Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2010

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 27 May 2010 [1].

---

Spice Girls discography

Nominator(s): Mister sparky (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because over the past couple of months I have done alot of work on improving sourcing, formatting, content etc for the article and think it's of very high quality. There has also been a peer review and the suggestions have been actioned. Mister sparky (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comments.

1. Can you use a uniform format for large numbers? For instance: "UK: 3,000,000[1] US: 10 million[1] World: 23 million[1]". Write "3 million" instead of 3,000,000.

   forgot about that one. Mister sparky (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Why are you putting a full stop after incomplete sentences? For instance: "Promotional song for the launch of Channel 5 in the UK.". No full stop is necessary here.

   good point. Mister sparky (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

3. The tables mention featured artist and promotional songs. They should be also mentioned in the leading section.

   FL discogs don't usually mention promo and featured songs in the lead, thats why I left them off. Mister sparky (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I do see any further problems with this list. Ruslik_Zero 17:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Support I have a couple of comments, but this is good enough for me to support. Well done.

thank you! :) Mister sparky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't you introduce the band members in the lead? As it stands, only Haliwell is named, and only because she quit the group.

added. Mister sparky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Like in The Libertines discography, include a note explaining what those dashes in the Singles table are supposed to mean.

forgot about that! added. Mister sparky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you can mix up the prose in the lead a bit more, as you use a few phrases repetitively. For eg: That first paragraph alone contains the word 'sell' five times, 'album' is there 16 times (mix it up with the name of the album). Also, 'global success' shouldn't be there twice.

done some re-jigging. Mister sparky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• You devote far too many words for that debut album (esp "Wannabe") as compared to the rest of their releases.

also jigged the info a bit. Mister sparky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Considering that all the chart positions are obviously referenced in the body of the article, you don't need to reference them in the lead too.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

in every flc i've worked on previously they do have to be sourced in the lead. unless things have changed recently? Mister sparky (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on "contains", perhaps "consists of" would be better. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, and then to avoid repetition, perhaps instead of "the group consisted of", you could have "the group was made up of" or similar. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "twenty-three million" 23 million. changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "The now four-piece Spice Girls" Perhaps "Now a four-piece, Spice Girls ..." changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "a new album, and in November, a Greatest Hits album was" I would avoid the repeat of album, perhaps just "in November, Greatest Hits was ..." changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Spiceworld and Forever, you have a capital C for Cassette. oops! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The link to allmusic (to ref the US positions) doesn't take me to the right page, I think this is the one you really, really want. both links go to the same page, and when i click on the link in the article it does go to the right page... Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) And I don't see "Headlines" referenced in that source at all. it's in the book, but not on allmusics or billboards site, odd. will swap for the book. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Not all note under promo songs section are referenced (e.g. catalogue number, cancelled from album, rewrite of 5-4-3-2-1...) the only places i can find for the cat number are discogs and online retailers? can't find a reliable source for cancelled single so will remove that. Mister sparky (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "Spice Girls in America: A Tour Story" you suddenly link "United States", no need. oh yea! changed. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Big blank for the director of the video for ""(How Does it Feel to be) On Top of the World)" (as part of England United)" added note. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Aren't those ISO accessdates in the wrong order? all dates in the references are in the international format as they are a british band. Mister sparky (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) But ISO dates list the year first, then the month then the day, so as to be ambiguous (e.g. so we don't confuse day and month). The Rambling Man (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC) thats the american format. all other FL discogs i have worked on have the dates in the british format. Mister sparky (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) No, that's the ISO standard, which is international. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC) See ISO 8601 which reiterates my point. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) changed them now anyways. re cat numbers, is discogs considered reliable for them? Mister sparky (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support, as long as you find a cat number with an RS. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - a DVD entitled "Spice Girls Greatest Hits" is used as a reference, but does not appear in the "video albums" section - any reason for this omission.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

the dvd is a bonus disc with the greatest hits album, added the format to the compilation table, which i forgot previously. Mister sparky (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support now that that's cleared up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:31, 27 May 2010 [2].

---

Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 02:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles the other Grammy Award list I recently upgraded to FL status (Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album). The list should be up to par as far as disambig. links, alternate text, formatting, sorting, etc. go. There is one thing I am uncertain of: should the years when the aforementioned award was not presented ('88, '92, '94) be included in the list? I did not include 2005–2010 as the award was not presented then, but I felt this was a larger sequence and did not think a large chunk of empty cells would look appropriate. Any feedback would be appreciated, and thanks to all reviewers for taking the time to offer their comments! --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose on image

I've cleaned up the licensing information on the Kravitz and DMB photos but File:Robert Palmer.jpg is fair use and shouldn't be used. I think it's use on the Robert Palmer page is weak at best. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image of Robert Palmer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment Replace the {{country name}} templates with just the names of the countries (without links).—indopug (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though similar lists (Grammy Legend Award, MusiCares Person of the Year, Grammy Award for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album) use the templates? I would think consistency would be preferred. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MOSFLAG (including the flag implies a whole bunch of nationalistic things, and those annoying little images increase page-load time) and WP:OVERLINKING. The other articles should be changed as well (although not necessarily by you). —indopug (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not refusing to remove the templates, and I see WP:MOSFLAG, but according to this section of the second link you provided repeated links are appropriate in a table (so United States would be linked each time regardless of whether or not the flag was pictured next to it). Thank you for your feedback. I would like to see additional comments from other reviewers (preferably the ones that commented on and promoted the aforementioned Grammy-related lists) to see their thoughts on removing the flag templates. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about the flags, but either way I don't think this is the place to discuss it - this decision affects a number of lists. Jujutacular ^T · C 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments very good. Is "for quality vocal performances in the rock music genre" a direct quote from the Grammys? If so, quote marks needed and a ref too. No, it is not a direct quote. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Any reason why you have artist(s)? Can't see more than one artist winning. Corrected. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Any thoughts on the above discussion about the flag templates? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I don't have a problem with the flags. It's a sortable table, and as long as we comply with WP:ACCESS (i.e. we have the flag and the name) I'm happy. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
*Could you include a little bit more in the captions of the images of Dave Matthews and Michael Jackson? Citing that Dave Matthews was the last artist to win the award would be nice. Jujutacular T · C 18:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Good work, meets all criteria. Jujutacular ^T · C 16:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Truco

Comments "The Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance is an award given to male recording artists for quality vocal performances in the rock music genre at the Grammy Awards, a ceremony that was established in 1958 and originally called the Gramophone Awards." -- This might need some tweaking, because it sounds like the awards are only for those who actually perform at the Grammy Awards. I see what you mean. I re-formatted the sentence, so hopefully it reads better now. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) "The title of the award remained unchanged up to 1993 (starting with the 1995 ceremony, the category became known as Best Male Rock Vocal Performance)." --> "Beginning with the 1995 ceremony, the name of the award was changed to Best Male Rock Vocal Performance. However, in 1988, 1992, ...." Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) "Years reflect the year in which the Grammy Awards were handed out, for music released in the previous year." -- same thing with what I said in the other list. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Likewise with the other list, nationalities should be represented in the lead somehow. Done. Again, hopefully the wording is acceptable (I wasn't exactly sure how to include Dave Matthews). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Looks fine to me, except the Matthews note. I don't really see why it would be a controversy if he is from there?--Truco 503 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I removed the Matthews note. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Well if the award has been given out as the combined award for genderless classification for five years now, is this award still active? Or has it been discontinued with the merger? Or is it just on the basis of how the Academy sees sales annually?--Truco 503 00:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Honestly, I don't think we have a way of knowing. I have not read that the award is inactive, and based on the history of the award you can see it has been brought back a couple of times. I would not assume that the award will not be presented again. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC) I think it should be noted that since the merge in 2005, the award has not been awarded but not official confirmation of its disbanding was announced.--Truco 503 01:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Better? Hopefully "disbanding" is used appropriately in the lead. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- meets WP:WIAFL (comments addressed). I would probably use another word instead of disbanding, I was just using an example. Maybe like 'retiring'?--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:47, 25 May 2010 [3].

---

List of protected areas of Svalbard

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a complete list of all natural protected areas of Svalbard, perhaps the most accessible part of the high Arctic in the world. If anything is not to your liking, you know what to do. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• comments - Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• "comprising the northernmost part of Norway." well its an island far north of mainland Norway, not a part of it.
  • That would be akin to saying Alaska is not part of the US. Svalbard is a full part of Norway. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • More akin to saying that Greenland is comprising the northernmost part of Denmark. And if I remember correctly Svalbard is not a fully de facto part of Norway, as Russia, Japan and various other countries has mining rights etc. up there, meaning there exist some limited sovereignty wrt Svalbard.Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Based on the map on Norway and the article Svalbard, it would seem it is a part of Norway and not merely a possession of it. Some activities are restricted due to treaty, but that makes it no less a part of the country. "The Spitsbergen Treaty (also known as the Svalbard Treaty) of February 9, 1920, recognizes the full and absolute sovereignty of Norway over the arctic archipelago of Spitsbergen (now called Svalbard). Bouvet Island and Peter I Island are dependent territories (Norwegian: biland) of Norway but are not considered part of the Kingdom." --Golbez (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• there are quite a few redlinks.
  • Yes, and those are all bird sanctuaries. While notable, all an article would contain is probably in this list already with the sources I have at hand. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• why is the Svalbard Protection Act under external data?
  • It is a relevant external link, as there is not article on either it or protection on Svalbard in general. It is not suitable as a reference, as it is a primary source. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • almost nobody would understand it as its in Norwegian.Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't there any English sources for (some of) this?
  • Most of the information is sourced from "Protected Areas in Svalbard", which is in English. Concerning ref 4, it is a commentary on the law, and is the sort of information which is not readily available in English. Refs 8 through 36 contain a database entry for each protected area, and is only used to reference the area. No English sources exist that presents this information, so using a Norwegian source is fine. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• ref4 is in Norwegian, use same format to designate language in ext. links
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• the various databases lists Susan Barr as primary author of the first book?
  • According to the book itself, Torkildsen is presented as the main author. This is also supported by for instance this library entry and the entry at BIBSYS lists Torkildsen first in the title field. From the book itself, Barr was in no way presented as the main author. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• X sq mil doesnt sort properly on my mac.
  • Is this by getting four possible outcomes? Let me take a look at this, as I see no immediate reason for the malfunction. I suspect it has something to do with the mix of emdashes and numbers, even though I tried to sort the emdashes as numbers. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • yep, thats right. In the article List_of_FC_Barcelona_players I used SortKey to solve emdash sorting Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I tried to fix it up, but no it just acts irrational, sorting by alphabet instead of numbers half the time. Argh. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
        • I have now circumvented the issue. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
• ref colum shd be unsortable.
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• doesn't there exist some better images?
  • With the current layout, I don't think there is room for more than one image plus the map. I chose that image because it both showed the wilderness, the winter and the animals. There are (I believe) seven areas with images, so putting in thumbnail will, to my opinion, not look good. Do you prefer File:Prins-karls-forrland pho.jpg, File:Uria lomvia 2.jpg or File:Morsy1 (js).jpg? If you feel something else is better, or want more (resulting in a compromise on table width) then that is okay for me. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Prins-karls-forrland_pho.jpg is IMO way better than the current.Sandman888 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Image replaced. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review the list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is enough room for two more image to the right of the table. Ruslik_Zero 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no problems. Ruslik_Zero 17:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the above statement, great work! --TIAYN (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments: Since it is not wikilinked, could you shortly explain in the text what a "geotope" is? I wikilinked it. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Perfect! bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I believe there is an article missing in: " Ten of the bird sanctuaries and Moffen Nature Reserve...". Also not sure about the meaning of the "while" in the same sentence. Think I fixed it. If you feel it is still not right, please be bold and correct it yourself, as it reads okay for me now. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I added a "the". Please revert if it is wrong. I am not a native English writer. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "Sixteen species are on the IUCN Red List" refers to all species, or animals only or seabirds only? Specified. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "geotop" or "geotope"? "Geotop" is Norwegian, so I've fixed that. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Did you consider marking the Ramsar sites in the table with color and/or label (like in the railway tables)? I did; the reason I chose this solution is that it makes it possible to sort to find the Ramsar sites, while at the same time making it possible to sort to get bird sanctuaries. I can always add color if you feel it is necessary as well, but that would "wreck" the sorting. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Not sure why it would break sorting. If you have "Bird Sanctuary" (for the non-Ramsar sites) and "Bird Sanctuary†" (for the Ramsar sites) it would still separate the two when sorting, no? If necessary one could add hidden sort keys to make it sort properly. Anyway, color is up to personal preference and I don't feel strongly about this point. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Why are the land/marine columns with a lower precision than the size columns? Because they are using two different sources. The source that specifies the marine/land values is only accurate to the km2, while the sources for the total area is accurate to the decare. For the scale the article is covering, I felt these were appropriate sizes, particularly since some of the sanctuaries are less than a square kilometer. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Sounds reasonable. As a related question: why are there hyphens in some of the land/marine sizes? Lack of sources? bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Sorting needs to be fixed. Working on it, but I don't know why it is malfunctioning. No-one has answered at an inquiry at Help talk:Sorting, so if you know anything about the issue, please take a look. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I'll have a look at it, though table sorting on wikipedia often confuses me. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I tried all kinds of options but it still does not sort properly. Sorry. Apart from finding sources in order to replace the hyphens, I can only think of splitting off the bird sanctuaries in a separate table (without land/marine columns). Or make the critical columns unsortable. bamse (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC) I've split it into two tables. This solves several issues, although it is not optimal. Arsenikk (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Done. bamse (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC) The picture possibly shows only part of the national park and should therefore get another caption. Something like "X in the Forlandet National Park" Specified more accurately. Arsenikk (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Very good. bamse (talk) 09:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC) bamse (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. All comments have been (patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments "an Arctic, wilderness archipelago" not sure we need that comma. "Five of the bird sanctuaries are Ramsar sites. Fourteen of the bird sanctuaries are islands" merge? "tentative list for nomination" it's a list or it isn't, not tentative, perhaps proposed? This is the wording used by UNESCO. Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "for conservation lays with " lies with? "Svalbard reindeer" if this is a unique species, then link to the specific species. It may be a redlink but it's more accurate than linking to a generic Reindeer. Articles exist in Norwegian and German, so it is a plausible article. Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) "the icon of Svalbard" sorry to be a pain but do you have a ref for this? Yes, that probably needs a better ref. As I have no appropriate books at my side and I can't find anything suitable online. I've removed it for the meantime, but I'll readd it if I can find a ref (for instance the next time I'm into a library). Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) fifteen to twenty->15 to 20. thirty types->30 types. "Particularly Bjørnøya" -> "In particular, Bj..." "re important breeding ground for seabirds" grounds kilometers or kilometres? File:Svalbard protected areas map with names.svg - another map which most certainly contravenes WP:ACCESS. If you're colour blind then how do you interpret this? I've added a legend; if there is more that is needed, then tell me. I've run it through a few online color-blindness tests and the colors are distinguishable. Isn't .svg just great :) What's the difference between 0 and – in the marine area columns? —: no data; 0 = zero. Should this be explained further in the text? Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) There is a general issue with the fact that this is English Wikipedia and virtually all of your references are not in English. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Reg. sources; on this recently promoted FL List of National Treasures of Japan (temples), and all of the others Japanese treasures FL, they almost solely rely on non-English refs, and that wasn't seen as an issue. I think there is a general acceptance that non-English sources are valid. Sandman888 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC) See WP:RSUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." And I'm quite certain that no English source can be found for the Norwegian ones used. So there is no "general issue" as I see it, there is no issue at all. Sandman888 (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, and the same guideline also says "When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote", I'm trying to avoid this. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC) You are trying to avoid that other editors request it? As I see it, if no-one request it (and the stuff that is cited is hardly controversial), then it doesn't matter. Sandman888 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I'm trying to avoid the fact that we have virtually zero chance of proving that the information cited here is correct without requesting a translation. That's why I cited WP:RSUE. Obviously. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC) WP:RSUE is fairly clear on the matter: Where English sources exist that are of equal or better quality, English sources are preferred. In most of the areas I work, English sources (reliable or not) are seldom available, and often the short summaries I send to FLC has more English sources than typical articles. Compiling lists from topics from a non-English-speaking country normally requires that at least some of the information be sourced from non-English sources, because the information at the necessary detail is not available in English. In this article, most of the information is from the directorate's (online) English brochure on Svalbard's protected areas. The only things from a Norwegian source is "although vegetation only covers 10% of the island group." (from Torkildesen) and the size of bird sanctuaries (from the directorate's database). The sanctuaries existence, date and location can be verified from the brochure, as can the size of the other areas (with one less significant figure). So although a lot of the number of sources are in Norwegian, very little of the content is actually being sourced from Norwegian. And for web sites, there is always Google Translate and similar services. Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time for the review. Unless otherwise noted, I have amended per your comments. Arsenikk (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

conditional support a few comments still though. Sandman888 (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• make an introduction to the bird sanctuaries where you mention they where all established in 1973, a constant column looks silly.
• said column cd easily have a picture at the right.

Conditions met. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice pictures. I'd wl ramsar sites in key. Sandman888 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Linked. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:47, 25 May 2010 [4].

---

List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the sixth time is the charm. I'm hoping no objections can be found in here. You may notice in the header rows to the two tables, that:

A) They have different columns (specifically the 'Name' column. This is because the King's Highways do not have any 'names'. Just "Highway X").

B) The references are heavier on the City Roads table. I want those weighing in on this to decide which is better (sourcing the other columns, or avoiding it when possible as on the King's Highways table).

Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the list has been renamed since the previous discussion, I will post the relevant links here:

• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive1
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive2
• Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario/archive3

Imzadi 1979 → 09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • A question on termini... KL 7 terminates at "Hazel Street (Sturgeon Lake)", while KL 11 terminates at "Sturgeon Lake". I take this to mean that the eastern end of KL 11 is indeed just the lake, a dead end. But what is the eastern end of KL 7? An intersection with Hazel St right at the lake?
  • Why is Highway 35 linked in KL 15?
  • Should "Secondary" be capitalized in the intro?
  • IMO, the concurrencies should also be noted in the Notes column.
  • KL 48 redirects to Ontario Highway 48; the article's infobox has no mention of Kawartha Lakes, and it's only in a single line at the bottom that seems out of place compared to the rest of the article. Is this a correct redirect? I know this isn't about the KL 48 article per se, just making sure it redirects to the correct place.
  • Again, this is not to do with this article, but I removed the image from KL 8's article; please check that the template is resizing images correctly.
  • KL 46 redirects to ON 46, which is a past-tense article; if there is a present tense for KL 46, then it should go to an article that treats it as such. (In other words, it looks like ON 46 should be moved to KL 46, and changed to be present-tense, dealing with ON 46 was a previous name rather than KL 46 as the current name of a dead highway) Again, not specifically to do with this list, but since it is a list entry it needs to go to the right place.
• I think that's all for now. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed essentially every error you pointed out, save one: KL 48 points to Highway 48 as the latter is notable and deems an article. The former was originally part of it, and thus logically should redirect to it since it has no article of its own at this point (maybe if I get to the Kawartha Lakes archives cottage this summer :p).
  • Ooh, I see, KL 48 used to be part of ON 48 (which explains why it's not in the infobox), but as it doesn't have its own article yet, this is the next best choice. I'll buy that. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
• Aside from that, I've fixed the picture issue, requested the moving of Ontario Highway 46 to Kawartha Lakes Road 46 / updated the lead to match, removed the erroneous Highway 35 link, uncapitalized "Secondary", noted the concurrencies and noted the termini more clearly for routes 7/11.
  • Request filled. ;) --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hope the rest is good :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My only real remaining concern is that the pictures of the roads - like most pictures of roads - are pretty boring. The one crossing Mitchell Lake has merit, as that is an interesting geography; the one of the signs perhaps as well. The one of Glenarm and KL 46 doesn't really seem to add anything to an understanding of the subject. It could literally be a road anywhere. Just taking a random highway article, U.S. Route 151, it has a picture of an bridge; a picture of a terminus; a picture of a famous locale; and a picture of some random offramp. The first three add to an understanding of the article; I'm not sure the offramp one does. --Golbez (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Makes sense. I was only using it to break the long text and I suppose to show the average drive along a Kawartha Lakes road. Perhaps I'll get some nice photos this summer to highlight the differences in geography between the granite north and limestone south. Until then–photo gone. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose for the following reasons:

1. The first sentence (The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi) of roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes in the Canadian province of Ontario.) is too convoluted and confusing. While not to write simply: "The total length of the numbered roads in the City of Kawartha Lakes, Ontario, Canada is 901.9 kilometres (560.4 mi)." Otherwise it is not clear if "Kawartha Lakes" and "the City of Kawartha Lakes" are the same entity.
2. The third type of existing roadway in the single-tier municipality is that of locally-maintained roads that are also called concession roads and sidelines. This type of roads is mentioned, although there is no explanation as to why it is not included in the tables. (not numbered?) In addition it is not clear that "the single-tier municipality" is the same "City of Kawartha Lakes"; this should be stated directly.
3. These were downloaded to Victoria County in 1998. Such language as "downloaded" should be avoided in the leading section. Reader are not supposed to know what it means. Please, rewrite.
4. In the 'King's highways" subsection it is stated that the sum of lengths of Highways 7A and 115 is 27.1 km. However from the table I obtained 18.4+8.4=26.8. Why are these numbers different? These roads do not intersect.
5. Can an image of "flowerpot-shaped sign" be included?
6. The first table mentions two Highways that are not discussed anywhere in the article: 7B and 35B. I think some information about them should be added to 'King's Highways" subsection. These roads also are not showed on the map.
7. As part of a province-wide downloading of highways to municipal governments, six were given new Victoria County designations However in the second table only four former Highways are mentioned: 121, 48, 36 and 35A?
8. The responsibility for maintaining these roads was transferred to Victoria County as part of the province-wide downloading. This sentence duplicates the first sentence in 'Secondary Highways' subsection.

Ruslik_Zero 11:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Replies

Most of these are simple fixes. Some of them are genuine accidents though.

1. I changed this to "The numbered roads of Kawartha Lakes account for 907.3 kilometres (563.8 mi) of roads in the Canadian province of Ontario." – not sure why the second instance of "Kawartha Lakes" was there.
2. It did at one point mention that they are beyond the coverage of the article. There are thousands of them, and they are mostly macadam roads that are totally unworthy of mention. I felt it would be uncomprehensive to not mention what all those extra roads criss-crossing the place are, but also unencyclopedic to explain that to the user (at least in a way I can think of). Any suggestions here? For now I added "which are beyond the scope of this article"
3. Makes sense. Transferred seems to be a better word to use. I've also explained that the two terms are synonymous in the first use past the lead.
4. Conflicting sources on 7B and 35B. I've cleaned this up and cascaded it throughout the article.
5. It was. Other felt it was redundant since 45 of them are in the City Roads table.
6. 7B is, it's not labelled because it is tiny. I am honestly unsure on this road, as several sources conflict one-another. I am adding a blurb on them to the History section.
7. Added a sentence that lists all six. The other two are 35B and 48. Also discovered 36B hidden in tiny letters on my 1997 map, so I've added it into the article.
8. Fixed

Should be all of them. Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is good. However you forgot to address the issue related to "the single-tier municipality" (2 above). I also want to point your attention to the newly added note 3—the first sentence in it is incomprehensible. Ruslik_Zero 17:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, half awake today. Both have been fixed (though I'm not sure how note 3 got that way; must have deleted a line by accident). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Mm40 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk)

Comments from Mm40 (talk) First caption: should be "King's Highways", not "King's highways" (I think) Nowhere in the article is there a link to Kawartha Lakes Note 2: Why is "Road" capitalized in the second sentence? Reference is needed for "mostly rural municipality" Last paragraph of the lead is a bit confusing; were the roads in Victoria county but not maintained by the county? "with an shield shaped sign topped" → "with a shield-shaped sign topped" In the second paragraph of King's Highways, you're missing a space before "Highway 7, which is" "they are generally one lane" how about "usually" or something similar in place of "generally" to get rid of the repetition in the paragraph's first two sentences "city roads in Kawartha Lakes.[8] Kawartha Lakes city roads" sounds a bit odd First sentence of History: "city of Kawartha Lakes" → "City of Kawartha Lakes" "following the prior provincial designations" does this mean that the new designations were given after the old ones? If so, this part is redundant "The exception is" → "The exception's are" "Highway 48 near Victoria Road, to Highway 503 in Uphill" drop the comma "list of provincially-maintained highways" no hyphens after -ly Please give a reference for "Also known as Main Street" You can get rid of the "City Roads" title-thing above the city roads table Can you change "Towns are ordered" into "Communities are ordered"? In the city roads table: if a community is linked once, it should be linked at every mention in the table because it's sortable Why are Corsons and Bexley redlinked if other communities aren't? "by both the city of Kawartha Lakes" capitalize "city" again The comments for Kawartha Lakes Road 6 should begin with a capital Kawartha Lakes Road 17: in the comments, the note should go after the semi-colon In Road 18's comments, you can take out the "City Road 18" at the beginning Road 36 is missing a semi-colon in its comments Reference 1 should have a page number (i.e., what page is the map on?) Is the Thompson reference (currently 3) a book? Of so, the title should be italicized What is reference number 6? A press release (if it is, you can use {{Cite press release}}? In reference 9: there's no "pp." before the page numbers, and there's an extra space after the title In reference 13, I think "department" should be capitalized. Mm40 (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I've fixed most of the issues you've brought to light, but have a few replies to some: First off, wrt the last paragraph of the lead, the idea is that the highways that were transfered to Victoria County in 1998 were mostly NOT renumbered, but just changed from Highway X to Victoria County Road X. The exception being Highway 35A (became part of County Road 8) and Highway 36B (became the western extension of County Road 17). The maintenance switched as well. In 2001, they were renamed Kawartha Lakes Road X. In all cases, names changed, numbers didn't, with those exceptions. Hope this clears up what is honestly a really confusing reorganization of ownership and maintenance. Second, King's Highway was a term used in law up until recently to refer to these highways. They are provincial highways now, but the former term is certainly far more familiar to the average person. Third, I've removed the Highway 35 note, as I can't find a source. Fourth, linking every community every time was a major issue for other in the last nominations, as it is a serious case of overlinking. It is limited now to the first mention of them in the order the table loads initially. Fifth, the errors in reference 9 seem to be from the template itself. I've fixed the issues. Besides what I noted, all the other changes have been made. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments late in the day, but hopefully still useful. "existed prior to 1998, but no longer exist" why not "have not existed since 1998"? "...Victoria County. These were transferred to Victoria County in 1998. All Victoria County Roads, including the former provincial highways, were renamed when Victoria County ..." Victoria County x 4. Very repetitive reading. I have to say that even I find that map inaccessible. As for those who are colour blind, I'm sure they'll find it even more difficult... "[3][1]" can you list these numerically? "reassurance markers.[4]Highway 7" space missing. I thought WP:MOS#Images said to avoid "squashing text" between images. I also think the MOS frowns upon the use of # as number - see MOS:HASH Terminus cols in the first table don't sort but they do in the second. Any reason? I'm not sure how Western/Southern Terminus sorts. Sorting arrow up, I get "Highway 35, Highway 7" then four Highway 7s, then two Highway 7As, then 7 Highway 35s... Bullet point on the external link. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Fixes made. I'm viewing wikipedia at small resolution on my laptop monitor, and the only place I get overlap is the first line of the City roads section. I moved the pic down slightly to address this. The terminii don't sort in the first table because almost every one of them is a different class of road, and many are simply boundary lines that lie on concession roads (e.g. Hayes Line). These roads aren't numbered and sorting them would be rather fruitless. The second table is far larger and more in need of being sortable. As for the second point on them, KL Road 15 ends at the junction of Highway 35 and Highway 7, so both are listed. I wasn't sure where this fell in order, but made it first. Following that is the numerical order of highways then city roads. As for the map, is there anything in particular that you find makes it unreadable? It doesn't have to be 100% legible within the article, that's why you can click on it for a full version. I'm guessing that you're referring to the green lines on a green background though? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your quick response. I'm still getting squashed text between the lead map and the 7and35shields image, but that's not a major deal-breaker. As for the map, I guess I'm referring mainly to WP:ACCESS which talks about not denoting particular properties with colour alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The most (and the actually) important information isn't conveyed by colour alone, but colours add additional information for the keen reader (eg. the background green changes to pink in urban areas. For a roadgeek, its informative. For an average reader, unimportant and probably unnoticed). The King's Highways are all labelled (and 115 has two lines to show it as a divided expressway), the city roads are just lines. The thickness of the lines also indicated the type of road. I can see some concern over the lakes vs the land, but I think these sort of problems are endemic to maps in general - They are a visual aid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you're right, and maybe we should use some alt-text in these cases to explicitly describe what the maps are trying to show. I know it's no longer part of the MOS but I'm concerned that we allow these images through featured reviews when a considerable number of people probably can't get the most out of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I've shortened the caption on the map. Hopefully that will remove the pinch (unless you're viewing at 800x600). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I agree. I'd love to make it so even fully blind readers can get a rough idea as to the shape of the region and the location of the major routes. I'll rewrite the alt to be less descriptive of the legend, and more descriptive of the map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Excellent idea. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Done. I'm not the best with alts, but I think the change is for the better. It's very hard to describe a map with words. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:55, 22 May 2010 [5].

---

List of Major League Baseball strikeout champions

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The third list in the pitching half of the Triple Crown series. Comments appreciated and acted upon as soon as possible. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 16:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the 2nd and 3rd listed "ways" of striking out the same (a dropped 3rd strike)? Shouldn't that sentence be 3 ways, with the middle two just combined into "if the pitcher throws an uncaught third strike"? I pulled that from the rulebook; the cite shows four methods, so that's what I put in, even if we call them the same thing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Not a fan of "Who holds the single-season strikeout record is unclear." Perhaps just "There are several players with a claim to the single-season strikeout record."? Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) You can go ahead and mark Blyleven a Hall of Famer. :) Just kidding. Would love to. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Couple issues with the Carlton image. 1. I'd remove the "truck" note in the alt text, that's not clear in the image at all. 2. The "lefty" fact in the caption is uncited. 3. Is it even true? Isn't he actually tied with RJ (who had 5 titles with the D-Backs)? The image captions for Peavy, Santana, and Verlander also need cites. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed the Carlton image; I can't count. The references do verify that he is left-handed and won five, so that should do. All others cited. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) The references do confirm it, but it's not stated anywhere in the article that he's left-handed or that (for example) Dazzy Vance wasn't lefty. I know it's true, but currently that caption isn't cited. I'd say just re-use the Carlton B-Ref page cite you use in the lead. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC) You got it. General reference also covers it too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good as always. Just wonder why K is used as an abbreviation for strikeouts.—Chris!_c/t 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• That's the traditional scorekeepers' notation. I think that article actually has a decent explanation of why, too. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments "which is not put in play" what does this mean (to a non-expert for instance)? "are rare in practice, they have " I think "in practice" is superfluous, this is a practical list, after all, not theoretical. "lowest number of strikeouts accumulated to lead a league" can you clarify what "to lead a league" means in this context? 1939- two winners, three teams. worth a note. In fact, any player playing for more than one team deserves a note, and perhaps even a break-down of strikeouts for each relevant team. Our own article on triple crown (which we call Triple Crown) seems to be a sort-of dab page, talking about pitching and batting. Not ideal really... Per the comment above, would be worth a note next to "K" to say what you've said here. Refs 2 and 167 have different date formats from the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Linked in play. Removed in practice. I'm aware of the deficiencies of the MLBTC article, as this is part of a topic drive to improve it. It's actually my next task. Added footnote for strikeout. I ran a script on the article to correct the dates; let me know if something gets missed. I'm not really sure how you'd like me to clarify the league leader; it's already established above which leagues are included in this article through the use of a footnote. I could duplicate that note if you'd like. The players playing for more than one team hasn't been included in any of the other articles in this series; I've got no problem doing it, but I fear that the lead may be long enough/too long already. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Multiple teams for a player seem particularly relevant when you have two players and three teams, no? Who played for whom here? As for the other niggles, no major drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I thought it was pretty clear. I did the best I could; it figures it was the last list in the series when I finally run into that problem. I'm honestly not sure of the best method to handle it, save writing another paragraph in the lead for the multi-team, single year winners. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I appreciate that a rowspan will kill the sorting, but in my browser, it's still ambiguous as to which player played for the Phillies. I think a note would solve it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC) You got it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Yep, cool, and I get a 1/1024 bronze star for fixing your link! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Comment Just a note, as KV said we're fixing up articles for Major League Baseball Triple Crown, however it's not a mistake that they are listed together as both the pitching (K/ERA/W) and hitting (AVG/HR/RBI) are simply called the "Triple Crown". Staxringold talkcontribs 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC) I don't think I suggested it was a mistake, I just think with five minutes work, you guys could separate the articles appropriately. Challenge. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) You'd rather see List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (batting) and List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (pitching)? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The more complete set of articles (and thus less ambiguity) the better. If there's a chance these articles could stand alone from one another, then by all means, yes! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments taken care of. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Double period by Lefty Grove in second paragraph. Reference 23 has a publisher with three Ls in "Baseballl". Ref 28 should have p. for its single-page number, not pp. "tied in the American League with 113 strikeouts each. Their total of 113 is the lowest...". Two issues here. First, this occured in a different year than the NL tie before this, which isn't made clear; when reading this, I initially thought they occured in the same year. Second, the opening of the latter sentence repeats the statistic in the former, perhaps unneccessarily. For the Charles Radbourne photo, there is no proof that it was published before 1923, though it was created before then. Even if this is one the newly revamped Baseball Hall of Fame site, I doubt it will say when/if the image was published. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC) Fixed all but the first, which I could not locate. — KV5 • Talk • 21:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Support – On a second look, I couldn't find the extra period either. It's always possible that a speck of dust got on the computer and fooled me, or that too much time staring at Wikipedia pages is making me go blind (hopefully the former :-). Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 13:54, 22 May 2010 [6].

---

List of Major League Baseball tie-breakers

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've started some reasonably serious work on fixing up the articles for tie-breakers (I've gotten through 1999, 2007, 2008, and 2009 so far), and this list was messily left sitting at the one-game playoff article. I'd been intending to break it off for a while, and I've finally done it. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• "Arguably the most notable moment..." you and I know it's true, but we shouldn't give "arguments", we should give facts. Because this can't be stated as such, it should be removed (as much as I like it in the lead). Mm40 (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "Both the American (AL) and National League (NL)" - since you use "both", this becomes a compound subject. Should be Both the American and National Leagues "and four series," - rm comma "In baseball statistics" - comma after "tie-breaker" - you might want to {{nowrap}} these, as one is broken over two lines on my browser, which may make it difficult for some readers to decipher the meaning. "batting average and runs batted in titles" - I would extend the link over titles so that it's clear you are going to those lists instead of the statistical article "performance-based criteria" - comma after; "of the tied teams" - comma after "were put in place instead" "thus far in MLB history" - replace with as of 2010 "all finished the season" "then-Brooklyn Dodgers" - I don't know about that "then-Brooklyn" thing. I know they aren't there any more, but I don't really think it's necessary, especially since you explain later in detail that the team moved. Also, comma after. "Most recently" - comma after "6–5" - set off with commas before and after (interjection) "lowest scoring game" - lowest-scoring is a compound adjective; comma after "highest scoring" - highest-scoring "the Dodgers, 4–1" "Whitey Lockman then doubled" - I might suggest hit a double instead of "doubled" after removing "then" to avoid consecutive links Remove periods/full stops from key, as they are not complete sentences. No indicator of extra inning games in the table? No, both because one came in a series and because it didn't strike me as significant enough for the table. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) I only ask because you mention them in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) And present interesting information about the list. The Shot Heard 'Round the World isn't notated, but it's an interesting note about one of the games. I can notate without color if you want. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, I wasn't asking for color; I meant just a small number of innings played like in the game logs. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Otherwise all done. Thanks!

• Hearty support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Thirteen tie-breakers, nine single-game and four series have been played in MLB history." Feels like another comma should go after "series".

• What I had originally, KV asked me to remove it. Readded because I'm really pretty sure you're right. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Those commas should actually be dashes or parentheses. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the key, why is the "modern era only" note needed for the World Series? We're only dealing with modern-era playoffs anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Removed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Looks great. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not overly keen on "Afterward" as a col heading. Perhaps just Notes? That's already used for references. How's "Playoff results" sound? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC) And then make Note(s) into Ref(s) because that's what they are. Another user asked. Does this look ok? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC) And then make sure the refs are in numerical order. (specifically [17][18][11] and [19][8]) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC) And then I'll be a happy bunny. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC) [7] Staxringold talkcontribs 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support despite the fact I don't have tasty knees. Great work, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I can't find anything about this list that doesn't meet WP:FL?. NYCRuss ☎ 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 21 May 2010 [8].

---

Freedom Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I took it looking like this and expanded it approximately sevenfold, with illustrations, sortable table, infobox and reliable sourcing. Thanks for your time and efforts in any reviews you make. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Aung San Suu Kyi shouldn't have a flag and a link to Burkina Faso next to her name. 78.84.9.164 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that was one heck-of-an-oversight. Good spot. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Why is Václav Havel identified as 'Czechoslovakian', when Czechoslovakia hadn't existed for years by the time he won? It was the place of his birth. I couldn't (easily) find a guideline that said what nationality someone should be attributed with if the country he/she was born in no longer exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has the flag and link to Lebanon, but is from Liberia Tsk, flags, hate 'em. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) More later. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, just a couple more quibbles to fix or tell me I'm wrong on, and then I'll support. "The first multiple recipients" I'd usually associate this phrase with someone winning twice, not two winners in the same year. Perhaps the "joint" you use in the next sentence is a better phrasing? Okay, there could be grounds for confusion so I've used "joint" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "the majority of awards has been to politicians" Would "have" work better here? Yeah, interesting grammar thing that one. I'll go for have, I think I was trying to be too clever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Referencing. Why do you not give publishers for the newspapers, and locations for the more obscure ones? Ref 24- the Australian, lists Bret Harris as a co-author, yet he is not mentioned in the template, as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC) I don't think that adding a publisher of a reputable newspaper adds anything to this article and any "obscure" references I've chosen are wikilinked because, once again, I don't see that the location of publication of a source has any real direct bearing on this list. Co-author added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

;Comments: Finally a chance to get back at the vigorous reviews from TRM :P I find the lead somewhat short. Could there be mention of, for instance, nationalities of winners (particularly the US dominance), the background of winners (there seems to be a lot of politicians, but I also spot some entertainers and diplomats), and a mention of why there is no award many years. The IRC don't say themselves why there are no awards every year. I guess it's down to just waiting for someone particularly worthy to pop out of the background. As for dominance, etc, I'll certainly look into including a couple of sentences with this in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I agree that the lead should mention the first laureate and the first double laureates, but is there a reason it mentions all instances of double winners, and none but the first single? Are the double somehow regarded as more important? Just "more unique" (I know, you can't be more unique than just unique)... I'll look at noting other "more notable" recipients. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) The lead gives a quoted rationale for the awards for the mentioned winners. Are such quotes available for all, and could thus be incorporated into the table? For instance, Soros is perhaps most known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England", although I doubt that is what he won the award for. No, the IRC haven't published the rationale for any winner but the speeches that precede the acceptances usually contain some of the rationales. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) At least from my European view, the list of winners seems extremely pro-US and right-winged. About half the winners are Americans, and the rest seem to be very pro-US. Is there consensus amongst commentators that the prize is such, or is this only "coincidental". Is there any controversy surrounding the award? Since the article not only covers a list of winners but also the award itself, I feel it is important to have some depth and balance in the article. No controversy that I've found in my extensive digging around, it seems to be country-neutral (although yes, I concede many US and right-wing recipients are noted). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Is there anything notable surrounding the award ceremony? (I'm thinking down the line that the Nobel Peace Prize has a concert) Is it always awarded in NYC? Nothing more than it's a formal dinner which is attended by folks who pay a premimum for charity to attend. Again, the IRC haven't published where the very early awards were made, recently, however, it has been New York. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Who is it that formally takes the decision? Is it a separate committee, or is the IRC board? Sorry to sound dull, but once again the IRC don't go into details, it's awarded "by the IRC". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Why is 'Czechoslovakian' used for a 2003-award to a person from the Czech Republic? Should it not be simply 'Czech'? See above, when he was born, it was Czechoslovakia. I'm trying to tread that fine line between getting a birth nationality correct vs a modern, politically correct nationality... what do you suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As mentioned below, the list is of nationalities, not countries. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Czechoslovakia was a union of sorts between two ethnic groups, the Czechs and the Slovaks, which had two different (albeit similar) languages. The few Czechs I know would be insulted or at best accuse me of ignorance if I called them "Czechoslovaks". Even during the Czechoslovakian Era, the two would have been distinguished as two ethnicities, although not necessarily nationalities. To use an different example: if a person from Eire was born in Dublin in 1915, should they be called Irish but British? Arsenikk (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Personally I find it "easier" to read the names of countries instead of their demonym, for istance 'United States' instead of 'American'. It seems to be most common in the featured lists I checked (at random, more or less), but I cannot find anything in the MOS, so feel free to do what you like. Yes, but interestingly enough for me, a lot of lists have "nationality" with a list of countries. "United States" is not a nationality. I did go to some extra work to make sure this was correct (apart from the stupid flag errors), if you really think I should list "nationalities" which aren't, in fact, nationalities, but nations, then I'll need to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Where there are two winners, are they in a random order, or is this the order they were officially presented? They're listed (I think) in the order in which the IRC list them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Some references wikilink the work/publisher, others don't. I linked those who perhaps are less prominent than others. If you have a guide to what you'd prefer to see linked, unlinked (or perhaps just all or nothing) then I'd be glad to hear it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) How about using a more cropped version of Bush, given the small size of the image? Well, it's a licensed and half-decent image, could you suggest a better alternative, or would you just advocate cropping the one I'm currently using down to a pure mugshot? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) If you look at the file page for the Bush portrait, there are two cropped versions of that image. The images are small, and some are difficult for me to see, so more head and less body-and-flag would be nice for some of them. I'll pursue this no further, as I am confident your discretion is as good as mine on this issue. Arsenikk (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC) As far as I can see, image copyright, disambiguation links and external links all check out good. Thanks for checking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Note A is fine, but I don't understand what is meant with notes B through D. Are they "upgraded" awards? If so, can this be mentioned in the lead. These are additional notes to the award, as included by the IRC. They didn't go into additional detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Overall nice, simple, yet elegant list. Arsenikk (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I will look at expanding the lead a little further in the next day or so, the other comments I think I've either addressed, refuted (how rude) or asked for more debate. I appreciate the time you've spent looking at the list and your kind words. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Except for the Czech thing, I'm happy with your answers, but not quite so impressed with the IRC's website. Just make a comment when you've amended up the lead and I'll check back again. Arsenikk (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I've fixed the Czech thing, the Bush thing and tried to add a tiny bit more into the lead without moving too far into original research. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Missing a column with rationale makes the list incomplete. This is what I really find missing. For Bush/Clinton a quick google gave this, which can be done for all: http://www.theirc.org/news/irc-honors-former-presidents-bush-and-clinton-tsunami-katrina-relief-efforts-3690 No, it can't be done for all, by any means. That's precisely why I haven't included the rationale because there's no source or set of sources which provide this information. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Have you tried contacting the IRC? Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I don't want this to sound odd, but I think the IRC have better things to worry about than updating their website on the request of a Wikipedian. Even reading the link you gave doesn't give an official citation. And many of the earlier references for previous recipients are extremely vague, hence the overall infobox saying that it's awarded for... "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom". A little bit like our recent MusiCares Person of the Year which says is given for "artistic achievement in the music industry and dedication to philanthropy". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not talking about their webpage but about the rationales. And you'll never know if you don't try. Anyway, just because you can't find information for all doesn't imply that nobody shd have it. You can just leave a note for those where you can't find it.Sandman888 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) But the rationales would still have to be published, even if they did have them. THe bottom line is that the award is made for "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe they do have them accessible somewhere. And you should still include the rationales that are accessible. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Nowhere accessible I could find. And no, it seems of little point to include the paraphased rationales of 10% of the list, particularly as, like the MusicCares list, there's a overarching principle for the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) (Outdented) That may be so, but the MusiCares is a much more specific award. "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom" that cd include just about anything, and many people will be confused, and rightly so, as to why some of the winners won. By including rationale, where possible, you'll at least minimize that confusion.Sandman888 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I don't see how people can be confused by that reasoning? These people worked in the field of refugees and human freedom. The musicians were awarded "for dedication to philanthropy". What's the difference? Equally confusing, or not (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Because the list includes well known public figures, not known for the contributions to refugees and human freedom. A rationale for 10% is better than for 0%. But I'll see what the rest of the reviewers say on this before pressing it further. Sandman888 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) This list includes well known public figures too. It depends on your perspective. Besides, looking at the other links from the IRC page like the one you included, it'd be synthetic of me to "create" a rationale where, in nearly all cases, a clear and concise one is not provided. It's not quite like the Nobel Prize citations which are clear and concise and published, this is more about the overarching principle of contributions to refguees and human freedom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Larger picture(s) on the right wd look better. On 27" its all very small. I'm sure that's true but we cater for the smallest resolution, not the greatest. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I've increased the images to 75px. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I'm sure there exist information on who exactly gives the award. The IRC gives the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I mean whether it's a permanent or ad-hoc committee or something else. Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) It's presented by the IRC, which was founded in 1933. It's a permanent group. As for who within the group selects it, that information is not provided by the IRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps country of birth wd be a better (more sensitive) way of describing the countries associated with the winners.Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Well, nationality works fine for me and the other reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) There seems to be other reviewers who prefer countries instead. Sandman888 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Not really, just a query over Czechoslovakian vs Czech. Which has now been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Re-read the comment reg. demonyms. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC) No need to, it was "resolved". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Support - looks good to me, though the images are difficult to see imo.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've increased them all to 75px, is it better? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, better.—Chris!_c/t 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Support - all looks good to me. If the IRC don't publish specific rationales as to why they have given each award, I don't see how the absence thereof from the article can be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• • at above link the IRC states that Bush & Clinton were given the award for their contribution during the Katrina Hurricane incident. Isn't that useful information somehow? Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
    • That's one indirect citation from a list of dozens. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
      • A compromise? I've removed a reliable secondary source (the United Nations) and replaced it with your particular reference for Clinton/Bush. Since that's the only source with a kind-of citation, I can see no more I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
        • No I don't care much for the source if they're of equal reliability, I'd just like the information as to why they won the award. But since other editors don't care for it I've dropped the matter.Sandman888 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Crystal Clear x3 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 21 May 2010 [9].

---

List of characters in the Uncharted series

Nominator(s): かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

This list covers the topic in detail through an extensive amount of well-written prose. It covers all important characters to completeness, and compared to the only other FL video game character list, List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, it compares nicely. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments - really interested in this list, so a quick heads-up.. WP:DASH for number ranges in the references. Don't mix date formats in the references. Don't start the list with "This is a list of..." Be consistent with capitalisation e.g. episode vs Episode in the refs. I promise to do a more thorough review in the next few days. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Well thank you for the comments thus far! I will fix these today. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I believe I have resolved the issues. The list no longer begins "this list...", all references now use en dashes for the page ranges as per the MoS, the dates are all consistent Day Month Year in the references, and all instances of episode are now lower case. I hope this fixes things thus far, and I look forward to what you have to say upon more extensive review. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Comments okay, some more extensive remarks, hopefully useful... "large amount of characters" "large number" since characters can only be whole. Fixed, stupid grammar mistake; I should have known better. Don't think we really need to wikilink reporter. Removed You link biological weapon on its second use, rather than its first. Fixed, first now linked instead of the second "acquaintance whom Sullivan owes a large sum of money to" "acquaintance to whom Sullivan owes a large sum of money." Done "a large amount of license" perhaps "considerable license" instead of "a large amount of" I liked your suggestion of "considerable license"; changed to that. "and also did the" never like "did" or "done" etc, perhaps "also performed the"? Changed to "performed" "much of these concepts" many of these... Fixed "kept intentional simple" intentionally. Fixed "characters' personalities defined" "to be defined" This is the only point of contention I have with your comments. I think a being verb here is unnecessary for the meaning of the sentence, and thus makes the sentence sound worse without changing the meaning. I think either is alright so no further contention from me on this point. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "much of the character reactions" many Fixed "character driven rather than story driven" I would hyphenate both of these. Hyphenated accordingly You link protaganist not on its first use. When I first linked it, it was the first use; fixed now There's a certain amount of overlinking. I'm not too fussed because I'm guessing you're doing it on a section-by-section basis, but I'm not sure if you really need to this. I would like some clarification on this. Do you believe that words are linked unnecessarily, or are there words linked more than once in the article? Things I find important I link in both the lead and the the first occurrence outside of the lead, if only to provide relevant links to readers who both read the lead, and those who skip to only the section they want to read. I don't believe it is addressed in any MoS pages, but I see it used elsewhere and believe it can be advantageous for the reader. You're right on the second occasion. You relink words from section to section, as I guessed. No big problem for me, for exactly the reason you suggest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Don't think we need to link journalist. Removed wikilink "she and a cameraman Jeff" either commas round Jeff or lose the a. I think that may have been a typo; in any event, changed to "her cameraman Jeff", which should not require commas. Frazer's caption doesn't need a full stop. Removed the period "When Drake and Fisher follow him, he apprehends him..." confused! The entire sentence was quite head-spinning. I have rewritten it entirely: "When Drake and Fisher follow, Lazarevic apprehends them and forces Drake to reveal the entrance to Shambhala." Not sure links to British, American or grenade are strictly necessary. Removed the links to Great Britain and the United States, however, I believe there is a slim chance that someone may not know what a grenade is, especially younger readers. Since it is central to understanding the sentence, I find no harm in leaving it linked. "While he is gone, Lazarevic invaded the village and kidnapped Schäfer, whom he later kills." unreferenced. Now referenced. Ref 3 needs a pp. So does ref 9. And 16. Please check others. Checked through and fixed where necessary. At least one spaced hyphen in the references (ref 6), make them spaced en-dashes please. Fixed The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I have fixed everything, with the exception of one comment that I noted I disagreed with you on, and one of the comments that I requested further clarification regarding. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I've replied to the couple of points you queried. I'll leave it a day or so then collapse them. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Some comments/issues I have: "..created by video game studio Naughty Dog.." Although ND is technically Sony's studio, they still are primarily video game developer. So: "..created by video game developer Naughty Dog.." or "..created by video game studio Naughty Dog.." if you really want to keep "studio". I know the links then follow each other, but linking video game and not game developer seems weird. Besides, video game is linked in next sentence. Changed to developer per suggestion. ".. features a large number of.."? It's not that large, to be honest. Can "features many character" suffice? I was thinking "a diverse set of...", but then figured that was probably too subjective. In any event, I went with "features many characters" as you suggested. "focuses on the exploits of treasure hunter Nathan Drake" - "exploits"? As in: Nathan is the character who does what he does for his or his friend benefits? I'm not particularly familiar with the series. The usage of "exploits" here was more in line with the definition "A heroic or extraordinary deed," rather than to use for one's benefit. I thought it might be. No further quarrel. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) "..it as a biological weapon, and in Uncharted 2:.." Can you put a full stop somewhere there? That whole sentence is just too long. Full stop so inserted. "He seeks various valuable items, and was designed to be an average and likable character." Two completely different facts in the same sentence. Sounds a bit weird. Split up the thoughts. "He is supported by a number of characters" - truly "supported" or just accompanied? In some cases, truly supported, but in others, merely accompanied. Changed wording to "accompanied". "The first is Elena Fisher, areporter who" - space Oops. Typo fixed. ".. has a separate antagonist who dies.." - "different antagonist" Changed After "Each different installment of the series.." it would be best if individual storylines would be separated by some indication. Like saying "In first game, blah blah ... In second game, blah blah blah". Unless it was intended to be a continuous description. Because still reads very "chunky" Done "..he goes after El Dorado once Sullivan tells him he is on to a big find." - can it be just "tells him about it" or something. That mess of short words is very vague. This wording is intentionally vague. In the game, Sully does not tell him what the find is, merely that his next find will be significant. Roman shows up without knowing that the find is El Dorado until later. So something along the lines of ".. once Sullivan tells him of a significant find he discovered."? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I re-worded it, is "once Sullivan tells him that he has found something of great value" acceptable? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Seems good. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) "who steals the idol to sell its cursing abilities as a biological weapon to the highest bidder." - can it be just "...to sell it as a bio..."? Is the fact that it's sold to "highest bidder" important enough to include? It does seem redundant, doesn't it? Removed the "highest bidder" part. "Drake causes Navarro to drown when he forces El Dorado into the ocean, attached to Navarro's leg." That's a very weird construct. Can it be simply said "Drake drowns Navarro by forcing El Dorado.."? Technically, Drake did not drown him, so I have removed him from the sentence completely, hopefully resulting in a clearer sentence. To be honest, lead seems excessively long. The image does not help either. I'm not sure what to do about it though. Image may be moved to next section, then again it's really nice. To me, the lead seems in line with an article of this length. Also, the image shows a number of characters in the series grouped together; a similar image is found at the top of nearly every FL character article I've found. For example: List of Naruto characters, List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, etc... OK, so there are only three character featured lists, but I think the image gives at least a brief overview of the subject: the characters of the games. Well, not everyone's on a 42" monitor :P My point was that the image is very wide and in other lists it's not quite so big. Also, other FL don't truly dictate the layout of any future FLs. So the image can be manipulated until best appreance. But, as I say, I don't know what can be done about it except shrinking or moving down to next section.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Oh! I believe I completely misinterpreted your comment! I have viewed this page on a little netbook, so I know what you mean. I will make it a bit smaller. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, I think there is not much more to improve about it now.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I will go through remainder (hopefully) later.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC) Thank you for the comments! I believe I have addressed them all, besides the last one, which I happen to disagree with you on. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC) "..development team drew a number of concept sketches depicting.." You could link to Concept art Done "..depicting cliff-hanging and awkward weapon handling.." - "unfinished"? cliff-hanging for me means something a bit different. Reworded to "hanging from cliffs" to avoid confusion with the common phrase That sentence also need a mention that this is about characters not weapons or anything. For example, "Other more fluid motions were not.." is kind of ambiguous until you read up to motion capture part. Everything makes sense on second read. But I'm not sure it should need second reads. Agreed; it should not require a second read. Reworded to make the motion capture bit the first part "In designing the characters, the production team sought to capture a certain tone.." -> "The production team sought to capture a certain tone in the character design, .." the less commas the better Done "..studied source material from the pulp adventure genre." "source material" seems a bit redundant, what else could they have studied? The latter sentences list examples anyway. "..studied the pulp adventure genre." Removed "source material" "characters' personalities" -> "character personalities", commonly accepted construct and reads easier, besides it's not used later on in, say, "character reactions". Done "characters' humanity" - ditto Also done "To accomplish this, many of the character reactions were accomplished through.." - Accomplish does not really read easy here, especially twice in a row. "To accomplish this, many of the character reactions were delivered through.." Major oversight on my part using a word twice in a row; switched with "conveyed" "through expressions and body language" - "facial expressions"? Yeah, explicitly say so now ad-lib redirects to Ad libitum Piped the link "The actors did a number of read-throughs and .." - you can link read-through. Though it doesn't seem like the correct term. I'm not too familiar with slang though. I have linked it, but I do believe it is correct. That is, they sat around and read the script before actually ever performing any of it. "Naughty Dog conciously worked to avoid.." -> "consciously" and "Naughty Dog consciously avoided.." - redundancy Fixed, I believe "..stereotypes, both with the super-powered heroes, and with the overly sexualized female characters." Firstly, why are there "with"s? - "..avoid stereotypes, both blah, and blah." Secondly, these aren't the only stereotypes of action games. So "both" is sorta wrong. So, "..avoid stereotypes, such as blah, and blah" Fixed both "Evan Wells, Naughty Dog co-president stated.." -> comma "..co-president, stated.." You do use comma like that in other places. Also ", Naughty Dogs' co-president," or ", co-president of Naughty Dog,", it needs possessive case here. Otherwise it's just co-president Evan Wells who is a naughty dog XD I can't speak to his personal naughtiness, but I have fixed this "..Nathan Drake's, the main protagonist of the series, personality." That's a bit late to mention he's the protagonist (and next section titles/intro pretty much saying this too). Surely this can be moved to the lead into "Nathan Drake is the primary playable character in the series." Moved protagonists mention to an earlier spot I'm a bit picky, I know. But I oppose FL for now, so I'll point out things to fix so I can support it. Further comments soon.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Picky is good. I don't just want a star on the page, I want a page deserving of the star. I look forward to your picking apart of the rest of the article, sincerely I do. For now, I have addressed most of the above statements. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) "But Hennig doesn't believe that technology was the only key to capturing emotion; rather, she said, it was the production of the game as if it were a traditional movie or stage play." [10] - how about this quote in development? Good quote. I paraphrased it and added it to the third paragraph of the creation section. "Nolan North voices Drake, and has a considerable" - I don't think the comma is necessary Removed "..interjecting aspects of his personality into Drake's." -> "mixing/adding his personality into Drake's." - unnecessary excessive expressivness Reworded "Drake is a playable character in the series' two video games" - "two video games of the series", possessives always sound weird with "s"s. Fixed "Drake is depicted as a professional treasure hunter with a shady background involving various people from the underground illegal goods market.[12]" - the source talks in present tense. It does not explicitly state he has "shady background". I think this is a bit on OR side for one of the main facts of the character. Just "..treasure hunter involved with various people...". I have added a source that says, "With a shady reputation and an even shadier past". "He is a very intelligent man, self-educated in history and various languages, and a supposed descendant of Sir Francis Drake.[13]" The ref does not talk about his intelligence, self-education in history/languages. The ref only applies to descendent part and even then it is concluded via sorta OR. Replaced the source with another that says all of that "In Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Drake uses" -- too many Drakes, "he uses"; also you already linked the game in 1st para Replaced a number of "Drake"s with "he"s. Also, it believe it is accepted practice to link pages twice when the first link occurs in the lead and the other occurs in the body of the text. Personally, I believe this ensures that the article will be more comprehendible to readers, as some start by reading the lead, while others jump right into the article. I'm not talking about lead, rather Nathan section only. 1st para, 4th sent. "Drake is a playable character in the two video games of the series: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, and the lead character .." 2nd para, 4th sent. "In Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, he uses the diary of Francis Drake to track the mythical El Dorado to ..." 2nd para 7th sent. "In Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, he is hired to steal an oil lamp from a museum that might point.." In addition, later sections do not seem to adhere to the same linking policy. Fisher links fortune, skips thieves. Sully links thieves, skips fortune. Noone else links. If the reader does jump over lead, they'll jump to Nathan, so I agree Nathan section can be re-linked. Others — I'm not so sure. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) For sure, for sure. I have de-linked now, sorry for the misunderstanding. "He, along with his partner Victor Sullivan, discover" - "He and his partner Victor Sullivan discover" less commas Fixed "statue that places a curse upon those who" - "statue that curses those who" - simpler unless the curse itself is significant on its own Done "from using the statues zombification properties as a weapon" - as much I'm into fancruft and fancy game terms... "from using the statue's powers of turning undead/creating zombies as a weapon" Also link zombie should you use it. Done "In Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Drake" - already linked in 1st para Explained above Reply above.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) "Drake tracks him to a monastery, where the entrance to Shambhala is discovered." - passive voice. I'm not sure who discovers it to suggest better - was it Drake, Zoran? Changed to active voice "Lazarevic discovers and consumes.." - "discover" again, it was just used Switched with "locates" "Naughty Dog" you link these in Drake and Fisher sections. I think the two lead and development links is enough already. De-linked ".. did not want him to appear too generic" - you cannot be "more average", "less equal", or "too generic" I suppose not, lol. Fixed. "Drake's appearance is generic, usually appearing in a solid color shirt and jeans.[19]" - I can't find that in the reference. Added a reference to support this. "a solid color shirt and jeans." jeans are as much the subject of further research as color or shirt. I don't think it needs to be linked. De-linked "This was to impost an everyman persona upon the character." - no ref attached, the next one is about reporter acquaintance. Forgot the red; attached now. The whole love interest info in unreferenced. Only mention of acquaintance with Fisher. I'd really love to see a ref or two on that he really is romantically attached. I know it's just plot, but still. It is given much weight in the text. Referenced where it was not already. I think some facts need more referencing to signify their notability better. I know that very vague, I'll point stuff out when I go through refs. Finally, I'm a bit weary calling other characters protagonists. A protagonist is by definition the one main hero. I haven't played the games, but it seems others don't get much user playable screen time. What term should I use instead; would something like "main characters" be acceptable, or perhaps "heroes"? Heroes might be a bit stretchy, but "main characters", "supporting characters", or just "Drake's friend/hero/love/arch-enemy" all seem fine — really depends on content. I only didn't like the "protagonist" in particular. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I am going to change to "main characters" - my main question is if this is an acceptable heading for the first section as well. Thoughts? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC) It seems fine. I don't think there's a better alternative. "Recurring characters", perhaps, but that's just saying the same thing, really.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  13:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Responded to this set as well. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Collect a full set and win a FL! ^^ —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC) "{{main article|Nathan Drake (character)}}" -> "{{main|Nathan Drake (character)|l1=Nathan Drake}}" - not sure on WP policy on {{main}} template usage, but seems appropriate to give non-dabed name. Also {{main}} is the main (no pun) template.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't even know that you could pipe with that template. Fancy. Fixed. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• "..allowing them to play off of each other.." - "off of", earhm. I cannot for the love of me think of a synonym. But that reads very weird.

• I'm at a loss... I can't think of a way to re-word that either. err...

• "The actors also read lines together on a sound stage, allowing them to play off of one another and organically grow the character relationships." -- Firstly, "also" is not really needed. Then, "The actors read lines together on a sound stage and played off of one another" to remove weird "-ing". Then for a synonym: "responded to each other"? Finally "organically" - this isn't botany or metaphorical literature article. SO: "The actors read lines together on a sound stage and responded to each other thus growing the character relationships."? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ref#22 is dead. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  21:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well that is just poor timing. I have replaced the reference with another, and reworded the sentence to reflect the new citation.

Week support. Sorry I haven't been replying further, other stuff took precedance including irl. I will check further soon. (I keep saying that) You have my support should other editors support it. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  19:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, real life must always take precedence. Thank you for the support, be it weak or not, and I appreciate all of the time you spent pouring over the article already. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support What I already thought was a good list has now become an excellent list courtesy of the detailed review by H3llkn0wz and the work done by the nominator. Well done all round. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Very nice list. I could not find anything to keep this from promotion. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 21 May 2010 [11].

---

Aurealis Award for best young-adult novel

Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok with a quick turn-around I bring to you the fourth Aurealis Award list, following in the style of 1, 2, and 3. Thanks in advance. Salavat (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose. The leading section section is confusing and has other problems:

1. the presentation ceremony is held the following year Could an approximate (season, month) time, when it is typically held, be specified?

   They dont mention any specific date for the ceremony. It has ranged from january to march. For me to state anything would be original research. Salavat (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. This article lists all the short-list nominees and winners in the best young-adult novel category, as well as novels that have been highly commended Is "young-adult novel category" the same as "young-adult fiction novels" mentioned above or "young-adult speculative fiction" mentioned in the infobox?

   The "young-adult novel category" part is the name of the award, it wouldnt make sense for me to call it anything else. I added the word of "speculative" to the second sentence, first paragraph to emphisize that the young adult award is for speculative fiction. The part in the infobox i have added the word "novel" too.

3. Can you clarify what "novels that have been highly commended" means? Why they are just commended and not included in the list of nominees or given an award?

   Their is no formal explanation for why they have been commended. One could assume they are commended because the judges liked them but not enough to make them a finalist, but then that would be OR. They arent in the main list because they are not a finalist or a winner. Salavat (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

4. The ceremony has grown from a small function of around 20 people to a two-day event attended by over 200 people. This sentence should be the last in the third paragraph, not the first. It would be logical if a discussion of the presentation ceremony were after a discussion of the award itself.

   Moved both sentences about how the ceremony reception to the bottom of the third paragraph. Salavat (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

   You said below that there is only one ceremony for all awards. You also changed "award" to "awards" in the last two sentences. These two sentences, which are now about all awards (not about any specific award) should be moved to the second paragraph. The sentence about the ceremony should consequently be moved to the end of the first paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 14:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

   I made the changes myself. The new structure of the lead is more logical. Ruslik_Zero 14:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

5. It is not clear if a separate ceremony is held for each award or if they are presented at one event?

   "The Aurealis Awards are presented annually", "the presentation ceremony is held the following year". It makes a suggestion that there is "a ceremony". Sounds clear to me. I cant see any way that would make it clearer. Salavat (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

6. It has attracted the attention of publishers by setting down a benchmark in science fiction and fantasy. What does "It" refer to here: ceremony or award? It is probably the award as it is unlikely that the ceremony is "setting down a benchmark in science fiction and fantasy". (Change "It" to "Award").

   Changed to "The awards have". Salavat (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the list has far too many redlinks on the central subject, the books in question, for my liking. Sandman888 (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Most have been dealt with now, a few more to go, should be done within the next few days. Salavat (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• per WP:ACCESS colour shouldn't be used as a stand-alone indicator. You will have to figure out another way of seperating winners from nominees.Sandman888 (talk) 08:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought that was the whole point of the "*" after the winning authors name. Salavat (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Right you are. I thought it was indicating joint winners. Will review in greater detail later today. Sandman888 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry for the delay. Sandman888 (talk) 08:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Lead: could you expand it to say something about what the award means for sales, how prestigious it is, something along those lines.
    • I couldnt find anything more then the current information about publisher interest which is alreadu on the page. Salavat (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Images; there's not a lot. Some of the authors wd be nice. As well as some from the ceremony.
    • Added some images of the authors. A search on flickr returned some images of the Aurealis Awards but nothing more then shots on people. Salavat (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Check text on last image. Sandman888 (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Woops forgot the alt part. fixed now. Salavat (talk) 05:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Note that alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh i thought i heard about that, oh well its in there now anyways. Salavat (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  • High commendations section cd use an introduction.
    • Introduction added. Salavat (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Dammit, the amount of times ive added Sean Williams into these lists you think i would of learnt. Thanks. Salavat (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - In the list of categories in the lead, I believe that "...horror, speculative young-adult fiction, with separate awards for novels and short fiction, collections, anthologies..." should be written as "...horror, speculative young-adult fiction—with separate awards for novels and short fiction—collections, anthologies...". Using a regular comma in the middle of sequential commas is confusing. Note that that's an em-dash (I think? The long one.) Either that or make it "...young-adult novels, young-adult short fiction, ...". --PresN 13:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Changed to the emdash. Does that look like its done the trick? Salavat (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Support Yep, looks good to me. --PresN 18:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments "Westerfeld hold the" holds. Fixed. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "the long list of nominees is reduced to a short-list of finalists" interested as to why long list isn't hyphenated while short-list is. Fixed. Ive never considered that, strange. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) " Entries with a blue background have won the award; those with a white background are the nominees on the short-list." this is mostly covered in the key, but perhaps the key could use a white square and "Nominees on the shortlist"? Added white box, add to hide an asterix inside the box to make them the same size though. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps my browser (again) but Broderick's image is slightly narrower than all the others, any idea why that be? Well the image is only 193px itself, ive told it to go to 200px like the others but it seems to refuse to expand. I could scale them all done to 190px or if you have any ideas on how to make it conform? Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Perhaps just use the classic thumb (without forcing) or upright on all of them? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Without forcing them makes them 220px wide, which doesnt fit. After doing some learning over at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial i couldnt figure anything out so i reduced them all to 190px. Salavat (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC) "with the most recent being in 2009" ugh, maybe "most recently in 2009." Fixed. Salavat (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:52, 19 May 2010 [12].

---

List of Best in Show winners of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is now the most accurate list of results for best in breed at Westminster available - it's actually more accurate than Westminster's own results page as I've been through and corrected several owners where only the kennel name has been given (I've added the owner details of those kennels). Westminster is thought of as being the second highest dog show in the world, and the biggest in the USA - the only one bigger is Crufts and at some point I'd like to get the list page for that up here as well (just sources for that are harder to come by).

Anyway, I've put this through a peer review and I think I covered everything that was brought up, but if there are any further queries please let me know and I'll get straight to work on them. I'd like to thank the editor who worked Dicken Medal up to FL as I was able to watch all the changes made along the way which gave me inspiration to work on this article. Miyagawa (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments Hi Miyagawa, pleased you liked the work on the Dicken Medal and glad to see you here with your own list. A couple of really quick comments... No bold links please, in the opening paragraph as you currently have. Our lists no longer start with "This is a list..." - check out some recent promotions for some ideas. "Ch." is linked in the first line of the table but not in the first use in the lead, unless I missed it. You have "best-in-show" in the lead, but the title is "Best in Show", hyphens or not? "at the age of 9 months" ->"aged nine months" "He would win the title .." why not just "He won the title"? Ref col should be Ref(s) as you often have multiple references. New York Times is actually The New York Times. What makes pennyworthkennels.com a WP:RS? Refs 41, 46 etc have pp. when only one page is used - if you're using a template, make sure it says page= not pages= for single page refs. Third gen ref needs an unspaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen for the page range. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I think I've addressed them all now. For the RS query I've swapped it out with another reference - this reference is to show that Peggy Newcombe is the owner of Pennyworth Kennels which is what the owner is listed as from the official list on the Westminster website. Dropped the hyphens from the best in show, and redrafted that opening line. Miyagawa (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) "an all breeds conformation" - shouldn't all-breeds be hyphenated? And what's "conformation" (forgive my ignorance)? Hyphenated all-breeds as suggested and moved the wikilink for Dog Breed up to that. Conformation in dog show terms mean that the dogs are judged by how close they conform to their breed standard. I added the wikilink for it to the first mention just before the comma in the first sentence of the first paragraph. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) You don't like all breeds but afterwards you do link breed. Link on first instance. Fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC) "title of best in show" or "Best in Show" or "best-in-show". I'd be consistent throughout. Corrected all of them to "Best in Show". Miyagawa (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC) "The least successful group..." does this mean that there are no groups with zero wins? That's right, all groups have won at least on one occasion. Miyagawa (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC) "due to part to the group's comparatively recent creation in 1983." due in part? and can you reference this claim? Removed it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I'd would re-reference the "not awarded" row in the table with your ref [1]. Done. Miyagawa (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I'd be tempted to add the images of the champions or owners who have articles, to make the list a little more jolly. Added the free use images that I know of (created a couple of modified versions on commons so that the dogs weren't little dots in the group shot thumbnails). Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I need to be convinced that www.iinet.com is a WP:RS. Managed to swap out with another Time reference. Miyagawa (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Ditto for eurodogs.net. Managed to replace with a Time reference - not sure how I missed this one the first time around when I was adding references. Miyagawa (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Ref 71 needs a spaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen. Think I fixed it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Refs 88, 89 and 91 use USA Today, but 88 has it as an unlinked publisher while 89 and 91 have linked works. Be consistent. Fixed ref 88. Miyagawa (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments.

1. It has been held in New York City, New York annually since 1877, and at Madison Square Garden since 1926. Why did they decide to begin awarding Best in Show? They existed for 30 years without any awards. Some historical information is necessary here.
   • Corrected that - turns out it was MSG 3 from 1926, but MSG first in 1880. Currently looking in to see if there was a reported reason why they began awarding Best in Show. Miyagawa (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

     Where is it held now? in MSG IV? Ruslik_Zero 12:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

     That's right. Miyagawa (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

     Modified that line to read "was held at Madison Square Garden for the first time in 1880, and is currently held in the modern arena of the same name." with separate wikilinks to Madison Square Garden (1879) and Madison Square Garden. Miyagawa (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

     Finally managed to track down Best in Show's origins. Variety classes were introduced in 1905 including classes for champion dogs and champion bitches. Added information and another cite from The New York Times. Miyagawa (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

2. The James Mortimer Memorial Silver Trophy is given permanently should the dog win on five separate occasions with the same owner Does this mean that the Trophy is given to a dog, who became Best in Show in five years?
   • Slightly reworded that line, but it essentially means that should a single dog with the same owner win Best in Show for five years (not neccessarily consecutively) then are awarded the proper trophy to keep. Otherwise they keep a replica. It's never happened, as the most successful dog only won it for three years - and often dogs are retired to stub after winning for the first time anyway, so you don't get multiple wins very often anymore. Miyagawa (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
3. It would be good if you provided some information about how many dogs won permanent awards and how many replicas (including group wins mentioned in the same paragraph). Otherwise this paragraph looks unclear for me.
   • Removed the group trophy section - thought on reflection I was going off topic.Miyagawa (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
4. In 1992, competition at Westminster was restricted to champions only. Who are champions in this context?
   • Added line about qualification as a champion. Miyagawa (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, fixed. Miyagawa (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments - I think the tables except Most successful breeds should be sortable after getting rid of the colspans or rowspans.—Chris!_c/t 23:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• That was one of the original parts of the design of the table that I wasn't sure if it should change, however if it's the consensus then I'm happy to do so. Miyagawa (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Made the most successful groups sortable and the first column of the successful breeds too. I'm just not sure that the main table would benefit by removing all the column spans as it currently shows the trends in groups and breeds far better than if it was sortable and there were no col/rowspans. Miyagawa (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can support now. Looks good—Chris!_c/t 19:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments – "The title of Best in Show is given to the dog chosen as the winner the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show according to conformation show rules." Missing "of" after "winner". Not sure if the second link to Championship (dog) is needed. Usually one link in a lead is sufficient. "The least successful group is the Herding Group with a single win by Ch. Covy Tucker Hill's Manhattan, a German Shepherd Dog, a group which was only comparatively recently created in 1983." Is the last bit meant to be about the Herding Group? If so, I'd suggest moving it up to more directly follow what it's discussing. For most of the photos of early winners, it is unclear when they were actually published. That, not the date they were created, determines whether an image is truly in the public domain most of the time. Note A: Picky point, but the hyphen after "newly" should be removed. Usually, hyphens after an "-ly" aren't used. The publisher of reference 90 should be in italics since it is a newspaper. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks, all those points should be corrected now. I've removed the photographs of the early winners but left the painting as we have artist information. Re-ordered the herding group line so it should read better. Miyagawa (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC) One more point from a sentence that has been adjusted since I posted my initial comments: "It has been held in New York City, New York annually since 1877, and was held at Madison Square Garden for the first time in 1880, and is currently held in the modern arena of the same name." I meant to post something about a seperate wikilink for the old Garden, and I'm glad to see one in now. However, the sentence itself strikes me as a run-on (and ... and ...). I'd consider splitting this up in some way, whether through a semi-colon or breaking the sentence into two. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Changed slightly to read "It has been held in New York City, New York annually since 1877. It was held at Madison Square Garden for the first time in 1880, and is currently held in the modern arena of the same name." Miyagawa (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:52, 19 May 2010 [13].

---

List of Kansas State Wildcats head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the final Big 12 coach list. I believe this list is now up to FL standards. I do have two lists already nominated, however, I do know that exceptions have been made in the past. My most recent FLC has three supports and all comments have been addressed, so hopefully there is no issue with this nomination.—NMajdan•talk 17:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Support but I made two minor edits. If they're not acceptable, let me know. Otherwise, excellent work, particularly with the sortability of the table! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• I went ahead and fixed the misspelling of Hanson to Hansen. here's the edit
• Also, going through the coaches names, why did you choose Lynn Waldorf instead of Pappy Waldorf, where the article is at? Same with Wes Fry instead of Wesley Fry.

Other then that, every thing looks great. NThomas (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason I chose the names, including the spelling for Hanson, is because those are the names used by my primary source located on the Kansas State University athletic website.—NMajdan•talk 01:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Support NThomas (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "The remained with the MVC until 1928...". Problem with first word.

• Fixed.—NMajdan•talk

• Bill Snyder's last name doesn't need repeating in the final sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. I have used this format in every other list. I feel naming the current coach is important enough to give both first and last name again.—NMajdan•talk 14:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Even though I'm not a big fan of that first name use, it's not important enough for me to get fussed about. Everything else looks fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:52, 19 May 2010 [14].

---

List of Major League Baseball runs batted in champions

Nominator(s): Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long, but the next step in the Triple Crown mini-topic process! At least I'm keeping up with KV (who's gotten through 2/3 pitching lists). :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Three quick comments:

• Shouldn't "or bases loaded walk" be "or bases loaded base on ball"? I know the repetition of base isn't nice, but the current sentence doesn't include a hit-by-pitch.

• Good call on HBP, added. I left walk though, it's the very very very VERY commonly used nickname for BB and sounds much better as you note. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• In reference five, remove the ALL-CAPS in the title. Also, "New York Times" should be "The New York Times", with the italicization

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is the work ESPN or ESPN.com? Mm40 (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments another splendid list, but a few minor points: The columns are different sizes from AL to NL to major leagues (in my Safari OS X browser) No fixed sizes, so I assume they vary slightly based on the longest team name/player name/etc being longer in one than in the other (so stretching that column more). Would you be prepared to fix them, for internal consistency? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Sure, what size do you think makes sense? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever works on a low res screen, so something very close to what you have now, but throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Could you give it a try? All the tables have an identical 70% width setting, doesn't seem to be changing anything though. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Yeah, your 70% makes no difference. I think you need to fix each column to either a % or a px. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I think I finally got it. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC) YAY. Except, per me being an ass, your triple image now leaks over the top right of the table..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Better now? Problem is multiple image doesn't allow for a % base size parameter, so there will always be some size of monitor that messes this up (currently set table to 50%, so if your monitor is smaller than 960px wide (the multi-image is set to width=160, so it is 480 wide total) it will spill over the table. According to my freaky script, you have 19 (nineteen) links to dab pages. (Eddie Robinson, George Scott etc) Will fix. hyphens in the lead separating numbers rather than en-dashes. Another script job. On it. "the first to set a single-season RBI record that stood for significant time" what's your definition of "significant time"? Check [15] ignoring 71-75 (the NA which is not an official league). Thompson's single season was the first to last more than 3 years, which makes sense since early on the record was being reset basically every year. Perhaps you need to state the fact rather than the nebulous "significant time" (to me, that could be "more than a week").... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) single season or single-season? Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) " in RBI 4 times" 4->four. On it. "bested his total " call me old-fashioned, or even British, but "to best" just sticks in my craw. Can we say something else more appealing to an Imperialist? On it. Our own article about being At bat has no hyphen. Fixed. Would you agree that having 175 RBI with 565 AB is better than 175 RBI with 584 AB? If so, I suggest you make the list sort that way. Yup, I'll try to fix this. Wait, no, the sorting is fine. It just sorts less to more, not neccessarily "better" or "worse". 565 is lower than 584, should come before. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC) I'm talking about when RBIs are equal. Then I suggest the RBI with lower AB is "better". Is that right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, I understand that. But the table is just sorting RBI, why is this sorting any less correct? It's just that coming from a cricket background, when stats are tied, you then look at the next stat that's relevant, in this case (if I'm not wrong) it's by AB. The lower the AB the better. How would a US publication deal with tied RBI in a table of best RBI? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC) They don't, really. Tied is tied. Hence, for example, Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard sharing the NL title last year even though Fielder got there in fewer AB. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) How curious. I would have thought it obvious that someone getting, say 100 RBI in 100 AB would be "better" than 100 RBI in 600 AB... still, who am I to argue...? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC) People recognize it, but the only thing that controls leading the league/setting a record/etc/etc is the stat at hand. People made a big deal at the time, for example, over Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record because while Maris did hit 61 (to Ruth's 60), Maris played on a 162 game schedule (and it took him to the very last day of it to get to 61) while Ruth played on a 154 game schedule. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC) No problem. It was a futile attempt at making the sorting even more brilliant. As I said before, our equally statistically-obsessed sport of cricket certainly does take all this into account, but yeah, your schedule argument works for me too (unless you could do an average??!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Then you'd be looking at home run rates. HR/AB is the commonly used one (which Mark McGwire is the all-time leader in, Ruth is 2nd), though I think HR/PA is a more appropriate one (ABs are a traditional tool because early baseball saw walks as a mistake rather than truly a part of the game). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC) My bottom line was an appropriate sorting for those tied but doing it quicker. Like a 2-dimensional graph. If it's irrelevant and the sorting after RBI is irrelevant to readers who know what they're looking for, then fine. Maybe a note that says "Tied on RBI is listed in whatever order the Mediawiki software decides" is appropriate (=bitterness). For a game where statistics is so important, I would think it relevant to list it appropriately. But I watch 22 blokes kicking a pig skin around for 90 minutes (without armour, besides the shins) so what would I know?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Note that Baseball-Reference also does not sort by playing time when you sort by a particular stat (in fact their sorting seems quite random, not alphabetical, not playing time, etc, etc). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, so maybe I'm being radical and trying to improve the sorting here. The fact that your sources don't bother doing so is fine, but is there a decent argument against it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) 1. It would be an incredibly complicated fix for almost no gain. Honestly I don't even want AB in there, I think it's ugly and extraneous data, but someone in the HR list FLC forced it in. KV hasn't even been using it in the pitching lists and those have gone through fine. 2. It makes the sorting sort two different ways, namely high-low (or vice versa) for RBI while going low-high (or vice versa) for AB. Honestly I would remove the dang AB altogether except Nmajdan and Afaber (the reviewers who asked for it last time) will just oppose here. They're so ugly and have nothing to do with the champions AND require sourcing to the general stats page rather than the yearly leaderboard pages (which makes infinite more sense for a leaderboad list). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I assume Team should be Team(s) in the col heading since you have multiple teams here... Fixed. Ref 14 which you use for all-time RBI seems to relate to home runs. I would (once fixed) also add this to Hank's caption. Fixed. Pity the templates are hideously coloured, and worse, differently so. Meh, the Triple Crown template is a recently created one as KV and I work towards the topic. Feel free to re-color. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Not my problem really, just seems a shame that they're both hideous and different in colour. I'd have thought you baseball guys would be more organised.............. (!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment if the at bat thing isn't particularly relevant, and the discussion I've capped seems to indicate that, then perhaps it should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Will do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done, will apply to HR list a bit later. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• Hyphen for "27 season"?
• "The most recent champions are Mark Teixeira in the American League with Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard sharing the title in the National League." For some reason the sentence feels off grammatically to me. Would "The most recent champion in the American League is Mark Teixeira, with Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard sharing the title in the American League" be any better? (forgetting the noun + -ing structure that I don't like for a second)
• The Sam Crawford image has no given source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Took a stab at that sentence. Replaced the Crawford pic. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – After the fixes, everything looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "the batter's action" - comma after "scoring themself" - I don't think that "themself" is a word, as "them" is plural and "self" is singular. It should be "himself"; I know it's gender-specific, but I don't think there have been any women in MLB to date. "second and third most RBI titles" - second- and third-most and comma after, before "respectively" change comma after "respectively" to a colon "Had Howard won the 2007 title" - comma after "title" "from 2006–2009" - no dashes in "from... to" constructions in prose "The most American League champion" - do you mean most recent? comma after "Mark Teixeira" "and Ryan Howard" - you can remove "Ryan" as you've mentioned his name before and there's no other "Howard" in the lead. "has hit 160 or more RBI" - I don't like this wording when you extend out the abbreviation, perhaps a better choice might be has batted in 160 or more runs In Google Chrome, the images displace the table, likely because of the {{multiple image}} template. Suggest changing the template to vertical instead of horizontal. Unrelated, but I find it interesting that there's no RBI totals for the UA. Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Done. Dunno what's up with the UA, neither B-Ref nor Retrosheet have any RBI data for them. The stat must've just not been tracked. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support (popped back onto my watchlist), another good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:52, 19 May 2010 [16].

---

Hugo Award for Best Novel

Nominator(s): PresN 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've rewritten it and think that it should be a FL, given that it's the most famous sci-fi award there is right now. I based the format of it off of Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, a recent FL. Have at it! --PresN 00:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

OPPOSE (due to table formatting) - I think the current style of the list is absolutely dreadful. Even knowing about and understanding the award, I found it painfully difficult to understand the table. The Aurealis award table has been modified since the article was featured: it was originally [17]. I think that older style should be copied to the current article as a minimum before I think it could be a featured list. Even then, I'm sure there's room for improvement. GDallimore (Talk) 01:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What about the other form are you preferring? The combined year boxes? The removal of the "ref" column? Or the way it's split up by decade? Because that and a lack of sortability are the only changes. Basically, what do you want/ not want? --PresN 01:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment, the table layout was changed on the Aurealis Award because it wasnt sortable and was per a request by The Rambling Man at the Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel nomination. Salavat (talk) 07:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it needs, but I think both articles need a major rethink. Relying solely on colour and a star next to the title of the book to indicate the different between winners and nominees just strikes me as being wholly inadequate. GDallimore (Talk) 15:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

But even in your example of a better table, that was all that was used to denote winners. What do you think would make it better/more obvious? Bold text? Bigger text? --PresN 16:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

And you need to strike a compromise between our relatively weak mediawiki sorting code (i.e. making us expand each year out into multiple rows for sortability) and having just a static table with no sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I see no problems with the intro or sources. I support the current layout with its ability to sort the winners and nominees. One leaving note though, i assume your going to fill in the "Currently held by" field in the infobox when this years winner is announced? Salavat (talk) 07:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Heck, I can do it now, with the 2009 winner. Thanks! --PresN 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Don't overlink "science fiction" or "fantasy" Is this award American? Both " World Science Fiction Society" and "World Science Fiction Convention" link to Worldcon. Avoid confusing overlinking. "January—March, while voting on the ballot of five nominations is performed roughly in April—July" rather than these unspaced em-dashes, I'd prefer to read this as prose. "124 authors have had works nominated and 39 authors have won" perhaps "124 authors have been nominated; 39 of these have won..."? "..the years correspond to the year of the ceremony, always held the year following the book's eligibility..." agh. year used three times in a single sentence? Think about a rephrase. Some publishers are italic, some aren't. Why? Is that "publisher" should be "Publisher/publication"? Ref 4 - the Guardian is a work, not a publisher. Don't mix date formats in the references. Can't the Hugo Awards templates be consistently coloured? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Done with them all; don't know why GDallimore made the box yellow, but I'll go with it rather than change 10+ templates to blue. The award isn't American, it's international- the World Science Fiction Society isn't incorporated in any country, so each Worldcon has its own non-profit organization that registers in the country it's held in that year. --PresN 19:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Cool. I guess also that Locus is a work rather than a publisher, since it links to a magazine article? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Yes, fixed as well. --PresN 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support my comments addressed well, and promptly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. have been available to be awarded for years 50, 75, or 100 years prior in which no awards were given Can you explain in more accessible language, what this means? Two 'years' in one sentence is confusing. Ruslik_Zero 16:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, tried to clarify.--PresN 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Nor I can Support this list. Ruslik_Zero 19:27, 7 May 2010 (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 16:26, 19 May 2010 [18].

---

Timeline of railway electrification in Norway

Nominator(s): Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This list presents a sortable timeline of the electrification of railways in Norway. Not only is this the first of its type to be FLCed, but so far the only of its type to be created. Enjoy! Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments (enjoy, I did!) Thamsvan line caption needs a full stop. kilometre or kilometer. Pick one and be consistent. I thought AC was most commonly referred to as "alternating current", not "alternate current". I think selection of AC standard should come after the summary of when the Norway railways became electrified. That's what this list is really about... "All three used different electrification standard than NSB would later install," -> either "a different ... standard" or "different ... standards" and it's usually "different ... from" rather than "different ... than" "canceled" is USEng, kilometre (should you choose it) is BritEng, and thus we'd use "cancelled". "opened with electrifications" this reads a little odd to me. What do you mean? they were electrified before they were opened? Some entries in "section" column have spaced en-dash, some have unspaced en-dash. Why? The MOS says that if one of the disjunctions has spaces, the space dash should be spaced. "Oslo Ø", "Oslo V", "Oslo S" and "Trondheim S" all force an unspaced endash. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC) System sorts okay besides the 750V entry which probably should sort lower than 10kV... Ref -> Ref(s) "Dm3]]-hauled ore train on the Ofoten Line" caption needs addressing. Voss station caption needs a full stop. Ref 10, since when did page refs have decimal places? Ref 16, does that ref really have 23290 pages? Two bibliography comments have a letter after the year of publication(?), why? I use two The Norwegian National Rail Administration publications from 2009. To differentiate between them, I use "a" and "b". If you have a better way, I'm more than happy to change it. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review—I see I should have copyedited it once more. For the record I use American English, so I've change it to that. Arsenikk (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments.

1. All abbreviation used in the article should be spelled out. Please, do this for NSB.

   Sorry, of course they should; I guess it got left out when I rearranged part of the lead in response to the comments above. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

2. Further plans have been launched Please, specified the date.

   The first plans were launched in the 1940s, and have surfaced every five to ten years since. As it is not in the current National Transport Plan, specifying any date would be pure speculation. The plans were just as much "around the corner" when Aspenberg wrote in 2001 as they are today. However, there is political consensus that if more electrification is done, then those two lines should be first. I can find sources from ministers and parliamentarians promising money shortly from 2010 and from 1946, so adding the latest news flash on the issue isn't going to help much. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

3. NSB and private railways were pioneers in electrifying mainline railways Does this mean that they were pioneers in the country or world?

   Norway was, due to its abundance of hydroelectricity, pioneers world-wide. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

4. I think the information in this list should be put in context of the electrification in the world. When did it begin? What was the place of Norway in this process?

   A good idea. I will have to go to the library to look up some sources for this, and I'll specify the point from point 3 accurately as well with them. Give me a day or two to fix this, as I'll need to go to the public library. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 12:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

All your points should now be resolved. I've added some more information about the general development of electric railways. As this is an extremely complicated matter, with competing technology and currents, it is difficult to summarize without going very off topic. As it stands now, I feel it diverts the readers attention from the topic at hand; should the reader want more information, they can always look at railway electrification system. Arsenikk ^(talk) 15:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Several of the private lines that preceded NBS's electrification chose different standards. This sentence is in the wrong place. Ruslik_Zero 16:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I moved the "new" stuff to the end. Although it breaks the chronology, it allows the first two paragraphs of the lead to focus on the matter at hand, and then let a "softer" last paragraph put it into perspective. This was one of TRM's comments, which lead to a previous re-arrangement of content. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Now looks good. Ruslik_Zero 16:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Prose is quite good, and the list looks nice. I didn't find anything to gripe about :) I made a tweak on the railways map to make it a little easier to understand quickly. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Supoprt interesting article. I you listed the images of trains in chronological order (from oldest to newest type of train) I'd be even happier. Sandman888 (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Good idea. I've kept the two top to create a contrast, but arranged the images beside the table chronologically by rolling stock.

Basically looks good, but a couple of questions/comments:

• Does the sentence starting with: "In 2008, electric traction accounted for 90%...", refer to Norway or the world?
  • Fixed. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I was a bit surprised to read about the first electric railways in the last paragraph of the intro. Did you consider moving that paragraph up to the top?
  • At first some of the meta-info like current was at the top, but then moved after request from TRM. Then Ruslik0 asked me to add some context history, but I found it hard to start the lead off with six sentences that are not deal with in the list. There is no optimal solution for this at all, as there is a trade-off between relevance and chronology. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• In the timeline section: "... but were this was not taken into use immediately.", possibly "were->where"?
• "The fifth column shows the electrical system, including current, frequency and whether it is alternate current (AC) or direct current (DC).": It is the sixth (not fifth) column if I am not mistaken. Also, it includes the voltage (not current). You might want to do without the AC/DC by saying that: "...it includes the frequency in case of AC and no frequency in case of DC."
  • Done. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I thought about removing the "AC/DC" in the table, but maybe it is better to leave it in to make it more obvious. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• For the "planned as electric" lines, does the date in the table refer to the opening of the line with non-electric trains or is it the date of the first electric service. Could you add the other date as a footnote?
  • Date refers to electrification. Added footnotes. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I have a general question regarding electrification and sections. Surely a section was not electrified everywhere at once. I imagine that they rather start at some point and move along the line electrifying it (please correct me if I am wrong). What does the date in the table mark? The first run of a (test)-train or the first regular electric service? bamse (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The list description says: "...the date when the electrification was taken into use on each section." I imagine that NSB would physically build the electrification system along a line, and on the given date that section was taken into use electrified, with the steam/diesel locomotives being moved to a base further up the line and the electric locomotives starting hauling all trains from that date. I've added "regular use" to clarify a bit. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I see. This question was just for my own understanding anyway. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing all comments. I noticed that in the table the letters "Å" and "Ø" sort like "A" and "O" respectively while at least in Swedish (don't know about Norwegian) they are close to the end of the alphabet. I don't know if there is a wikipedia consensus on how to deal with such cases (to sort like in the local language or otherwise) but you might wish to change order. In any case the article looks like a featured list to me, and therefore

support. bamse (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:48, 13 May 2010 [19].

---

List of Florida Panthers players

Nominator(s): Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is on par with other featured list on NHL players. I have never gone through the nomination process before so please be detailed with any changes that need to be made. Thank You Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Regarding Notes A & B, I think that can be assumed and doesn't need to be explicitly mentioned. Removed notes A & B In 1996 the - Need a comma after 1996. Added Comma Panthers made a remarkable run - remarkable is a PEACOCK term. Overall, this whole sentence needs to be reworked. in only their third season of existence is probably not needed since you give the year the team was founded in the opening paragraph and you specify what year they won the Stanley Cup, so you can deduce that it was their third season. reworked sentence However since then - Comma after However. Added comma post season - Post-season is hyphenated earlier in the lead, so why not post season? hyphenated Post-season twice first after the - Again, comma after twice. Added comma following year 2000–01 - Comma after year. Although I question whether the year is even needed here. You mention the 1999-2000 season, then you say and again the following year so you may be able to get by with just wikilinking following year to 2000–01 NHL season. Removed year wikilinked "following year" In 2008 Igor Larionov - Comma after 2008. Added comma 2009–2010 season, 2000–01 and (2000–2001) - You need to pick one date format and stick with it. Either YYYY-YYYY or YYYY-YY (with the exception of the 1999-2000 instance. Standardized to YYYY-YYYY The last paragraph needs to be reworked. There is an inappopriate usage of the semicolon in the first sentence. Removed semicolon I still see it.—NMajdan•talk Sorry, I must have overlooked it. I thought it was one of the edits the other user made before I started to make updates.(gone now)--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Reworked the third paragraph. If my track record is any indication there will be more grammatical errors within the new paragraph. Statistics complete as of the 2009–10 NHL season. - Why is this not italicized? Seems out of place coming at the end of an italicized sentence. Italicized Use em dashes in the empty cells. Changed to em dash The Notes column in the Goaltenders section is not needed if no entry uses it. Removed notes section Using YYYY-YY date format for Greg Adams. Changed to YYYY-YYYY Try to keep font sizes consistent in the Notes column on the Skaters section. Removed small text/removed a note not important to the franchise Do the various categories need to be capitalized in the image captions (i.e. Goals, Points, Assists, etc)? Would you capitalize them outside of the caption? Changed to lower case Fix ref #6. Use only one date format. Changed to have only one format I don't like the placement of the references for the main tables. Consider putting them to a General reference category like here. Changed to be like the example given Tomas Vokoun is Florida's current starting Goalie. - Needs a reference. Also, does Goalie need to be capitalized?—NMajdan•talk Referenced and changed to lower case I don't know if its a MoS requirement, but asterisks and daggers are usually superscripted. Changed to dagger to superscript. I think the asterisks are fine. Why the smaller font size in the Goaltenders Key and not the other two? I copied from the Sabers page because I was having trouble with the column split, I must have some how deleted the other two. Changed to all be the same size. Bryan McCabe is Captain of the Panthers. - Reference? Referenced (in notes section) Stephen Weiss has played his entire career in Florida. - Reference? Referenced David Booth scored 31 Goals for Florida in the 2008–09 season. - Reference? Referenced Keith Ballard was traded to Florida following the 2007–08 season. - Reference? Referenced in new intro Looks like you need to reference some of your notes. The references for the main tables make no mention of draft picks, captains, or Hall of Famers. Referenced notes not referenced in the into Overall, there are a lot of issues with the prose in the lead, so right now, this list does not meet FL criteria #1. In an October 24, 2007 game vs. the Philadelphia Flyers - This sentence seems a little odd. The first part makes it sound like there were more than one game on this date. Also, you should spell out versus. So, maybe something like On October 24, 2007, Olli Jokinen score two goals against the Phildelphia Flyers to become the franchise's.... Changed assists surpassing - Comma after assists. Added comma mark for games played. A mark Jokinen fell just six - Doesn't seem like there should be a sentence stop here; they flow like they're on sentence. Made into one sentence No one player dominates the Panthers' post-season record book like Jokinen does the regular-season version. - Seems a bit peacocky again. The Panthers' all-time goaltender records are dominated by two names. - Same as above. Reworked both sentences. The last sentence in the four paragraph seems a bit odd. Also, you may want to put in more clearer terms what "owns the mark/holds the mark" is. Reworked last sentence. changed "mark" to record for clarification. There are still some dates in the YYYY-YY format in the Notes column. Changed to YYYY-YYYY Not a requirement, but something I suggest for Featured Lists. Look into archiving some of your web sources with WebCitation to help prevent link rot. Archived several references. Stat based links are going to change and be used to update player information so I did not archive them. Currently, there are a lot of issues with the list, especially with the lead. Compared to the lead in List of Philadelphia Flyers players, this one is a little short and has prose issues. The lead is still a bit shorter than the Flyers page, but is longer than some of the other featured Lists such as List of Atlanta Thrashers players. The Atlanta list was promoted to FL over two years ago whereas the Philadelphia list was promoted in early April and is thus more indicative of the tougher FL guidelines in place now.—NMajdan•talk 15:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) —NMajdan•talk 21:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC) With some help from User:Baseballa449, I have made some changes. I will get to the others ASAP. Thanks for the detailed comments they have been very helpful --Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Lots of sortability issues in the table. Goaltenders ties sort 0, 1, 13, 14, 2, 22, 32, 42, 5, 6. Have a look at the sortkeys used in the Flyers list for an idea how to solve this. Unfortunately it is very arduous to put in place, and makes the page a lot bigger and slower to load. But otherwise, the table sorts completely wrong, like here.

Changed to be like given example.

• Same issue with OTL, (PO)GP, (PO)L for goaltenders, and all playoff columns for skaters.

Started the Change over. It's a long process but should be done in the next day or so Changed all to sortkey style, like Flyers page.

• In your note:all games will have a winner – 'will' implies future tense, which is misleading.

Removed "will"

Harrias ^talk 13:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Support all looks good to me know, well done! Harrias ^talk 07:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick comments but an oppose for now... Link expansion team, it's not clear for non-experts. Linked. Is it post-season or playoffs? Both are commonly used but changed all to playoffs. Is it regular-season or regular season? Made all regular-season. " the following year" that links to a season spanning two years, not a single year. changed to "following season" since an NHL season covers two calender years. "Olli Jokinen score two" scored? Fixed "the 2007-2008 season" en-dash please. Changed "Thanks to the ..." not necessarily. Perhaps "Playing in the 1996..." Reworked Why is Wing capitalised? Changed to lower case. And "Losses" of "Overtime Losses"? Changed to lower case. What does "jersey retired" mean to a non-expert? Wiki linked and changed to retired number. "Roberto Luongo is Florida's career leader in several categories." maybe "career-leading goaltender"? Changed to list the categories he leads. Don't like "goalie" - too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Changed all to "goaltender". "Bryan McCabe is Captain of the Panthers." why capital C for captain? Strange I thought I had fixed that. Any way it's fixed now. "Stephen Weiss has played his entire NHL career in Florida.[8]" no need to relink NHL. Removed link. " is the only form Panther player" what's a "form player"? A form player is a grammatically incorrect player. changed to "former". "Jay Bouwmeester is second all-time in franchise history for assists and points, form a defensemen" what does "form a defensemen" mean? Do you mean "from a defenseman"? And do you have a reference? Yes. Changed to "from". I got the info from the chart but will try to find a reference. "Keith Ballard was traded to Florida following the 2007–08 season." referenced? This is referenced in the intro, as he was part of the Jokinen deal, but I can also add it in the caption if you think that it is better to have it referenced in both places. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC) Goaltenders key table has a blank cell for no apparent reason. This is a common thing on NHL player list, as there is not an even number of abbreviations for goaltenders to fill up the entire table. There are currently 9 FL with the exact same table or one similar. (Jackets, Canucks, Sabres, Flames, Wings, Devils, Senators, Sharks, and Lightning ) It doesn't really matter if it's in other lists, it looks odd and can easily be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Although I think that the above shows a precedent for leaving the a blank cell, I have changed the way the table is displayed to remove the blank.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Can I talk you into a Southeast Division (NHL) link at the start? Linked "In 1996, the Panthers had their most successful season making a run to the Stanley Cup finals, losing in the Stanley Cup Final to the Colorado Avalance." Comma after "season"; also, the last part is terribly repetitive. How about "to the Stanley Cup Final, losing to the Colorado Avalance."? Fixed Another comma after "inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame". Added comma Is the full detail of the Jokinen trade really appropriate for the lead of a list it has little to do with? It would probably be enough to just say that he was traded. Changed "However, with the Panthers struggles to make the playoffs...". Apostrophe needed at end of team name. Fixed Comma after Ray Sheppard. Added comma Remove colon at end of "Roberto Luongo holds the franchise regular-season records for:". Removed Note a: Replace comma after "all games have a winner" with semi-colon. Changed Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC) One more thing: on a second look I still don't think "making it to the Stanley Cup Finals, losing to the Colorado Avalanche" is the best grammar possible. How about "making it to the Stanley Cup Finals before losing to the Colorado Avalanche."? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC) Changed

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:48, 13 May 2010 [20].

---

List of freshwater islands in Scotland

Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Long-suffering FLC overseers will be pleased to hear that we are getting close to the end of the series "Lists of Scottish islands" - there are only one or at most two to go (unless someone starts generating large numbers of articles about crannogs). The current candidate largely conforms to previous lists although there are differences from the offshore islands, as noted, specifically in the OS treatment of freshwater island names. Ben MacDui 12:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. I found no serious problems in the article, except that the last sentence in 'In rivers' section should have a citation. Ruslik_Zero 16:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks.

Citations now added. Ben MacDui 08:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

*Perhaps a bit picky, but I'd prefer to see a consistency in the usage of the term "freshwater" or "fresh water"... Done north-west vs southeast... Done Larger islands table - what's the colour coding mean? And note WP:ACCESS, don't use just colour to denote a particular property. They indicated rank, but as this was apparently not obvious I have removed them. Interestingly, the pdf you link to in that table for populations has "Innischonan" rather than "Innis Chonan". Since that's a Scottish government source, should we be using the Scottish government nomenclature? It's not the only one... Both Gaelic spellings and Scots/English language spellings of Gaelic names are rather variable. Having started off by rendering the former in phonetic anglicised ways the OS are now reverting to usage of full Gaelic including accents. They now have "Innis Chonain". In short, there is no "correct" English spelling and I don't think the Registrar General's is any better than anyone else's. "are said to be " sounds a little dubious to me. This is supposed to be definitive. Who did the "saying" in any case?! Now says "There may be up to". See Note 2 for sources. aka - yuck. prose it. Done "new islands that would previously have been small eminences" sorry to be difficult, but what constitutes an island as opposed to a "small eminence"? Prior to the flooding the area would have been dry land with small eminences, which after the dam was constructed became islands. Just a query, why is Fion Loch not Loch Fion like all the other lochs? It probably means "white lake", in contrast the Dubh Loch (black lake) at its eastern end. There may be some Gaelic rule involved, but I don't know for sure. (I now a man who does if you are curious). Sortable table so wikilinks need to be repeated because there's no guarantee that the wikilinked instance occurs first after a re-sort. Doing... and done. "and as as result Scotland's" typo. Done "No part of Scotland is more than about 80 kilometres (50 mi) from the sea and as as result Scotland's rivers are neither very wide nor long (although Scotland has many substantial salt water estuaries called firths). These are islands in fresh or brackish water." not referenced. Not the best reference, but this is surprisingly obscure info. See also below in reply to Rambo's Revenge. Several notes appear to be unreferenced. I added to to note 1. The others are either comments that I don't think need referenced, or link to the Ordnance Survey map that provides the information. Refs 6, 8, 14 appear to be notes, not references. Per the above I consider the OS maps that the links are provided for, are a reference. I can change 'em if you prefer. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks - first and second pass of replies above. Ben MacDui 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Any reason why Loch Leven Castle island is the lead image? The caption gives us no real understanding of why it's more significant (if it is) than, say, the biggest one i.e. Inchmurrin? Firstly, our larger freshwater islands do not seem to be provided with especially good images and this seemed to me to be the best one. Secondly, with the map of L. Lomond below it, I felt that that covered the more generic issue of the largest loch with the most islands and largest island. I have added an Inchmurrin image lower done. (Inchm. is on the map if you look closely.) I have also added "where Mary, Queen of Scots was imprisoned in 1567" to the caption. Hopefully "done". Do you have refs for those derivations of names? Not a single reference, but I will add those that come to hand asap. Done. "several former islands" - can you say how they became "former"? Done. What makes "www.loch-lomond.me.uk" a reliable source? When dealing with very small islands, the subject matter is obscure and citations sometimes hard to come by. I have no reasons to dispute its accuracy but I will have a further look. No mention that I can see in Murray and Pullar. There are any number of similar tourist-related guides that would appear to be copying one another and are hardly more deserving of the WP:RS accolade. .goxplore.net is probably the best of the bunch. I have now added this plus a couple more. In digging a little deeper into this it becomes pretty clear that the figure of 60 is being repeated without any source other than Nennius in 800AD ever being brought to bear. www.loch-lomond.me.uk is still there as providing evidence that some islets may appear at lower water levels, but this is not in the main text. There are some interesting looking archeaological surveys at lochlomondtrossachs.org.uk but they are not free, or downloadable and may or may not provide anything better on this specific issue. Loch Lomond National Park does not seem to have anything about this subject, on the web at least, which is quite surprising. In short, I think I have exhausted most obvious avenues, the text is more robust as a result and the question remains re loch-lomond.me.uk. It is not vital and could be removed along with relevant statement about water levels if need be.

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

Oppose. This is List of freshwater islands in Scotland. The term specifically excludes seawater and brackish water, yet in the "In Rivers" section, you state that you include brackish water islands in the section. Is this the case for the other sections and, if not, why not? Or alternatively these brackish ones need specifically removing or denoting in some way. Islands generally in freshwater that are reached by high tides would only be in rivers. I can't think of a freshwater loch that is occasionally brackish (that would make it an estuary). I do not know for sure how many but there are only a small number of them - Inch Geck in the Ythan and Alloa Inch would be examples. Freshwater as such is not brackish, but that does not mean that a predominantly "freshwater island" cannot occasionally be reached by the tides. If you look at the above examples they are clearly in rivers rather than offshore and I don't believe it would make sense to have a separate list for them, but I can easily check through and indicate which ones are below the mean high water spring tide line. I don't know the relevence of the last point. Presumably that would denote it as freshwater or brackish. If that is the case, it sounds like a good idea. I'm really no expert on the complexities, I'm just trying to ensure the correct terminology is being used. RR 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, it does mean that the highest tides would reach this point on a monthly basis. I have commenced the exercise. Done. Not a fan of the decorative colour. If it is necessary enough (it isn't in my opinion due to the sortabile nature of the table) then WP:COLOUR cannot be the only way to convey information. The sort conveyed the information too but I have removed this apparently unhelpful method (see also above). "No part of Scotland is more than about 80 kilometres (50 mi)" more than about is awkward. How much is about? If there is somewhere that is 82 km then just say "No part ... is more than 85 km" away. Not the best reference, but this is surprisingly obscure info. The ref says "about", which given the very complex nature of the west coast (I believe the second most indented in the world after Norway) is perhaps understandable. I would make it a definitive "45 miles" but see Centre points of the United Kingdom. The subject is not well-researched I fear. Okay, I get where you are coming from. Starting from this, I entered the co-ordinates 56.819296, -4.204 in this radial distance tool. With the radius set to 50 miles, a circle from any point reaches sea. It is therefore safe to assume everywhere is 50 miles. This brings me back to my initial contention. It was not (so much) the lack of reference. It was the imprecise use of "about". Every part is either closer than 50 miles or not. I agree that the distance is (more likely) somewhere around 45 mi. But without a reference, we should maintain precision and say no more than 50 miles away. RR 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Done. Eilean na Comhairle.[Note 6] Why the full stop? Removed "Eilean a' Faof, Eilean Mhic Fail Eilean Mòr, Tearead, Tearead Thioram, Tearead Fhliuch" is there a missing comma somewhere in the middle. Fixed Don't like Eilean Mór? WP:EGG Not sure what the alternative is short of delinking the island. The castle is its main claim to fame and it hardly merits an article in in its own right. My point is if that Eilean Mór is notable, then it should be redlinked (or you could make a stub for it). Otherwise it shouldn't be linked. RR 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Given that Eilean Mòr is only really notable for the castle, this is a bit of a conundrum. If I can think of something worth saying I'll create a stub. I have removed the link from the island and added it to the "See also section". "each of which have played an important part in Scottish history. " What is important? Citation, perhaps? Perhaps this is over stating the case. I have added references into the text here, but "each of which have had a role to play in Scottish history." might be closer to the mark. Done. "although it is also used for terra firma surrounded by marsh". Does terra firma mean surrounded by marsh? If so you are missing punctuation between the two entities. Terra firma just means "dry land". Okay I didn't know that. Will I be the only one? Probably not. Suggest linking (to disambig or wiktionary) for those as ignorant as myself. :) RR 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Done i.e. linked to Wiktionary. Are the redlinks more notable than the unlinked Lochs? In my view they are the most likely to have their own article next, but I confess this is a fairly subjective judgement based on their size, location and fame. That is okay, as long as it is not random. I have no concept of what would cause a loch to pass notability criteria, but if you say they are the biggest and more notable ones then I'll take your word for it. RR 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I have made a start and will return asap. Ben MacDui 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC) One more thing. To what do the (2) and (3) refer. Whatever it is needs clarifying. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Added "Numbers in brackets indicate that there are (2) or (3) islands of the same name in the body of water referred to." as a note.

Images

• For those interested I can state that the images are of suitable use for wikipedia. Most are from the Geograph project, a couple others were PD which I have reviewed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - There is a citation needed tag in the In rivers section.—Chris!_c/t 20:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup - it was placed there by a reviewer. I will get to that asap. Ben MacDui 09:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Now fixed. Ben MacDui 08:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - ok, looks good now—Chris!_c/t 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Support beautifully illustrated! great work. Dincher (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:25, 11 May 2010 [21].

---

List of counties in Utah

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. Information about U.S. county lists can be found at WP:COUNTYLISTS. I've been using the western states as guides. Bgwhite (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments The lead needs expansion. Talk about population figures, trends in county etymologies, etc. See List of counties in Florida and other recently promoted county FL's for examples. Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Wikilinks to the counties in the 'origin' column would be nice. Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I know its not a requirement, but add some simple alt text for the main image. See Template:Missouri County Labelled Map for an example. Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Years of people's birth and death should be separated by an en dash, not a hyphen. Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) More recently promoted county FL's use "Counties" as the heading instead of "List". Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Try to give just a little bit more info about what the counties were named for. Example: instead of just "The Sevier River", write: "The Sevier River, a 280 mi (450 km) long river, the longest in Utah". Hopefully it is done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Are there any counties that no longer exist, or any renamings? Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC) It's definitely looking good, but requires some more work. Thank you for submitting this list to FLC. Jujutacular T · C 01:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Looking even better! Thanks for the quick responses. A few more concerns: Yea, working at 2am in the morning may be quick, but leads to mistakes which you caught. Bgwhite (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Etymology for Tooele County isn't clear. Done Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Retrieval dates for refs are not consistent. User either "April 29, 2010", or "2010-04-29" throughout. Done Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Reword Carbon County etymology for consistency - all others do not include full stops. Done. Iron County was the same Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Wikilink all the counties where they appear in the origin column. It's a sortable table, so those won't always come first (see WP:REPEATLINK). Done Bgwhite (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 19:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Looks very good now. Jujutacular ^T · C 00:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "in the U.S. state of" I would prefer "United States state..." I disagree here; "United States state" sounds terribly redundant and awkward, and U.S. is such a ubiquitous abbreviation that I don't think it bears spelling out even on the first appearance (much I like I would not expect UK, BBC, CNN etc. to be spelled out either in most articles). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I have been dinged in FA for not using "U.S. state" Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC) "originally seven counties formed under the provisional State of Deseret" when? Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "The first legislature re-created the original counties from the State of Deseret as well as creating three additional counties: Juab, Millard, and Washington. All counties were created by.." confusing. The first sentence is talking about the creation of counties back in 1850-odd, while the next sentence "All counties..." probably isn't. Can we clear this up? Done. But please check if it is ok with you Bgwhite (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Can we link gubernatorial for us non-US readers? Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "the population of Utah is 2,736,424" no, it was that many, in 2008. Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Davis county - there's a conflict between the lead and table in land area. Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Any reason why the column heading refs are on different lines from the heading? It's the way Template:Countytabletop handles it Bgwhite (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) What's a "county seat"? Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Not convinced Origin should be sortable. Other FLC county articles have it sortable. However, instead of "origin", some use "formed from" Bgwhite (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Should Apostle just be apostle (per the articles" you link to)? Yes, it should be capitalized..."Apostle". Added a wikilink Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "A Native American word translated "thirsty valley"" why not "A Native American translation of "thirsty valley""? Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) " iron ore is still being produced." surely it's being mined, not produced? Done... My wife thinks money grows on trees so why can't iron be produced? :) "Uncertain, either from the Goshute Tribe Chief Tuilla or the [Tule" strange [ Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Link Ute every time - it's a sortable list. I'm confused. Where is Ute used in a sortable list? Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) According to me it's used four times and linked only once. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Done, but need some clarification. Ute is used in a column that is not sortable, do you still wikilink? Bgwhite (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, because the whole row can appear in different locations within the list if the list is sorted by one of the sortable columns. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Dates in the second table - what does this really mean? They're not dates for a start, just years... Done. Separated into two tables called "created" and "superseded" Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "growing in the area, but they are actually" perhaps "...area (which are actually...)" Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Any reason why that second table isn't sortable? Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Done Bgwhite (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) What makes "nw-utah-heritage.com" a reliable source? Done. Couldn't remember the origin of St. Mary's and Shambip's name. Went back to library today to look it up in the book. Bgwhite (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm happy now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

1. All counties were established by the Utah Territorial Legislature under territorial law except for the last two counties formed, Daggett and Duchesne. This is a slightly confusing sentence. It should probably read "all other counties" meaning all counties except those 10 already mentioned in the previous sentence.
2. Please, also specify the time frame when they were created. (1851-1896?)
3. They were created by popular vote and by gubernatorial proclamation. Please, specify years. It is also worth mentioning that at the time of their creation Utah was a state.
4. I am also interested why the last two were created out of process? The article should probably clarify this.
5. The image in the leading section should have a caption.

Ruslik_Zero 09:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed items 1-4. Thank you, I've always wondered about Daggett County and now I know why it was created.
• I'm not sure how to add a caption to the image. It's not an image/file. Do you know how? Bgwhite (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You added alt text, not caption. Ruslik_Zero 12:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I added both, please check again. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you added but it is not displayed. Ruslik_Zero 11:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the lead image is not an image map or thumbnail; it uses the template {{image label}}, so the caption does not appear. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. Actually that caption parameter determines the rollover text for the image (which worked). Not sure about the "caption" though. Jujutacular ^T · C 14:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think currently the list satisfies FL criteria. (I fixed caption problem myself.) Ruslik_Zero 17:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The added caption has displaced all of the county labels... at least on my browser (Firefox). Jujutacular ^T · C 19:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I temp disabled my fix, but in this case the labels should be shifted down to match new position of the map. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created a different template with shifted labels and added it. Check it out to see if it looks good to you. Feel free to play with the positions: Template:Utah County Labelled Map2. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Ruslik_Zero 10:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is something not really in your control, but the map is out of date; a sizeable enough change to be visible was made in 2003 when Green River was transferred to Emery County from Grand County. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Green River was in both couties. Residential in Emery and commercial in Grand, but most of the land was in Grand. A guesstimate from an outline of Utah shows the county transfer looks to be a 20 mile (east/west) by 5 mile (north/south) area into Grand County. I have GIS data for utah. If you show me some information on how to update the map, I'll do it. Bgwhite (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I figured things out. I updated the map to show the new boundaries between Emery and Grand counties. I did a pixel by pixel change from the latest census maps Bgwhite (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. Very good list. --Carioca (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:25, 11 May 2010 [22].

---

List of battleships of Germany

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the capstone article for what will eventually be the capstone for a FT composed of 50-some-odd-articles. Essentially, it's a much larger version of the corresponding battlecruiser list that caps that FT. This just passed a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review (found here). I believe it meets the criteria for a featured list, so here we are. I thank in advance all editors who take the time to look the list over. Parsecboy (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "The other four were canceled without any work being done. Design work continued which culminated in the massive H-44 class, though it was merely a design study." -- needs copyediting
  • "Rheinland and Westfalen were sent to Finland to support the Finns in their civil war, but Rheinland ran aground off the Åland Islands and was severely damaged." -- give us a date so we don't have to click the link, and what Finnish faction were they supporting? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
    • They supported the Whites. I added that and a more specific time-frame for the expedition to Finland. I also tweaked the sentence you mentioned, does it read better now? Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, and what do you think of this? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: ...also, wasn't it more of a revolution/war of independence than a civil war? - The Bushranger (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article is at Finnish Civil War, and every source I have seen it in refers to it as such. It was because there were two factions: the Reds and the Whites. Parsecboy (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. I should read up on that sometime. Also, Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments.

1. Previous classes included several types of coastal defense ships and armored frigates. Why does not it mention iroclad ships mentioned in the leading section?

   Do you mean in the list? Because those are not battleships. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I mean that the lead says: Germany had previously built a series of smaller ironclad warships, coastal defense ships, and armored frigates. However the first section says: Previous classes included several types of coastal defense ships and armored frigates. The main idea as understand is that those ship types predated battle ships and served as the basis for them. This is particularly true for the ironclad ships, which were immediate ancestors of battleships. So, I find, it is strange that ironclad ships are mentioned in the lead, but not in the main text. Ruslik_Zero 14:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

2. Kaiser Wilhelm II saw service as the fleet flagship until 1906. Does it mean service in I Squadron or III Squadron?

   This has been clarified (I think). Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

3. The section about Brandenburg class does not mention the squadron they were assigned to. (I Battle Squadron?)

   Post-refit they were assigned to the II Squadron, I don't know about before the refit. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   I asked because Wittelsbach section below says that the Wittelsbach class ships were assigned to the I Battle Squadron, where they replaced the older Brandenburg class ships. As to the information about II Squadron, it should be added. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

4. I think that Wittelsbach class section should say (just before the last sentence) that all ships except Zähringen were broken in 1921-1922.

   Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Broken up in 1949–50 (in Wittelsbach class Table). I would say that she was sunk in 1944, not broken in 1949-50 as it was the wreck that was really broken, not the ship.

   I clarified this. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

6. After the war, Lothringen and Preußen were converted into depot ships for minesweepers. They were eventually scrapped in 1931. However the table in this section says that Preußen was Sunk by bombers in 1945, raised in 1954 and scrapped?

   Clarified. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Hannover was struck in 1935 and eventually broken up in 1944–46 (Deutschland class) What did strike her in 1935? Did she participate in a war?

   Maybe add a link to stricken? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

8. What is the difference between being Broken up in 1924 and being Scrapped in 1920? (Nassau class) The text says that all of them were scrapped. This concerns other sections too. You should use a uniform terminology: either scrapped or broken. (If there is no difference, of course.)

   There's no difference, I was just going for variety in word choice. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

   Still uniform terminology is better. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

9. The five ships were Kaiser, Friedrich der Grosse, Kaiserin, Prinzregent Luitpold, and König Albert. This duplicates the first sentence in this section. (Kaiser class)

   Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

10. The Kaiser class ships mounted ten 30.5 cm (12 in) SK L/50 guns in five twin turrets; one turret was mounted fore, two aft in a superfiring arrangement, and the other two in a staggered "wing" arrangement amidships. Kaiser or König? In addition, the article about König class does not mention this arrangement. According to it (and articles about specific König ships) the guns were arranged as described in the next sentence: one of the wing turrets was moved forward and placed in a superfiring arrangement, while the second wing turret was moved to the centerline amidships. Please, clarify.

    I'm not sure how to make it more clear (it seems clear to me, but then I did write it). The point was to describe the arrangement on the Kaisers and then show how it was improved for the Konigs. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

    I moved the first sentence to the previous section. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

11. Baden replaced Friedrich der Grosse as the flagship of the High Seas Fleet The section about Kaiser class does not mention that Friedrich der Grosse was the flagship.

    Added. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

12. I noticed that some image captions mention the year in which the photo was take, while others do not. I think all captions should be dated if years are available.

    Years have been added where possible. Parsecboy (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Personal thing, but I'd merge these two sentences: "Germany had previously built a series of smaller ironclad warships, coastal defense ships, and armored frigates.[Note 1] These ships were primarily intended to defend Germany's North and Baltic Sea coasts in wartime.[1]" Done. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Should Great Power be capitalised as such? Our article doesn't seem to follow that.. I've seen it capitalized frequently in books. I think the article on great power is more about the concept and so would be a common noun. It most frequently refers to Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Prussia/Germany, which I think would be a proper noun. For example, it's capitalized in the Congress of Vienna article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "Admiral von Tirpitz secured a series..." could you not just say "von Turpitz"? Well, von Turpitz would just be foolish :P Seriously, though, I wanted to avoid capitalizing the "von." Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Totally picky, but "the final law envisioned" do laws "envision"? I guess technically the drafters of the law "envision," but I see nothing wrong with transferring that to the bill itself. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "of the German navy in 1928" should that be "the German Navy"? Particularly as you go on to say "to be built in 1918 for the German Navy. ".... "to 35 percent of the " why not just 35%? I generally prefer text to symbols, I just think it looks better. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) My browser makes the Barbarossa image leak into the next section over the table (OS X, Safari). I don't know what to do about that...works fine in my browser (even when there was no text, like here, it worked fine). Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "same armament of 24 cm guns" - four 24 cm guns? Yes. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) You don't link WW II in the lead but you do in the list. Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "end of the World War I" well, either "the First World War" (highly preferable to an Englishman!) or no "the". Fixed. Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) H class proposals table... lots of em-dashes. What do they mean? Thought it looked better than leaving it blank (since there's nothing to put in those fields, and leaving them empty might make one think the box was unfinished). Parsecboy (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Comment on one of your points: "German Navy" would look odd to my eye. "the German navy" would be equivilant to "the navy of Germany"; the proper noun would best be the untranslated German term of the period ([i]Reichsmarine[/i], [i]Kriegsmarine[/i], etc.). - The Bushranger (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Either way, the article needs to be internally consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC) It's now just "German navy" where the specific incarnation is not mentioned. Parsecboy (talk) 11:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment What's the status on Ruslik's remaining comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The only one that was still outstanding was the second unstruck one about the Brandenburgs' squadron assignment. I've just added that to the article, so everything should be addressed now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, a few comments tho;
  • "they were not serious proposals due to the infeasibility and expense of the ships." who said it wasnt serious?
    • Gröner, whose book is based entirely on the German naval archives, states that they were "projected designs only." Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd prefer that sentence instead. "According to Gröner they were "projected designs only" " or something similar. It smells of OR as it stands.Sandman888 (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, it's not. He had access to the entire German naval archives; if he says they were only projected designs, that's what they were.
        • If you'd like more, Sturton states "These studies must be considered as purely paper studies, the results of keeping a large design team in being for the major part of the war." Parsecboy (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• ""hail of fire" theory, which emphasized smaller, rapid firing guns over larger and slower guns." is the number of guns held constant?
  • Generally, yes; the Kaiser Friedrich IIIs and Wittelsbachs each had four rapid-firing large-caliber guns, which was the same as contemporary ships that had larger, slower firing guns. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• "although this was still smaller than the standard 12 inches (30 cm) guns used on British ships." why is this sentence relevant?
  • German battleships, basically up until Bismarck, had smaller main guns than did their British rivals. I was just pointing out that after the switch to 28cm guns, this was still true. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• wikilink ceded, allied powers
  • Done. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
• "Bismarck was disabled by a torpedo hit from a Fairey Swordfish launched from Ark Royal and subsequently destroyed by the battleships Rodney and King George V on 27 May." I guess those are English ships? you cd write something like "In a British retaliation, Bismarck was disabled by a torpedo hit from a Fairey Swordfish launched from Ark Royal and subsequently destroyed by the battleships Rodney and King George V on 27 May."
  • Take a look now and see if it's more clear. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Dramatic. Much clearer.Sandman888 (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • good list tho. Sandman888 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:25, 11 May 2010 [23].

---

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list because I feel it still meets all of the FLC. I've based this list off of WP:FL List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches and FL List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches. NThomas (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC) NThomas (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Not failing the criteria necessarily, but the big red link is a pretty ugly opening. Removed the red link. NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Worth linking head coach (since that's what the list is about). Wikilinked NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "three year" hyphenate. Fixed NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) You abbreviate SWC but then don't use it on the next opportunity. Replaced that following Southwest Conference with SWC NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) "ranked #8" MOS doesn't like # (MOS:HASH) Replaced #8 with eighth NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Where are Bob Knight's awards referenced? Referenced one, removed one. NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Higginbotham to Matadors makes for slightly odd reading. I understand it's chronological but it still seems a little strange. Any suggestions? I know it reads strange, but I don't know how else to convey the information in the same style. NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Not convinced the nickname is particularly relevant to this list of head coaches... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) In the List of Oklahoma State Cowboys head football coaches FLC, I had suggested adding the original team moniker since most of those coaches (6 of 13 coaches in this list) did not coach the team under its current moniker. Even though the current moniker has been used longer than the original (Matadors: 11 years; Red Raiders: 74 years), I think not including it would show WP:Recentism in the article. I've rewritten the the begining of the second paragraph. I think it "flows" much better now. Here's the edit NThomas (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I'm certain we don't need to link "bid" to Wiktionary. The only reason I linked it to wikitionary was because of your comments on this FLC. Seemed like the right thing to do and carry over the link to here too. NThomas (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Ahah. I think it was just the turn of phrase that confused me there "received their bid". In BritEng, that'd be more like "they made their first postseason bid"... either way, if it's consistent and no-one else makes a fuss then why should I?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Sounds good to me! If I had known that Wiktionary had an entry for bid in that original FLC, I would have linked it for clarity. I'm glad you caught it. NThomas (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Supported last time around, I see no reason not to do it again.—NMajdan•talk 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Support – There would appear to be a typo in here: "started and lead the program until Victor Payne replaced him after two seasons." "lead" → "led". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help! NThomas (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

*Comments Refs 6 and 7 lead to the same document. Oops. Replaced with intended reference. NThomas (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) "a three-year conference champion winning streak." Championship, perhaps? Yep. Fixed. NThomas (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I might have more later, but I'm not seeing anything else now. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review! NThomas (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not seeing anything else; Support Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2010 (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 19:11, 10 May 2010 [24].

---

Moons of Saturn

Nominator(s): Ruslik_Zero 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating Moons of Saturn for featured list because, in my opinion, it has reached the FL level. This article is about the most complicated satellite system in the Solar System. It is a very important article for the Solar System Project. Ruslik_Zero 12:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think it satisfies the criteria. I've noticed a few very minor issues which I'm going to try and fix myself, or point out on the talk page, in the next few hours. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – a seriously heavyweight piece of work, well done. A quick once-over.... Lead seems lacking in references. For instance, you have a claim like "making the Saturnian system the most diverse in the Solar System" without citation. I do not usually put references in the lead, as it is just a summary. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Is this claim cited in the main body of text then? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I removed this particular sentence as it is not really important here. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "Particularly notable" according to whom? According to me, though I do not think this is particular controversial. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Controversial enough for me to question it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Without such words the prose will be dull and uninteresting. As to 'particular notability', books have been written about Titan. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Twenty-four vs thirty eight. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "all small save one" reads very odd to me... Replaced "save" with "except". ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "though this is thought to be only a small sample" by whom? By scientists, who investigated them. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Cited? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I added a citation. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) What is an "objective lens"? Worth a link for the non-expert. It simply means objective. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) What does that mean to a non-expert? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I added a link, though people usually know what 'objective' is (in a camera, for instance). Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Good. I disagree that "people usually know what 'objective'" when related to a camera means. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Ditto for "50 power" - and should that be hyphenated? Removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "Saturn and the moons Iapetus, Titan, Dione, Hyperion, and Rhea" can you relate the caption to the image, i.e. which is which even if you just say (I), (T) etc. I expanded caption. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "since been revolutionized" can you quantify/cite this claim? I do not understand what is the problem here? This statement seems obvious. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Asking for a citation because otherwise this is just your opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) " of Charge-coupled devices " small c for Charge. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "medium size"->"medium-size" or sized. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "gravitational pull.[17][16]" can you put those in numerical order? Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Some captions wikilink the moons, others don't. I'd be consistent. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Why is Titan's row blue? Remember WP:ACCESS... But there is the key, and Titan is not only one colored. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) WP:ACCESS says don't use colour only. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The big table at the end also uses daggers and card suites for them. In the table including only the major moons, only two colours are contrasted, their brightnesses are sufficiently different that they ought to be distinguishable also in black-and-white renderings, and highlighting Titan by colour isn't that vital as its enormous size is also mentioned in the prose. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC) No, there's no need to highlight Titan, and I disagree that the colours are sufficiently different. Remove the highlight. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) It is possible to make them B&W. Ruslik_Zero 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I don't see an advantage to an unkeyed colour scheme which contravenes ACCESS, that's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I removed highlight. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "In 2006, four tiny "moonlets" " you link moonlets again, but you've done it already, and you mentioned moonlets earlier in this same section without linking it. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Is it F Ring or F-Ring? F Ring. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) 5151->5,151 Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "albedo of Phoebe" what does that mean? It means albedo (reflectivity) of Phoebe. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Irregular satellites image may contravene WP:ACCESS as well since you only differentiate types of satellite by colour alone. But I can do nothing about it. It is the only to differentiate them Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) So don't use the image. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Actually yellow color only indicates whether a satellite is named. However names are of named satellites are written, so they do not differ by color alone. Ruslik_Zero 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The unnamed are categorised by white and grey [sic] which you would agree would be difficult to differntiate? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I replaced the image. Ruslik_Zero 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "Phoebe, at 214 km in diameter.." avoid bold linking. Bolding removed. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Order column (in Safari under Mac OSX) sorts incorrectly. As does Name. I made a number of tweaks, it should work now. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Don't like blank cells. Does it mean the info has been forgotten, isn't available, etc? It means I have nothing to say, though I filled some blanks. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) (d)[note 6][note 5] can you make those notes in numerical order? Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Same for inclination col. Should work now. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) What does ? mean in the table? I replaced them. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) G-ring or G ring? G Ring. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Discoverer col is a weird one. Typically we'd sort by surname on this sort of thing... I made it unsortable. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) "but most likely, none of these moons exist in reality." who said that? I shortened this sentence. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I will deal with the remaining issues tomorrow. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose while my comments are outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why is regular satellites in italics?

  But irregular satellites is also in italic? Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Why x 2? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Italics are a fairly common way of introducing new technical terms: for example, it's the default rendering for <dfn> on most browsers. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'll give you that, per our MOS, but there are dozens of "technical terms" in this article. Just wondered why two of them were more significant than all the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Most of the other technical terms are linked to some other article which defines them and (IMO) the blue already sufficiently highlights them, but these two aren't, because their full definition is given in this article. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'll leave this point open until I review the list in detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I think, per Wikipedia:Layout, external links and navigation templates should come last behind notes and references.—Chris!_c/t 06:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You'd be quite correct - and I've tweaked the page to reflect that. Also, Support. - The Bushranger (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Iridia (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments An important article, and comprehensive. In the lead: Second para: "possess" prograde orbits? better would be "move on" (as much as I like the alliteration). Changed to 'have'. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Third para: should be "end of the nineteenth century". Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Fourth para: icy "objects"? A little more clarity here: perhaps "fragments of water ice". They do have to be quite large to hide any silicates. They are made of almost pure ice, so they have nothing to hide. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, they are pure ice. No, when you get a moonlet that is a couple hundred metres across, the internal composition is more moon-like, and could involve some silicates. "Objects" just doesn't sound right for a sub-moonlet size ring particle. Iridia (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC) There is no evidence that composition of moonlets is different from that of ring particles. The latter are composed of pure water ice—there is no evidence of presence of any other material including silicates. So, any attempt to differentiate them is OR. Ruslik_Zero 13:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Clarification: they are water ice, so it should be made clear they are water ice. Goodness knows there's enough different ices in this part of the Solar System. (I didn't mean to imply that the phrase in question had to also clarify an are-there-silicates-hiding statement; that was my comment only). Iridia (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I removed the word "icy" because it causes a confusion. It is not important here because the composition of the ring is beyond the scope of this article. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The Voyager montage image is a bad idea: it gives an erroneous impression of the relationships and sizes of the inner moons, and the Wikicommons info doesn't have the NASA caption or emphasise that it is an artist's view. Surely Cassini has better multiple-moons images that can show at least three or four moons at once... Replaced with another image (a scheme of the ring-moon system). Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Looks very nice. Iridia (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Needs an image of the relationships and semimajor axis scale of the inner moons. Stop at Rhea if you like, but since there's also one for the outer moons, it is important. Maybe this, which nicely shows the important relationship of the inner moons to the rings? I suspect Cassini has done one. Added (see above). Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) In the lead it's "Titans", in the naming section it's "titans": which is preferred? Changed to 'Titans'. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Discovery and naming: Irregular moons is all about ground-based observation (Cassini can't help out there at all). Suggest renaming ground-based observation and irregular moons to remove this contradiction. Sorry, I do not understand what you mean. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) The subsections are confusingly titled. The subsection "Irregular moons" is all about ground-based observation. This is confusing, given there is a preceding subsection "Ground-based observation". Iridia (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I have no idea how to rename them. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Eh, guess it's ok. Not a major thing. Iridia (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I changed the name of the first section to "Early observations". Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Image caption in Ground-based observation needs a mention of the size of telescope used for that observation, and that Saturn is overexposed to show the moons. I am not sure that the size of the telescope is useful information. (Other captions do not specify parameters of optics used.) Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Except that this image is illustrating the nature of the image from a ground-based telescope with a similar quality of optics to those available to the early discoverers. Ideally, it would be a scan of one of the plate images. Iridia (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Now looks good. Iridia (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The "Splat" is now named Inktomi: check out here. Added, thanks for the information. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Ask Eurocommuter if ve could change the labels on the orbital diagram so they aren't hollow-outline text; it goes quite blurry and hard to read. He stopped editing almost a year ago. Seems unlikely that he will reply. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I replaced the image. Ruslik_Zero 13:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Looks a lot better. Iridia (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Clarify the caption on the orbital diagram to point out the x axis is semimajor axis of the satellite. Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 11:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC) More to come. Iridia (talk) 04:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC) Ground based observations: more explanation on "ring plane crossing event"... Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Observations by spacecraft: worth mentioning that Rhea's possible-ring discovery makes it the only such moon known in the Solar System? Oops, never mind, that's mentioned down at Rhea. Irregular moons: "thirteen new moons orbiting Saturn at a great distance, in eccentric and highly inclined orbits to both the equator of Saturn and the ecliptic." Needs a bit of rephrasing so that it clarifies that the eccentricity of the orbit isn't to the ecliptic. ;) Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC) There is some inconsistency in precision in describing the date of discovery of various moons. Come the Cassini era, exact dates of announcement of discovery are given, then down in Ring moonlets, back to just the year. Might be a personal preference, but the sudden abundance of day-month-year rather than just the year feels a bit overwhelming. (Plus there's the whole issue that announcement and discovery aren't quite the same thing, but am not concerned there). Could these please be trimmed back to just the year throughout the article? I trimmed dates to year only, except in cases where there were more than one discovery in a given year. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Nice. Might want to continue it to the Irregular moons subsection as well. Iridia (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Done. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Iridia (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 'Trojan' occasionally goes up and down in case between the lead and the body. Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 07:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Minor point: is there some way to make the nice artist's images in the lead shuffle around to remove the large whitespace from the long contents list? Those are pleasing and it would be nice to have them a little larger. I prefer not to interfere with TOC as this would require using __TOC__ magic word, which may have unintended consequencies. Iridia (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Enceladus: "one of the brightest known objects in the Solar System, with its geometrical albedo reaching than 140%." Missing "greater"? Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Polydeuces in Trojan moons: perhaps clarify "erratic". Changed to chaotic and wikilinked. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Rhea: "depletion of electrons in the plasma wake of Rhea, which forms when the co-rotating plasma of Saturn's magnetosphere passes by" Makes it sound as though the electron depletion forms when the plasma passes by. Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Hyperion: The mean motion resonance is explained here but was not explained earlier when one was mentioned in Ring moonlets. Explained. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Check "Solar System" has consistent capitalization throughout the article; I caught a few variations, but there might be others. Checked. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Also did a copy-edit. Comments complete. Iridia (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Oh yes. Perhaps add an image of a propeller feature, or a shepherd moon's effect, or both? There are some stunning images of "braided" rings that would look good there, and that section has a large block of unadorned text with plenty of room for an image. Iridia (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Added an image of Daphnis. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 27 has redlinked author names. Iridia (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC) I removed wikilinks except one for Jacobson—he probably deserves an article. Ruslik_Zero 19:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Irregular moons: need a link or explanation of spectral colour, & why it can be used as a grouping characteristic. Should also mention why their albedo is not known & we have to assume it. The color here is photometric color, not spectral. It is not different from simple color. The albedo is not known because the size is not known, which is not known because the albedo is not known. :) Yes, sorry, my misphrasing. It really just needs to say: broadband colour is used as a proxy for composition. :) Size is not known because very small+distant = undetectable in current IR telescopes, AFAIK. Iridia (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC) I added a clarification about their size and a note about composition and color. Ruslik_Zero 11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive coverage of science in article prose and nicely illustrated; all my comments have now been dealt with. Iridia (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Support very informative. Thoroughly researched. Very encyclopedic as well. Sandman888 (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2010 (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 19:11, 10 May 2010 [25].

---

List of storms in the 2006 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The 2006 Pacific hurricane season was a rather busy one, and unusual how most of the storms affected land. After a lot of tiresome editing, fixing up refs from four years ago, and getting reviews from three talented editors, I am ready to take the plunge and get another million comments for this list. It's the sole outstanding article I need for a featured topic several years in the making, so I hope you like it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Great project collaboration when the article was first written, now deserves to be featured at last. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "east of 140ºW" any chance (for non-experts) that you could add "longitude" there? I linked it to 140th meridian west. Hope that works. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "in the eastern Pacific basin." I'm confused why Pacific basin is linked to Pacific hurricane. True enough. I changed it to Pacific Ocean. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) You've got both $ and USD for US dollar, and you link the second of the them rather than the first... any reason why? I'm specifying the year in which the damage occurred. Some might assume it was inflated, but I'm specifying it was not. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "season officially began on May 15 " vs "The season began on May 27" would it not be better to say "The first hurricane of the season formed on May 27" (or similar) rather than have two start dates for the season? Especially when you go on to say "On May 27, 12 days into the season," Actually, the season did begin on May 15, so I changed the wording to "Tropical activity began on May 27." --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I think second strongest should be hyphenated. Agreed. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) See Also in the TOC template should be See also. Fixed. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I probably ask this too often, but you have imperial units first for speeds and distances, but then suddenly metric for some rainfall, but not all rainfall. Is this a source thing? I would be tempted to add a note somewhere regarding the sources including a note about the accuracies (e.g. you have a rainfall to the nearest 1/100th of an inch)... Sorry, that was bad consistency about the metric vs. imperial, and all should be imperial first, now. What do you have in mind for the note? The sources sometime vary (usually to 1/10th of an inch, but sometimes it's converted from mm). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Any reason why the pressure values in the nice templates with each storm aren't converted into Imperial (e.g. inches of mercury?) The main reason is that inches of mercury isn't used much anymore, especially by tropical cyclone warning agencies. That template (the mini-infobox) is used across the project, so I wouldn't really be comfortable changing it, but I'll check with other project members. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "were reported..[9]" spare period here. My bad. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Under Daniel, you abbreviate CPHC again, you've already done this in the lead, just use the abbreviation. Fixed, both there and elsewhere. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "eyewall replacement cycles" what are these? Totally mystifying to a non-expert. I explained it a bit; hope that makes sense. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 1580 -> 1,580 to be internally consistent. Fixed multiple examples of this problem. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "rode out the " a shade colloquial for me. Switched around wording. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) 3C you relink International Date Line, no need. Removed there and in Ioke's section. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) You use ITCZ without expanding it. I had it expanded earlier, but I thought it'd be better if I expanded it in each section. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) not in parenthesis -> parentheses. Got it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "EPac total is 120.4750" what's this? I removed it, since it's explained below. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 3 has a format issue. Blargh, fixed it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 72 seems to be using a different language template from the others. Fixed. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 86 uses NOAA while Ref 87 uses National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Be consistent. Sorry, thought I got all of them. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the review. There was only one aspect I wasn't quite sure of. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC) The note would be an attempt to explain quite how you came to your various accuracies, significant figures etc, based on the sources you use. As I said, an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch (or even .1 mm) seems way over the top, and unlikely to be true! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC) OK, does that work (added a note)? With rainfall totals, usually rounding to 1/100th of an inch is standard, so hopefully it all makes sense. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Ive just read the article and think its ready to become an FL.Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There are several dead links; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed, damn, thought I had all of them. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Generally well written list, but I have a few comments:

1. The list contains not only storms and hurricanes, but also tropical depressions. However they are not even mentioned in the leading section. At least their number (6?) should be stated together with the number of storms and hurricanes (first sentence).
2. Tropical activity began on May 27 but The season officially began on May 15 . Why did the season began earlier than the activity?
3. Hurricane Ileana moved off the coast of Africa on August 8. It entered the Eastern North Pacific on August 16 and developed into a tropical depression on August 21 near Acapulco. From this it follows that a Hurricane (sic!) turned into a depression, for the first time in history!

Ruslik_Zero 19:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks a lot for the copyedit and the look-through. I added the depressions to the lede (good catch). I didn't put them in the first sentence, since I chose to start the article with a more interesting sentence, and tropical depressions are generally not as important as named storms. The season is the official timeframe, as marked by the warning center. Storms form within the season, so hence why the first storm was 12 days after the start of the technical season. As for Ileana, heh, I suppose that could be confusing based on the wording, so I fixed it. Hope it's better now. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think all problems have been resolved. Ruslik_Zero 10:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As per above; nice work! --Yueof theNorth 17:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:45, 7 May 2010 [26].

---

List of South Africa women ODI cricketers

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it comprehensively covers the topic. The list is unlikely to expand at a rapid rate as women's matches are not played that regularly, and most of the members of the team will remain reasonably stable. The table is laid out in a similar fashion to that of the list of Test cricketers and Twenty20 International cricketers. Harrias ^talk 17:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Can a citation be added to the last paragraph of the leading section? Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've added one for the number of players for South Africa, but other than that there is nothing to cite. Harrias ^talk 18:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments No images? I'm looking through my photos for one, if not I'll have to reuse one of the two images used for the Test and Twenty20 lists. "A One Day International (ODI) is an international cricket match between two teams" missed this on previous lists but do you really need to repeat international here? I would say so. I agree the duplication doesn't look great, but in defining the term 'One Day International', I think it would be inaccurate not to state it. "Later in the same year"-> "Later that year" Done: changed as suggested. "Daleen Terblanche is the most capped player, having appeared in 61 ODIs for South Africa." no need to repeat South Africa. The title of the list gives it away! Done: changed as suggested. "1256" in prose, I'd prefer to see a thousand-separator, so 1,256. Done: changed as suggested. "Alicia Smith has claimed more ODI wickets than any other South African, having taken 50 wickets" no need to repeat "wickets" here. Done: changed as suggested, though I'm not keen on the result. Catches taken is all linked, Stumpings taken only links stumpings. Done: neither links 'taken' anymore. Harrias talk 18:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. I do not see any more problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Cricket South Africa website seems to be down at the moment. Given that they are a stable organisation, I'll give it a couple of days to see if they get it back up. I think they may have just redesigned their site, so I may need to find where the page is now located. Otherwise, if it doesn't get fixed, I'll find an alternative source. Harrias ^talk 10:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed dead link. Harrias ^talk 06:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• "South Africa women did not contest their first ODI until August 1997, playing Ireland women in Belfast." Not sure how the two "women" uses work grammar-wise. I remember seeing something similar in the Twenty20 list that came through here recently; try fixing it in a similar manner as was done with that list.

• Done: Removed the word 'women' from Ireland.

• "but have finished second in both the two contests since." The struck words represent redundant language, since they mean the same thing as the prior word. The less wordiness, the better an article usually is.

• Done: fixed as suggested.

• In the references, is the International Cricket Council meant to be linked twice as a publisher when the other publishers are linked only on first use? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Done: only linked on first use now. Harrias ^talk 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support SGGH ^ping! 15:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:02, 7 May 2010 [27].

---

List of Colorado Buffaloes head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 coach list #10. Hopefully this list is now up to FLC standards. Any comments would be appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 16:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "Frontiersman"? Or Frontiersmen? Fixed.—NMajdan•talk "They joined the Colorado Football Association during the 1893 season before joining the Colorado Faculty Athletic Conference in 1909 immediately followed by the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference in 1910." - run-on sentence, can this be broken up? Fixed?—NMajdan•talk "Big Seven Conference in 1948" - comma after 1948 Done.—NMajdan•talk "McCartney is the all-time leader in games coached, with 153, and total wins, with 93" - commas as bolded Done.—NMajdan•talk "eight of their nine games" - you're referring to two singular people here ("each" is a singular pronoun, not plural), so it should be eight of his nine games. Makes sense. Done.—NMajdan•talk "with a .200 winning percentage" - a bit informal, possible re-word? This is the same wording I've used in nearly every list. Sounds fine to me. What do you suggest?—NMajdan•talk Perhaps something simpler, like "Davis' .200 winning percentage is worst among Buffaloes coaches." KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "coach of the year honors" - comma after Done.—NMajdan•talk Clarify when you talk about winning percentage that you mean overall winning percentage, as one coach does have a 1.000 conference win percentage and is not mentioned. Added overall so a few instances.—NMajdan•talk Would prefer a non-ISO date format (can easily be accomplished with a script). The list of current coaches navbox doesn't link to this article. Yeah, somebody added that navbox to all the lists I've created. Is this a hard rule? I want to AGF with that editor and not remove something he added unless does prevent this list from becoming Featured.—NMajdan•talk There is no policy or guideline that severely restricts them in that manner; however, the purpose of navbox templates as I understand them is to provide navigation between sets of interrelated articles. The coaches are related because they are serving at the same time, but I can't see that someone reading this list would end up using that navbox to go to Tommy Tuberville's article, for instance. I'd say that it should be removed from the entire series, perhaps to be replaced by a navbox linking the lists of coaches in the Big 12 (which you'll need if going for a featured topic eventually anyway). If you'd like to keep the functionality of having the current coaches in there, might I suggest something like {{MLB managers by team}}, which serves both functions? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I agree. I will remove them.—NMajdan•talk 21:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I take that back. I'm going to modify the template to point to the coach lists.—NMajdan•talk 21:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk 21:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback.—NMajdan•talk 18:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Support as long as you explain "which was renamed the Big Eight Conference in 1958" because presumably this meant another team joined the conference. It wasn't just as simple as a rename...! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Done.—NMajdan•talk 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Comments Ref 2 uses a different date format than the rest, please make it consistent. Sorry. A previous reviewer ran a script that changed all the formats, so when I added a new one, I used the format I had been using.—NMajdan•talk "They joined the Colorado Faculty Athletic Conference in 1909 immediately followed by the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference in 1910" May need a comma between the two clauses, as well, did they have to leave the CFAC to join the RMAC? Comma added. I have no idea if they had to leave. Conference information is very hard to come by when it was that long ago. My sources just state that they did switch conference, not why.—NMajdan•talk "Each only served one season" Is the word "only" redundant here? Perhaps, "Each served a single season...." Done.—NMajdan•talk Otherwise, looks pretty good. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review.—NMajdan•talk 21:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support My issues resolved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:02, 7 May 2010 [28].

---

List of Kansas Jayhawks head football coaches

Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Big 12 coach list #9. I believe all necessary requirements have been meant.—NMajdan•talk 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "The team has had 36 head coaches and one interim head coach since it started playing organized football in 1890 with the nickname Jayhawks,[1] although they played their first season without a head coach" one sentence with the phrase "head coach" three times. A little too much. Separated out last part into its own sentence.—NMajdan•talk " The Jawhawks became..." tee-hee. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk "years coached (9)" not keen on this way of presenting information in an encyclopedia. Perhaps "...coached with nine."? Fixed.—NMajdan•talk "Mangino is the only coach to have received any coach of the year accolades, winning numerous following the 2007 season. " this, for some reason, reads quite clumsily for me. Maybe a rephrase, "Mangino won several coach of the year accolades after the 2007 season, the only Jayhawks coach to do so" or similar. While I disagree with it sounding awkward, I changed to your suggestion.—NMajdan•talk Ref 5, decapitalise please. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk Ref 15, en-dash, not spaced hyphen. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 12, isn't ESPN the work? No idea. ESPN published the AP article on its website. I honestly don't know when to use work on an Internet source.—NMajdan•talk Well then I'd suggest that ESPN is the work in which the AP article was published.... (but yes, it's sometimes a challenge to get these things worked out...) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Done.—NMajdan•talk

• Support gets my picky vote. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support – Looks good. Only thing I saw wrong was a typo in reference 14 ("George Munger Aware"). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Easy enough. Fixed.—NMajdan•talk 21:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments Ref 10 has a publication date available Added.—NMajdan•talk "with a 10–0 record (1.000) his only year." Feels like this needs a comma or an "in" somewhere. I disagree unless someone else says otherwise.—NMajdan•talk You place a note on Adrian Lindsey taking over mid-season; should the same be done for Tom Hayes? You're right. Added.—NMajdan•talk Good list, take care of a couple things- or tell me I'm wrong- and I'll be happy to support.Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comments.—NMajdan•talk 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Not a productive use of either of our time quibbling over a comma, and I'm prone to overusing them anyway. Everything that mattered is resolved. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support - can't find anything wrong. Good work! NThomas (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 01:49, 7 May 2010 [29].

---

List of Phi Kappa Psi brothers

Nominator(s): NYCRuss ☎ 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after going through a peer review, I believe that this list is either ready for featured list status, or is just a few tweaks away from getting there. NYCRuss ☎ 00:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Forgot to add CoI disclosure. I'm a member of Phi Kappa Psi. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GrapedApe (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial review of the lead I don't like the phrase "Brethren in academia," because it sounds too familiar, like how one member would refer to another member. That second paragraph is killing me. "Brethren" was thrown in to mix up the phrasing of the sentences. I changed it. How does it read now? NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Add a comma after "Edgar Fahs Smith" Done. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) The phrase "given acceptance speeches" could be more clear as "been awarded" Changed. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) The phrase "The world of law has seen..." could be better phrased as "Three Phi Psis have served as..." Agreed and changed. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure that PIMCO should be all caps. The article has it as Pimco PIMCO is an acronym, so I believe that all caps are correct, but I could be wrong. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) The PIMCO homepage has all caps. Looks like Pimco ought to be changed. Should "mayor" in "New York City mayor" be capitalized? I think maybe, since it's a proper title, like President of the United States. I don't know. The actual title is Mayor of the City of New York, for whatever that's worth. If you're an English expert, which I'm not, I'll take your word for it and capitalize it. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not an English expert, but that does feel right to me. Any other opinions?--GrapedApe (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Capitalized. NYCRuss ☎ 20:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC) --GrapedApe (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC) The paragraph describing how to become a brother might be too complicated. I have a hard time following it. Isn't the distinction between undergraduate members and alumni self evident? This is where another opinion helps. I understand everything in there perfectly well, but I'm a Phi Psi. The distinction between an "undergraduate member" and an "alumni" member should be self evident, but it is not always that cut and dry. We allow graduate students to be actives, in which case they would be classified as an "undergraduate member" even though they are not undergraduates. Also, if an undergraduate transfers to another school with a Phi Psi chapter, but does not transfer his membership, he would be an alumnus, and not an undergraduate member, even though he is an undergraduate and a member. NYCRuss ☎ 14:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC) I guess what I should have said was "I get the whole process, but laymen might not." Maybe this paragraph should simply be pared down and simplified a bit. I'd like to hear other opinions.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I changed it. How does it read now? NYCRuss ☎ 20:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Better. I added a bit, myself. How does it look now?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC) It looks fine. Not 100% accurate, but good enough. 100% accuracy would require that the 3rd paragraph be stretched out with a lot of fraternity legalese, and that would put most people to sleep. NYCRuss ☎ 23:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC) I notice that quite a few individuals are listed multiple times. I don't know what the standard convention is (the FL criteria looks to be silent on this), but when I was working on my own recent FLC, I only listed each alumni once, usually in whatever field they were best known for. These guys appear multiple times, with possibly some more duplicates: Joseph W. Barr Evan Bayh Michael Bloomberg Detlev Bronk Frank W. Burke George Earle Chamberlain Paul Coverdell John W. Davis (x4) Dent, CharlieCharlie Dent William Joseph Donovan Joseph B. Foraker Herbert S. Hadley T. Millet Hand Paul Helmke George A. Jenks Harlan D. Logan Lloyd Lowndes, Jr. John Otho Marsh, Jr. A. Mitchell Palmer Herbert B. Powell Carl Schurz Raymond P. Shafer Edgar Fahs Smith Ellison D. Smith Kingsley A. Taft Ernest O. Thompson David Gardiner Tyler Woodrow Wilson (x3) I'm not sure about the rules either, but I removed the duplicate entries. NYCRuss ☎ 23:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC) For sources: Even though there's no reason to doubt its veracity, I'm not comfortable citing to LinkedIn for John Michels, since LinkedIn is no more reliable than facebook. I don't think it is a reliable source.--GrapedApe (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I removed Michels until a better source is obtained. This is what happens when a star college athlete needs to be unlisted. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support (for the things I looked at) - The things that I checked looked good, like the lead, the construction of the list, the sources, and the images. I did not check the notability text or whether the sources actually said what they were supposed to, so I can't speak to those things. Overall, it feels like a winner, with just the caveats for things I didn't check. Good work! --GrapedApe (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ImGz (t/c) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Agreed with GrapedApe it needs to be simplified or reworded a bit. Suggestions: Describing what a colony is I think clutters things up, just link colony. Agreed. I'll work on this when I rewrite the third paragraph. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) What does "active" mean? Any member who is a full time student at the host institution in which he was initiated, or to which he has transferred. Grad students have the option of taking alumni or active status. In Phi Kappa Psi, the terms "active member" and "undergraduate" member are used interchangeably, and this can be a source of confusion. It might be better to drop "undergraduate" and just use "active." NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) That makes sense, as long as it's clarified in the article. :) "An undergraduate member is active with a chapter, and a full-time enrolled student in that chapter's host institution at the undergraduate, graduate, or post-graduate level; all others are alumni" I assumed that by an undergraduate member you meant somebody who does not have a graduate or post-graduate degree nor are pursuing one, thus the term undergraduate. My sorority considers anybody with an undergraduate degree pursuing a graduate degree to be an alumni. If this is not the same it needs to be clarified since it's rather confusing. Hopefully my response just above this comment clarifies this somewhat. Woodrow Wilson, for example, joined Phi Kappa Psi as a law student at Virginia, and then transferred his membership to Johns Hopkins where he earned his Ph.D. He was a chapter president at both. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Homer A. Holt, William Preston Lane, Jr., Joseph W. Barr full date range. DOH!!! Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Paul Coverdell - not sure died in office is needed there, I read it as 'he served from 1993 to 2000 and died in office during his second term. I pulled it out. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) "Paul Helmke Mayor of Fort Wayne, (1987–1999)" -> "Paul Helmke Mayor of Fort Wayne (1987–1999)" Good catch. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Edgar Fahs Smith - remove the extra space after (1911–1920) Another good catch, and removed. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Dick Tomey - for any notable teams? --ImGz (t/c) Added. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) After reading it again I think that the first part is what is making it awkward. I would suggest removing the first sentence, perhaps the second sentence as well, and doing something similar to this "which the initiate, or member, is known as a brother". Do you mean the first two sentences of the article, or of the third paragraph? NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) I meant the third paragraph, sorry. :) Got it, they're gone. NYCRuss ☎ 01:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC) OCLC for Phi Kappa Psi (1997). Grand Catalogue of the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity (14th ed.). White Plains, NY: Bernard C. Harris Publishing Company. Couldn't locate one. I was able to find an ISBN# on Google, but it is not valid. BKEH-W37-8RTC-84.0TX is an identifier inside the book, but I don't know to which system it belongs. NYCRuss ☎ 18:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Worldcat says the 14th edition's OCLC is 324731269. --ImGz (t/c) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC) It is also using that number for the 13th edition, and it lists the 14th edition as being the 1992 edition, although printed in 1998. I don't trust that number. I'll try to find out if there is a number. I'm also getting the 2009 edition this week, so this might be a moot point. NYCRuss ☎ 01:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC) 324731269 seems to be the right number, but because of the way that WorldCat has the information listed, it is possible that somebody could get the wrong edition. Anywho, 324731269 has been listed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Edward Herrmann - award-winning-actor? Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Harlan D. Logan - should Editor be capitalized? I'm not sure myself but it looks a little odd/jumps out at me. I think that you're right. It is no longer capitalized. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) William Joseph Donovan - should Founder be capitalized? In other instances in the article, also following commas, it is not capitalized. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Ernest O. Thompson - Might want to say Mayor of Amarillo, Texas. Agreed and done. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Luther Gotwald - is Wittenberg Theological Seminary still around (link?) The name changed, and then it merged. A link has been added. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Kevin Berry - Maybe link Swimming at the 1964 Summer Olympics? --ImGz (t/c) 05:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Agreed and done. NYCRuss ☎ 18:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Robert J. Garagiola - I think this would look better as (2002–present, Deputy Majority Leader), but that's just me. Agreed and done. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Herbert B. Powell - Should Commanding be capitalized? I believe that it should as it is a formal title, but I could be wrong. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Robert Lowry - Pretty sure it should be "19th century hymn writer" or maybe "19th century hymnodist" The hyphen is gone. Hymnodist? You win the SAT word of the day award. It redirects to hymn, so I;m not sure if it is a good idea to link that. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Hah, I wish. I just gave the article a quick skim and saw it. Buzzie Bavasi - Should First be capitalized? Nope, and fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Dan Dakich - Link 1070 The Fan? Sure. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Tex Schramm - GM it's the first time you've used the abbreviation and as a non-sport person I should have no clue what it means (oddly enough I do, I think, but I would still spell out General Manager). --ImGz (t/c) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Done. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Periodicals - changing "contribution" to "title" will get rid of the double commas, it will also fix the formatting and put the article title in quotes (journal names should be italicized and articles that appear within the journal should be in quotations). Good call! It is fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 22:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support --ImGz (t/c) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "also called "Phi Psi,"" do you have a ref for this? I'll get to this tonight. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I can't find a thing that explicitly states something like "members of Phi Kappa Psi call themselves 'Phi Psis'", but the usage is all over. I'm going to place a reference to the front page of the Phi Kappa Psi web site. NYCRuss ☎ 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I'm citing Baird's as a third party source. That should solve this. NYCRuss ☎ 15:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "More than 112,796 men..." odd phrase, more than such a precise figure... That's the number in the cited publication, which is cited and can be viewed on the web. That said, it does seem odd, so it has been rounded down to 112,000. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Not at all keen on cross-namespace linking to our guideline on notability. I don't understand this point. If you would elaborate, I'd appreciate it. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I got it for you.--GrapedApe (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "three term" hyphenate. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Spell out OSS before abbreviating it. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "(1895,1921), First editor" -> "(1895, 1921), first editor"... Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "award winning" I think this should be hyphenated. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "Academy Award–winning " hyphen, not en-dash. And now you need to hyphenate consistently throughout. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "cult classic Clueless" cult classic? Says who? That phrase was there when I started editing this article. It is now removed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "most famous for " again, says who? Be careful not to introduce your own opinion here. That was another inherited entry. It has been changed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Remove spaces between references. Done... I think. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I would suggest changing the Reference col heading to Ref(s) as you have more than one in several instances and it would help free up a bit more col width for the description. Agreed and done. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "U.S. governors and lieutenant governors" I think one fellow is out of place as when I sorted by name, the initial order changed... Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "USS James C. Owens" I think ships are generally formatted as "USS James C. Owens" Italicized. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "won 7 gold" seven. Fixed. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Any reason why the Volume I/II is in bold? The template is doing that. Anything entered in the volume field is rendered in boldface. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) What's the deal with the "Web sites"? Why aren't they used as normal {{cite web}}s? {{cite web}} is being used. Do you mean that the section header should be changed from "Web sites" to something else? NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I mean if they're being used specifically then why aren't they inline refs? They don't appear to apply to the whole list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I thought the the footnotes looked cleaner when they were all short. I went ahead and placed the web refs inline. What do you think? NYCRuss ☎ 22:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The "Father of..." and "Wild Bill" nicknames, are they referenced anywhere? I'll look into this tonight or tomorrow. NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Found a citation for the "Wild Bill" nickname, with a Google Books preview, and added it to the William Joseph Donovan article. Does the citation also need to be added to this list? NYCRuss ☎ 15:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC) There are now citations for the "Father of..." nicknames on the main Wikipedia bio articles for Phog Allen and Billy Mitchell. Do the citations need to be added to the list as well? NYCRuss ☎ 21:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Preferably, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Done. NYCRuss ☎ 15:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC) State and local legislators table is different in col widths from the others. I'm not seeing that. What browser, OS and screen resolution are you using? NYCRuss ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I get problems in Firefox/XP and Safari/OS X with several tables actually, it's related to the "notability" column. If it doesn't fill the whole column, then the col itself foreshortens. It's an issue for me right now with Mayors, State and local legislators and Diplomats, to name but three. There are several others... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I changed all columns to percentages, and placed each table in a cell of a larger table, with the images in another cell, and set table widths to 100%. How does it look now? NYCRuss ☎ 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Good, all col widths the same, just now have a bit of a problem with bags of whitespace at the end of each section with multiple images. I assume your resolution is quite low, mine, around 1000 pixels wide, shows that Jackson Turner's image has no table at all next to it, nor Scheider, nor Schurz, the last six congressmen etc etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I see those blank spaces too. (Frederick Jackson Turner, The guy from Jaws, James Whitcomb Riley, Carl Schurz, all the pictures from Ellison D. Smith to James Eli Watson, William C. Sproul, David Taylor).--GrapedApe (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I'm using Max OS X @ 1680x1050 primarily with Google Chrome, but I was trying to keep the page optimized for 1024x768. Anyway, I dumped a bunch of images, and it should look better now. NYCRuss ☎ 17:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Yep, I agree. --GrapedApe (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Lead looks okay to me, with the exception of this one sentence: "In academia, Phi Psis are among over a dozen university presidents...". I would hope that all of them are/were Phi Psis, or they wouldn't be relevant to this list. Some restructuring of the sentence is all that will be required to fix this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• That sentence has been changed to this: "Academian Phi Psis include over a dozen university presidents (including among these are Priestley Medal recipient Edgar Fahs Smith, and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient Detlev Bronk), Rhodes scholars, and Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Frederick Jackson Turner." How is that? NYCRuss ☎ 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I would move Judge Advocate Generals in the lead to either the front or back of that sentence. As it stands currently the sentence reads "dozens of generals and admirals (general titles, not people) including [specific person], JAGs, [specific person], [specific person]." That order seems a bit confusing to me as JAGs don't really fit with the "dozens of generals... including" sentence order." Maybe put it in it's own sentence entirely. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I changed it. How does it read now? NYCRuss ☎ 17:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Much better. Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments "two Directors of the Peace Corps" should director be capitalized? Fixed NYCRuss ☎ 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) "Fortune 500 CEOs are brothers with Bank of America founder Orra E. Monnette..." the use of 'brothers' is confusing in this context. I dropped mention of Fortune 500 CEOs and reworked that sentence. How does it read? NYCRuss ☎ 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Much better, thanks. Jujutacular T · C 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 17:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nice looking list, good work. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I can not find any problem that could prevent promotion of this list to the Featured status. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [30].

---

List of Olympic medalists in softball

Nominator(s): Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I am opening my first featured content nomination because after another editor gave it a copy-edit, I think it meets all the criteria. This list owes a lot to Staxringold's excellent List of Olympic medalists in baseball, on which this list is modelled. Though the two sports took vastly different routes to the Olympic program, they suffered identical fates. I look forward to any and all comments. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Looks very good to me. The only thing is I somewhat like my language "after which the IOC removed it" in the first paragraph of the lead as opposed to your ", the IOC having removed it from", but that's quite minor. You're quite lucky, you have a picture of the most successful athlete. I dug around for Pedro Luis Lazo, but even what I could find on Flickr was licensed (and the owners couldn't release them). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review- given both of you commented on that phrasing, I replaced it with a somewhat modified version of your text. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments. Mostly minor issues, so once you fix them you have my support: The Manual of Style allow lead images to have a width of up to 300px; "On December 8, 1989 the International Olympic Committee..." — Add a comma after the year; Reference #2 has no content whatsoever; Turns out this is a technical problem, it's the first item on this Google search, but when the search session data expires over at the paper's page, it becomes an error. Does anyone have any ideas how to cite this correctly? Since it's a paper, I guess it could live without the convenience link? (I've also got an Atlanta Jouurnal-Constitution source that says the same thing, but without any option for a link). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Check if this link works. An alternative is the ISF's history page. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks- the second one works! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC) "Softball was contested at each subsequent Games through 2008, the IOC having removed it from the list of Olympic sports in 2005 effective in the 2012 Summer Olympics" — In my opinion, the phrasing after "2008" could be improved somehow; "In the 2000 tournament the United States..." — Add a comma after "tournament"; "Sydney games" — Capitalize games, as it refers to the Olympics. Also, remove the extra period mark after the ref tag; "At the 2004 Summer Olympics the United States..." — Comma after "Olympics". Avoid the repetition "won... winning"; "The IOC voted on July 8, 2005..." — Comma after "2005"; "The international governing bodies of softball, baseball rugby sevens,..." — Forgot a comma after "baseball"; Pity you can't find another more general softball-related image to place in the lead, so you could have the image with Laura Berg in the medal leaders section. — Parutakupiu (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for being so through- other than reference 2, which I discussed above, and the images, I've worked on everything else. I have two more somewhat related images available, both of multiple medalists, but not people who appear on the "Athlete medal leaders" sessions. Unfortunately, I don't have anything more general that's truly relevant, no team shots, nothing from a game in progress, etc. under a free licence. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Nevermind then. It's beyond you. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Good job! Parutakupiu (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments "a sport formerly contested at the Summer Olympic Games." not really, this could be misleading to make people think it was only played in the olympics... Added "that was" to ry and keep anyone from thinking that. "won their only Olympic medal in softball in 1996, the silver medal" perhaps "won their only Olympic medal in softball, a silver, in 1996" Good idea, fixed. "the United States was favored" singular usage vs "the United States won their second " plural usage. Be consistent throughout. Since the first, singular use was the odd man out, I made it plural. "only allowing one run" what does this mean to a non-expert? Wikilinked to the relevant article. I think the idea is familiar enough that that should suffice. "teams.[15][5] " can you make those in numerical order? Done. Why are Ward and Fernandez's images different widths? I think we should be using the upright parameter for these, shouldn't we? They were always the same width in Firefox, I've got them having the same width in IE and my iPad now, as well; the only formats I've got available to check. You link Lodi News-Sentinel but not The Daily Telegraph. Any reason why? Nope; I also linked the Washington Post for consistency. Ref 9 has mixed date format, ref 10 has different format from all other refs. Consistent dates in refs please. Ouch. Thought I'd gotten all of those. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the review, I've had a go at handling everything you mentioned. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support, my comments all addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from KV5

Comments from KV5 "not having lost an international competition" - I'm not sure about the "not having lost" thing here, just seems like an awkward turn of phrase to my ears. Took a stab at a complete rewrite of that clause. Better, though "they had participated in" now needs to be "in which they participated" Done. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC) "Living up to expectations the United States team won the gold medal." - A comma is needed after "expectations" if this sentence order is maintained, but it seems awkward. I suggest The United States team lived up to expectations by winning the gold medal. Good idea, implemented "The Americans only lost one game" Done "combined 41 to 8" - 41 to 8 what? Runs? Points? Innings? I know, but others might not. Added the word run, and since that was now the first usage of that term, moved the wikilink up there. "and the Australian team bronze" - comma after Done "three gold and one silver medal" - "three" and "one" are both modifying a singular noun here, perhaps re-word. I tried something different, that involved a re-write of that sentence and the one immediately before. "Three Australian players also won four medals, one silver and three bronze" - comma splice, replace comma with colon Done Medal leaders table needs all en-dashes in ranges. Done Otherwise well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Most done, and fixes attempted at everything. Thanks for the comments. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support Please top-align the team members within the table, similar to the baseball list. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC) Everything looks great! Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think I did this, let me know if that did it- table syntax is not a strength of mine. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – Strong list. Only found one little picky issue: the publisher for reference 10 (NBC Sports) shouldn't be in italics as it is not a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review- fixed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [31].

---

List of 1920s jazz standards

Nominator(s): Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

This is the second part in a series of lists of jazz standards. A well-referenced list on an interesting topic, and as far as I can tell it now meets all the criteria. Two peer reviews have been made: The first one before List of pre-1920 jazz standards was split from this article, and a second one after the split. Jafeluv (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 22:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

*Initial comment Is the definition of a standard clear enough that this is a completely finished list of them all? If it's not clear this is 100% of them I would say this needs {{Dynamic list}}. However, definitely complete enough for me to support eventually (as opposed to some other dynamic lists I've commented on). Staxringold talkcontribs 14:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC) No, it's not a completely finished list, because of how the term is defined. I guess {{dynamic list}} could be added at the top. Jafeluv (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I would, then just to make it clear that a "standard" isn't something like a gold record. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Done. I put it at the start of the first section (ie. 1920–1923). Is that okay? Jafeluv (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from KV5

I agree with Stax on the use of the dynamic list template. The other major concern I have here is that the entry for nearly every song starts with a sentence fragment. These should be removed, expanded, or otherwise altered to get rid of this grammatical error. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer replacing "Song". Song composed by Composer. with "Song" is a song composed by Composer. or similar? Jafeluv (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be just fine. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I'll update the pre-1920 list as well later. It has the same problem, although it didn't come up in the FLC. Jafeluv (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – upon a second review, I find that I have no other qualms with this list. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments very interesting! "was a much-imitated innovator" while this may be true, can you cite it or else it could be construed as WP:OR. Changed to "important innovator", and added sources. Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Not sure that jazz needs to be used three times in the opening sentence. Reworded. Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "includes tunes written" not sure about tunes, perhaps compositions, pieces, something else? "Includes compositions written" would work just as well. However, do you mean all instances of the word "tune" (there are quite a few), or just this sentence? Jafeluv (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "is a popular song" popular according to whom? Changed to "is a song". Jafeluv (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Some song titles have their own refs (e.g. Avalon) while others don't. What's the significance of sometimes citing the name? Some refs are not used to reference the text, but rather the standard status of the tune itself (eg. all the fakebook references). In those cases, I've put the ref right after the name of the tune. Jafeluv (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "The song is also known as "That Night in Araby" or "The Sheik"." is this referenced? I've removed this for now, because I couldn't find a reference for it. I'll keep looking, though. Jafeluv (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I think linking ragtime would be appropriate. Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "The original recording of the song was titled "Bugle Call Blues"." is this referenced? Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "The song is also known as "Everybody Loves My Baby, but My Baby Don't Love Nobody but Me"." ditto. Can you check all of these "also known as"s are referenced? Done. Checked the others as well. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "Cole Porter was one of the few Tin Pan Alley songwriters to write both lyrics and music for his songs." undoubtedly true, but can you ref it to avoid OR accusations... Done. Jafeluv (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC) "Bloomington, IN" can you be more verbose, i.e. Indiana, for our non-US readers. Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Don't mix date formats in the references. Fixed. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 59 could use a pp. not just a p. And 99. And 118. Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 83 needs a spaced en-dash, not a hyphen. Done. Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 119 could use a publisher. Done, although it looks a little silly now with the repetition: "Time (Time)". Is it ok like that? Jafeluv (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well referenced list. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [32].

---

List of National Parks of the United States

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of America's 58 National Parks complete with dates, areas, and descriptions. Some of the description lengths are different, so tell me if you want more for certain ones. There are some statistics and history in the lead, but I am happy to research something else. Completely my own work, it's based on my previous FL List of National Monuments of the United States, though my record is a little better, having been to 8 of them. (Wikicup) Reywas92^Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NMajdan

Comments Check the disambigs. Done. Thanks The conversions are missing from the acreage amounts in the lead. 100-mile - Needs the parenthetical conversion. 489 m & 4000 feet long - Again, needs the conversion. I think the last paragraph needs to be reworked. There is no need to say "they are listed here" with here being wikilinked; the link should be worked into the sentence more directly. Changed the first one. I think the second is more like a see also at the top and I can't think of a better way that is still obviously pointing to related article. US-Mexico border - Should be an en dash per WP:DASH. Done

• No alt text. I believe this is no longer an FL requirement, but I just wanted to point it out just in case.
  • I believe that is correct.
• Several more instances of measurements needing the parenthetical conversion (beyond the ones above) per WP:UNITS.
  • Conversions added
    • Didn't quite get them all: 51 million acres, for an average of 895 thousand acres but a median of 317 thousand acres.; bad template usage in "Capitol Reef"; 489 m.—NMajdan•talk
      • Got it, thanks.
• The reference for American Samoa doesn't make any mention of it being the southernmost national park.
• The reference for Biscayne doesn't mention any of the threatened animals.
• The reference for Bryce Canyon doesn't back up the settlement sentence nor does it mention hoodoos.
• Going through the references for the first several entries showed a lot of inconsistencies between the descriptions and what is actually verified by the source. I suggest you go back through and verify all of what you say in the descriptions is correctly sourced. I will continue my review after this is done.

This has the potential to be a good list and a meaningful one for the project. However, I am going to have to withhold my support for now until the sourcing issues are resolved.—NMajdan•talk 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All references are to the main NPS page for the park. Information is sourced either from that homepage or in its subpages (History & Culture and Science & Nature). All of your examples are also in those subpages but the identical link is not repeated. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I really don't know what the policy is in that situation. I would assume every statement needs an accurate citation so all of those sub-pages would need to be cited. However, I'd like to get input from other reviewers before asking you to do that.—NMajdan•talk 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I did the same thing in my previous FL. I just don't think it makes any sense to have one link for some parks to the main park page but many repetitive links for others even though it's all to the same small set of subpages. In this case the source link to the park home represents the History and Science subpages as well. Reywas92^Talk 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. I still have a bit of a problem with the references, but since I can't find this method to be in violation of any MoS guideline, I have no other reason not to support.—NMajdan•talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Reywas92^Talk 18:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Why is 'National Park' capitalized? 'National park' is a common noun, although each individual national park is undoubtedly a proper noun.
  • Changed
    • The title of the list still uses caps. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • In this case it's proper like United States National Park. It's consistent with FL List of National Parks of Canada.Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • You are confusing me. You agree that 'national park' is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the prose, but insist that it should be in the title. As you pointed out, it is inconsistent with the FL List of national parks of Sweden. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What do you mean by "it's proper like United States National Park"? Is that an institution? Of course every individual national park is a proper noun, and the United States National Park Service (an organization) is a proper noun, but when referred to as a collective group, 'national park' becomes a common noun. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Otherstuffexists is for deletion arguments, not consistency comparisons. In the US, all 392 areas of the National Park System are considered national parks, as they are federally-owned parks run by the National Park Service. While that would be just a common noun, each of these 58 is a United States National Park, capitalized to indicate that these are the official National Parks, not just national parks. For this reason I think parts of the lead should be re-capitalized. Reywas92^Talk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
            • I do not follow your reasoning here. As I see it now, I feel the article should not be promoted, but you insist on your view. Perhaps other reviewers have an opinion on the matter? If not, I will tend towards an oppose. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
              • Opposing based solely on this minor point seems a bit harsh. That's just my opinion, of course. Anyway, I think it is very difficult to decide in this case. The park system is called United States National Park, so based on that, the current name seems fine to me. But Arsenikk did have a point, too. So, I don't really know what to do in this case.—Chris!_c/t 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
              • I do not really know who is right here, but I want to note that all other lists of national parks in US are capitalized. On the other hand, in the category's title "national parks" are not capitalized. Probably there is some reason why they named such. Renaming this list would mean making titles of the lists inconsistent. This issue should be discussed separately from this review, because it is beyond its scope. Either all lists should be renamed or none. Ruslik_Zero 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
                • The U.S. Department of the Interior, on its website, capitalizes terms like "National Park Service" and names like "Yellowstone National Park", but when referring to the parks as a whole or a group, the term "national park" is not capitalized. See here for an example. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
                  • Based on the link provided by KV5, looks like Arsenikk was right. So, I think this article should be renamed.—Chris!_c/t 17:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
      • That's because that link refers to national parks in general, not the just the 58 National Parks. The new quarters program has National Parks, National Historical Parks, and other designations, including some that are not even NPS. I have seen both usages elsewhere, but in my opinion, with the ambiguity of park terminology this should be capitalized to distinguish this type. Anyway, I can't move the page because there's a redirect in the way, so if everyone else wants it lowercase someone else will have to move the article. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Early in the lead, there is a section of a few sentences where the term 'National Park' is repeated almost endlessly: "...National Parks. All National Parks are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior. National Parks must be established by an act of the United States Congress. The first National Park...".
  • I'm not really sure what to say; I think "national" must be there to distinguish from any generic park.
    • Try using terms like "it", "they" etc, or try restructuring the information. It's okay, just not featured-standard prose. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll try to work on it. Reywas92^Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• The sentence "Alaska and California, each with eight, have the largest number of National Parks, followed by Utah with five and Colorado with four." provides first a number and then explains the number. This forces the reader to guess the end of the fragment.
  • Changed
• Once one reaches the millions, is it not common to use square miles instead of acres?
  • My source had it in acres though I can convert it if you really want.
• Why is the metric area provided at a different significance than the imperial?
  • The acreage is exactly what my source says. I do not think the km2 needs to be drawn to four decimal places.
    • If the source uses it, it must be okay, I guess. I'm just concerned about the poor people who have to convert from acres to sq mi (us metric users have it easy converting from ha to km². Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• I would have said all the claims in the descriptions need to be referenced, although I think a bulk referencing (all at the end) for each entry would suffice. (per NMajden above)
• Some animals are listed in singular, others in plural.
  • I have made them more consistent; some sets refer to the animals in general and others to the species
• 'Tributaries' is an uncommon enough word that it should be wikilink.
  • Changes
• 'Chihuahuan Desert' and 'Rattlesnake Springs' should be wikilinked.
  • Relinked former, latter does not have article
• 'Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park' should probably have an endash, since it is a disjunction between two parks.
  • Changed
• In Grand Canyon, be consequent in using digits or words within a sentence.
  • Changed, though "a mile" is only an approximation and isn't quite "1 mile".
• Values in Great Sand Dunes description need to be converted
  • Changed
• "The only area accessible by road is Exit Glacier, while the rest is viewed by boat tours." sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "while" is the wrong word?
  • Changed
• In the Mammoth Cave description, there is a missing { or }.
  • Changed

Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks! Sorry about the delay, I was on vacation last week. Reywas92^Talk 21:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Oppose for the following reasons:

• A few national monuments are no longer designated as such, having been redesignated or disbanded. I find this sentence strange. Why does it talk about monuments? The article is about parks, not monuments. Can it be a typo (monuments -> parks)?
  • Fixed.
• In a desert climate millions of years of erosion have led to these structures, while the ground has life-sustaining soil crust and potholes. Sorry, I do not understand the last clause in this sentence. Please, clarify.
  • Clarified
    • I still do not understand, what is "life-sustaining soil crust and potholes, natural water-collecting basins". How are potholes in the ground connected to arcs? Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed. They are just other features the park has.
• It has the world's richest fossil beds from the Oligocene epoch and wildlife including bison, bighorn sheep, black-footed ferrets, and swift foxes why some animals are plural and some single? The sentence should also be split in two.
  • They are all plural. The plural of bison is bison. Fixed
• Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park has part of the Chihuahuan Desert, ancient fossils, and cultural artifacts of Native Americans. I suggest a split: "Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park includes a part of the Chihuahuan Desert. A wide variety of Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils as well as cultural artifacts of Native Americans exist within its borders."
  • Changed.
• The park is divided into four districts by the rivers. I suggest: ", which divide the park into four districts."
  • Changed.
• monocline protruding from the earth that shows its geologic layers. It is not clear what shows geological layers: monocline or Earth?
  • Changed.
• This northernmost park protects part of the Brooks Range and has no park development. What does this mean "no development"?
  • Clarified.
    • What is "human development"? The land seems to be inhabited. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • There are no roads, park buildings, etc. That's why I had park developments before. Reworded.
• Ecosystems vary on the north and south rims and elevation within the Sonoran Desert. Quite a meaningless sentence, in my opinion.
  • Clarified.
    • It is still adds no new information (ecosystems always vary widely) and should be removed. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Removed.
• It has some of the country's darkest skies What does it mean Darkest skies"? The skies are everywhere about the same (not counting other planets, of course) Probably, it should be cleanest skies?
  • Clarified; No, it means there is less light pollutions which is not based on cleanliness.
    • It has some of the country's darkest night skies and animal species including Townsend's big-eared bat, Pronghorn, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Skies and animals are not logically connected to each other. If I am not mistaken this called a run on sentence. (should be split in two sentences) Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No, that is not a run-on. The park has dark skies and the park has animals. They are in one sentence to avoid having two short and choppy sentences. Changed though.
• They were formed by sand deposits of the Rio Grande on the San Luis Valley, and the park also has alpine lakes, six 13,000-foot mountains, and ancient forests. This sentence should be split in two sentences.
  • Changed.
• Hosmer's Grove of alien trees, and native Hawaiian Geese. You should decide what form you use: plural or singular.
  • What do you mean? There is one Grove and there are many geese.
    • I mean that in this context it should refer to the species, in other words it should be Hawaiian Goose. Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Changed.
• This is the least-visited National Park (Kobuk Valley). How about Gates of the Arctic?
  • What do you mean? Kobuk Valley is the least visited.
• Formed by glaciers, there are tall bluffs, rock gardens, islands and bays, and historic buildings. Were historic buildings also formed by glaciers?
  • Changed

My general impression is that the text requires polishing at places. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I just took a quick look at the lead paragraphs and my first impression was that it was really choppy. The first few sentences in particular are really short and could be reasonably combined. Additionally, the descriptions for each National Park has no standard. Gates of the Arctic, for example, talks about human development while Glacier Bay describes its wildlife and landscape. I think that each park should have a paragraph that incorporates all of three things: wildlife, landscape, and a short history (such as the Sand Dunes). --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  • No. I wrote the descriptions incorporating the most important aspects of the parks. Every park is different and must not have the same repetitive elements. It is notable that Gates has an untouched environment, and it is notable that Glacier Bay has these wildlife and glaciers. Many parks do not have noteworthy wildlife but are known for their geologic features and landscapes, or vice-versa. I combined a couple sentences in the lead. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - I think this is ready to be promoted. The prose and the table look great. Everything is referenced.—Chris!_c/t 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Mm40 (talk)

• Would it be possible to make a map of country labeling all the parks? I thought I saw one somewhere. Or can you make one of those maps using Google Earth? Sorry if you have no idea what I talking about
  • There is a link at the bottom of the page that will make a map on Google Maps or Bing.
• I don't like "and the first national park" in the first paragraph. I would expect "and" after a comma to expand on the idea previously stated, not give a separate idea
  • Changed.
• "in 1890. In 1916" the repetition of "in <year>" sounds odd. Perhaps you can make the second part read "The 1916 Organic Act" or "The Organic Act, passed in 1916, ..."
  • Changed.
• The sentence beginning "National parks usually have a variety of" doesn't make any sense to me: the natural resources protect the resources? Huh? Also, "large areas of land or water" should just be "large areas"
  • Changed. That's what my source has.
• Ref 2 has a different date style: "Month date, year" versus "Date month year"
  • Changed.
• 6/27/2005 in ref 5 should be written normally
  • Changed. Reywas92^Talk 00:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

More to come later. Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm busier that I thought. I'll probably post comments on the talk page if this is promoted before I get a chance to review it properly. Mm40 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2010 (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 16:47, 4 May 2010 [33].

---

List of FC Barcelona seasons

Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list: thoroughly sourced, pretty pictures and engaging lead. Another Barcelona list for your consideration. Sandman888 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Incomplete sentences (like the captions here) don't take a full stop. captions? "In their first years" not good. You can only have one first year. chg "got of to a good start " grammatically incorrect and a bit too colloquial. chg "very first" no real need for "very" here. rmv "weren't " avoid contractions. chg "golden age" who called it that? Is this your own opinion? clarified "50s" 1950s. chg Is the plural of Copa del Rey still Copa del Rey? "as they where only to win" were to win the league only twice. chg "once in 1974 and again in 1985" just "in 1974 and 1985" would be fine. chg "Their fortune where to change"... were. And this is an encyclopedia, so can we avoid using terms like "fortune" - write encyclopedically. chg That's midway through paragraph two of the lead... There are far too many grammatical issues here. Please consider peer review before bringing the list here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC) it has undergone peer review as you can see on the talk page. Sandman888 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I'd suggest a second review then, preferably by native English speakers, not to mention that the version they reviewed is very, very different from this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose A lot of confusion between plural and singular, especially in the first paragraph. As noted above, there are numerous spelling and grammar errors. Also, the images need positioning better; I'm getting tons of awful white space on my monitor. BigDom 08:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • All of the above should be fixed by now, editor has been invited to revisit the FLC....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have struck my previous oppose seeing as the prose has been greatly improved. BigDom 16:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I have given the lead a complete overhaul for language (hope the nom doesn't mind), see if you think I've improved it. I haven't looked at any other part of the article as yet...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks a bunch, don't mind help at all. Sandman888 (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Few source-related queries with this one: What makes http://www.the-sports.org/ a reliable source? And why would a questionable source be needed for a list of Champions League finals? I'm sure plenty of reputable sites keep such lists. Replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC) What makes http://www.napit.co.uk/viewus/infobank/football/awards/european_golden_boot.php a reliable source? Also, this seems like another source where it would be easy enough to find a higher-quality replacement. Replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC) The various abbreviated reference publishers should be spelled out. Done..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Publisher for reference 10 should be in italics since it is a printed publication. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Haven't reviewed the rest of the list yet. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Okay, now I'm really concerned. As I was about to close the other screen I was using to look at the list, I found this in the lead: "In 1998 Barcelona won the European Cup (now renamed the UEFA Champions League) for the second time." Um, no. The list says they won another UEFA competition that season, but not the Champions League. I know virtually nothing about the topic and I knew that was wrong; it leaves me wondering if there are other inaccuracies. I hope this is just something lost in translation during Chris' lead renovation (honestly, I can't understand what the original sentence was trying to say, now that I've seen it, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case). At least the lead looks much better than the previous one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC) That was simply an error by me when I re-wrote the lead. I don't know why I wrote 1998 instead of 2006, I must have been daydreaming about something good that happened to me in 1998 or something. Apologies for the confusion....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC) original: "It was to last 14 years before Barcelona would win the European Cup again (now called Champions League)." From 1992 that gives 2006. I could have written the years explicit, but reviewers tend to dislike this, if it's a question of simple arithmetic, so I don't see why the original sentence was hard to understand. I've removed the sentence as 1) they didn't win anything in 2004 and 2) that they won in 2006 is already stated. Sandman888 (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC) Took a look at the lead, and most of it looks okay. The one place in the lead I was bothered was "becoming known as 'Barca of the Five Cups' and went on to win...". Judging by the sentence as a whole, it feels like a comma should be after the nickname. Alternatively, you could change "went on" to "going on". Also, I noticed that the end of note 3 is missing a period. Otherwise, it seems that a lot of fine work has been done here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Both points addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose still too many outstanding issues for me" ""golden age" from 1919–29, during which "Barça"" not keen on the two quoted terms. I get the second, but who said it was a golden age? Why is it in quote marks? Sounds like OR to me. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "catalan" presumably this should be Catalan? Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) And I would link to Catalan language. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "later be known as the "Dream Team", " got a ref? Fixed - ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "it a year later" perhaps "the following season"? Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "December 21" flipped your date format. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "The Campionat de Catalunya trophy." no full stop please. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "The Copa del Rey winners became de facto national champions." got a ref? Removed, can't find a ref that specifically states that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC) If my browser is less than about 1280 wide, I get all the images first with heaps of whitespace and then the table. The list needs to cater for narrow resolutions without becoming malformed. Fixed (I think) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "In 1928 La Liga, Spain's first national football league, was formed, with Barcelona among the founder members. The club initially also competed in the Catalan championship alongside La Liga. The Copa del Rey continued, but was open to more clubs and no longer regarded as being a competition for the national championship." do you have references for all these claims? Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "Johan Cruyff was appointed manager in 1988; brought total football and four consecutive league titles to Barcelona." + "he" before "brought". And you could use a reference for that. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) "The Latin Cup Barcelona won in 1952." no full stop please. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) ""FCBarcelona seasons" why no space between FC and Barcelona? Same with the preceding link. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) What makes "Webdelcule.com" a reliable source? Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Don't think you need FC Barcelona and FC Barcelon seasons as categories. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments Few matters arising from the peer review, and some more bits. The scope of the list should be explicitly mentioned somewhere: "senior first-team competition from their foundation up to the most recently completed season" or some such Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Typo: "del Barça de les Cinc Copes" should be "el Barça...", and (I think) should be in italics, per WP:MOS#Italics Foreign words Fixed - ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Could you do something with the sentence about one of three clubs never relegated? changing "along with" to "the others being" would do, or move their names up nearer the mention of "three clubs" Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) The image of the Campionat de Catalunya trophy is 'orrible, it looks like a graphic of a generic silver cup Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Source for Copa del Rey column? Added a ref to the RSSSF overview pages, which has links to the full details for each season of the competition. Let me know if you think a separate ref for each specific season needs to be added..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Refs currently 15 and 16 (Spain - Final Tables Catalonia and Catalonia: All-time tournaments) are the same thing Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) The Marca ref (currently #16) should say it's in Spanish Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) In the refs, I might have written out the publishers in full for the first time of using, with the abbreviation in brackets after, and then just used the abbreviated form. I look at Union des Associations Européennes de Football, and have to think for a moment to realise what it is... I agree that abbrevations shouldnt be spelled out. Nobody knows them by that. This is making the article worse IMO Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I should make myself clear. Abbreviations must be spelled out at least once, and if they weren't it would have been an MoS fail. I just meant that in hindsight, I might have written Union des Associations Européennes de Football (UEFA) the first time, and just UEFA thereafter. I might change them to that usage, if no-one objects. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it should be written that way every time it appears, as what's currently the first UEFA ref might not always be the first..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Smarta**e... ;-) though i still think having the abbreviated form in a bracket as well would be helpful... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Not an issue, as long as it appears every time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Where exactly are the details of each La Liga season sourced from? There are two refs at the top of the column: the first has a graph of positions, and the second a results grid for the 1928/29 season with a search button for finding similar grids for other seasons. While I agree it's possible to work out Barcelona's W/D/L etc from that, I find it hard to believe that the creator of the list did it that way... (unless I'm missing something on the LFP website, which was both informative and user-friendly till they redesigned it...) Sourcing completely revised..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Im not sure its better now. Its still not very userfriendly, and it was verifiable before, from a better page than RSSSF.Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) This reviewer thinks it's better now. Neither reviewer nor general reader should be expected to verify a table by adding up goals and counting wins and losses in result grids. Wouldn't have a problem with replacing the six decade-refs with a link to the overview page, it's only one click from there to the relevant decade. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC) It could have a single reference to the last game played in the 1928-29 season. But the problem is that number of games varies from season to season so its difficult for viewers to find the last one. Wd that be better? Sourcing revised again per a suggestion by Stru on my talk page..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The Copa Macaya/Copa Barcelona/Campionat de Catalunya were leagues, so the details should be included just like for any other league, with Pos/Pl/W/D/L/GF/GA/Pts. Definitely for the amateur era, and (in my opinion, assuming the Campionat de Catalunya was still a first-team competition) also into the professional era. Started on this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Is that really customary? Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Yes. AFAIK, all football club season lists include details of leagues played in before they joined the current big league. Why would you not want to include that detail? the idea of a seasons list is to inform the reader about the club's playing history. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Done. I agree this info should be included - see, for examples, List of Liverpool F.C. seasons..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Ohhh, I'm not so sure that the 1928 and onwards seasons of the regional leagues shd be included. It really clutters the table. How about continuing the amatour table to include it instead? The two eras will then overlap but so be it, because now they're given equal weight and thats just plain wrong. Similarly they still participate in the Catalunaen trophy, but its not given any significance. Sandman888 (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (outdented a bit for ease of reading) There's a decent argument for saying that once the national league started, the Campionat de Catalunya, as a regional competition, became a minor comp which wouldn't belong in this list. Going that route, it should be removed entirely, including the pretty gold boxes, from the professional era table, and the prose above the table changed to read something like "In 1929, La Liga, Spain's first national football league, was formed, with Barcelona among the founder members. The Copa del Rey continued alongside La Liga. Clubs continued to qualify for it via the regional championships, which for Barcelona was the Campionat de Catalunya, until 1940, when it became open to all teams in the top two divisions of the Spanish League and selected other teams." And the scope of the list should say something like "The table details the club's achievements in all national and international first-team competitions, and in regional first-team competitions in the amateur era, for each completed season since the club's formation in 1899." However, if they entered a first team in it in order to win it, even if it wasn't as important to them as La Liga (source?), I can't see any argument against including it as currently presented. As, for instance, the featured List of Luton Town F.C. seasons includes their two seasons in the United League alongside the Football League 2nd Division in the 1890s. Struway2 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't the giving-it-equal-weight-being-wrong argument apply just as much if the Campionat details were continued in the amateur era section, between the pre-1929 years, where it was the main and only competition, and afterwards, when it wasn't? Struway2 (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Just been reading Catalan football championship, which says the Campionat de Catalunya became professional in 1917. Assuming that's accurate, then dividing into "Amateur era" and "Professional era" is wrong. Perhaps "Regional era" and "National era", or ...? Also, FC Barcelona's history pages refer to the Catalan Championships of the 1930s as if they were rather more than just qualification for the Copa del Rey. Don't know where that gets us :-) Struway2 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Headings changed. As far as I can tell, the 1930s Cat.Champs. were significant tourneys in their own right, but also doubled up as Copa qualifiers. I've reworded the section heading to take this into account..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused here. Is it a bad idea to expand the amatuer era, so it goes to 1937 when cat.champs ended? Also, yes they flaunt their victories, but it's obvious that they consider La Liga a finer competition. I don't see why it is given equal weight if the tables are seperate. The distinction amateur/proffessinoal will give any reader a hint that some competitions are "better" than others. Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (outdent again) The distinction between amateur and professional is one of finance, not importance, which is why the headings needed changing. But the reason the first section can't be extended to 1937 for the Campionat is that this is a list of seasons: whatever happens in each season belongs together. It's not up to us to decide whether one competition is bigger or smaller than another. If the club entered it as a first-team competition, then it belongs in with everything else they entered in that season. Which is why I mentioned the club's pride in the Cat.champs on their history page: to clarify that they did seem to be entering that comp as a first-team comp, not just as a Cup qualifier. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Consensus has always been with season lists that the ongoing season is excluded, for stability reasons Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Finished competitions were included (and rightly so) as they are part of the lead (winning a sextuple).Sandman888 (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC) That's a fair point: the lead shouldn't refer to something that isn't in the body of the article, and it would seem a little malicious to expect mention of the sextuple to be removed from the lead for the sake of a very few weeks left in the season... I wouldn't object to the finished competitions being reinstated in this case, though in future the list should stay within its scope of "for each completed season" in order to comply with the stability criterion. Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC) As RSSSF pages are all copyright to their authors as well as to RSSSF, could you include the author(s) in the refs. I might include date last updated as well Is this customary as well? I'd have thought so, that's why I recommended it. Struway2 (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC) All done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Struway2 (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Obviously I'm not trying to make the article worse, only trying to help out and help it get up to FL standards. Reviewers wouldn't suggest things to change unless they felt it needed to be done......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Yes, and it is truly appreciated. Though I agree with most of Struways comments I do not agree with all. I I've made all the changes Stru requested. I'll let you thrash out with him whether or not they needed to be made....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC) I'll add it if Struway insists. Please see my reply above reg. putting all the campionat information in the amatour era Sandman888 (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Struway can't insist on anything... would that this were the case :-) it's up to all reviewers (hopefully some more might turn up) and then the FL directors to decide whether the resultant state of the list is featureworthy or not... I've replied to the Campionat bit above, will come back on the league sourcing when I've got a minute. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Please note reply to current season/finished comps above. I'm happy to cap all remaining comments, if the other participants in the discussion are OK with that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Reply noted, and I fully agree. I'm okay with capping. Sandman888 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I have added said competitions back in......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Comments Couple more things, about the cup rounds. In the key, I wouldn't have thought we needed to wikilink plain English words like Champion or Semi-final, and it'd be enough to link just one of Round of 16/32/64 In the table, there are still some rounds of the format R3 (presumably meaning 3rd round) as opposed to the Round of nn format. These need either conversion to Round of nn format, or if they don't equate to a Round of nn, they need to appear in the key (and possibly have an explanatory note about why they're different) Once those are sorted, I'd expect to support this nomination. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Both sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Support Follows an established format, and seems to meet the criteria now. Well done both to the nominator, and also to ChrisTheDude, who put in an awful lot of work during the FLC process to bring this list up to scratch. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• • RE MOS:NUM changes - this is obviously to avoid confusion/ambiguity which is not the case here and it looks silly. There's no precedent for all of the 1999-2000 seasons to be named so. I'd say ignore all shd be applied in this case. Sandman888 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Think you'll find previous featured seasons lists have it this way, certainly all the recent ones. As of course do the season articles you're linking to: 1998–99 La Liga, but 1999–2000 La Liga. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments much, much improved since nomination, good work to Chris and Struway for great editing/reviews respectively. We still have a blank "current season" which I thought we avoided... perhaps it'll be complete in a couple of weeks though... Notes 7 and 8 are identical so should be used just once in two places. No they aren't - read them very carefully....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Holy moley, you're right. Scratch that comment! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Quarter-Final or Quarter-final? F -> f. Don't mix date formats in the reference section. The reference is changed.Sandman888 (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Still a prob with ref 32. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support a lot of excellent work done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic work. Gage (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2010 (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 16:47, 4 May 2010 [34].

---

Family Guy (season 5)

Nominator(s): Gage (talk), Pedro J. ^{the rookie}

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it was perfectly ready the last time around, and the only reason it, to my understanding, did not pass was because of the lack of reviewers either stating their support or opposition to the nomination. I hope you will consider it again, and I hope to address your concerns as best as possible. Gage (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments A link to Family Guy in the lead would be nice. Done. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) On a wide resolution monitor, the picture of David Goodman obstructs the list below. Done, moved the paragraph above critic's reception. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Third paragraph of the lead repeats "Season five" three times. Make the wording a bit more interesting Done. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Last sentence of the production section: "The decision to end the fifth season before the 100th episode was made due to Fox executives' desire to show the Family Guy special hour-long Blue Harvest as the sixth season premiere, which was also then-unfinished, at the end of the fifth season in May 2007." Quite wordy. Possibly break into two sentences or cut it down. Fixed. Gage (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Jujutacular T · C 18:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support As far as I can tell, all previous concerns have been rectified, as well as my concerns. Thanks for being so prompt! Jujutacular ^T · C 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support This artical should have passed a time ago i support it. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment as a co-nominator, your support is taken as read. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support This list is very comprehensive and there doesn't seem to be any major problems with it. Good work! --haha169 (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments this is very good, I've reviewed it in detail before so, not surprisingly, very few things stood out, however: The Key, you could just say "In the # column, the number refers to the order it aired during the entire series" and likewise for the Total. Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Where are the production codes referenced? Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Not convinced you need to link wheelchair. Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 2 has IGN as a publisher and unlinked while ref 32 (for example) has IGN has a work and linked. Be consistent. Done. Gage (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 70 is a .co.uk link but you say it's published by the .com equivalent. Why? Fixed. Gage (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC) Refs 62 and 63 - remove the capitalisation please. Done. Gage (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) What makes the info at ezydvd.com reliable? According to EzyDVD, the company is Australia's largest DVD retailer, so I doubt that it is not reliable. What causes you to call its reliability into question? Gage (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC) And what makes buddytv.com a reliable source? Done, replaced references. Gage (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This was a quick glance, and I am concerned at the misleading referencing. Ref 49 does not reference the production code in any way, neither does Ref 51 or 53 I guess this is a trend. As an aside, ref 11 and 12 are also the same.Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Fixed. Not sure why a vote of opposition was neccessary, when I could've just as easilly fixed it had it been brought to my attention. And I'm not sure how refs 11 and 12 are misleading simply because it is not linked to a web article. Both are quotes from the Family Guy Volume 5 DVD commentary. Gage (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
    • How do I know it is easily fixed? Production codes have been problematic in the past (trust me I was on the receiving end). They are not always easy to verify which is a key criteria (hence the oppose). Aditionally, I recall the directors prefering opposes to comments as it is difficult to assess the importance of a see of comment if they haven't been struck/capped. For the second bit, I actually misread 11 and 12 thinking they were identical refs duplicated unnecessarily. Is it worth adding the |quote= field for these perhaps. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, thank you. As for the quotes, I think what is currently present on the article is sufficient. Gage (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

• There is absolutely no mention of any type of viewer figures/ratings. In my experience this is exceeding rare for a season list. Personally, I would be in favour of viewing figures for each episode like some other featured seasons lists [35][36]. This information is available (e.g. http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=112106_06 9.3 million for Prick Up Your Ears] and the complete lack of viewership figures is the basis for this oppose.
  • Attempting to locate viewership ratings as far back as September 10, 2006, I was unable to locate any information from a reliable source. Viewership ratings as far back as that, which was the premiere episode for the season in that instance, are very difficult to locate, and would mostly rely upon possibly unreliable sources. Also, I'm not sure how the ABC Media source you provided would be for the episode that aired on that date, as it aired on Fox in its original airing, not on ABC. Maybe it was a syndicated episode, but why ABC would show Fox's ratings would be beyond me. Gage (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Medianet just gives the weeks ratings for all primetime programs. It is reliable, goes back enough, and has been used for FOX shows before. I know because I've used it in a FOX season FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Alright, I have added viewership ratings information to the article. Thank you for providing me with that source, as I was able to also add that information to each of the season's episode articles. Gage (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Rest looks good. Only other comment is on consistency: "Volume Five" (lead), "Volume 5" (caption), "volume 5" (reception). Can we have some consistency througout the article and the DVD release section please.
  • Done. Gage (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose The referencing is underdeveloped. 2 has an author and date given Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 6 has a date of publication Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 7 and 8 do not give the proper publisher; both should have the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as the publisher. Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 10 same problem as 2 Done. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 4 is dead; so is 23 Fixed 4, though 23 still works for me. Gage (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Ref 1 needs filling out, too Done. Gage (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "who cited an overuse of "one-joke" characters" Where does this come from? Direct quotes require a citation. Done. Was unable to relocate the quote so I removed it. Cited the rest of the sentence. Gage (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) "Production for the fifth season began in 2005," That's not given in the source Done. Gage (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Check all the referencing, and I'll re-evaluate. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Take a look at refs 9, 10, 11, 16, and 17; the dates don't match the rest. Done. Gage (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC) What are refs 65 and 66 supposed to look like? I'm not seeing any content when I pull them up? I was not able to see them either, so I removed them, and left the third source. Gage (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Those are the only problems left I see. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support My concerns handled. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Resolved comments from DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

**Comments I think the reference of the dates should be in Month, Day, year to be consistent with the date format used in the article. The dates in the reference section are formatted according to WP:REF/ES. Gage (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC) [[Family Guy (season 5)#Reception|mixed reception]] could just be [[#Reception|mixed reception]] Done. Gage (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC) I don't think the "See also" section is really needed since it as a table that links to other things. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 07:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC) The See also section houses the Family Guy portal template, which was requested to be placed in that section in a previous review, as well as the Book template, neither of which belong elsewhere on the article, as neither are external links. Gage (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support Not much left to say. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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