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, with the most recent at the top. 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/April 2007.

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 1 removed
December 6 promoted 4 failed
2006
January 12 promoted 11 failed 1 removed
February 3 promoted 8 failed
March 13 promoted 11 failed
April 10 promoted 5 failed 1 removed
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 1 removed
November 11 promoted 8 failed
December 20 promoted 11 failed
2007
January 18 promoted 11 failed
February 11 promoted 11 failed
March 12 promoted 10 failed
April 5 promoted 2 failed

List of Smallville episodes

I believe the list has finally reached a point that it's well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Information that needs to be cited is. It provides links to seasonal pages for expanded information, and individual episode pages where necessary. The lead paragraph may need some work, but that's something that I'm hoping can be address (if need be) here. The page provides a short overview of the entire show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment There is a slight problem with the formatting. The tables have exact pixel widths set. If you set the width you should use a percentage, such as 98%. The table spill off the sides of the screen on my monitor. Jay32183 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't realize that, I was just copying "The Simpson"'s design. Do you have a suggestion for a good percentage? (Just changed to 90%, but if better percentage is suggested I'm all ears...er...eyes)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
98% is usually good, because it looks like it fills the page, but doesn't push the limits. I hadn't noticed The Simpsons because the 700px does display properly on my screen. I think anywhere between 90 and 100 should work, it's not that big of an issue. Jay32183 04:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I put it at 95%, for an in between.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 10:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This now looks like the perfect list for one that does not include summaries, which are optional. I give my support. Jay32183 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm finding the header cell colors to lack contrast everywhere. Most of the time, these headers should have white text instead of black. tables 2-4 also jave colors a bit too harsh in the body, could they be toned down some? Circeus 19:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The borders are colored to the DVD boxes, I can look through the list of colors to try and find lighter body colors though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm made the changes. I lightened up the body color and made the titles white.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice. Other stuff I just noticed on closer look: too many links to same people pages (only the first instance should be enough), and a couple links to disambig pages (Brad Turner, david Carson, John Schneider, for examples) Circeus 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, we did that with the old format because the page was so long. I've removed the multi-links, corrected all the links so they go to the right person. If they don't have a page then I just removed the link altogether. The edit summary has the red link for the correct person.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Conditional support if Image:SmallvilleNewOpeningCredits.jpg can be given a rationale for this article.Circeus 17:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. I've added a fair use for the "list of eps" page, as well as a brief summary and provided the source of the capture.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Clear and concise, despite no summaries; the subpages for each season, however, remedy this. Qjuad 02:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Qjuad; I also added a Seasons section, like at The Simpsons and The Sopranos. Cliff smith 01:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that as far as LOEs go, they should be like this one or The Simpsons if the show ran for over 5 seasons or so. Cliff smith 21:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - please remove colors from the tables... There is no need for them, especially so bright... Renata 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems more like a personal preference of visualization, and other Featured Lists have colors. See the List of Simpsons episodes. That has what, 19, 20 seasons. We're talking about 6 seasons of Smallville.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Because Season 6 won't be finished until May, so episodes dates could change is something came up. Also, they haven't release the writers and directors every every episode on Season 6 yet. Lastly, Season 7 is all be confirmed to happen, so we'll have that season to tack on afterward.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Having future episodes symbolizes the incompleteness of the show rather than the list itself, take a look at other current shows' episode lists as an example. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 15:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The Simpsons has the same tag above their current season. I'm not suggesting that it needs to be up for the "potential season 7", just to let people know that season 6 hasn't finished airing yet, and is subject to change without notice because of that.........wait (looking at the page now), you weren't talking about the tag at the top of season 6, but the tag at the bottom of the page that said the "This film, television, or video-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it." Right? If that's the case then I removed it. I hadn't noticed that tag at the bottom. I thought you were referring to the box above season 6 that was saying it is still in progress.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

List of WWE Champions

The List is fully sourced and well formatted. Any changes can be made during the process. It's main problem (in my mind) is its short lead, but FLs rarely have extended leads and if anyone has any suggestions on how to expand it, I'd be more than willing to listen. -- Scorpion 16:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Support: I think it's a rather comprehensive list, and well cited. I'm only curious if something can be done to the table. The large cells where more information is written about one wrestler can be a bit distracting, but other than that (which is just personal opinion), I think it's pretty good.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Someone can look at the page, check a statistic quickly and check the reference to confirm its accuracy. Informative and viewer-friendly. Suriel1981 02:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've improved the list somewhat. There are a couple cities that are still wikilinked twice, now easily spotable since you can sort by location, which still need to be fixed. I'd also like some sort of WWE titles template at the bottom to easily access other title belt lists, if someone wants to make one. I'd also like to see the lead expanded somewhat. I'm leaning towards support pending these changes. VegaDark 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it need a seperate ref for all 81 title changes? Some are needed specifially, but why not just link most of them to 1 ref (the main WWE Title history at wwe.com [1]. TJ Spyke 09:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I thought this myself. On reflection though, being as WWE.com has individual mini-articles fleshing out the seperate title changes/reigns the seperate refs do make for extensive research material that is necessary for this to achieve FA. Suriel1981 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support the table should be fully sortable. All the "vacant" and "held up" entry needs to be adjusted for that.Circeus 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Why does it need to be sortable? -- Scorpion 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I made it sortable, but it was reverted for some reason. VegaDark 03:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Because whenever you sorted one of the double columns, the table got all screwy. -- Scorpion 03:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Which is why I said some work (not too much) was necessary for it to work properly.Circeus 14:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm curious, where in the FL criteria does it say that FLs need to be sortable? -- Scorpion 15:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Extremely well-referenced, comprehensive, covers all the title reigns. My only wish would be perhaps one or two more pictures (if any such photos are available); if not, not a huge deal. Anthony Hit me up... 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per previous comments. Very useful for anyone curious about a particular reign, as well as the full history of the title. I also don't think it's necessary for this to be sortable, as it's designed to be a historical reference, and sorting by name, location, etc. doesn't seem very practical. MarcK 21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Caribbean drums

Self-nom, I think this is pretty close to comprehensive, and includes drums from all across the Caribbean. There's a lot of confusing terminology - four different drums called boula, for example, and I think this does a good job of clearing that up. Tuf-Kat 21:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Really nice work which I'm sure is a useful list. Referencing is good and its obviously been extensively researched, but sadly fails WP:WIAFL 1.1 - "The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria.". ie. A majority of the drums need articles. Currently there's 20 out of 180. —Moondyne 02:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It does link to a group of existing articles, related by well-defined entry criteria. The requirements do not say that each item on the list has to have an independent article. Tuf-Kat 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Changing to Support also. I hadn't noticed the criteria had changed - there was previously a requirement that it "... must be composed of a large majority of links to existing articles (blue links)". That is no longer the case and this is a very good list which deserves to be featured. —Moondyne 13:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Excellent work, but I'm going to have to oppose, for the same reason as above. The recent changes to the criteria mean that it's OK to have a list where the individual list members are not significant enough to need their own articles, but I suspect you'd struggle to argue that. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The individual list members are not significant enough to need their own articles. There's very little to say about each individual drum, with a few exceptions that already have their own articles. Tuf-Kat 11:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm not completely convinced - it seems to me that boula at least ought to have an article explaining the four different types of drums and the relationships (if any, beyond name) between them. But I'll take your word for it (as the subject expert) that most of the others are minor variants that don't need their own article. Switching to support. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I've made an article for boula (music). I'll also point out that a lot of these drums, if they were linked, would redirect to an established article - there's several variants on the conga drum, for example, and articles on drum families like gwo ka have redirects from each kind of drum - plus in a number of genres, the drum used has the same name as the genre itself. So, I think not linking the name of the drum in these circumstances is more useful than linking to a potentially confusing redirect, especially when the target of that redirect is more clearly linked-to in the list description. A goodly number of them, like the Jamaican harp, are generic terms that could probably never be much more than a dicdef. While it's probably theoretically possible for there to be enough verifiable and reliable information out there for an article on the snare drum used in Jamaican marching bands, for example, it's far more obscure a topic than is really necessary here (note that it's theoretically possible for people to document enough characteristics of the drum, but I have doubts that someone actually has in the case of certain drums on this list). Tuf-Kat 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support. The list certainly has a lot of potential, although I would like a few issues sorted before my support.
  • Reference tags should be put right after the punctuation without a space among other references per WP:FN.
  • List descriptions need periods.
    • They don't need periods because they're not complete sentences. Tuf-Kat
  • The lead isn't written under the expected professional standards:

This is a list of drums used in the Caribbean music area, taken here to include the islands of the Caribbean Sea, as well as the musics of Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Bahamas serial comma and Bermuda. It only includes drums that are indigenous to the local music area or are a vital and long-standing part of local culture; misused semicolon it does not include drums that are, for example, a part of Western style orchestras, unless said orchestras were to constitute a vital and long-standing part of the local culture, nor does it include trap sets and other common drums, unnecessary comma used in popular music recordings of many genres across the world, unless said common drums were to constitute an especially vital and long-standing part of the local culture. > This sentence is overwhelmingly long and thus might be somewhat confusing, please split it. Drums can be classified and described using a number of criteria, most importantly including the manner in which a sound is produced and the shape of the instrument. The presence of a cloth, fabric or skin head, the number of heads, and the constituent materials are also used to distinguish between different kinds of drums. Similar drums within a culture may be divided based on their manner of use, performance methods and rhythms, intended context, audience or performer, or details of the instruments' manufacture, such as its precise size or the technique used to lace the head onto the body of the drum.

  • "See kittle" - Italics?
  • There don't appear to be any notes inside the references section. If there are any, please split them using {{note}}.
    • There are none, and I've changed the header. Tuf-Kat
  • While not a strict requirement, it's preferable to include "see also" or "external links" section for further reading. Michaelas10Respect my authoritah 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to be rather minimal in such things, and I don't know of anything specifically useful to "Caribbean drums" that adds to what's here. Tuf-Kat 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support Good to see the recent requirement change being tested and examined – that's healthy. I wonder if left-alignment of cell-text would look neater than the centred format chosen. The "other names" column is possibly sparse enough for it to be folded into the Description as required. However, the biggest problem is that the source contains templates in Tuf-Kat's user-space. I'm not an expert on wiki-spaces, but surely they should be moved to article-space? Is this a left-over from sandboxing? BTW: I disagree on the "see also" or "external links" comment above. Both of which were mildly discouraged last time I looked. Colin°Talk 22:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops! That was indeed a holdover from experimenting in a user sandbox. I can't believe I didn't notice that in the months this list has been in the article space. Anyway, I've moved the templates to the template namespace.
    • I'd rather not fold the other names column into the description. Though probably feasible, there's a lot of instances here with a few names being used in multiple ways, so I think separating them out makes it less confusing.
    • After some experimenting, I decided to make the descriptions column left-aligned, but leave the others centered. Tuf-Kat 19:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

I reworked the GT alumni list in a manner similar to List of Dartmouth College alumni. Each entry has a name, a graduation/last attended date, why they are notable, and a reference (formatted with one of the citation templates). I was unable to find references for only two people on the list: Ronald Collé and James Henry Deese. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:21, 10 March 2007

Weak oppose Looks pretty good. The fact there's more blue than red links is a plus. A few issues, though:
  • When using Iso format for the date parameter, brackets are needed for the date to be converted. Done
  • The template call in ref #112 throws up an error Done
  • Needs images. With that long a list, there are bound to be a couple PD ones. Done
  • Considering the density of references, I'd consider dropping the extra wikilinks in the references. It creates a sort of "link overload" when combined with the dates. It's only a suggestion though. I have nothing against such links, I'm just not sure they are ideal here.
  • Georgia tech has no reason to be ever linked in the {{cite pressrelease}} calls Done
  • The references with "Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Online, Georgia Tech Alumni Association" in the "work" field needs to place the "association" as the publisher (or, optionally, drop the association altogether and place the magazine as the publisher)
  • Some headers are classes ("nobel laureates"), but others are topics ("Business", "Military service"), chose one, and stick to it.
  • Circeus 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a couple questions/comments:
  • So, on your first suggestion, the "date" parameter in a reference should be (for example) "|date=[[2007]]-[[03-13]]" ?
  • Fixed the error, thanks for pointing that out.
  • How would one best go about integrating images into this list? Do you have any good examples? Perhaps a gallery near the beginning or end of a section? Yes, there are images available.
  • Which wikilinks are considered "extra"? Linking to a publication's article makes sense, at least to me.
  • Is there a specific reference you're referring to? I was fairly consistent with having "|work=Publication Name|publisher=Organization that produces it"; was there an instance where I had a "|work=Publication Name, Organization that produces it"? Or are you suggesting that I simply need either "work" or "publisher" but not both?
  • The Nobel Laureates are notable for something outside of their award, and are doubly categorized, because they're doubly notable. The Rhodes Scholars are only notable because of their scholarship. So, I'm not sure I agree with you on that one.
Thanks :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dates the proper format is [[2006-03-14]] Done
  • Images I don't think relatively tight (e.g. 100-150px width) would be an inappropriate fit. Loot at List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry, for example. The curent list doesn't have to fill the entire strip, though, obviously.
  • Extra wikilinks My thought was that said links being always optional, might be best dropped off here as they only seem to reduce the signal-to-noise ration in the references as they appear right now.
  • georgia alumni mag well... #20, 27, 28, 47, amongst others.
Circeus 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, instead of {{cite news|...|work=Georgia Tech Alumni Magazine Online|publisher=Georgia Tech Alumni Association...}} in #20, have {{cite news|...|publisher=Georgia Tech Alumni Association|...}} ? Sounds easy enough.
  • If a ref only has the year and the month, or the year and a season (e.g., Fall 2003 or 2002-10), how do you link it, if at all?
  • I was trying to put images into the list, but it doesn't work correctly; the image is placed over the table, instead of the table resizing around the image. How do you fix that? I tried placing specific values in {{Alum}}, but it didn't seem to make a difference. Done figured that problem out... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Dates: Of course you don't. It's simply that since the "date" parameter, unlike "accessdate,"does not automatically wikilink the ISO dates (2005-03-12) to transform them into the full format (March 3, 2005), so when using an ISO date there, it has to be formatted as [[2005-03-12]]. Does it make more sense now?
  • georgia alumni mag Actually, my beef was that for some reason, sometimes "Georgia Tech Alumni Association" was in italics, other times not. Now I can see the problem is that some times you use {{cite web}} and others, {{cite news}} (in cite_web, publisher is not italicized). Choose one and stick to it for all references to the same source and it'll all be fine ;-). Done
Circeus 19:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Used {{cite news}} on all of those. IMO, it shouldn't be italicized there, but I think of it more as a news publication than a webpage.
  • Also, I've got the pictures up; it took a while to get them working correctly, but it looks good. Unfortunately/oddly, none of the people listed in "Business" have pictures.
—Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The sports section can be expanded... That link will be useful, thank you. Should there be a limit to the notability of the sportspeople included on the list, or is it simply a "if they have an article, they're listed" deal? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If they have an article, they should be for sure be listed. If they played professionally in any sport, article or not, they should also be listed. If that is satisfied about 90-95% of the people that deserve to be on the list will be on there, a good place to check might be GT's athletics hall of fame page for any extras. VegaDark 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I worked on that some, is that what you had in mind? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Given the size of the athletics section, perhaps it should be split off into a new article? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that is looking much more comprehensive. However, now red links become an issue. As for splitting it off, I don't have a problem with it but others might think it is too large. The image fair use rationale needs to look like the one at Image:203 chickenlover.gif, it needs to specifically say which article it is being claimed fair use it. VegaDark 06:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the image description page looking better now? Also, I'm not quite sure yet if I want to split off the athletic alumni... although the page has reached a pretty impressive size. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, the fair use rationale looks good now. The only real issue left for me is the red links, which will take a long time before they are all done, but this would easily meet good article criteria if GA's still accepted lists. I'd renominate once most of the redlinks are gone, unless you want to attempt to make a ton of stubs before this is up. Also, one other thing- Just because someone is in the GT HoF doesn't mean they need to be listed-I was just saying that that is a good place to look for any notable people who might not otherwise have been in the "played professionally" level. I doubt everyone in the GT HoF warrants inclusion, I know Oregon State has many people in the OSU sports HoF that I haven't included in the OSU list, because I don't feel they are notable enough. VegaDark 22:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I took out the people w/o articles that were only (AFAIK) notable for being in the GT HOF. How's that? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That looks very good. I took off my oppose since I don't like to oppose simply based on red links, but I can't support either based on so many red links. VegaDark 04:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, Support, this is good enough regardless of all the redlinks. The redlinks will become blue over time. VegaDark 00:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support looks all right to me now. I especially like the new lead image.Circeus 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm pretty proud of that image; LaMenta3 happened upon a GT site with a ton of old images, so I've been uploading several of them. It's much more descriptive than the institutes's seal. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm a little worried about redlinks. My rough count puts it at about 280 red to 150 blue, which would normally be just the wrong side of my personal standard (at least two-thirds). But I'll let it go, on the basis that I like the rest of the list and don't care massively about football players. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been going through and writing a few articles on redlinked alumni since you voted, but let me tell you, there are a ton of football players. :p —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Image:Randolph Scott500.jpg, Image:Jim Allchin.jpg, Image:Arad1.jpg, Image:FrankBroyles.jpg don't seem to have any fair use reason to be on this page... gren グレン 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out. I have to get ready to go to class, but I'll try to get those done today or remove them from the page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • In the meantime, I went ahead and commented them out. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support List on the balance looks good, but some minor fixes:
    • Bill Bolton lacks reference and year. If we don't know when he graduated, or even confirm if he did, why is he on the list?
    • Several other entries lack a year? Some of these people look prominent enough to have a public CV or something?
    • The lack of year thing isn't huge, but its absence is somewhat glaring. Other than that, if Bolton can be referenced I would give my full support to this article. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Done Added a reference and a year for Bill Bolton. I admit that I wasn't able to find years for several people. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Changed to full support. Objections have been addressed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

List of delegates to the Millennium Summit

I have been able to compile this list using reliable sources. It is a list that complements Millennium Summit.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

hello???--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment HOw come 15 of the people don't have articles? Shouldn't they be notable? Besides that, the list is nice and sortable, refrences are formated bbut it would be nice not to have the titles in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS. Once that is fixed (if possible) and a reason is given for the redlinks in the table, I will support. The Placebo Effect 22:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I know this is being picky, but since all the people present and in the list were delagates of their county, shouldn't they all be notable? Is their any reason for the red links in the table? The Placebo Effect 20:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job on the table, this is a model list and am happy to support it now/ The Placebo Effect 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think the lead should be expanded a little bit. At the very least it should be a bit clearer on where the summit took place, its goals, and its significance (even though the article isn't about the summit, readers should have an idea of the context and significance of the list). I also think that as it stands the lead is a bit ... "clunky" or something. Choppy sentences, I guess. I'm not sure what I mean, exactly, though, and I wouldn't oppose for that. Anyway, I also agree that the external links shouldnt' be in all capitals. --Miskwito 00:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I fixed all of the external links and titles, etc. I'll see what information I can get on the lead.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 01:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Looks good. Support --Miskwito 22:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional support One minor issue: The notes on DPRK delegate not attending: The delegates claimed diplomatic immunity. To say that they had it assumes the issue was resolved. It looks, however, that the issue was left open and never was resolved. That change makes the article seem more NPOV. Also, the image tag for the group portrait looks incomplete. Minor fix needed there as well. Other than that, looks good! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • reply to comments on my talk page. First fix looks good. The second fix is not what I was looking for. You need to click on the image and load it's image page. Then, you need to fix the image copyright tag, and fair-use rationale. Contact Ed for more help with this, since it looks like he/she uploaded it. Also see WP:UPIMG and WP:IUP for more information. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of Canada

Self-nom; it seems to fit all of the FLC criteria, and the animated map of all of the changes is doing well on FPC so I figured I'd put its 'parent article' on FLC. :) It lacks individual citations because the one reference link at the end contains all of the information; thanks to the Atlas of Canada, all of this info was available from one place. --Golbez 10:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose (for now): Main problem is the lead, which is too short, and not very useful. The opening sentence "This is a list of the evolution of the borders of Canada" to me implies the list is about Canada's external borders only. Further, this is a timeline, rather than just a list, and the lead should reflect that. I also suggest including some basic information about Canada's provinces and territories and mentioning the difference between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Canada. Also, given that the key on the images cannot be seen in the timeline, you should include a key somewhere near the top (see List of Alberta general elections for an example).
    Having said all that, the content of the timeline is sound and well-referenced (although rather concise), so I see no reason why this won't become a FL after the lead has been dealt with. Tompw (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I added a key (simply a crop of one of the maps, until I or someone can make a table for the colors) and made the lead a little better. --Golbez 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I still feel that the lead is insufficient - two sentences just doesn't cut it. An article like this should be able to get a least a paragraph. Mention things like the pre-Dominion history (Quebec was originally French, but got annexed by GB; everythign else came from various (ex-)British colonies/dominions), something about the province of Canada and why it got replaced, the difference between provicnes and territroies, the fact that Canada obtained its present borders in 1949... you get the idea.
        • I've added a little more to the intro, and along the way found an error in the text. Also expanded the second entry in the list. Let me know what you think. --Golbez 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
          • That's much better :-) The expanded second entry is also good.Any chnace any of the otehrs could follow suit? Tompw (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I'll see what I can do. Thanks for your support :) I mean, it's not like we've ever had articles like this before, so I'm learning as I go along! Just compare the first hurricane articles with what we have now! ;) --Golbez 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be instructive to see the comments on the FLC nomination of the similar Territorial evolution of the United States. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I really like the maps, but it should be noted that the Manitoba article says Rupert's Land was transfered to Canada in 1869, one year before the creation of the province of Manitoba. -- Mwalcoff 14:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • According to Rupert's Land Act of 1868 - "The transfer occurred in 1869 and was consummated in 1870 by the payment of a consideration of £300,000.00 to the Hudson's Bay Company, as mandated by the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order of 1870." In other words, I guess the transfer was 'consummated' simultaneous with the creation of Manitoba, and that was the date used by the Atlas of Canada, which is where I obtained most of my information. I don't think it's worth a change to the list, but it's certainly worth a note. Thanks! --Golbez 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • By "not worth a change to the list" I meant not worth an extra entry. :) --Golbez 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to meet all aspects of WP:WIAFL. I was at first leary of the lack of inline citations, but since the information is a) cited to a single source and b) likely to be uncontroversial. Other than that, this looks like a feature quality list. Good job! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with the previous comments. A similar approach could well be applied to other countries, in which case a uniform bench-mark standard should be applied. --JohnArmagh 12:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good to me.--Wizardman 05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_list_candidates_Featured_log_2454.html"