the best sources possible. aCharts does not describe its method of obtaining its information, and is not backed by a reliable third-party institution. There is no evidence to demonstrate that aCharts is a reliable source. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the only free source that could provide every single Canadian Hot 100 charts. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• "The Globe and Mail" should be italicized.

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good to me (prose). However, why not widen the columns—especially the first one, for dates—so that the text is less likely to wrap on default display size? September onwards wrapped on my display until I grabbed the corner and widened. There's tons of space to the right.

Well the list is already stretched to 50%, which is the minimum for my featured lists. The reason why I didn't stretch the Issue Date column is because I don't feel the need to do that. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• All but a few references are to the Nielsen Billboard site. I presume this is reliable; but take "The online version of the chart features the Canadian flag next to tracks that qualify as Canadian content.[2]". Where on the site can I find the information that supports this claim about Canadian content? Tony (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Though it seems pretty obvious to some that the Canadian flag means that the artist was probably raised from Canada, there is no source for it!, which angers me. So to answer your question, there is no site you can find the information that supports this claim about Canadian content. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 17:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Update Most of my concerns have been resolved. Here are the remaining two:

• I think it would be relevant to include info on the "Canadian content" requirement. Here are two sources:[62] and [63].

Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• acharts is not considered reliable. Have you searched all available sources, even print publications?

No, but I'm pretty sure that no national newspapers publish the Canadian Hot 100 or the records. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Dabomb87 (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it will do, although I really wish there were more reliable sources available. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs) General Ref #1 is dead. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Lead 'Canada's airplay chart compiled with information collected from monitoring more than 100 stations that represent rock, country, adult contemporary and contemporary hit radio genres.' -- Add is before 'compiled' Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'The online version of the chart features the Canadian flag next to tracks that qualify as Canadian content.' -- I don't see particularly why this is notable, especially in the prose of the article. It is because this article is related to Canadian content. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'In 2007, eight singles have topped the Canadian Hot 100.' -- Remove the 'have' Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'Timbaland's "Apologize" featuring OneRepublic was the longest-running chart-topping single of 2007; it was the number-one single for the last nine weeks of 2007, and the first four weeks in 2008.' -- Comma before and after 'featuring OneRepublic' Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'the last two of these were non-consecutive. ' --> the latter two.. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'Britney Spears' "Gimme More" went from 25th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, the largest jump to top the chart in 2007.' -- Britney Spears' "Gimme More" went from 25th to first place, the largest jump on the chart in 2007. I think Dabomb87 once told me that it should be 25th to 1st, or twenty-fifth to first. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 'Rihanna, Fergie (with the Black Eyed Peas), and Britney Spears have had multiple number-one singles on the Canadian Hot 100.' -- Why not just used Spears' last name instead of her full name? Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Also, welcome back Truco! I'm betting that everyone involved in FLC all do miss your reviews VERY much! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks I appreciate the welcome back!!! I've missed being here, I'll try my best to help out with my spare time.--Truco 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC) References What makes acharts.us reliable?--Truco 04:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Heheh...I have no idea. Read above... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Well http://acharts.us/help#wikipedia (this section) puzzles whether we should use it or not.--Truco 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Yay, we can use it on this chart!, unless you still think it's unreliable. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I wouldn't jump for joy just yet. They haven't given us any reason why we should regard them as reliable (no corporate backing, no method of fact-checking, etc.). I would recommend asking Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) about it—she's the WP:FAC source guru. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Asked her. I knew that you were going to say that! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Just thinking that of course the site wants us to accept them as reliable sources. That makes them look better.—Chris! ct 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC) What did Ealdgyth say about it?--Truco 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Hasn't replied yet. Read her first message on top of her talk page. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Okay, I will support once that issue is resolved.--Truco 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Uhh...Ealdgyth is currently not replying to my message, Probably because she's busy with other more important stuff. Since I don't know that much fact-checkers like Dabomb87 and Truco, I'm hoping one of you guys ask one of them for me. It will obviously be appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Nudged. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Here is her reply. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Laugh out loud, I suggested that you guys should have AGFed the ref, and she supported me! So do any of you still think the ref is not reliable, and their facts are false? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'll let it go this time, in addition it looks like those other refs that are used in FLCs.

• Weak Support -- The sourcing issue still puzzles me, but other than that, the list meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comment Oppose "Kanye West's "Stronger" stayed in the number-one spot for 3 consecutive weeks"? The table does not show that.--Crzycheetah 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) laugh out loud. Thank you. Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) The achart reference(citation #5) doesn't say that Spears or Rihanna had multiple number-one singles. It is referenced by the general reference, as the general reference gives you all the charts since the formation. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC) If this imaginary "general reference" gives us this info, then you need to remove that acharts citation because it gives nothing related to that sentence.--Crzycheetah 04:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC) The achart reference(citation #4) doesn't say that One Republic's single is longest-running chart-topping single. Removed reference to remove confusion. Cited by the general reference also. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC) The " Britney Spears' "Gimme More" went from 25th to 1st place on the Canadian Hot 100, the largest jump to top the chart in 2007." sentence needs a reference. Just like the first comment, it is referenced by the general reference, as they give you all the charts for 2007. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 04:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Where is the general reference? I can't find it.--Crzycheetah 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC) It is the last reference on the second paragraph. Do you want me to move that to the references section? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Are you talking about this link? If so, I don't see info on "Gimme More" anywhere on that website; let alone the statement that it was the largest jump to top the chart.--Crzycheetah 05:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC) It references because the site has all the charts since the formation of the list. Do you want me to list all 29 charts? I don't think so. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (←)In other words, you want readers to do their own research every time they want to verify the info on this page? I just want a sentence in some reliable article that can assure me that the info on this page is correct.--Crzycheetah 05:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, but I'm sure it is those sentences are practically impossible to find exactly on one site. As long as you know its right, it's all good, right? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) That's the problem; I rely on your research right now because I am too lazy to go through all those 29 pages and see whether that statement is correct or not. A regular reader won't be able to verify that info, so I strongly suggest removing those statements.--Crzycheetah 06:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Uhh...you actually telling me to remove all of the second paragraph, as all of those need to be sourced by multiple charts on acharts. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I am talking about the 3 sentences I mentioned above.Either find some references or remove them.--Crzycheetah 07:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I deleted only two of them since I think the one where "Apologize" is the longest-running chart topping single is pretty important information. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 16:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support This list could have been a great list if we had some more reliable references. Too bad there are so little info on this topic on the net.--Crzycheetah 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support per above. I feel wary about letting a major sourcing issue by, but I don't know if there's anything we can do about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:54, 6 June 2009 [64].

---

2007 World Series of Poker results

Nominator(s): ---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: I will be travelling from Wednesday through Saturday and will have limited internet access. If there are any open issues at that time, I will try to address them when I return. I ask that this not be closed as a failure if on Saturday if there are open issues.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:POKER is proud to bring the 2007 WSOP results to be considered for a FL. I think I've prepared this per the guidelines that have been used in previous Poker FL's.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 There are some MOS issues that need to be fixed here. Some of the ones that jumped out at me are below. The talk page needs classification (List-class and an importance). done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) If it's not bold in the list, it shouldn't be bold in the key. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) "This event kicked off the, 2007 WSOP" - no comma, there are a LOT of similar typos. A peer review or copyedit should have been done prior to a nom because of this. started---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) "3-day, Event" - this is wrong in every entry; no comma, and should probably be "X-day event" (no caps) done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) "References" should all be "Reference"; there is only ever one. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Reference section needs to be delineated; split using semicolon-headers into general reference and specific references/inline citations. Could you give an example? I'm not sure of what to do here.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Put ;General reference before the general reference, and then ;Specific references or Inline citations before the in-line refs. Also, all of the URLs are formatted incorrectly; they should only be inside single brackets, not double. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Huh? If I use a single bracket, then the citeweb template is not activated. It takes the double brackets to work. As for the general/specific reference, again could you give me some guidance here as well? I've played around with using the ;General reference and ;Specific references but the only thing I saw was the addition of ;General reference. Could you give me an example of where this was used or show me how you want it applied? Actually, I THINK I might have fixed the issue you were getting at. There was one reference that was originally being used for the whole table, I had gone through and cited everything making that reference irrelevant. I've since removed that reference. I still don't know how to do what you asked, but I think I made it a moot point.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) The issue with the square brackets is fixed, and the general reference is gone. So it's all good. Except that the "Reference" section needs to be "References". KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC) All items in a list need to be able to stand alone, per WP:BUILD; that means every entry should be linked, or at the very least, every blue link. That means in every table. WP:BUILD does not make that requirement. Also, BUILD is a guideline, but having a link for every event is not necessary nor desirable. A list can contain information that in the aggregate is meaningful, but in the particulars is not. Each of the tournaments is not individually notable, but combined they are.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Check the link. WP:BUILD is part of the MOS and part of the section reads as follows: "Link only the first occurrence of an item. A link that had last appeared much earlier in the article may be repeated, but generally not in the same section. (Table entries are an exception to this; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own.)" (emphasis mine). I don't see a legitmate reason to WP:IAR here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC) There is a very good reason not to have an article for each item... most of the people who are on these tables are not notable enough to have their own articles. Most are making their debut appearance at a final table and will never be heard from again. They have zero notability and zero coverage outside of these particular events. Most of the players themselves are not individually notable, but the standings at the final table as an aggregate are.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) You might want to take a look at WP:Poker's position on notability of poker players. You will notice that the winner of each of the tournaments does have a link---that is because as a project we don't believe making the money or even the final table of an open event makes one notable.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Finally, I think you are misreading the section you are quoting. It is not saying that each item on a list has to be linkable, but that you can put a link on each occurance. In other words, Phil Hellmuth appears multiple times on different tables. The only time we have him linked is the first occurance. According to this, we could link him every time he shows up, because each line should stand on it's own. It is not saying that we have to go out and create stubs for every item appearing on a list. That would not be constructive.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Actually, that might be what you are saying?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC) If you were looking to have items with articles linked, I have now done so.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC) That was what I was saying; I wasn't saying you needed stubs for everyone; that would be crazy. All I meant was that since these are tables, each player with an article needs to be linked at each occurrence, not the first. Sorry if I wasn't clear. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Check date formats. No "02", "04", etc. in dates. They aren't ISO format, and shouldn't be because this list isn't sortable. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Why are some hands formatted with suits and colors and others without? Consistent formatting is necessary throughout the entire list, or an explanation for each non-conforming hand is needed in the form of footnotes. Added a note, the reason is because in the game Razz suits do not matter. The only thing that matters is card rank (A-2-3-4-etc)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Check your captions for numerical consistency ("$5000" vs. "$2,000"; use commas for all) Done---Damn, was trying to take a short cut with replace, guess it backfired on me.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "The 7.1 million dollar prize pool and 2.2 million dollar prize" - no reason to write out the amount here when you use currency symbols everywhere else Done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "Bennett and Korfman made a deal before heads-up play began. Since Bennett had more chips he was declared the winner and Korfman the runner-up. They split the cash evenly with each taking home .[50] With 1,882 entrants, this was the largest Senior's event ever.[8]" - how is this possible?, comma after chips, taking home how much, what's the qualification for senior's events vs. others, there are a LOT of issues here. Prize money was missing for some reason, fixed issues.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "With the exception of the main event and the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. events this event had the highest 1st-place payout of any World Series of Poker event in history." comma after events and change to first-place Done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "This event set a World Series of Poker non-main event (and live poker) attendance record with 3,151 entries breaking the previous record of 2,998 set earlier in the, 2007 WSOP (Event 3). At the time it was also the third-highest entry total in all live Poker events behind just the 2006 (8773 entries) and 2005 (5619 entries) main events.[8]" - Comma after "3,151 entries", comma after "At the time, remove comma before 2007 WSOP, commas in 8773 and 5619, and consider a re-word of the second sentence to get the parenthetical comments out of there, they break the flow very badly fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Why is Event 55 called the "Main Event"? Explain, with ref. Added to prose section. Why is there an "X" in the hand in event 5? Made a note. Basically 5 cards are used to determine the winning hand. There was one card that was not recorded/remimbered.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Ref 4 is broken. fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Why link only to the 2005 and 2006 results in the "See also"? Is there a navbox to take care of that instead? Should there be? Replaced with Major Poker Tournaments navbox.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) In the lead, you start out talking about the 2008 World Series. Why? If this is a mistake and is supposed to be the 2007 World Series, then you can remove that link from the See also section. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Since it's part of the title of the event, capitalize "Texas Hold 'Em" in the event names in the lead If you are saying to capitalize the Em, then I would argue that is incorrect. The standard used in other sources is to have 'em in lower case.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) I did capitalize Hold when used in a specific event name.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Texas hold 'em overlinked in the lead. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "Seven-card stud is a poker variant wherein each player is dealt two hole card" - cards Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "face up cards" - face-up Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "five card hand" - five-card Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "Within each of these poker variants" - comma after variants Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "Phil Hellmuth won a record eleventh bracelet." - no space before ref Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "third consecutive year," - comma should be semicolon Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "Seidel, in turn, won his eight bracelet," - eighth, and comma should be semicolon Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "all time bracelet winners" - all-time Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) "At 94-years-old" - 94 years old Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) No links in section headers, see WP:ACCESS for why. Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Fix the 3 dablinks (find using toolbox). I've never done that before and don't see something in the toolbox that appears to look for dablinks... again, looking for guidance here.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Actually, I haven't addressed your concern about dablinks yet, so I'm going to add this comment as a reminder. Thanks for the tip, that is a great tool!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Fixed the dabs.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Hope that these comments give you somewhere to start. This was just a quick, 15-minute once-over, so there may be myriad other issues which could have been fixed, as I mentioned, at a peer review. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Only other thing I can see right now is that the navbox doesn't link to this article. It should per WP:EMBED or it should be removed. You could also consider adding winners' lists to the current poker navbox or creating a new one. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Oh OK, sorry. One other thing that I just noticed: the logo might fail WP:NFCC #8, but I'm not sure because I'm not huge into image policy. I don't think the logo significantly increases our understanding of the topic, especially with so many free images already in the list. I might consider moving the main event winner to the lead instead. If there is a year-specific logo, then that would certainly qualify, but I don't think that a generic logo does. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC) I asked a 'crat from Common's about the image a when I brought my first list to FLC a few months ago---there was the same concern. He said that the image was acceptable, but that we needed to make sure that we had completed a rationale for every page where we used it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, and I did notice that, but a lot of articles that I have worked on (I'll mention History of the Philadelphia Phillies and Mets-Phillies rivalry as examples) have had fair-use images culled even though a rationale was provided because they supposedly didn't meet Cr.8. That's why I'm concerned. I'd rather someone else more familiar with the policy make the call, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC) That's why I asked a 'crat from the Commons about it. I figured that somebody who was a 'crat there should know the image policies better than most people, as Commons is largely images.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC) As the 'crat is no longer active, I've asked for a second opinion.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "each of the event winners received a championship bracelet in addition to that event's prize money" "recieved"-->receives (assuming this custom is still alive) Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Hold 'em is a community card game where each player may " "where"-->in which Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "and the player's own two hole cards" No apostrophe. Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Between 2000 and 2009" Wouldn't it make more sense to say "since 2000"? Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "wherein"-->in which (multiple occurences) Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Deuce-to-Seven" No link? Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Games may also include other" Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think the WSOP logo significantly adds to this specific article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just returned from vacation where I had internet connectivity issues, will try to resolve these tonight or tomorrow.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008

Comments – "Most of the tournaments played at the WSOP are variants of Texas hold 'em. Hold 'em...". For better flow, I recommend merging this part, in the form of "Texas hold 'em, a community card game...". Be warned that this would make the sentence very long, so it might be wise to split the variants into their own sentence. reworked---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "and the players own two hole cards to make a poker hand" → "and the player's own two hole cards to make a poker hand." reworked---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "Another poker variant played is Omaha. Omaha is a version of poker...". This is a similar situation as in my first comment, and I recommend a similar solution. reworked---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "a tournament might be described as no limit, limit or pot-limit." Comma after "limit". done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Comma after "chop the prize money". Also, Bennett can be linked in the lead. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) "Hal Lubasrsky, a blind man, finished in 198th place." Could you please clarify that this was the Main Event? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Major issue I just noticed: if memory serves me right, the November final table started in 2008, not 2007. OMG, you are right! How did I mess that one up!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC) The main event champion should be somewhere in the lead, along with the massive amount of money that he won. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC) done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'As a WSOP custom since 1976, each of the event winners receives a championship bracelet in addition to that event's prize money.' -- 'receives' should be singular Done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 'The victor receives a multi-million dollar prize.' -- This sentence links United States dollar but it should be linked earlier in the first mention when used with the $ symbol. Done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The rest of the article looks fine, good work.--Truco 15:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Although I see that other prose issues were found, I think they have been addressed (as were mine), so the list should meet WP:FL? now.--Truco 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

*Strong oppose with (hopefully) some kick-ass comments to help turn it to a support... "the 2007 series featured " aren't we already clear it's the 2007 series from the previous sentence and the title? Done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Is it "Texas Hold'em" or "Texas Hold 'em" or "Texas hold 'em" or simply "hold 'em"? All these variants exist in the article. Changed all to "Hold'em", as for Texas Hold'em and just Hold'em, those are interchangeable.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Why is dollar linked midway into the lead but $ not? Done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "The final table of the Main Event was suspended until November, to allow for better television coverage." I don't get this - why would "better" coverage suddenly be available in November? Do you mean more extensive coverage? Reworded---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "The victor receives a multi-million dollar prize. The winner of the WSOP Main Event is considered to be the World Champion of Poker.[2]" consider merging these two very short and choppy sentences. Reworded---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) variants is overlinked. Reworded---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Last para of lead starts with a bunch of single-sentence trivia facts - not engaging or elegant. Reworked completely... with much difficulty, but I think I did it. You might notice a red link in there for Hal, I am currently writing an article on him, so that won't be red for much longer.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Last sentence of the lead needs a citation. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "What place each player at the final table finished" grim English. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Is it "final table" or "Final Table"? Don't see why the Table needs to be a proper noun. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Number of Entries" why is Entries capitalised? And shouldn't we have a colon there? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Total Prize Pool", "Winning Hand" etc - so much overcapitalisation... done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Remove space in "Reference: [6]". Done, and checked others.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Is it No limit, No-Limit or no limit? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Ciaran or Ciarán? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Winning Hand: A♠ Q♥ 4♠ A♣ X A♦ 4♣* - this asterisk presumably relates the note following? Not 100% clear. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Is "w/Rebuys" actually "with rebuys"? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "a shorthanded format" what does that mean? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Phil Hellmuth won his eleventh WSOP bracelet the most of any player." I think there's some punctuation missing here. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) HORSE or H.O.R.S.E.? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) What is "Razz"? And why in bold? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "Like David Williams', " what's the apostrophe doing there? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "Hughes went on to win a second bracelet in 2008" - this caption is assumptive - went on from what? done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Event 24 - suits don't count again? You noted it last time, but not this time... I'll have to look that up, it wasn't a Razz tournament. I looked at numerous sources, they all contain the winning hand, but not the suits associated with the winning hand. My guess is that the press release from which all of the news articles are based didn't include it. I have added a footnote.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1619 & 2541 - need a comma - check others. done, several others had same issue---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Avoid links in headings, see Event 31. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Top Finishers - why not just Top finishers? Changed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "w/rebuys" is not capitalised while its predecessor was... changed to with rebuys per previous comment.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Any reason why "Yuval Bronshtein" is redlinked while you have hundreds of non-linked players? Recent AFD, removed link---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) What is "(Seven Card Stud 8/OB)"? fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Note---there has been a fair amount of back and forth on this item from others who work on the poker pages. I changed it to "eights or better" thus making it easier to relate to the lead where it is explained.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "Michael Craig is an American lawyer and author best known for his 2005 book on poker, The Professor, the Banker, and the Suicide King (ISBN 0-446-57769-3)." needs citation and may not even be that relevant to this list. removed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "Korfman agreed to let Bennett win the title uncontested, if Bennett agreed t split the prize money" typo and no need for comma in my opinion. done---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "With the exception of the main event and the $50,000 H.O.R.S.E. events, this event had the highest first-place payout of any World Series of Poker event in history." needs citation. Couldn't find it, so removed it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) What's an "addon"? Added links---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'll try to get to these this evening.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC) All comments resolved.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference 4 is broken. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

fixed---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still uneasy about supporting this. Besides another error I caught (according to the source, Lubarsky finished 193rd and not 197th), the last paragraph has some new problems. The prize/glory dichomoty is only sourced in regards to Korfman and Bennett, not the field in general. Also, the source for Yang's Main Event win doesn't say anything about how money was important to him, and doesn't indicate that he quit his job. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

197th was the official standing, added link to that. The first ref is good because it talks about the disability. I'll look at the other issues later this evening.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the money/bracelets debate, that is a common theme among poker players. Michael Mizrachi is known for his mantra of "Money over Bracelets." David Rheem similarly makes no bones about it. Many of the first timers are just hoping to make it big. Phil Gordon and many of the big names talk more about winning the bracelet than the money. I could give example after example on both sides that it isn't even funny.

As for Yang, expanded section... I wish I could find the quote, "I would say the money. The bracelet to me is a title where you get the notoriety. However, with the money, you can do a lot of good. You can help a lot of people." In a more reliable source.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The dead-link checker shows that several links are having trouble with their connections. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I saw, apparently the software doesn't like the WSOP cite.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [65].

---

List of tallest buildings in San Diego

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have worked on this list for the last few weeks after walking around the city and taking pictures of the tallest buildings. Looking to the other similar FLs, I have attempted to format this list accordingly and I believe the article now meets the FL criteria. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• For some reason, on my comp the ordered lists display 15=, 15=, 18, 18=, 18=, 21... I'm not entirely sure what these are, but they should be fixed.
• Shouldn't you include a couple of sentances (I'd go with a para) describing each skyscraper in the last row? Right now it contains only refs or a line, and I find that boring. I'd rather learn a bit about its history then read numbers. ResMar 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking the article over, I appreciate it. The equal sign after each rank is to indicate that there is a tie between the two buildings in height. Rather then list buildings of the same height as, say, 1, 2, 3, it would be best to rank them the same since they are of equal height. Because two buildings (or more in certain cases) share a rank in this list, the next successive rank includes the next number. For example, in the case of this list, it goes from 4, 5=, 5=, 7 (which is 4, 5, 6, 7). This helps to maintain the actual number of buildings that are taller than the pre-determined height included in the criteria of the list. Concerning the blank cells, I only tried to include the significant ranks relevant to the topic of the list. Each of the buildings has their own respective articles where readers can pursue further information (as well as look at the given sources). If you take a look at the other buildings FLs, you'll see a similar setup. Obviously some of the other lists may have more information to mention since they likely have some of the tallest buildings in the world (it's hard to have that with a 500-ft limit!). Let me know if you need further clarification or if this didn't make sense. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuetral: Seeing that the articles are all stubs, you can't really expand any information... ResMar 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. I too would like to see a little more information listed for each building in the "notes" section, but this is a fine article regardless.  Ahodges7   ^talk 02:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Comments A 440 feet tall building remained tallest until a 350 feet tall building took its place? Typo? Wow, at first I thought that somebody had vandalized the article. But nope, it's just my mistake. I corrected the height. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Executive Complex is "also known as 101 West Broadway", are you sure? I actually do not know why it was there. It's been removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Could you find another reference proving that AT&T building is "also known as 101 West Broadway" because the "alternative name" field in your source is empty. It looks a little WP:OR to me. I removed this as well. Although some of the websites I visited of the offices located in the building list it as 101 West Broadway, I don't think it's necessary to mention each address. Each building might have an alternate title for the road they are near or their actual address. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Since we don't know the exact height of Strata, how do we know that it's at least 300 feet tall? Same thing with First and Island in the proposed section. I would say its based on the number of stories, Strata (23) and First and Island (38). Rather than try to argue the differences in heights (don't want to risk OR) of each story (as it differs by the developer) I moved them to the talk page of the list so that they can be readded later when the height is determined. I'll keep an eye out for any details. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) --Crzycheetah 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Good looking pictures by the way!--Crzycheetah 04:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Can you center all columns with figures in them? It looks much neater. I centered the majority of the columns. Please take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "Within the city"-->In the city Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Spell out FAA on its first appearance. Fixed the link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "which stands at 500 feet tall" Removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "remained as the tallest building in San Diego until 1963" Remove "as", comma after this phrase. Removed and added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) "Through the 1990s,"-->During the 1990s Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Sounds much better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Please explain what the equal signs stand for. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I added an explanation before the first table. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The general references need to be formatted (publisher, last access date) Dabomb87 (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting with available fields. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Review by Truco (talk · contribs) Lead 'In the city there are 29 buildings that stand taller than 300 feet (91 meters).' -- Comma after 'city' Comma added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 'In 1989, Symphony Towers gained the title, before being passed two years later by One America Plaza.' -- Why not mention their heights? Added height for Symphony Towers, since One America Plaza already listed in first paragraph. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) List Remove the periods from the notes, they are not complete sentences. In addition, for notes that have more than one idea and are split with periods, replace the period with a semicolon. Fixed all occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Everything else checks out fine.--Truco 16:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time to review, I appreciate it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL.--Truco 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose but comments which will hopefully help. "San Diego is the second largest city in California." nothing to do with the list - can you improve this opening sentence to hint at what we're about to see... Mentioned the number of high-rises, which the next sentence indicates the height requirement for determining the tallest of these. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "300 feet (91 meters)" vs "500 feet (152 m)" - consistency required. Abbreviated first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "The skyscraper was surpassed..." not sure the skyscraper was surpassed, but the record height may have been... Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Link "high-rise" first time round. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "for cities with high-rises, San Diego is ranked 56th in the world with its 181 high-rises." - this reads poorly. Too many "high-rises" and the clause seems unnecessary, i.e. why would there be a ranking of high-rises in cities without high-rises? Reworded, please take a look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) "which will join the tallest buildings in San Diego." which "tallest buildings"? The ones on this list? Be precise with what they'll join - i.e. that will be over 300ft. Added requirement in parenthesis. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) What does "Year" mean in the tables? Year of topping out, ground breaking, or something else? The year indicates the completion of construction. Should this be included in the instructions before the tables? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support An excellent list! Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [66].

---

List of extant papal tombs

Nominator(s): Savidan 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it exemplifies the featured list criteria. It uses only free images, and despite that restriction still manages to illustrate the vast majority of the extant papal tombs. I believe that the list structure makes it easy to assess and understand trends in papal funeral sculpture. Although for the purpose of completeness I included quite a bit of information about non-extant papal tombs and tombs where there are multiple claimants (which is common with early Christian relics), this information is hidden by default so as not to interrupt the visual flow of the list. For interested readers, it is only a click away. As for inclusion criteria, I stuck with the List of popes, a former featured list (which was delisted for unrelated reasons). I'd be happy to field any comments or suggestions for improvement. Savidan 05:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I has split the content about non-extant papal tombs into other articles in response to the second and third comments here. Savidan 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - FLs no longer start with "This is a list of ..." - see recently promoted lists for suggestions—Chris! _ct 05:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I have reworded the opening sentence. Savidan 05:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Better, but not as good as it could be. Do away with the self-references completely—see List of members of the Gregorian mission as an example. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments and questions

1. Why hide the non-extant or unknown tombs? I ask because I think it actually makes the navigation more difficult and confusing. If it's just so people can identify the unknown tombs, it may be better to simply color code those in some way, or make a note, or something other than collapsing them, which breaks up the flow of the tables.

2. For Gregory XVI (1830's), Luigi Amici is both the sculptor and the slightly cryptic note.

3. There are a ton of redlinks, mostly sculptors. Not a cause for opposition to me, but you may want to leave a note with associated wikiprojects to try to get some of those articles created.

4. There are several broad statements in the lead that could use some in-line cites. There are currently no in-line cites in the lead.

5. Regarding the number of in-line cites in the table... holy everloving crap. I'm impressed.

6. It really bothers me that there is so much whitespace after the lead. I know it's similar to the List of popes, but it might make sense to combine the sub-sections in each broader section so the ToC isn't so long, and to drop one the images (I'd suggest if you do this keeping the procession - it's much more visually appealing), e.g. collapse the 1st-5th centuries into a single table.

That's all for now. Geraldk (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Geraldk. I appreciate your specificity and candidness. I will address your comments in order:

1. I hid the non-extant and unknown tombs because there is generally much less (and much less reliable) information about them, and there is certainly no picture. In particular, this information is somewhat repetitive. For example, dozens of tombs were simply destroyed during the demolition of Old Saint Peter's; maybe another dozen were destroyed in one of two fires in John Lateran (for most it is not even known which fire did them in). If you want to see what the article looked like before I collapsed them, uncollapse several of them and scroll up and down. I don't think it's particularly appealing, but maybe that's just a subjective decision. I think the primary usefulness of this article is art historical, and in that sense, the "flow" between the extant tombs is more important. I'd be open to discussing this issue further with you and am curious what other reviewers think.

2. Typo on my part. Thanks for catching it.

3. I have notified the Visual Art, Architecture, and (defunct) Sculpture WikiProjects. Just for the record, my view is that redlinks along the lines of Tomb of Pope John II and Tomb of Pope Martin I would be inappropriate, but redlinks to articles which are not the primary subject of the list are value enhancing (although I anticipate that others may disagree). David Gerard has a lot of interesting blog entries on the subject in support of redlinks. [67]

4. My philosophy on the lead was that it should summarize facts that are cited in the article, which in my view does not necessitate re-citation. I would be open to adding some if you could be more specific in your justification.

5. Thanks.

6. I will drop the first image as you suggest. I have created a specialized TOC. If it is to your liking I suggest it is superior to combining the article categories, which may raise issues about trapping the reader in very long tables. E.g. readers wanting to jump to the 4th century would have to wade through three preceding centuries of table. Savidan 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - much improved. Splitting off the non-extant tombs was a good idea. Now, when are you going to get that list of popes up to FL? Geraldk (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Oppose The first sentence still needs to improve. Do away with the self-references completely—see List of members of the Gregorian mission as an example. "fourteenth century fires"-->fourteenth-century fires "seventeenth century demolition "-->seventeenth-century demolition The lead needs a few inline citations. For example, "The style of papal tombs has evolved considerably throughout history, tracking trends in the development of church monuments." One at the end of each paragraph is enough. "sarcophagi " Link? "(most notably, the combination of Popes Leo I, II, III, and IV)" What makes this example the most notable? You might say "for example". All date ranges need en dashes. However, full date ranges need spaced en dashes, while year ranges need unspaced en dashes. See my sample edits. Per WP:ACCESS, having hidden boxes in the article is a no-no. Check the toolbox, there are several dismbiguation links that need to be fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. I will do my best to address them. The article that you link does not seem typical to me among the featured lists. I see to criteria that outlaws self-reference, and therefore would prefer that recommendations in this area be made in terms of policy or some other specific improvement. FL moved away from the "This is a list of" opening sentence style beginning in late 2008. Likewise, FAs don't start with "This is an article of ..." This is a matter of style, so it isn't based specifically on the criteria.—Chris! ct 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC) It actually is a matter of criteria (engaging lead), and see WP:LEAD—"If the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..."." Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Also, if you look at promoted FLs from about October 2008 and later, you'll notice the change. See WP:FLL for recently promoted examples. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009 I have reworked the intro. Savidan 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC) Fixed Fixed I have added a citation to the sentence you quote. Done Changed I intend to rename the list "list of extant papal tombs" and will finish moving the hidden content out of the article shortly. Please stand by. I did the dashes. Could you be more specific? I have no idea what toolbox functionality you are referring to, but would be glad to fix any incorrect links. Savidan 18:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) There is a toolbox on the right-hand side of this page. It has three links: the top (first) is to the disambiguation links. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I eliminated the remaining undisambiguated link. Savidan 23:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC) "Century" should not be capitalized. Peter has a strange second pontificate date: "post42/ante57–64/67(?)". The lead sentence is much better. However, it is a bit too "in-subject". Could you provide a basic sentence on who the pope is? Perhaps a condensed version of the first sentence of pope. Remember that we have to strive to help the general audience understand. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I hope you will find my changes acceptable. The double date on Peter is because, strictly speaking, the title of "bishop of Rome" did not exist for the entire period of his leadership. I have modeled this after the list of popes. Savidan 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - looks good —Chris! _ct 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose with comments... Lead is weak - you state the pope's role then launch immediately into papal tombs - can we find a connecting sentence so this doesn't read quite so cut-throat? You have a note on non-extant papal tombs but not antipope tombs. I don't even know what an antipope is. Could you help the reader with this? "...emptied by repeated translations ..." what do you mean exactly? Translation can take on a number of meanings, I guess you mean it was moved around a lot? Not sure why the Pontificate dates are smaller text. Nor why Common English names are in bold. And sometimes there are more than one, so should it be "Common English name(s)"? Empty cells are always a bad thing. I don't know if you're suggesting (1) there is no sculptor (2) the sculptor is unknown (3) you forgot to fill it in (4) something else? Some of the tomb images are not tombs at all, they are images of churches etc. Unclear (to me at least) what (above) and (below) means. I may have missed something obvious though, so apologies if I have. Is there a reason why I see O.S.B. in italics in one place and not in another? What is Can. Reg.? Lucius III has a nasty link its tomb image. Discouraged. I prefer references to be in numerical order, so [60][28] ought to be [28][60] for me. "Modified in 1994[61][59][61]" - double 61 citation. "...all sixty statuettes..." MOSNUM - 60. " September 5, 1606 " - other dates don't have that rogue comma - check others... "See Moses and Dying Slave" - what's the context of this note? Maybe it's against MOS but I don't understand why we have book references such as "Mann, 2003, p. 1." in Notes before we see what those books actually are (listed in References). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your thorough review. I went ahead and just made most of your changes, which you can review: here. I will comment on the ones that I have not made (yet): My initial reaction is one of being tugged back and forth. One reviewer considers a certain sentence absolutely necessary context to the following sentence; another considers it to be "cut-throat". I would be at less of a total loss for words if you could be more specific in what, for you, would constitute a "connecting sentence" in this context. Agreed, and usually an inevitable result of me showing up late after things have been endlessly discussed. So, the idea of these sort of comments isn't to mandate any approach, simply to suggest an alternate way of phrasing things. It won't, on its own, result in a continuing oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I took most of your other aesthetic comments at face value, even though they were made with no particular reference to a MOS guideline or FL criteria. However, here I think the bold words. It makes it easier for the reader to find the link to the article about the pope. "Name(s)" wouldn't make sense in this context because there is never more than one "name" listed; it only lists "Saint [name]" or "[name] the Great" if applicable, which are different reference styles, but the same "name". No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) You are correct. They are images of the church in which the pope was entombed. I did this in cases where no free image existed of the tomb in question. If you can give me a good reason why I should remove these, I will. I'm not suggesting you remove the images, but the title of "tomb" is slightly misleading when you have an image of a church or cathedral, not the tomb itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not going to violate the MOS (by changing the order of the notes and references sections) for a subjective preference. This would only subject the article to better-grounded objections. This is standard academic practice, with many papers and books have footnotes in this abbreviated style before the references section which lists the works that the footnotes refer to. Savidan 20:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC) No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC) "An antipope is a historical papal claimant currently regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as illegitimate." - do you mean their claim is illegitimate or the individual is illegitimate? Just a minor point... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC) I have changed "Tomb" to "Image". This makes no promise to the reader about what they are going to see. It could be a picture of the tomb; it could be a picture of whatever part of the tomb is left; it could be a picture of the church where the tomb/remaining fragments are housed. I hope this resolves your concerns about "misleading" the reader. Your last comment caused me to think a little. I think that syntactically (and correctly) this sentence means that the antipope/claimant is illegitimate, but it does imply that the claim is illegitimate (or, more naturally, incorrect in the eyes of the current Church). Illegitimacy is a property of the person themself, as in an illegitimate child. Savidan 21:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [68].

---

List of Key games

Nominator(s): 十八 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though I just created the list, I believe it already satisfies the criterion described at WP:FL?. At this date, the list is comprehensive, though as stated at the end of the lead, Key's latest game has yet to be released or even given much details on (such as release date, and its rating). I didn't think any images were appropriate for inclusion. I attempted to follow a similar structure laid out on List of Nintendo 64 games and List of Virtual Boy games (initially basing the idea for the list on List of Square Enix games and its structure).--十八 03:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Not happy yet

• "all-ages": why the hyphen? There are two instances.
• "and is described as a "kinetic novel" by the development team due to having a completely linear storyline."—not a pretty sentence. "... team, because of its completely ..."?
• Most readers would expect commas to be used in the running text. (There's one lonely comma.) Tony (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the lead, changing all-ages to 'everyone', rewrote a couple sentences, and added commas where appropriate.--十八 19:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments and questions...

• Can't find any images that help illustrate the topic? I know there would be fair use issues with a lot of potential images but the page seems pretty bare as is...
• In the lead or after the sub-heading that starts the list, you should explain what eroge and availability mean. The former is less obvious (and more tehchnical) than the latter, but both aren't fully clear to the lay reader. I know you semi-explain them in the notes, but that requires an extra and unnecessary step by the reader.
• Why don't all the entries in the table have kanji translations?
• Certainly not required, but it would be interesting to see sales data for these. Is there any place such information would be available? Geraldk (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not that I can't find suitable images, it's that none exist. I imagine a group image of at least the 7 current different game cases would suffice, but beyond that, I can't think of anything.
  • I'll transfer what is explained in the notes to the lead, in a second paragraph. This'll also give me the chance to explain the box set to be released in more detail, as I was worried it was kind of vague.
  • The titles that don't have kanji equivalents were not manufactured with such equivalents. For example, as given at Kanon's official website, two versions were titled Kanon Standard Edition in plain English.
  • Sales data for visual novels is generally hard to come by, but some have been able to be found for these games, which is viewable on their articles. Certainly, I could add in all the data already available, but by no means is it possible that all the versions would have such data, so having some with and some without probably wouldn't make sense for an FL.--十八 23:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support as is, satisfied with responses though I still think the list could be better if there were an image available. Geraldk (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support, it is detailed and comprehensive. The only thing that it needs right now is an image, which I guess the Memorial Box's cover art would do, when it is released, that is. -- クラウド６６８ 23:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Twas Now

Support, looks good. Remember to move the article to List of video games developed by Key. Initiate a discussion through Wikipedia:Requested moves if you think another title might be more suitable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have reservations about the article's name. First, it should probably say "video games", not just "games". Second, as someone who's never heard of the company, I find the article name rather ambiguous. "Key" can mean a number of things. Is this a list of important ("key") games? Is "Key" a type of game, or genre, like List of puzzle video games? I propose List of video games developed by Key. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with renaming the article, but I was just going by the previous examples set out in Category:Video game lists by company, where the majority of the articles are "List of COMPANY games". Not to mention that since "Key" is capitalized in the article title, shouldn't that be enough to say that it's a proper name? And this would thus exclude the examples you gave where 'key' would have to be lowercased. Of course, we could make this article an example article if it passes FL, since there are no other current FLs of video game lists by company.--十八 23:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The capitalized "Key" is what clued me in that this was not meant as a "list of important video games". However, people less familiar with Wikipedia and its conventions might not know that. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not a good argument since it's not something unique to Wikipedia. The English language capitalizes proper names, therefore anyone who knows English will know it's a proper name.--十八 02:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough articles with improper capitalization to know that is not the case. (Not to mention all the wild capitalization that exists across the rest of the internet). My point is that I didn't know what this article was about when I saw the name. Homocysteine methyltransferase offers more clues about its subject matter. I initially thought "Key" was the name of a video game series. That's a close guess, but only because I first noticed it listed at WikiProject Video games, so there was some context to suggest it was about video games. What about people who see the article name without such context? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I understand your argument now. I'll agree with the proposed rename, but can it be held off until this FLC closes (so as to remove the need of moving other pages for the time being)?--十八 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the "video games" part is crucial, but I won't press the issue. If others think it should moved first, then let's move it. (Although it would only take roughly one minute with AutoWikiBrowser to fix all the links, which I could do tomorrow). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• The fair use rationale for the image used in the article needs to be improved. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Improve how? Is it not following the guidelines already?--十八 23:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The rationale could be strengthened. Read Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and make sure all points are covered, particularly "Respect for commercial opportunities". — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• The date format in the references (currently 2009-05-16) should match the date format in the article (e.g. May 16, 2009).
  • Actually, the date formats of the references are independent of those of the article, but I made everything consistent anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• "As of September 2008" — Could this be updated? Not a showstopper, but it would be good to have it up-to-date, if possible. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That is the last month/year Key released a version of their games (meaning they haven't released anything since then). Instead of having to update it every month, having the last time a game was released makes more sense to me.--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• What's the reason for having these tables sortable? The tables are each short enough that this information can be easily discerned at a glance. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As stated above, I used three example articles, all of which used sorted tables (meaning, I stole the base code for use in this article). I suppose you're right though, and I could easily remove the sorting.--十八 22:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, those are all long tables (with more columns, too). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "with a rating for everyone." This needs to be clarified; sounds like everyone "gets" a rating rather than that the game was approved for all ages. "and is described as a "kinetic novel" by the development team, because of its completely linear storyline." No comma. "Key's fifth game Tomoyo After: It's a Wonderful Life was released in 2005 as an adult game, and sequel of sorts to Clannad, which expanded on the scenario of the heroine Tomoyo Sakagami from Clannad." -->Key's fifth game Tomoyo After: It's a Wonderful Life was released in 2005 as an adult game and sequel of sorts to Clannad; it expanded on the scenario of the heroine Tomoyo Sakagami from Clannad. "nineteen versions of Key's"-->19 versions of Key's "Overtime" Remove this word. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC) All done.--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Remurmur (talk · contribs)

• Is there any real reason we can't have the section titles bluelinked instead of using "Main article:"?
  • WP:ACCESS. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm uncomfortable with the wording on the "Availability" column. I'd prefer something more along the lines of "In print/Out of print".
  • Changed, and also changed the Eroge columns to Rating, thus removing all the Yes/No templates.--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps have another column for the extras that come with the various versions? And maybe get rid of the Japanese titles (having translations for things such as "limited edition" isn't really all that helpful IMO).
  • I think the Japanese titles should stay for the reason that these were the original titles, and then translations like "limited" and "regular" aren't exactly word-for-word translated; they are just general concepts of what these games were manufactured as. For example, all of the limited editions carry the kanji 初回 which would translate as "first time", but this isn't included since it's not standard, and is unnecessary in understanding what these versions are. Not to mention that from Tomoyo After, all the games carry were printed originally with Japanese names, unlike from Kanon to Planetarian. As for the extras, only the limited editions ever came with extra stuff, and adding them in would mess up how the table looks, especially when the majority of the versions released didn't come with extras.--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• List seems to imply that the games were only released on PC, with no mention of DC, PS2, and PSP ports.--Remurmur (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This list was created to list all the titles actually released by Key, not affiliates that released the ports: Interchannel and Prototype. Would an addition akin to this example suffice?--十八 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support -- Amazingly I found no issues, thus it meets WP:WIAFL. Great job.--Truco 16:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

*Oppose with comments I'd prefer a more useful intro sentence telling me exactly what these games are about before you tell me who develops & publishes them and what platforms they are "originally" released for. "sequel of sorts to Clannad" what do you mean by "of sorts"? Is it your opinion? "As of September 2008" - it's now nearly June 2009 - can we have an update please? Are "Out of print" and "In print" conventional terms for software availability? Not sure why "Little Busters! Ecstasy" is a sub-section of Little Busters! when you discuss it in the lead as a 7th release. Not one single English reference. I think that's a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by "what these games are about". Do you mean describe the gameplay or something? If this list is supposed to be a "list of video games developed by Key", then shouldn't the first sentence be telling you these are video games developed by Key? Perhaps it's just an odd topic or odd choice of title, but I think we need to engage our readers and just telling them who develops, publishes, ports games doesn't really do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I rewrote the first sentence, introducing what Key is first, and then getting into the development/publisher info.--十八 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Tomoyo After isn't a direct sequel, but more of a spin-off work; I'll clarify that. September 2008 was the last month/year in which Visual Art's published one of Key's titles, in this case, it was the Little Busters! Ecstasy Regular Edition. Instead of having to update it every month, the last instance of a release date is given. And besides, it'll be updated to "As of July 2009" once the box set Key 10th Memorial Box gets released. Well, the point is that it currently reads as if it's out of date - who knows what could have happened in the intervening 9 months? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Updated.--十八 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I'm unsure about the conventionality of the terms, but "out of print" and "in print" are the simplest ways of describing the availability. I accept this is convention for the printed word, but for software, I'd like clarification that these terms are accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) How about changing the column heading to "Status" and changing the terms to "Discontinued" and "Available"?--十八 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Little Busters! Ecstasy was an updated, adult version of Little Busters!, and since it's even given a separate page on Key's website, it's clear they regard it as a separate work, plus Ecstasy has no article of it's own as it's covered in Little Busters!, so having it as a subsection will make it clear where the main article info is; if it was in it's own section, it might look strange for all the other games to have main article links, but not Ecstasy. I don't agree. Not all sections need main links. You've asserted it's clearly a separate work, so it ought to be a separate section. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Updated.--十八 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) For release info, GameFAQs is considered a reliable source. Therefore, I could add in some refs, like this or this. Sounds good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Updated.--十八 21:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC) --十八 20:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [69].

---

The Ting Tings discography

Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be well referenced and informative. Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The band has one studio album only. Is it really necessary to create a new page for this band's discography? I don't want to discourage you or anything, but I think any discography with one album should NOT be created as a separate page.--Crzycheetah 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment My issues were resolved in the previous FLC, but I'm concerned about whether this list meets 3b. Also, I am still wary about promonews.tv; however, I'd like more opinions before deciding either way. Also, there is one dead link, check the toolbox to the right. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have removed PromoNews.tv and replaced it with links to articles published by MTV. I have also removed the dead link and replaced it with another reliable source. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great job. I will support for now, although I would invite more input on the 3b issue above. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

3b doesn't really concern me in this case. Not counting the music videos, the list reaches the rule-of-thumb limit of 10 releases. With them, it definitely does. I'd say it's on the cusp of being enough content to simply transfer to the main page, but I think it warrants its own page. Besides, if they're main page is and indiciation, they'll have a new album soon, which will make this question moot. Drewcifer (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Looks really good. I can't find much of anything to complain about. The only thing I have to mention is that there's 12 chart columns in two of the tables. MOS:DISCOG suggests a limit of 10, since anymore borders on an indiscriminate stat dump (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Beyond that, if you make the tables too wide, smaller monitors can't handle them and they get squished. For both these reasons, I don't wanna support until this is addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have limited the tables to 10 charts each. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks great, happy to support now. Drewcifer (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- My previous issues were resolved in the previous FLC. But I strongly recommend addressing the table problem that Drewcifer mentions above.--Truco 15:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - if a band did nothing other than release EPs, singles, videos etc, we shouldn't discriminate against them having a separate discog list. It really is a borderline 3b case but I'm one foot in the support camp. Can't see anything else wrong with the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 22:12, 2 June 2009 [70].

---

List of winners of the London Marathon

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

After working on this for about a week, I think it's pretty much ready. There's a few redlinks, but they should be blue by the end of the nomination. Lede section may be a bit long for some. If that's the case I can shift some of it over to London Marathon, which is a bit anemic in well referenced statements. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment It might be to good to divide the refs into general refs and specific refs like many FLs I think the tables should use full size text whenever possible —Chris! ct 04:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I've done the general/specific thing, although I think it's a pretty odd way of doing them. I tried making fonts in the tables 100%, but it results in the first two tables having narrower columns than the rest, even with forced column widths. I don't know why.. maybe something to do witht the images? I'll have to have a play around at some point. Matthewedwards :  Chat  05:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Did this edit work out that problem? Not sure if it works across all resolutions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 21:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Failed: doesn't work on resolutions less than 1260 x 720. Does anyone know how to make image sizes a percentage of the screen? Should the images be reduced further in size? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Your edit made it worse, I think. Could you revert that edit, pease?--Crzycheetah 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Reverted, still trying to implement a decent solution for this as it occurs across a number of list. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU! 12:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support —Chris! _ct 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments - on lead prose

• "7,741 participants entered ", don't start sentences with numbers per MOSNUM
• "first Men's race", I'm not sure capitalise Men's, similarly with Women's. I wasn't sure but I notice this FL is lower case for "men's discus" in the lead.
• "19 people competed, and seventeen finished" comparable quantities
• "saw 35,859 competitors" - don't think "saw" is the most encyclopaedic word here
• "It remained here for twelve years" - this might not be right, but I'd have thought it should be "there" not "here"
• "In 2005 the route" comma after 05

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambo's Revenge (talk • contribs) 21:37, May 16, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I've done everything except the "Men's race"/"men's race" thing. I've seen both, but capitalised is used more often at the BBC, Guardian and what-have-you. What do you think of the "7,741 participants" sentence now? I can't come up with anything less clumsy. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I downloaded a torrent of the BBC's coverage of this year's race, and they refer to the races as Men's Elite Race, Women's Elite Race, Men's Wheelchair Race and Women's Wheelchair Race on the on-screen graphics. I've updated the page to reflect this. Matthewedwards :  Chat  18:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No issues of mine remain, and I'm happy with your take on the Men's vs men's comment. Saying that, I haven't had an in-depth look so I don't feel it would be right to support. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments – Nice one. Only a couple of things I saw stuck out at me:

• Link for Isle of Dogs in the second paragraph? Also, there are two River Thames links in a single paragraph.

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• "The most recent win by a British athlete was the 2008 London Marathon, by David Weir in the Men's wheelchair race." Soemthing about this is bothering me. I think it's the fact that we're saying Weir won the marathon, when he actually only won one of the event's races. Is this considered normal usage in the media when describing winners? Giants2008 (17-14) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think putting "The most recent win by a British athlete was in the 2008 London Marathon, by David Weir in the Men's wheelchair race." will solve the problem?

• Yes, I think it would. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Took care of it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, and Constitution Hill is a disambiguation link. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Thought I'd got them all. All done Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I expected to see the info about the course in the first paragraph. I think it's more important than all the stats in the first paragraph, but that's just me.
    • Done Matthewedwards :  Chat 
  • Why do you have "Wheelchair race" as a section with 2 sub-sections? I think those sub sections need to become sections. It looks offending to me.

--Crzycheetah 05:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• • • Done Matthewedwards :  Chat 
• Redlinks are gone now. (breathes a giant sigh of relief)----> Geraldk (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You've done a great job on that, Gerald. Well done! Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) "as a very competitive and " "It remained there for twelve years before" "twelve"-->12 "the London Eye comes into view, before turning right into Birdcage Walk to finish the final 385 yards," I didn't know the London Eye was capable of turning right. "between 14 and 21 miles was" Using "miles" here is unidiomatic. Try "between the 14- and 21-mile marks" "nineteen people"-->19 people; basically, there is inconsistency in the usage of numerals for numbers over ten. "The London Marathon has been won by twenty athletes representing the United Kingdom thirty-nine times." I think it would be better as "Twenty athletes representing the United Kingdom have won the London Marathon a total of thirty-nine times." (always use active voice when possible). "second largest number"-->second-largest number "World records for marathon running" The piped link for this redirects; might as well fix it. "2008 with 1:48:04."-->2008, with 1:48:04. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC) All done. Thanks for reviewing.

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Any progress forthcoming on the text size? I'm inclined to support otherwise. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Font size now at 100% after a bit of resizing of the table's column. It should look okay at most resolutions now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me.--Crzycheetah 04:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support – My issues were taken care of a while ago; I was just waiting for the font size issue to be resolved, which it is now. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• A lot of use of Heading, can it be used less often as the starting word of the sentences in the second paragraph?

• Done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• 'In 2005, the route around the Isle of Dogs between the 14- and 21- mile marks was switched from a clockwise to an anti-clockwise direction, and at 22 miles the route was diverted to avoid the cobblestoned area near the Tower of London.' -- 1)Shouldn't it be 21-mile marks? 2)'anti-clockwise' --> counterclockwise? 3)Comma after '22 miles'
• British English is "anti-clockwise" Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Oh okay, well can #1 and #3 be done?--Truco 18:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

List

• Why are the notes not starting with capital letters?

• They don't in the other Marathon FLs. Fixed. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• It would be better if the commas separating different ideas in the notes be replaced with semicolon's.

• OK Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• I'm not a real fan of using the '1st, 2nd, 3rd' numbering system for things like the number of victories, why not just spell them out?

• OK Matthewedwards :  Chat 

--Truco 15:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Everyhing's been done. Matthewedwards :  Chat  17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

*Very weak oppose - I fixed a cell without an edge in one of the tables, and I made a (better?) categorisation from "Marathoning" to "Marathons in England" (two levels more specific category). I think you're missing one of the other "major" marathons in your "See also" section, and I would consider a template maybe? Does everyone know what a "pub" is? Also, you could increase the size of the lead image? And a description of what the difference between "Elite" and non-"Elite" would be useful, incorporating info that states they set off first, with all the crazy gang afterwards. But real close to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC) I've resized the image, added a template and wikilinked pub. The Berlin Marathon doesn't have a list of winners page (potential FL, for anyone who's interested), so I linked to the closest section in Berlin Marathon. I haven't decided on explaining the difference between Elite and non-Elite (Mass Race) because this article doesn't even mention the crazies. It should be done at London Marathon, but I'm not sure about this page. If you can think of a decent way to word it though, feel free to add it :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks great! The lead is very long, but I think it's okay. I'm sure you have, but be sure the main article is good quality too. Reywas92^Talk 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Reywas92 that the lead is quite long, but it is still very informative and is a help rather than a hindrance to the list overall. I'm still thinking of a decent image stacking solution for images alongside tables, but it's more of a niggling technical issue rather than a true problem. You have my support. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the lede is rather long now. The route paragraph has already been copied over to London Marathon, perhaps it would be better removed from here and just leaving the 26.2 mile detail in. It is after all the only paragraph not related to the actual winners, and doing this would reduce it to four paragraphs, in line with WP:LEDE. Matthewedwards :  Chat  06:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good decision to me. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 15:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Since there's a template available now, the see also section can be removed.--Crzycheetah 03:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

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