Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WP:FLL

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

This is a log of featured lists from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. Discussions about failed nominations are located in the failed log.

Candidacy discussion about lists promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/December 2006.

Contents


Full current month log

view - edit - history

edit2005
June 13 promoted 10 failed
July 20 promoted 8 failed
August 14 promoted 9 failed
September 3 promoted 8 failed
October 7 promoted 2 failed
November 7 promoted 6 failed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 11 promoted 11 failed
February 3 promoted 8 failed
March 13 promoted 11 failed
April 10 promoted 5 failed
May 10 promoted 7 failed
June 9 promoted 10 failed
July 10 promoted 9 failed
August 10 promoted 7 failed
September 5 promoted 7 failed
October 8 promoted 10 failed
November 11 promoted 8 failed
December 10 promoted 7 failed

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada

Looks like it meets the FL requirements. --Arctic Gnome 04:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator. --Arctic Gnome 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lead is too short. Renata 07:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's longer now. --Arctic Gnome 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sortable is wierd. Clicking on names sorts them by first name, not last. Clicking on either of the two date columns does something - but I can't figure out what. Anyone know what sort order that gives? Rmhermen 19:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I figured out the order - just the first letter of the name of the month. Rmhermen 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that warranted a comment rather than an oppose; it took about five seconds to take out the storability. --Arctic Gnome 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The sorting was useful for those columns where it worked properly. I don't know if it can be used only on some columns or used with sort keys? Rmhermen 20:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I've never seen sortable tables before a few days ago, so I don't know how to use them. I'll just submit the list without sortability. --Arctic Gnome 18:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I've investigated it (m:Help:Sorting) - and the only way to make dates sortable is to enter them in [[YYYY-MM-DD]] format - and to have your date preference unset or set to that format. You cannot sort and display in the common day-month-year or month-day-year formats. And no way to sort by last name of individuals. Best to leave it out until they can fix these sorts of issues. Rmhermen 18:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A good, comprehensive list. A few points: I would agree with Renata about adding more lead if I could think of what more would be helpful (but I can't at the moment). There are some inconsistencies with the length hyphens. Lastly, as seen on the list in Supreme Court of Canada article, there is some dispute about whether we should say that a Prime Minister appoints or whether the Gov Gen appoints on recommendation of the PM. The latter approach to me seems to split hairs, but perhaps they are hairs in need of splitting. --PullUpYourSocks 23:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The lead just has to give enough information so that everything in the list makes sense. Basically, what they are, what the chief is, and how they are chosen (including who appoints them, what qualifications they need, and how long they can stay in power). As for the "Appointed by" column, I think having the PMs is more useful information, but then we have to replace the words "appointed by" with something else (maybe "chosen by"). --Arctic Gnome 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Object. The list needs a longer lead, at leats a paragraph long. CG 14:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's longer now. --Arctic Gnome 17:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'll extend this nomination a couple days to give you enough time to extend the lead. -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll have that done by the end of the day. --Arctic Gnome 17:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 03:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Nova Scotia general elections

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information from 37 elections, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
    • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Nova Scotia
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This is one is different from the previous four, in that it also has a table showing percentage share of vote. Self nomination. Tompw 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The Nova Scotia House of Assembly goes back to 1758. I understand if you only want to include post-confederation results, but you should mention in the opening what you are including and spend at least some space talking about the pre-confederation background. --Arctic Gnome 19:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    OK, I've expanded the intro accodingly... please take a look.
  • Object I'm afraid- too many redlinks, which is one of the things sepcifically commented on in the Requirements for lists. Also, Artctic Gnome's comments need to be incorporated, and I'd like to see the percentage of vote and number of seats in a single table, as I think that would be more useful. Looking back on the other lists you've done, I see that Saskatchewan gives the total number of seats in the table as well- that'd probably be a useful addition for this and the other lists as well. --G Rutter 19:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Good work (I thought I'd already changed my vote- clearly pressed the wrong button!)! I'd have gone with option 1 anyway (with the addition of (%) on the Vote)- it'd be interesting to do this for the other tables as well (he writes, cheerfully creating more work for other people!). I hope that this one gets through now as well! --G Rutter 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right on the redlinks issue. I'd forgotten about that one. I shall create brief articles for them all. In the mean time, let's deal with the rest of the issues.
    • Total seats - done.
    • Single table...I thought about this, and two posisble layouts sprang to mind. One is to have a party's seats and votes in adjacent columns (so that info is grouped by party); the other is (essenentially) to have the votes table alongside the seats tabl (so that the info is grouped by type). What the table top look like is shown below. I'm not convinced that either works very well visually.... what do people think? Tompw 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      Ignore that... I've gone ahead and combined the tables (using option 1). Only took 20 mins. Tompw 20:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply: OK... 33 out of the 37 items on the list are now bluelinks all the election back to 1882). I think that satisfies the "large majority of links to existing articles" required by WP:FLC 1a. Tompw 15:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Not sure about the external link. Doesn't seem specific enough to this page and their historical list doesn't seem any more comprehensive than this. Colin Harkness°Talk 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Rune.welsh | ταλκ 19:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Manitoba general elections

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information from 37 seperate articles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
    • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Manitoba
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

The arricle had a peer review, and the few suggestions made have been acted on. Tompw 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • support complete and useful Hmains 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very good! --G Rutter 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Excellent list. My one problem is that your reference only goes to the 1999 election. Add one for 2003 and you have my support. --Arctic Gnome 18:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Done. Tompw 19:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Another good list. Colin Harkness°Talk 23:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support very nice format and very useful. — Seadog 18:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

List of British Columbia general elections

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information from 38 seperate articles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
    • Factually accurate: can be verified via BC Elections
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This was a Good Article until they stopped accepting lists. The arricle had a peer review, and the few suggestions made have been acted on. Tompw 14:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - just format the reference using {{cite web}}. I see a bunch of FL comming... Renata 14:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Done. Very prescient of you :-) Tompw 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • support complete and useful Hmains 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support; very good and well sourced. Laïka 18:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you tabulate the Elections prior to provincial political parties as has been done for Manitoba? I don't think this list can be said to be comprehensive until you've done this! --G Rutter 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    There were no political parties in BC prior to 1903, hence why pre-1903 elections are not included in the "Summary of results by party" table... it wouldn't make sense! There are linked via the section below, so the list is definately comprehensive (just rather boring before 1903). However, I have shifted the "notes" section below the pre-1903 material, so that it links togther better. Tompw 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've just realised you mean the government/oposition table... will look at Elections BC and see if there's details. Tompw 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    Done :-) Tompw 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent! Sorry for not making myself clearer originally; I had also checked to see whether it would be possible! --G Rutter 22:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The reference was just to the general election site rather than to the historical stats, but I fixed that for you. Otherwise excellent list. --Arctic Gnome 18:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Perhaps wikilink unicameral in these lists? Colin Harkness°Talk 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

This list had good reviews and had probably reached concensus to be a Featured List in a prior nomination; however, because of some discussions to drastically reformat the list, I withdrew the nomination. Those discussions have concluded and this list is being submitted for featured list status again.

Improvements since last nomination (or as a result of comments from the last nomination):

  • Introduction is more concise
  • Addition of Image showing locations of all temples
  • Improved references
  • Use of templates to remove table formatting
    • Allows editing of data on each temple to be entered by novices without effecting formatting
    • Makes reviewing and finding individual temples in the edit screen easier
  • Addition of statistics chart
  • A stub or more exists for every temple that has been completed, and some that are under construction or announced
  • Images have been added (first 10 temples all have images)
  • No fair use images remain

Respectfully --Trödel 18:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong support. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to external links in body text, nine anonymous hyperlinks and I've got a query as to which references were actually used.
    Thanks for the suggestions - see below (lines beginning with √ or ʘ) for status of resolution of listed comments/issues. --Trödel 22:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The 5 temples under contruction have external links for their "Construction details". External links should be only found in the appropriate end sections.
    √ Moved to references. Current status summarized from lds.org and ldschurchtemples.com
  • The (D&C 88:119-120) external link, I'm less sure about. If you moved this to the footnotes/references section, you could expand the citation (I didn't know what D&C was) and even supply a short quote using the cite book template.
    √ moved quote - leaving quote in biblical "Book_name Chap:Verse(s)" format (
  • The nine anonymous hyperlinks can be found in the Footnotes section. These should be fully cited. Footnotes with inline-citations are awkward. You could consider using the ref/note system for lettered footnotes (see the Canadian election FLCs), which then appear above the References section and so can themselves be sourced.
    √ I limited this to only those areas where readers tend to edit the data incorrectly. Since it really is a good reference, but people tend to change the information I want to leave the links in.
    • I don't understand this. What are readers editing incorrectly? Why is this stopping you using a full citation? You don't need to do the notes/refs split, just put the citation in parenthesis if you want. But they should be full {{cite press release}} {{cite web}}, etc with dates, publisher, title, access dates, etc. Conditional support Colin Harkness°Talk 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Ahh, I misunderstood - I thought you were suggesting to use the notes/ref split. Now the suggestion makes more sense to me. Major references should go in reference section like a normal article. And minor references should be in footnotes. I will use the full cites - I don't see why we shouldn't. --Trödel 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm What I meant originally was a style where comment-footnotes use letters, citation-footnotes use numbers and general references are a bullet-point list. This allows the comment-footnotes to have superscript numbered inline-citations of their own. It is just a style - if you want all footnotes (comments and sources) to be mixed together then that's ok, just a bit messy. To complicate things futher, some folk just use an abbreviated cite in the footnote (especially when making extensive use of a textbook) and put the full citation in the references at the end. In the end, it gets fully cited, which is what matters. Clear as mud? Colin Harkness°Talk 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Yep - can you link me to an example of that - I have been using the <ref> type for the footnotes rather than the harvard style - which I like for references that are used more than once (bullet list at end - Author, year. for the inline or footnote cites) but would be interested in the a,b,c, and 1,2,3 used simultaneously - I looked at some of the current Canada election candidates for FL but couldn't find (or saw and didn't recognize) the example you referred me to previously. BTW, this is complete I believe. --Trödel 16:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What I mean by editing incorrectly. For example the Southwest part of Salt Lake Valley temple: This was being changed by giving it a number, and putting in Bluffdale Temple or Herriman Temple - I wanted to leave the notes in so it is clear that the temple property was acquired but no announcement was made indicating that efforts towards construction had started. --Trödel 15:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't see how the mormon.org site served as a reference to this.
    √ I think this was included in some references included from the Temple (Mormonism) page and information from that link is not being used so I removed it
  • The www.ldschurchtemples.com site seems to the source of much of the data (including area and style) as discussed on the talk page. The www.lds.org site is similar but doesn't have all the data (that I can find). So I think the former needs to be a reference.
    √ For me the main source I used was the almanac (I referenced the one I own but also borrowed the 2006 edition (published in 2005)
  • Drop the ---- surname bit in the citation template, it looks odd.
    √ implemented
  • Don't include external links that you've already got as references. Try to ruthlessly prune your external links – they must add a signifcant amount of info relevant to this list in particular (as opposed to all the other LDS articles).
    √ cleaned up
  • Similary, prune your See also for the similar reasons. If you've already got wikilinks, don't add a see also.
    √ removed those that are already referenced inteh article text
  • Note 6 (rededication date) is not required since your row heading already says "Rededication".
    √ implemented
  • Some of the Notes concerning Rededication specifics could be just appended to the Rededication row. Number 25 could have a Rededication row. Alternatively, some Notes could be made footnotes.
    √ resolved I believe
  • Number 10 mentions reopening but not when it closed (only mentioned in footnote). To be honest, this seems a somewhat trivial detail for this list.
    √ moved this detail to the main article - was only of interest during the renovation really.
  • Don't know what "Smaller and remote area 1" means. Perhaps you could explain this in the lead or wiklink?
    √ Updated to match styles given in references. Bytebear is working on Temple architecture (Latter-day Saints) using the Hawkins book and other references on getting these titles sourced and consistent.
  • Footnote 13 has rather too many references!
    √ resolved
  • Re: wikilinking dedication person. Convention is to link just the first occurrence. How about a compromise of linking just the first occurence per section.
    ʘ Would like to leave this as is for now, this will change with the implementation of the centralized data locaiton for each temple that will be used in the lists and the individual temple pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Temples
  • The Jun-Dec 2000 section doesn't have lines between the temples.
    √ This is a rendering issue that occasionally happens on my monitor too - but the table lines are in there and defined properly so try refreshing the screen.
Yes, that is an issue in long tables and those with a bit more complex layout. I believe the root of the problem lies in the "wikitable" CSS class. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 08:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Other than that, it is a fine list! Note: many of the above points are just suggestions. My main concern is improving the references. Colin Harkness°Talk 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with some caveats of the inclusion of info included below: -Visorstuff 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The original Apia Samoa should be listed under "temples destroyed" section. No number as in the text below. But it seems odd to be numbered below. let's move it up.
  • Far West (announced by smtih on the eighth day of July, 1831, discourses of Brigham young 471; cornerstones dedicated april 26, 1839 - discources of wilford woodruff pvi, also d&c 115 7-8)
  • Adam-ondi-Ahman/Spring Hill (announced april 26, 1838, and site selected in may 1838 and dedicated by JS jr - see Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Stevens and Wallis, 1945), pp. 208-9.)
  • "Independence Temple complex" in Jackson County Missouri (ie independence - site dedicated aug 1 1831 - see bh roberts, outlines of ecclesiastical history page 343.) wtc. -Visorstuff 17:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of moving Apia Samoa under Nauvoo. Not sure where we would put "Abandoned" temples (under Announced maybe?) - of course Harrison NY is looking pretty abandoned ;) - We may also want to included Hartford Connecticut. It was announced and abandoned as well. --Trödel 18:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      I was just joking about Harrison - but when I went to the official list - it is now missing .... --Trödel 18:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we list them under a section titled: "Announced but no current plans" rather than abandoned. LDS theology would typically say that once a temple site as been designated by revelation, it will be built there, just a matter of timing either before or after Jesus returns, or even "in heaven." I think a new section is warranted for this. -Visorstuff 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Continuing on template talk page. --Trödel 19:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support alot of work went into that article; good job. Storm Rider (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very good list, though I think it would be even better if there was some recognition of temples that were designated, or their site dedicated, but not built (yet), as suggested by Visorstuff. COGDEN 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Alberta general elections

  1. Wikipedia's best work: Provides information in a format that cannot be found elsewhere on the internet.
  2. Useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, and well-organised:
    • Useful: Summarises information from 26 seperate articles, and allows visitors to easily compare results from successive general elections
    • Comprehensive: Covers every general election
    • Factually accurate: can be verified via Elections Alberta
    • Stable: Will be only be updated every four years or so
  3. Well-organised: Easy to find any required information
  4. Uncontroversial: no edit wars or disuptes of any kind, ever
  5. Standards / style manual: Layout is clear and concise
  6. Images: Sole image has approriate copyright status

This was a Good Article until they stopped accepting lists. The arricle had a peer review, and the few suggestions made have been acted on. Tompw 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • support after I added the missing 1st dynasty from the paragraph discussing 4 dynasties. Useful and complete. Hmains 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Very good! --G Rutter 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - The reference was just to the general election site rather than to the historical stats, but I fixed that for you. Otherwise excellent list. --Arctic Gnome 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks for that :-) Tompw 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Slight concern that the tables at the bottom are nearly as big as the article itself. Colin Harkness°Talk 23:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    That's mostly due to the Alberta provincial electoral districts nav-box. However, given time and enough elections, the main article will get big enough for this not to be a worry. Tompw 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 ICC Champions Trophy squads

Self-nom. Comprehensive list including all players in the tournament, with some relevant statistics at the time. Sam Vimes | Address me 22:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. But it was Agarkar who was officially subbed out of the squad, even though Yuvraj had the more serious injury. Sam Vimes | Address me 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I was wondering if a note could be included that this is a cricket event, for those of us who aren't familiar with the ICC. Jay32183 04:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - lead to short. Renata 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Expanded to two paragraphs now. That better? Sam Vimes | Address me 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, good enough. Renata 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Good work, but a few nits. Are captains meant to be listed first? If so, why not for Bangladesh? You could use 'class="sortable"' to enable sorting of the lists by number of ODIs, batting and bowling styles, and domestic team (dates do not work well at the moment unless written in ISO YYYY-MM-DD style). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - What's the parameters for the inclusion of Englosh counties in the player's teams. Did they play from them in the last season? Or in the past two etc. HornetMike 13:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In the 2006 season. I'll add a note to that. Sam Vimes | Address me 14:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Narnian timeline

I'm resubmitting this list because the concerns that were brought up the first time (only one – a discussion on the talk page which has since been resolved through references) have now been fixed. One thing that was brought up too late was about images – I've searched and can't find a free image of anything even remotely relevant, nor a fair use image which, in placing it in the article, would satisfy FUC. I'm satisfied with the page now and think it's well-referenced and clear. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Support. You don't need to use an image for the timeline - see m:EasyTimeline as implemented in John Vanbrugh (see {{John Vanbrugh timeline}}) and Isambard Kingdom Brunel (see {{Isambard Kingdom Brunel timeline}}). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Would the Easy Timeline be redundant, however? I can understand putting it in an article, but to have a timeline image on an article entirely devoted to the timeline? I'll remove the image anyway. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One advantage of the image is that is presents the two timelines side-by-side. I think an EasyTimeline could do the same. As I see it, the image/timeline and the text should be doing different things - the image/timeline should be a short summary of what happened when, and the text should be a longer narrative explanation. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Some things Lewis put on the timeline, like "570 – About this time lived Moonwood the Hare," we know nothing else about, he only randomly mentioned them on the timeline. I understand the purpose of seeing the timeline side-by-side, but I don't entirely agree with the duplicate nature involved in it. One advantage to it I could see, though, would be simply writing the timeline in Narnia in a left column and a timeline in England (dates only) in a right column, to see when the years aligned with each other, something which is not proportionally (visually) shown in the list. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The image doesn't include everything in the timeline, and could include any arbitrary lesser amount of text. If that helps with the decision. LloydSommerer 03:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The formatting doesn't do anything for me, I'm afraid. The way the England section refers back to the Narnian time just seems clumsy compared to a visual timeline (like the picture that seems to have gone). Perhaps ALoan's suggestion (EasyTimeline) would help, but I'm not familiar with it. The "See also" link should be better formatted. I'm a little bit uneasy about effectively reproducing a portion of a work of fiction (or the author's commentary on it). Colin Harkness°Talk 23:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
To address each of your points:
  • The England section, as I see it, is meant to be more of an "add-on" section. The part about the Narnian time is really the key thing; England is just additional info. It so happens that certain key years in that history directly correspond to Narnian years, and since we're on the Narnian years page, we'll list those years that are equal. (Then, we'll throw in birth dates to be complete.)
  • See also link: I always thought you weren't supposed to pipe links like that, because there's no other text which is supposed to be read there like you do when you pipe within prose, as I just did (the page name is Help:Link but I want it to read "pipe"; in a see also set-up you just need the page name). Maybe I'm confusing that with dab pages.
  • What are you uneasy about? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, I don't know. Just seems a bit like lifing a "whole something" rather than just extracting bits from a larger source. Just ignore it. I'm going to sit on the fence here. I'm just not going "wow" enough ("our very best work") to Support but have no strong reason to Oppose. I thought a few comments were better than the silence you got last time. Colin Harkness°Talk 13:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
No, it's okay, I understand and appreciate this. Though about the "see also" link – should it be piped so as to read "History of Narnia" or something, or aren't they supposed to not be piped? Or is that only for dab links? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

This list is a good collection of episode summaries, nicely sorted, and updated when new information comes out. The pictures pass copyright and it is orginized logically. Cnriaczoy42 14:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment - The lead should be expanded. Also, the last 2 images on the page don't have fair use rationales. Otherwise looks good, leaning towards support once that is taken care of. VegaDark 18:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - Pictures taken care of, working on the lead, will be done on Thursday at the latest. Cnriaczoy42 20:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - The lead looks a lot better now. Except I noticed that there is not a single reference for the entire list. This needs references before It would have my support. Surely there are some episode guides around the net that can be used? Other things I noticed is that the pilot episode is mentioned as never airing, yet isn't on the list. Even if it didn't air I think it should be included, with a note saying it never aired. Another thing is that the first instance the title of the list in the article should be bolded per the Manual of Style. VegaDark 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Support - All my concerns have been addressed, as well as the episode description issue. Looks good enough now. VegaDark 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - Fair use rationales need to be added to the two most recently added images. VegaDark 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There seems to be an inconsistant level of detail in the episode summaries, some are full paragraphs, others are single sentences. I would prefer all of them as full paragraphs. Jay32183 21:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment This were the offical summaries given by Nickelodeon. Do you recomend that they be change dto provide information about the episode rather then juat a teaser? Cnriaczoy42 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes. The most recently promoted list of episodes had one paragraph summaries of each episodes plot. If the current text was copied from somewhere else then it definitely needs to be rewritten, potential copyright issue. Jay32183 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Do the first four look good enough or are they too long? Cnriaczoy42 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Those are good. They are only too long if you care about the table being the exact same size as the image, but that doesn't bother me. Jay32183 03:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
            • This might not pass. I am still trying with all my might, but at lest two members of Wikiproject:Avatar are insisting that we use the offical summaries and that they are not copyvio. I will continue working towards improving this article. Cnriaczoy42 13:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that the episiode text is lifted directly from a TV guide/Nickelodeon? If so, this may be a copyvio. Please can you indicate where you got the episode descriptions from (online, magazine, etc). Colin Harkness°Talk 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditonal Support Support The episode summaries should be rewritten as above with the added note: spoilers should not be avoided for the sake of not revealing information. If it's really important information it should be included. I also think the fair use rationales on the images could be a little more specific. That is, say why that particular image was chosen for a reason other than it came from the episode, such as "This image illustrates "foo" which is important because "bar". Jay32183 19:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Man I just tacked my own singular fair use onto those. But if it's necessary I can go though and give a reasoning for each. The picture for "The Library" might need to be changed though, never liked it on there anyway. As for the spoilers, there is no reason for spoilers to be on a simple list. The list is there to be a list, not to be details of the episodes, that is what their individual pages are for. There are many people that use the list simply as a reference as to what shows they have missed and then go look for them, spoiling it would be unfair to them. In all fairness the plot information isn't even needed as it isn't always on other featured lists. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Your choices are include spoilers or do not include summaries. Please note that if you remove the summaries the images are no longer illustrating a significant section of text and would also have to be removed. I suggest you read WP:SPOIL before saying you aren't going to include spoilers. It quite specifically says not to remove text because it's a spoiler, which you did when the nominator of the FLC attempted to expand the episode summaries. Just add the {{spoiler}} tag. Jay32183 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Did we meet the conditional support or not? Cnriaczoy42 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
          • You met the condition as far as the summaries are concerned. The lead has been expanded per the above request, and references added. I also requested that the fair use rationales be a little more specific. Instead of just saying "It comes from the episode in question" say something along the lines of "This screenshot shows..." so that non-experts can verify that images were chosen appropriately rather than at random. Carefully selected images were one of the conditions that needed to be met from the fair use debate. Jay32183 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
            • First 20 done, will finish the other 22 tomorrow when I am not falling asleep at the keyboard. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
              • That's exactly what I suggested. Report when the last one is done and I'll officially support.Jay32183 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per copyvio concerns. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    Which are, or atleast will be by tomorrow, completely gone. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 06:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Excellent work. I'm still thinking about this before I move to support, but in the very least I retract my objection. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - no references. Also excessive use of fair use images. Renata 07:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Unless I'm misinformed, wasn't the "excessive use of fair use images" already turned down when it came to lists? I'm pretty sure it was because I remember it having 3 fors and like 15 againsts. Therefore your oppose because of excessive use has no merit. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 20:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is speciffically stated here that that is not an issue. Cnriaczoy42 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Renata is claiming the images don't meet FUC#3(don't use more than needed), not that having any unfree image will stop this from being promoted. I personally disagree, but I know what Renata means. Jay32183 23:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Renata is currently on a Wikibreak, and thus cannot strike out his oppose for right now. However, it seems that the conditions of his oppose have been addressed. Y BCZ 01:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment- Unless I'm mistaken, all of the copy-vios have now been removed. A reference has also been added. I'll admit, even as a regular editor of the page, I had concerns about if it could reach featured status, but as of now it has my Support.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added TV.com as a reference, and the reference added above needs to be converted to {{cite web}}. Jay32183 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Easily done, but I would like to ask for your opinion on the reference's matter on the talk page, we've had some issues with TV.com in the past.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's an external link in the lead that should be converted to ref format. Other than that the list has a good chance of becoming a FL. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 06:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm surprised I hadn't noticed that earlier. I've taken care of it. Jay32183 07:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of major opera composers

Clear, carefully constructed list, utterly transparent in its NPOV criteria. A few objections of possible bias have, I think, been dealt with. I suppose the FLCandidacy might show up a few short biographies that could use tweaking, but otherwise, I think we're pretty good. Partial self-nom. Adam Cuerden talk 19:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't feel qualified to vote at the moment as I'm not familiar with FL process and criteria - I don't know my way around here as well as I do FA - and anyway I contributed very heavily to this list - but it does strike me that whatever objections are raised this list cannot be far off. The referencing is exhaustive and the criteria used for selection are absolutely NPOV. I've just added a few pretty pictures per WP:WIAFL. Moreschi 21:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A number of operas listed are not linked and at least a couple are not italicized. Rmhermen 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't spot any unitalicised ones, but I think they're all linked now. Adam Cuerden talk 04:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I caught one more and linked it. And another editor already got the italics. Rmhermen 05:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment - several sound clips have been added. IMO it looks good. Moreschi 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I'm a bit embarrassed about how I came across this article. I'm normally not a big fan of lists and articles that say things like "major" or "notable". I was in a dispute over an unrelated list that was to the same extent, and someone mentioned this article. In a huff I went over and placed the {{OR}} tag on it, and when it got removed I listed the article for deletion. I don't normally make such a WP:POINT violation.. and it was pretty clear that's what I had done when I started to read people's comments to be about the deletion. I retracted my nomination and got some much needed sleep and break away from editing. That little story aside, the article is actually very excellent, and upon further reflection, the inclusion criteria is helps to make this article neutral and stable. No new statements were being made, so OR wasn't an issue as I had originally thought. Keep in mind, I'm not supporting this to "make up" for my mistake, but rather because I really do feel this is a feature worthy list. I only felt it necessary to explain that situation incase someone thought "hey, why is he supporting? didn't he try to delete that article?". -- Ned Scott 05:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support attractive, NPOV, well referenced, useful to someone new to opera, encyclopedic. Mak (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rmhermen 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment good list; is there some way to say what dates the date range sections are based on? It looks like date of birth, but not sure. Hmains 02:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It says in the lead. Adam Cuerden talk 03:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)Comment It already says that it is arranged by birthdate. Of course it follows that the headings are based on birthdate, broken up fairly arbitrarily by century, because humans like round numbers, with and extra break in the nineteenth century, for convenience. 69.19.14.15 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I enjoyed reading the list Hmains 03:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the lead is too short, the "Lists consulted" section is a meta-section and needs to be merged with references, women section needs less self-reference (stuff on how you came up with the names), when citing websites please use {{cite web}} and books {{cite book}}, and small fact: first surviving opera, Euridice (1600) or the first ever opera, Dafne? Renata 22:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with your objection to the meta-section: A clear explanation of how the list was created is important, as it states its limits and possible biases. However, it could easily be added to a sub-section of References. The Women section has to be self-referential a bit, as we must be clear as to the limitations of the techniques for choosing major opera composers in order to explain why there are no women in the main list: I fear you'v e missed the major controversies. We want to be clear that some authorities do believe these are major opera composers, while being clear why they're seperated. Also, if we don't explain the criteria, we're going to be sent right back to the old, untentable situation where people just added whoever they wanted. The templates do not offer a useful option for citing only part of a book, and we can't just cite the whole book the lists came from, as we are NOT using every opera composer listed in an encyclopedia of opera. Still, I'll template the ones that can be. The lead, I suppose, could be longer, but I'll leave that to the other people responsible for the list. I've fixed Peri (answer: both). Adam Cuerden talk 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I tried to use the citation templates, but found them unsuitable: They do not seem to offer a way to handle citing the encyclopedias, and as such would be very difficult to use cleanly. Adam Cuerden talk 23:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from an involved editor: Agree with Adam about the meta-section, lead and the references. The advantage of this list is that the selection criteria are clearly stated. We've had very favourable comments about this from general readers. --Folantin 11:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Another comment from an involved editor: per WP:WIAFL the lede shouold be "concise". It is. The women section has been cleaned up and I fail to see much of a problem with the so-called "meta-section". A merge with references would be horrifically confusing as many of the stuff in "References" is there to reference the annotations, not the actual selection. Per Adam, the templates don't seem to work. Moreschi 13:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: I think we've fixed all objections but the citation tags now. I'll start on that. Adam Cuerden talk 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
As of today, the citation tags don't work: They cannot handle books with just an editor cleanly. Adam Cuerden talk 00:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. I THINK everything has been dealt with you asked for. Adam Cuerden talk 10:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Are those particular templates specified at WP:WIAFL? --Folantin 18:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I have had a go at the lead - it is still quite short (some would say "concise" :) - but I am not sure what more can be said. Some prefer the "cite" templates for consistency, but they are not mandatory. This nomination has already run on over its usual 10 days. I would promote it now, but I want to see if anyone has anything to add to the lead section. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thank you very much for the support. I hope you don't mind, but I reverted your changes to the lead because I have a feeling they would probably take us back into the POV "can of worms" territory we've tried to avoid in this page. Anyway, the lead is still concise and I think it explains everything a reader needs to know about the composition of the list. Thanks! --Folantin 14:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I have tried modifying lead in another way - I think the list needs to make it clear how the potential POV issued was addressed. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The "Lists consulted" section gives a very detailed explanation of that. There is a link to the "lists consulted" section in the lead. I think that's enough. --Folantin 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does (or did), but the selection criteria are such a central element of this list that I think they really ought be set out in the lead. Anyway, I have said my piece. Let us see what others think. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
We tried doing that once. It looked awful and unbalanced the page. I think a link is enough and any reader can handle it. It's better to put the thorough explanation at the bottom of the page. --Folantin 15:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wonder how the Opera corpus will be organized though... bibliomaniac15 02:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_list_candidates_Featured_log_2454.html"