Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.
Here we determine which lists are to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list prior to nomination.

Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be on Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time.

For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators, as determined by the FL directors, Scorpion0422 and The Rambling Man. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FLC

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Check the FL criteria and make sure the list meets all of them before nominating.
  2. Place {{FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. If resubmitting a list, do not delete the old {{FLCfailed}} template.
  3. From there, click on the "leave comments" link to create a new sub-page for the nomination.
  4. If you are resubmitting a list, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination sub-page to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations → Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of television stations/archive1. Find where the previous discussion is listed in the featured log and update the link there, as well as on the {{FLCfailed}} template of the list's talk page.
  5. Place ===[[name of nominated list]]=== at the top of the new sub-page, write your reason for nominating the list below the heading, and save the sub-page. Please make sure you sign your post.
  6. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. FL candidates will remain on this page for at least 10 days. Candidates that are not promoted after 10 days will be moved from the list to the failed log unless objections are being actively addressed. In this case, the directors may grant additional time to determine whether a candidate can be promoted. Candidates that have attracted significant opposition, where the nominator has made few attempts to address these concerns, may be closed early. Please remember that the review process is not a vote, and that FLCs with majority support can still fail if they do not fully meet the criteria.

GimmeBot automatically performs the remaining tasks, including the updating of list pages and the closure of discussions.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated more than 10 days ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Contents

[edit] Nominations

[edit] List of Xena: Warrior Princess episodes

I think that the article is able to be elected an featured article. Have references reliables, good quality and style. (SeriesYFilmes (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

[edit] List of music recording sales certifications

Sort-of a co-nomination between myself User:Reaper X, and all the hard-working people who worked on a similar list at Music recording sales certification. I've been working on this bad boy for some time now, and I think it's finally ready. If there's one thing I've learned about the global music market from working on this list, is that it's a messy disorganized place. So, hopefully this list can help make sense of it all. Any suggestions and comments are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I suggest you categorise it (and remove the tag) - also check the image caption - looks like a fragment so axe the period. Also, consider a more imaginative opening sentence for the lead rather than just repeating the title of the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Good calls all around. Addressed all of your suggestions, hopefully. Drewcifer (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "See also" goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT

Gary King (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas City Chiefs seasons

Self-nom - This was greatly expanded thankfully to User:DCEdwards1966. I hope everything's ok with it to make it a featured list. conman33 (. . .talk) 03:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please add new FLCs to the top of the list and not the bottom next time.
  • Remove links from "seasons completed by the Kansas City Chiefs American football franchise" per WP:LEAD; put the link somewhere else
  • Add a {{clear}} after the image so the table isn't skinny just because of that
  • Use en dashes per WP:DASH for scores like "31-7"

Gary King (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Calder Cup champions

This list is based on the Vanier Cup article. The list includes both champions and playoff MVPs because I felt both were were lacking as seperate articles, but combined they are more useful. I could also add a column for coaches of the winning team if anyone thinks it would help. -- Scorpion0422 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Cool, man. Drewcifer (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie
  • "This is a List of Calder Cup champions..." - "Repeats the article title (and the "L" in "List" shouldn't be capitalized)
  • I removed the capital, otherwise for the repetition, the usual convention on Wikipedia is to put the name of article in bold in the first sentence. Maxim(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's in general references. Adding a reference for every year is unnecessary clutter. There are reliable references for those fact in the general refs section. Maxim(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why wasn't Jack A. Butterfield Trophy awarded until 1983-84? Add a reference and/or citation.
  • I think that'd be obvious, no? It wasn't created yet... Maxim(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Add some spacing or something for "(#) Number of Calder Cups won at the time", like "(#) – Number of Calder Cups won at the time"
  • "List of Winners" → "List of winners"?

Gary King (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 23:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of IIHF World Championship medalists

The previous FLC was withdrawn because of an editwar on the article; it was fully-protected a bit later, so it then utterly failed criterion 7. I've submitted once again for consideration. Maxim(talk) 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Co-Nom I'd also like to add for all reviewers that the edit war that led to the protection of the article appears to be over. The article has been stable for several weeks now and passes criterion 7. -- Scorpion0422 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Why have a blue background and a *?
    • Because you aren't supposed to use just colour coding.
  • Perhaps "Host city (cities)" → "Host city/cities" or "Host city or cities", otherwise when you read it aloud it reads just like "Host city cities" and that makes very little sense
  • I don't see why the TOC needs to be aligned to the right
    • Ask Maxim.
      • Because if it's not, it looks out of place, causing a lot of white space between the lede and the start of the next section. Maxim(talk) 00:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 23:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of New York Islanders head coaches

Self-nom - Well referenced, seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Is hockey-reference.com a reliable source? -- Scorpion0422 23:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: According to the list, Nolan coached 82 games in 2006–07, while Arbour coached one game in 2007. Can you please clarify the season. Secondly, Nolan in the 2007 playoffs, in four games, he has an astounding one win and four losses ;-). Is it supposed to be five games? Thanks, Maxim(talk) 16:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nolan coached 82 in 06–07, and 81 in 07–08. Arbour was an interim coach during one game of the 07–08 season. Also, Nolan coached five games during the 2007 playoffs. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Golden State Warriors head coaches

I have recently wrote and published this list and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Years in "Term" column don't need to be linked, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • Year ranges should have unspaced en dashes per WP:DASH

Gary King (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hello32020 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl Jam discography

I am nominating the discography because I believe it meets the criteria to be a Featured List. A lot of work has gone in to the article and I believe it to be complete and well-referenced. If there are any issues I will make sure to address them.-5- (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "9.5 million + (US)[21]" – What's the + for? "More than 9.5 million?" Just put 9.5 million since that would be the maximum that has been verified; this goes for all of them.

Gary King (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I copy-edited the lead and cleaned up anything I could find a while back. This is great work by -5-, just like his effort with all Pearl Jam-related articles. I just have two questions for the reviewers as I'm unclear what MOS:DISCOG has to say about them:

  • Should Tribute albums be included in a band's discography (since its technically not by the band)?
  • Is it alright to list the total number of live albums including the official bootlegs in the template or should just the major Live albums be counted there (ie, 6)? indopug (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looks really really good! I only have a couple minor suggestions:

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • The dash in "rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003" should be an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-).
  • Why is are tracks that were never released as a single in the singles table?
  • This also relates to the singles tallies in the lead and infobox. If they aren't actually singles, they probably shouldn't be mentioned in the tallies of singles, right? Maybe you could just move those to a different table? I've never come across a situation like this, so I don't know if I have the perfect solution, but as it is it's kind of confusing.
  • At one time it looked like this. Perhaps we could try it this way again?-5- (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In citation #14, All Music Guide is now Allmusic. And it should be wikilinked at least in the first citation.
  • Same with #35.
  • I'm not sure what "Accreditations. aria.com.au." is doing in citation#25.
  • Citation #30 needs to be formatted properly. Drewcifer (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    1. 30's publisher value doesn't match #9, #31, and #32. ("Billboard.com") And some are wikilinked some aren't.
  • "with Irons being replaced by former Matt Cameron" what does former mean here?
  • There's not need for the two hearers in the single chart column in the Videos table. Drewcifer (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second-round draft picks

This is a list of the draft history of the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers. I believe it qualifies under the criteria for featured lists. I also believe it's ready for this process. I am sure there are going to be arguements, I'll try my best to answer them. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Lead seems pretty short, with also several stub paragraphs. Perhaps merge and expand?
  • Format references using {{cite web}} and include title, url, publisher, and accessdate.
  • Unlink years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS.
  • Use en dashes for date ranges per WP:DASH. DONE!
  • "Draft selections" → "draft selections" DONE!
  • "season.[1]Teams" – missing a space DONE!
    • Thank you for addressing these criterias. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, the years redirects to the year of the NBA Draft and I think it shouldn't be unlinked. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This page should be renamed to List of Los Angeles Lakers first and second-round draft picks because it does not mention every draft pick.--Crzycheetah 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC) DONE!
    • I would be happy to do that. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree. This re-naming should be reverted, and the page should be expanded so that it mentions every Lakers' draft pick . — CharlotteWebb 18:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Please include publisher information, date published, titles and accessdates in references. What makes SportsStats and Lakers Universe reliable sources? Could you provide an explanation of the circumstances for draft pick trades? "Traded to Toronto" and "From Dallas" does not offer the reader much to go on. I suggest you say "The Lakers traded XX to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for the xx pick in the xxxx draft." In the "Notes" section of the table, could you also include any awards or honors the draftees had/have received during their career? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'll try doing the draft trades area but I don't know if I can do the others. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe this nomination is a little premature.
    • Lead needs to be expanded to include more info on first steps of the Lakers in the draft process, how drafts worked during the first years(there were more rounds before 1988), and how successful the drafted players were.
    • This page states that the Lakers first participated in 1957, but I see at 1950 NBA Draft that the Lakers had a first round pick. It means this list isn't as comprehensive as appears to be.
    • Also, you listed Jamaal Tinsley and then added a note saying that he was traded to the Grizzlies. In reality, though, Grizzlies drafted Tinsley and traded to the Pacers. The ref you cited does not talk about this at all.
  • As Nishkid has already mentioned,
    • References need more info than just url and title.
    • LakersUniverse is not a reliable source. Have to find better sources.
    • Trade notes should be more detailed, see Memphis Grizzlies draft history for an example.

--Crzycheetah 22:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Jim King is missing here, he was drafted in the second round of the 1963 NBA Draft. I suggest withdrawing this nomination seeing that no second round picks from 1957-1977 are listed here.--Crzycheetah 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I found a better reference page but the only thing is that I don't have time to edit since I don't have my own computer. I also have homework and exams to study. $$Annoyomous24$$ (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Black Lagoon episodes

This is a list of episodes of the Black Lagoon anime. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, as well as satisfying project-specific criteria such as WP:FICT. It is of similar or better status than similar anime episode lists such as List of Blue Drop: Tenshitachi no Gikyoku episodes and List of True Tears episodes. The episode summaries are not excessive in length, and other relevant information is covered. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

Gary King (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Denver

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I found two prombles in the lead, but I went ahead and fixed them. Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of former Scottish Football League clubs

This is a complete list of all former members of the Scottish Football League. Let me know what you think............ ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The Scottish Football League was established in 1890, initially as an amateur league until professionalism in Scottish football was legalised in 1893,[1] the same year in which a Second Division was formed, with the existing single division renamed the First Division." — long and unwieldy. Work with it and build shorter sentences.

Gary King (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Re-written that one, any other major offenders.....? ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Clydebank/Airdrie issue could be handled better. Airdrieonians' entry needs to contain some reference to them immediately returning as Airdrie United, and the modern incarnation of Clydebank need to be included: while Airdrie may have taken over their registration, and are officially a continuation, as far as any supporter is concerned, Clydebank FC are no longer an SFL club. The same applies to Meadowbank Thistle and Livingston. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Also I think the SPL clubs should be separated off into their own section - their situation is completely different to the other former clubs, as they are part of the same League system as the SFL, so their non-membership is fluid. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've broken out the SPL clubs and re-done the Airdrie/Clydebank thing as per your comments. Meadowbank I'm personally not so sure about, as I don't feel that Meadowbank/Livingston are generally regarded as two separate clubs in quite the same way as Clydebank/Airdrie United or Wimbledon/MK Dons. In each of those cases the two clubs' WP articles are separate, whereas Meadowbank and Livingston have one combined article. I'll see what the footy project in general thinks..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My view is that if you change location and name then it's effectively a different club - the Livingston situation is almost identical to MK Dons in that respect. To me, the fact that Meadowbank Thistle don't have their own article is an oversight. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Red Sox captains

Self-nom: I greatly expanded and worked on this list, and believe it meets the criteria. RedThunder 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done RedThunder 09:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a-ha discography

I have worked on this discography for quite a while now. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for now. (PS I removed the Supprt/Uppose/Comments subheaders since they're not typically used in most FLC's for various reasons, hope you don't mind). The list is definately a good start, but I do see a number of problems that need to be addressed before I can support it's nomination. This is not an exhaustive list, but it should be a good start.

Please don't edit/move other people's comments, it's considered rude.
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer



  • Since there's so many certifications, and so many citations to go along with them, the citations should be next to each certification rather then in the column header.
  • "Chart positions" isn't specific enough, it needs to be something like "Peak chart positions".(DONE)
  • Similar columns between tables should ideally kept a consistent width (ie the "Title" and "Certification" columns).
  • "a-ha Live at Vallhall - Homecoming Grimstad Benefit Concert" The dash between Vallhall and Homecoming should be an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-). Same with the dashes in "Headlines and Deadlines - The Hits of a-ha" and "a-ha Tour Brasil - Agosto 2002" and " The Singles: 1984-2004" and "The Definitive Singles Collection 1984-2004". They should all use "–".(DONE)
  • The capitalization of "How Can I Sleep With Your Voice In My Head" is a little funky. Check out the article, it's has the correct capitalization.(DONE)
  • The overall organization of the list is a little weird. Why is there a big "Discography" section, which doesn't include things like singles and videos? Isn't the whole list a discography? I'd recommend getting rid of the big section, and making Albums, compilations, etc their own full-blown sections.(DONE)
  • "EPs" should be Extended plays in the section header.(DONE)
  • Usually catalog numbers aren't given their own line. Instead, try putting them after the label. Also, they need a "#" and (if applicable) a acronym of some sort describing the label. For instance, most Drag City releases aren't just #54, they're DCR #54. Also, to differentiate it from the label, try putting it in small font.(DONE)
  • Why are there two Take on Me singles? Also, the first one has alot of obvious formatting issues.(DONE)
  • A year column would be good for the Music videos. (DONE)
  • And I second Tenacious D Fan's comment that the chart columns need to be reorded a bit. Take a look at at MOS:DISCOG for more of an explanation.(DONE) Drewcifer (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved stuff from Gary King

Oppose Here are my reasons:

  • Sales figures do not come from a reliable source. Your EP sales don't even have a source. These figures are not essential anyway. How is aha-fr.com reliable?
  • Your charts aren't ordered properly. The charts should be in the order of home chart (if applicable) then the rest of the charts in alphabetical order. (DONE)
  • Did any of the EPs chart? If not, please clarify.(DONE)
  • Where are the catalog numbers?(DONE)
  • Catalog numbers are the record companies 'bar code'. Here are cat numbers from a-ha's first album [1] Look at Nirvana discography for Bleach "Label: Sub Pop (SP-34)"
  • The information is not cited (this is US band so the self-referential argument isn't valid). Some directors are missing.(DONE) Tenacious D Fan (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any unique a-ha songs that do not feature on a-ha albums/singles?(NO)
  • Why does "The Swing Of Things / The Demo Tapes" not have a year?(DONE)
  • Is this an album, or a book? (DONE)
  • You have removed it completely. That's not what I had in mind. You have it underneath the album title, when perhaps it should be under its own heading for books.(DONE)
  • "(approximately sixteen times the entire Norwegian population)" is not necessary.(DONE)
  • "After a well-received performance at the Nobel Peace Prize Concert" cite needed.(DONE)
  • The cite does not substantiate "well-received".
  • The second para needs more. You should expand on individual album performances.
  • "83 million albums and singles sold" not cited.(DONE)
  • What is this article about? Your intro does not make it clear.(DONE)
  • "cassette (CS)" is not necessary. Either "cassette" or "CS" should be used. Not together.(DONE)
  • "Train Of Though" - Is this correct? (YES)
  • The Video albums link on the infobox does not work.
How do you fix that --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Brasil Sales: 642,000" Remove all sales figures unless they are reliably sourced. (DONE)
  • ""The Sun Always Shines On T.V. a-ha Live"" Is that the song name?(DONE)

There are a lot of issues that need dealt with. The para isn't good enough. I think you have done the charts well however. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment It strikes me the lead of this list is almost identical to the lead of the band's article. This is a featured list candidate we're talking about, copy-pasting is far from recommended. Also, why are we told three times the band has sold over 80 million copies? You should also add more references to reliable sources to the lead.(DONE) Baldrick90 (talk) 19:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comment The claim 89 million sold seems a little suspicious, and more reliable source will be needed to verify that figure. I find it hard to believe that they sold more records than Nirvana. indopug (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First Nirvana sucks and second it sais it on their official homepage. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Their official homepage is not a reliable source, it is a self-published source that can only be used for completely uncontroversial claims. I'll be changing to oppose in light of the rather suspicious claim this article makes. indopug (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This ain't a self-published source [3]. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a forum. Anybody could have posted that. Read WP:RS. indopug (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Oakland Raiders head coaches

Has had a PR and I've got feedback from a few users. Think I've done enough. Buc (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments from Gonzo fan2007
    • "The Raiders have played over 750 games in a total of 48 seasons, in the AFL and NFL." Needs an "As of..." statement, such as "As of the 2007 NFL season, the Raiders..."
    • "The Raiders have played over 750 games in a total of 48 seasons, in the AFL and NFL." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "...and Rauch the best statistically, with a winning percentage of .805." rewrite to something like "...while Rauch is statistically the best, with a winning percentage of .805."
    • "One coach has won the AFL Championship, John Rauch in 1966." Needs a citation.
    • "Of the 15 Raiders coaches, one has been elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Madden, who was inducted in 2005." To flow better with the previous sentence, rewrite to something like "Madden is also the only Raiders coach to be in into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, having been inducted in 2005."
    • "Two have been former players for the Raiders, Flores and Shell.[2] Shell was also inducted into the Hall of Fame as a player in 1989." Rewrite to something like "Only two coaches, Flores and Shell, have been former players for the Raiders. Shell was also inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1989, but as a player, not a coach."
    • "Shell was also inducted into the Hall of Fame as a player in 1989." Needs a citation, here would be good.
  • Looks good so far, just some prose issues and there needs to be some more direct citations. It seems all the information could be found with your sources, but any statement of fact should have an in-line citation so the fact can be easily verified. Good work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "been 15 head" — I suggest removing "15" from the bold.
  • Unlink years, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • "The Raiders have played over 750 games in a total of 48 seasons, in the AFL and NFL." — remove comma
  • "Tom Flores in 1980 and in 1983." → "Tom Flores in 1980 and 1983."
  • "One coach has won the AFL Championship, John Rauch in 1966." → "One coach, John Rauch, won the AFL Championship in 1966."
  • "Three other coaches, Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan," → "Three other coaches have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs: Art Shell, Jon Gruden, and Bill Callahan"

Gary King (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year

I have worked on this list for quite a while now, and I feel that I have fulfilled the criteria for Featured Lists. Each word is provided with a definition so that readers wouldn't have to look up each word from a separate source or on another Wikipedia article. I applied for a Peer Review before, and I think that I have successfully addressed the concerns expressed during the review.--Dem393 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments from Gonzo fan2007
    • Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Chronological ordering, the list needs to start with the earliest time (2003) and end with the most recent (2007).
    • All this list is, is a list of words with a dictionary definition, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I understand that this list is about the "words" that were selected, but the list seems to focus a lot on just the definitions.
    • The section "Selection process" should be the first section in the list.
    • Text messaging should be properly linked. It is not text-messaging.
    • I think {{reflist-2}} would suit this list better than {{reflist}}.
    • The lead does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" (WP:LEAD). There is plenty of information that can be added about this contest thing. Please greatly expand the lead.
    • "As of 2007, w00t stands as the only online gaming and leetspeak term that won the title of Word of the Year." Needs a citation.
    • "Merriam-Webster claims that its presence in the Open Dictionary and the honors it's been awarded gives w00t a better chance at becoming an official word." Definitely needs a citation.
    • "The word refugee received more queries in one month than most words in an entire year.<ref="Miller05" />" That reference tag needs to be fixed.
    • "the term blog was the one with the most requests for a definition or explanation." "was the one" is poorly written. Rewrite please.
  • So I oppose at this time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Gonzo fan2007. I just have a few questions right now: When you say that the list focuses too much on definitions, are you suggesting a complete removal of the definitions, or just a simplification of the definitions? Second, the fact that w00t stands as the only online gaming and leetspeak term that won the title of Word of the Year is very obvious. I realize that no source explcitly states this fact, but non of the other top words are leetspeak. With this in mind, does the statement still need to be sourced?--Dem393 (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think when the lead is expanded it will be a little better by taking so much focus off of the definitions. Simplifying the definitions could be a good idea, so long as the definition is still easily discerned. Regarding your second question, yes you need a citation that backs up your statement. Anything else is original research. Asking someone to verify information by deducing facts by themselves is OR. The sentence either needs a citation, needs to be reworded, or removed altogether. You are also assuming everyone knows what leetspeak is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I expanded the lead already, and I shortened a few of the lengthy definitions. What do you think?--Dem393 (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks much better, I have crossed out my oppose for now, and will come back in a day or so, after Drew has responded, and give the list another thorough review. Good work so far! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments I like what I see. Very good idea for a list! I do have a feww reservations, however:

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Definitely look better! I only have a few more minor suggestions/comments:

  • Getting back to the definition-style thing: I think it's alright to omit certain parts of it (like conjugations, pronunciation, etc), but what is there should still ideally conform at least stylistically to common format. So, I think it would be good to italicize the (noun)/(verb) stuff. In part to make it closer to the usual style, but to also differentiate it from the text of the definition, and also to emphasize what form of the word is being considered the word of the year.
  • Along those same lines,
  • I agree with whoever said it that all the links should probably go to wikitionary, not Wikipedia articles.
  • What does Terri Shiavo have to do with refugee, tsunami, pandemic, conclave, or levee? Drewcifer (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I just have a questions about the first point above: should I also italicize the stuff that says "in biology" or "in math?" I already deleted the Schiavo reference because that clearly didn't make sense (although it somehow made sense in the source). Since 2 reviewers now agree that the words should link to Wiktionary articles, I will get to that shortly.--Dem393 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I suppose I'd italicize the whole thing, but I'm no 100% on that. Drewcifer (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Coincidentally, truthiness became the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year for 2005.[59]" Is this really a coincidence? Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There really is no way to prove it was a coincidence, is there? I took it out now, and I also finished taking care of your other concerns except for changing links to Wiktionary. I don't know if I can get that done in a timely manner because I'm a little busy now in real life.--Dem393 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary links are done now.--Dem393 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I disagree with your peer reviewer that this should include word definitions. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. The definitions here seem to be sourced randomly, are incomplete and must either fall into the original research trap or be directly taken (i.e., stolen) from their dictionary sources. Our best lists should link to Wikipedia articles. This one really must link to Wiktionary entries. An article with the same name as a word isn't a appropriate link. For example, Quagmire is a dab page that doesn't link to any articles that deal with the actual word, and Slog is not the definition of slog most people have in mind. The prose isn't at a professional level and is often too close to the source phrasing for comfort (occasionally it is an exact copy). The citations of "Webster's Expanded Dictionary" should be a full book citation (ISBN, page, etc). Since it generally doesn't (and shouldn't) link Wikipedia articles, I don't think this could become a featured list. As an article about "Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year" it reads more like a collection of comments rather than a focussed discussion. Colin°Talk 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions, Colin. I have already added isbn and page numbers to the book dictionary citations. In addition, I changed some of the article links to Wiktionary links. However, I strongly disagree with your claim that this list shouldn't include word definitions. "List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year" features words that received the majority of votes or the most page hits on the Merriam-Webster website. The words on these lists were chosen because people were looking up the words' definitions, the word had interesting origins (like truthiness), or the words had connections to current events. The definitions played a factor in choosing these words. Therefore, I believe that Ruhrfisch was right in recommending definitions during the peer review. What good is having a list of words if you don't have their definitions? Regarding randomly sourced definitions, my peer reviewer also mentioned that if I heavily depended on my primary source, then it would be seen as an advertisement. I extended this statement to include all sources; I avoided the heavy use of any one dictionary so that I can show that I'm using a variety of sources. Your statement that the definitions are incomplete is true. I tried not to violate WP:DICT by using really long definitions. So why do I stay as close to the sources as possible? Doing so makes sure that the information I present in Wikipedia is supported by my sources. I can't make any of my statements up because they couldn't be verified by the sources. As for your comment about my list not being a focused discussion, I really couldn't figure out how to fix this. Could you please give me some suggestions?--Dem393 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks pretty good. I agree with a few of the concerns raised above, though, such as terms linking to wiktionary, but to me these are minor issues and may warrant their own discussions; but the list itself looks good to me, references, lead, prose, and all. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! I really appreciate it.--Dem393 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sega 32X games

I've done quite a bit of work with this list and I believe it makes the FL criteria. For this cleanup, I used List of Virtual Boy games and List of Nintendo 64 games, the only two featured lists of console games, as examples for setting this list up. Also, this is my first FLC—actually, featured anything—so I appreciate all the constructive criticism while this article is being reviewed. Thanks to all of the reviewers in advance for your time. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It looks like we've been hit by a policy discussion about Australian information. Anyway, barring this part, which affects the "Regions released" column only, I would still appreciate comments and then supports or oppositions after the guideline discussion is resolved. Can we do that? Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Add a section for the table

Gary King (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would recomend starting stub articles on the 8 games and one publisher that do not have articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Could more precised release dates be indicated in the table, since they're all from 1994-1996? Kariteh (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not that I know of. I can't find anything more precise than just the years in anything reliable, and anything unreliable has just one or two games with more precise release dates. That's about it. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I know that this list mimics other current similar FLs, but isn't the use of flags to differentiate release regions an accessibility issue? Drewcifer (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I can't say that I'm aware of such an issue. In various peer reviews and other comments at WP:VG that I got for this list, some said the flags were fine, and others openly told me they didn't like the flags. If you find it necessary, I'll go ahead and change the flags to region codes. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I have no strong opinions about it myself, but from an accessibility standpoint, I think the important thing is that there is some text, not that there is no images. So that doesn't necessarily mean the flag images have to go, but some text should definitely be added. So I'll leave the decision of leaving the flags in there up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think NA should be used instead of US in the table, unless the game was never released in Canada. Also, the consensus that resulted from the discussion at WikiProject VG is that the names of the regions should all be mentioned in the lead in some way or another, so that the abbreviations can be mentioned next to them in parentheses for clarity. See List of PlayStation Portable games for an example of the implementation. (Note that if you had used flags, you'd have to spell the names of the countries next to the flags at least once due to flag guidelines, so IMO it wouldn't have been much more pratical.) Also I think the European alternate titles should be mentioned in the table (in the same rows as the American titles) to avoid bias; the list isn't particularly long, so there's no reason to give only American titles. Kariteh (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a checklist of what I've had to do so far, just for reference.

  • Y Done Fixed flags to region codes, fixed US to NA, added reference in lead.
  • Y Done Dropped title statement, as far as I know there's one set of titles.
  • Y Done Table section added
  • Y Done Years unlinked

[edit] List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup

This is a complete record of all appearances by Scottish clubs in the FA Cup, England's premier knockout (elimination) football competition. Let me know what you think....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Although the Cup is organised by The Football Association, the governing body of the sport in England, and in the modern era is open only to clubs playing in FA-affiliated leagues," → "Although the Cup is organised by The Football Association, the governing body of the sport in England, and is open only to clubs playing in FA-affiliated leagues in the modern era,"? So that it's "is organised... is open"
  • "The Glasgow team were by far the dominant force in Scottish football, to the extent that no other team had even managed to score a goal against them, but at the time there was no cup competition in Scotland for them to enter." — Doesn't read very well. Rephrase suggested.

Gary King (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of players from Puerto Rico in Major League Baseball

I began working with this list in January and have personally updated and sourced the status of each player as well as fixing several format issues. Final suggestions from WikiProject Baseball were implemented before this nomination, and some members of said project helped with some grammatical fixes. Further suggestions will be attended as presented here. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like it and can tell you've put a lot of effort into it, but it has a lot of problems. Comments: Support, all my concerns have been addressed.

The main problem I found when I read the prose is the african american/afro lantino exclusion issue.

  • Your lead says "After the league decided to allow African American players". This is untrue, but aside from that, you should say when this racist policy disappeared. - It wasn't really untrue but rather badly expressed, I tweaked the sentence, how does it look now?
  • There is an entire article on this issue: baseball color line. In this article I read that this wasn't official policy, but rather an unwritten rule, universally accepted until 1946. - Linked the term, mentioned Jackie Robinson breaking it.
  • Could you tell something about puerto rico's ethnic composition? What's the percentage of Afro-Latino's in Puerto Rico? And what can we say about the ethnic background of the puerto rican mlb players? - As of 2000 it was 80.5 % white, 8.0 % African and 6.8 % a mixture of other races. I don't think we have a census within baseball players, however I know that early in the 20th century Puerto Ricans of direct African or Mulatto descent were poor and practiced baseball and other sports since they were careers that didn't require much education (some direct slave decendands were too poor to afford education). People of direct European heritage used to run haciendas and other kind of bussiness, thus white baseball players were somewhat uncommon back then.
  • Reference one needs a Spanish language tag. - Added.
  • Try 2 reference columns. - Done.
  • Find a solution for the baseball and puerto rico portal tags. They are useful but right now they mess up the layout. - Added a <br clear="all"> template, that should do the trick.
  • Don't use a full space in the attendance number "14, 222" - That was a typo, fixed.
  • Do you claim to have included all mlb players of puerto rican ancestry? If so, you should say "a total number of 214 (randomly picked) players of puerto rican origin have played in the MLB". Otherwise you should add Template:Dynamic list. - Added note; since the list is up to date and rather easily to control due to all the local media surrounding active players and prospects I don't think that the dynamic classification is needed, the list is controlable.
  • Please us en dashes instead of hyphens per WP:DASH. - Done.
  • I think all the players need to be wikilinked (all mlb players are notable, aren't they?), resulting in a high number of red links. I won't oppose your list for it, but I would definitely prefer wikilinking. - It was kind of a mess with all the red links, and the main problem is that some of these players couldn't possibly maintain a article by themselves, particulary those that played only one season.

I haven't checked the sources, but I am impressed by the quantity. I am sure User:GreenJoe will support you for it. :-) Baldrick90 (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I recommend not center-aligning the tables. - Removed the templates.
  • All those year ranges need to use en dashes per WP:DASH - Done.
  • I think the lead should be broken up into at least two paragraphs; it's just one big blob right now. - Divided in two paragraphs.

Gary King (talk) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for both of your reviews, I will begin working with them shortly. Please note that my comments will be written in bold text. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Echo & the Bunnymen discography

Having finished a lot of work on this article I beleive it meets the criteria to be a Featured List. If anyone has any concerns I'll do my best to address them. --JD554 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Overall look pretty good. I only have a few suggestions/concerns. In general, most of comments relate to MOS:DISCOG, which I recommend you take a look at.

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • Consider putting the notes from the EP table into the Title column, since it only applies to two releases.
    • Tried it but it made the Title column too cluttered, it's much clearer in the end column.
      • Well, I disagree, since I'd rather have a little bit more info in one column then adding a whole nother column. But, I'll leave that up to you. If you do want to keep it, at least take out the weird top align thing in both cells. Drewcifer (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Other FL discogs seem to have use a separate notes column too eg. Goldfrapp discography, KT Tunstall discography and Nine Inch Nails discography, but I've removed the valign. --JD554 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
          • It's not the idea of the column that I have a problem with, it's that the column actually does so little, and only applies to two releases. Just seems a little unnecessary, that's all. But like I said, I'll leave that one up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So, what's up with the unknown music video directors? Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I just simply can't find a source that says who they were. --JD554 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • En dashes for places like "(#828 905-2)" between two numbers per WP:DASH (there are more, this is only an example)
    • There's no disjuntion between those numbers: As per WP:DASH there is no "sense of to or through" with those numbers, nor is it a "substitute for some uses of and, to or versus". A hyphen is the correct form a dash to use here. --JD554 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Essential Music Videos: 80's UK" → "Essential Music Videos: '80s UK"?
    • Fixed --JD554 (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 23:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Like I said in the PR, I don't think the lead quite works yet; you have sentences like "Their first single to reach the UK Singles Chart was their second single" and that Crocodiles is their debut album is mentioned twice. Further, considering that this is the lead to a discography, too much weight is placed on line-ups. Nothing to worry about though because, the lead for the Echo & the Bunnymen article is perfect for the discography! Simply copy and paste ... and rewrite the band article's lead :D indopug (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm, not bad is it? Done --JD554 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:REUSE may I suggest that the copy/paste edit is reverted, then redone, using the edit summary to attribute the copied text to the article it came from, and the author(s) (the first editor of the article and the most recent will suffice). Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Surely that only applies to using Wikipedia content outside of Wikipedia? I can't believe you need to attribute within the same publication. There is nothing on that page you cite to suggest this is necessary. --JD554 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supergrass discography

previous FLC (04:49, 30 May 2008)

I am resubmitting this discography because I believe it is now up to FL criteria. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 08:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looks pretty good. I only have a few concerns/suggestions
Oppose, for now. Due to the below issues remaining unresolved. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Most of the sales figures don't appear to be cited.
  • Why do some of the releases have catalog numbers but some don't?
  • Most of the releases now have catalogue numbers. Only the live album, EPs, Soundtrack appearances and the 2 early singles from Supergrass haven't got catalogue numbers. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Is that because they don't actually have them, or because you couldn't find them? Drewcifer (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • What cat numbers there are aren't consistent: same say "PCS #1234" some just say "#1234". I'd go with the PCS.
  • There's no need for the sub-header in the Compilation albums table.
  • Do all the EP's titles really say "- EP"?
  • iTunes append "- EP" to the title of any release with fewer than a certain amount of tracks. Even some singles, usually the ones with more than one or two tracks them, have "- EP" after them even though they probably shouldn't. — Balthazar (T|C) 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There is still alot of American-style dates.
Looking better, but the commas shouldn't be there. Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does one entry all of a sudden have an EAN number? Why is that even needed?
  • It's supposed to be some sort of reference because I couldn't find one for that soundtrack. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it makes the others inconsistent. So I'd say remove it. Howabout this as a reference? Drewcifer (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Stuff like release dates and labels aren't necessary for singles.
  • I'm still not sure about that but if it will make this discography a featured list then I shall remove this info. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "Information taken from iTunes Store UK ." in the EPs table is not the proper way to cite something. Try and do it via an in-line citation or a general reference.
  • Similar columns between tables should be a kept a consistent width whenever possible. Drewcifer (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I made them consistent width earlier but someone changed it back. So I'm not sure what's right... --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at indopug's diff, and he was right in making the edits: alot of the added code was redundant. Rowspan=1 and align=left, for instance is unnecessary. So, I'd recommend adding the width="xx" again to the column headers (and only the column headers), and possibly align="center" to each of the year cells. Drewcifer (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
align="center" to each of the year cells is redundant too, since the width of "Year" and "2000" is the same. So the year column is always a tight fit. If you see year columns too wide its because there is an erroneous width somewhere stretching the table; since the other column widths are defined, the Year column is stretched. indopug (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
True, 2000 is probably the wides possible date. But what about 1991? Are the ones actually thinner? (I actually don't know). If they are, then numbers such as 1991 wouldn't be in the center. Albeit by a minor amount, but still. Drewcifer (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "500,000 + (UK)" – What's the + for? "More than 500,000?" Just put 500,000 since that would be the maximum that has been verified; this goes for all of them.
  • Remove extra spaces before references in "Dead Man On Campus OST [22]" and "Chicago Cab OST [23]"

Gary King (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose My reasons below:

  • Remove sales figures, these are uncited.
  • Singles table does not need all the details, just the name
  • Soundtrack appearances are not necessary unless the song did not feature on a Supergrass album/single/release etc.
  • Music videos need cites
  • EANs are not suitable. Find a catalog number.
  • Your assertion that each Supergrass EPs all have the "- EP" suffix is not supported by Allmusic
  • What does "Supergrass presents Diamond Hoo Ha Men" mean?

That's all. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Atlanta

Another tallest buildings list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles and List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis. I have been working in collaboration with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and Leitmanp to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Are there any daytime skyline pictures. I think they'd highlight the buildings better
  • Use "United States" before "U.S." is used
  • I always thought it was "storey" rather than "story", but that may be the Brit in me <shrugs>
  • Ref 5 about the 1971 demolishing could be moved to the end of the sentence without any harm
  • What does "3344 Peachtree was topped out" mean?
  • Height doesn't sort properly after a couple of clicks
  • Drop me a line on my talk page if you'd like me to do image mapping on the skyline pic in the Lead. Just let me know which ones are which :)

That's it from me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the hieght and fixed the U.S. thing. Topped out means that the building has reached its final hieght but is not yet completed. Alaskan assassin (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    • There is this image, but the one currently in use in the article is of better quality. Most other daytime omages portray only a small portion of the city's skyline.
    • Is using United States before U.S. based really necessary? Stating "in the United States city" is somewhat awkward, and it doesn't flow well in prose. And there really aren't many options for rewording ("Atlanta, Georgia, United States" is equally awkward). We also can't use "American" (as "Canadian" is used in the tallest building lists of Canada), so I think that "U.S." is the best option here.
    • Yes, "story" is the American English spelling.
    • I fixed the height column sorting problem.
    • About the image mapping, will do! :)
  • Thanks for the review, Rai•me 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • General reference needs to be formatted to include publisher and accessdate
  • En dashes required for date ranges in "Timeline of tallest buildings" per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

    • Both Y Done. Thanks, Rai•me 00:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What's happened to the dates? 1st of May? This page didn't even exist then! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Someone's apparently bugging out... :p Gary King (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Haha! See Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. The dates say 1 May, and above that (cropped in the screengrab) some dates are 30 April. V Strange... Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article title should be List of tallest buildings in Atlanta, Georgia, to match the parent article for the city, which is located at Atlanta, Georgia Bluap (talk) 03:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It would only be located at that title if Atlanta, Georgia was not the primary topic for Atlanta, but as it is, there is no need. This is the standard naming convention for U.S. building lists, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Skyscrapers/Tallest building lists#Title of list. There isn't a guideline that states that lists about a U.S. city need to match the parent article; take, for example, List of Atlanta neighborhoods and Atlanta attractions. Also, per WP:NC:CITY, Atlanta, Georgia could be located at "Atlanta" anyway. Cheers, Rai•me 14:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Governors of Ohio

Back again, following the promotions of List of Governors of Pennsylvania and List of Governors of New York, here we are again. A preemptive comment - yes, three governors were Postmaster General, but only one was when it was a cabinet-level office, which is why only that one is mentioned in the listing of higher offices. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like to see some images next to the main table of the governors similar to the New York and Pennsylvania articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
    • IMAGES! I knew I forgot something. I'll get to that. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the article history [4]; were the images removed for a reason? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes; they were incomplete, and past FLCs have demanded images only be included in the table if we have all of them. Also, previous FLCs also wanted the bold links gone from the intro, which is why it and PA were formatted in that fashion (since I just reverted those, letting you know why.)
  • I'll either have to suspend this or ask folks to bear with me, but in my hurry to get the governor list up to snuff, I completely forgot about the lieutenant governor column. This'll take me a day or two to properly work out, since the state of Ohio, in its wisdom, seems to have chosen not to have historical information on this office available online. --Golbez (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, I've finished up the Lt. Gov column and added a few more references, so I open this one back up. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Moonlight episodes

I believe the list meets all the featured list criteria. There has been much improvement over the last month or so. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Per WP:LS#Bold title, don't wikilink the bold part of the title
  • Futher to that, repetitions of the article title in the Lead ( as in "This is a list of episodes … for Moonlight") are become less accepted. See Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 3#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence
  • The show is described as being in the "supernatural" genre, but the main article calls it a "Paranormal romance, and the infobox there describes it as "Supernatural", "Action", "Horror", "Drama", "Romance", and "Crime". Pick one or two max and be consistent towards the main article, as this one is basically a sub-page.
  • "...with other vampires in the city." Which city?
  • "The program premiered..." Say "The series" instead, as program is more similar to a single episode.
  • Provide context to non-American readers by describing CBS. For my Featured stuff I've used "Canadian broadcast television network CTV", which for here can be turned into "...in the United States on CBS, a broadcast television network."
  • "Moonlight began its first season on September 28, 2007[1]" is a repeat of the second sentence. Additionally, references should be placed after punctuation, not midsentence
  • "55" and "eighty-eight". Per MOS:NUM, it doesn't matter which is used, but consistency throughout the article should be followed.
  • "only twelve episodes[5] of the original thirteen-episode order were produced." Again, mid-sentence placement of the reference needs fixing
  • "Moonlight was likely to return for a second season;[8] though on May 13, 2008, CBS announced that Moonlight was officially cancelled." Wrong punctuation mark with the semi-colon
  • Explain why Warner Bros. tried to sell the show to other networks. I assume they produced it, but it should be stated
  • I noticed the list of episodes is using {{episode list}}. A few months ago new Writer= and Director= fields were added to the template, so these should now be used instead of Aux1= and Aux2= for the same purpose.
  • Use "Episode #" instead of just "#". Use "Production code" or "Prod code" for PC.
  • Instead of the "American viewers in millions" column, I recommend changing it to "US Ratings/Share (total viewers)" as the article Nielsen Ratings says that that is how they are usually given. Then, as an example, for the first episode the entry would be "5.7/10 (8.54)". This would negate the subsequent ratings table.
    • Use the Aux4= field in the Episode list template, as the information is less to do with the episode as it was produced, and more to do with how well it was received by the public.
  • Episode 1:
    • "make it appear that the young coed was killed by vampires" and "co-ed" is used again later in the summary. What's a co-ed? If you mean female, I'd use that instead
    • "Fortunately, Mick comes to her rescue," With the use of "Fortunately", it sounds a little too in-universe for my liking
  • Episode 2:
    • "Mick becomes furious when convicted killer Lee Jay Spalding is released from prison after serving 25 years for murdering his girlfriend." It's not exactly clear whose girlfriend we're talking here
    • "Beth's friend Julia writes a bout about Spalding," Should be "about", I think
  • Episode 3:
    • "Now that Beth knows Mick's a vampire, things are tense between them." passive voice
    • Pipelink Sire (vampire) with "sire"
    • "his new bride, now ex-wife, Coraline." is clumsy
  • Ep 4:
    • Pipelink News leak with "leak"
    • "They hole up" is a bit colloquial
  • Ep 5:
    • First sentence is too long
    • Don't use "vamp"
  • Ep 6
    • "The vampire blood makes a human feel a bit like a vampire," Change the "a bit" part, and that comma should be a semi colon
  • Ep 7
    • "find her cameras, which were stolen." → "stolen cameras."? Same meaning, less words.
    • "is a dead ringer for" → "is identical to"?
    • "Doppleganger" → "Doppelgänger" and wikilink to Doppelgänger
  • Ep 8
    • No need for the comma in the first sentence
    • "post traumatic stress disorder" → "posttraumatic stress disorder"
  • Ep 9
    • "When Mick works closely on a case with Morgan, a photographer who bears strong resemblance to Coraline, Beth grows jealous and decides to research her background." No need to repeat that Morgan bears resemblance to Coraline, as it's discussed in Episode 6
    • "...not realizing that she has become human." How did this happen?
  • Ep 10
    • Explain what "Buzzwire" is. Is it a TV show? Magazine? If so it should be italicised, not in quotes per the WP:MOS.
    • "Mick kills him." The hitman, or Josef?
    • What signs does Coraline show of being a vampire?
  • Ep 11
    • What's the MS-13 gang?
    • "Mick and Beth witness the event, and drive after him." Comma isn't needed
    • "When they finally catch up, Mick attacks the perpetrators, though one manages to shoot Josh." is in a passive voice
  • Ep 13
    • How do we know his cure is temporary?
    • "When Beth's boss, Maureen, is killed" second comma isn't needed
    • Write out ADA in full and wikilink
    • Remove "Naturally"
  • Ep 14
    • "Buzzwire" again. Again, if it's a TV show or magazine/newspaper, it should be in italics instead.
    • "When Mick gets run over," → "Mick is hit by a vehicle, and"
  • Ep 15
    • "When Mick learns that the boy was the grandson of his World War II buddy, he realises that he may be the boy's biological grandfather." makes no sense
    • Comma isn't needed in "stalks Beth, and attempts to attack her"
    • According to Wiktionary, it's quitting with 2 t's.
  • Ep 16
    • Second sentence is too long and a bit confusing
    • Get rid of the first sentence, and put "a basketball player with ties to Josef and several other vampires" after Vince's name in the current third sentence
    • Explain why it's treason. And perhaps wikilink
    • "uknown" WP:TYOP
  • The Futon Critic is not considered to be a WP:RS, so that reference needs to go.
  • "Deadline Hollywood Daily". Looks like a blog, which is also not allowed under WP:RS.
  • Same for TVByTheNumbers.com

There's rather a lot to be going on with, so I'm opposing for now. Let me know when they've all been addressed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Don't italicize publishers that aren't publications in "References" per MOS:TITLE
  • Add an image of a DVD boxset, if one exists (I think it has one?)
  • Expand contractions, including "wasn't", and "doesn't"

Gary King (talk) 04:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have made the appropriate changes, though I am not sure with publications should not be italicized. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Italics have been removed, where applicable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2002 Winter Olympics medal count

This is another medal count, modeled after the recently promoted 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "However" isn't a good word to start a sentence with (grammatical conjunction)
    • Fixed.
  • "Stefania Belmondo of Italy got the silver" How about "Italian Stefania Belmondo received the silver", as got is a bit blah, and <name> of <country> currently appears 3 times in the same sentence and is a bit repetitive
    • Fixed.
  • Shouldn't the table be default-sorted to the Total rankings, rather than gold rankings? (So Germany first, US 2nd, Norway 3rd? This would follow the Lead which says "Germany led in overall medals (36) for the second consecutive Olympiad".
    • Hmmm.. I've just taken a quick look at similar FLs and have noticed that all the other Olympic medal count lists also do it this way. I think it's strange; it's not 2002 Winter Olympic Gold medal count Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The reason the lead says the number of medals first is because I've fiddled around with the wording of that paragraph quite a bit, and the current version reads better. As for default sorting by gold medals, I think it's strange too, but that's how the IOC does it. -- Scorpion0422 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speaking of that sentence, does this mean two consecutive Winter Olympiads, or the 2000 Summer Olympics and this one?

That's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

    • No, it means second consecutive Winter Olympiad. I'll tweak it a bit. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
  • Non-breaking spaces, ahem.
  • Should be a commma before current refs 3 and 4 in the sentence.
  • "most medalled athletes" Is "medalled" an adjective? Maybe it would be better to use another construction.
  • the same "global ranking per country" is there, as with every other medal count list, and as with all the rest, I have no idea what it means. Who in the world put that sentence everywhere? Anyway, should be removed or clarified.

Noble Story (talk • contributions) 11:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "BBC Spport (April 30, 2002)" — BBC Sport
  • "the 10 Km race" — "10 km race"? I'm not too sure if this is a proper name or something so that's why it's capitalized?

Gary King (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

More

  • I'm not keen on "bumping their total", it sounds too informal
  • The ==Changes in medal standings== section looks overwhelming because it is all one paragraph. Is there any way it can be split into two, perhaps three?
  • I'm still not convinced by the default sort order, even if it is the way the IOC does it. I think Wikipedia should present it in the best way possible for its readers, rather than pandering to official committees, boards and companies, and as it's basically a "total medal count", it should be sorted by totals.
    • What I meant was that the IOC (and most sources) consider gold medals to be the most important statistic. So, the country with the most gold medals is considered the nation that led all others and that is how they do their rankings. Besides, the table is sortable. -- Scorpion0422 16:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches

This is a co-nomination with Milk's Favorite Cookie (talk · contribs). This list is based on List of New York Jets head coaches and List of New England Patriots head coaches. I hope it meets your expectations! Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)
  • Support All my objections have been addresses. Good work, one of the better head coaches lists. As a side note, I would oppose the addition of color to the list, personally I think we need to get away from color, but that's just mho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

And that's all I have! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philadelphia 76ers head coaches

I have recently wrote and published this list and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Non-breaking spaces, please?
  • "They were purchased by Philadelphian Irv Kosloff and Ike Richma, and the NBA approved their franchise shift and name change to the Philadelphia 76ers in the spring of 1963, which returned professional basketball to the city." When were they purchased? Also, try to explain "which returned professional basketball to the city". Was another team there before them?
  • ...which went 51-13 in their first NBA season under Al Cervi, and won the Eastern Division crown." Using which here really isn't grammatical.
  • Removing the redlink.
  • If you wikilink someone's full name once in the lead, you should only need to refer to them by their last name the next time (i.e. for Cervi, Hannum, Cunningham, and so on).

Noble Story (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you would like me to enter non-breaking spaces, other then that I have completed your requests. Hello32020 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • References should go in numerical order, so [3][5], not [5][3]. And [4][5][12][13][14][15], not [4][12][5][13][14][15]
  • Use mdashes, not ndashes for "empty" cells

That's all. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hello32020 (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • At this point there is no reason to just bold "head coaches" so completely remove bold.
  • There isn't a single image of a head coach that you can add?

Gary King (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Unbolded head coaches. I am trying to get a few people to license their images, but there isn't any free images for use on Wikimedia projects as far as I know. Hello32020 (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches

Self-nomination A little short, but seems to meet all criteria (except the images one). « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • Weak support, it generally looks good, but I'm not entirely sure this list is even needed, and that it couldn't simply be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Concerns addressed, looks good to me. Reply to GreeJoe: Almost every other major league sports team has a similar list. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose mostly per GreenJoe. This list is short enough to be merged into the main article. Just put this table in this section and the main article is going to improve even more. These type of lists are useful when the table is too big to stay in the main article, but I just don't see this table being too big.--Crzycheetah 20:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • FLC is an attempt to reach a consensus as to whether an article meets WP:WIAFL, not whether an article should exist or not. I feel that we should look at the article itself here, and if you believe it shouldn't exist, AfD would be the more appropriate place. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I just read the first sentence of WP:WIAFL, then looked at this list. I saw that this list does not exemplify our very best work because of the short table; therefore, it fails WP:WIAFL.--Crzycheetah 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The length of an article does not affect whether an article should be considered our best work. After all, it's not our fault the Bengals didn't have more coaches. :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If I reviewed the Bengals' main page and saw this table there, I wouldn't say that "hey, this article sucks because they do not have enough coaches...booo." This list is nicely done, so it can stay. On the other hand, featuring and considering this list as an example of our best work is premature.--Crzycheetah 20:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • But still, if that's all the information that exists, and that's as wide as the scope is, how can the list be expanded to become an example of our best work? The only way to do that would be to created a bunch of hoaxes and OR. Also, since the article does list all the coaches, it is completely comprehensive, and thus deserves the honor or FL as much as any other. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This page lists all head coaches too, do you consider it comprehensive, as well?--Crzycheetah 21:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite a lack of references, I do, as it includes all information there is to include. Of course that article could be improved; a better lead, etc, but that's besides the point. Also, I think it would be better to move this discussion to the talk page, as it is becoming quite long. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(←)I just don't see this list becoming featured anytime soon. In the meantime, I'd suggest you to go through the following examples: 1, 2, and 3.--Crzycheetah 21:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Those FLCs amaze me. The FLC criteria says nowhere that an article has to be of a certain size to become featured. FLC, as I said before, is a discussion which detemines whether an article meets those given criterion, and so, while it may be short, I don't see any reason for an opposed based on length. However, that is just my opinion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Julian. Why wait until the list gets longer? It meets the FL criteria now, and we can expect that it will meet the FL criteria in the future. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that, as I said above, this list does not meet the FL criteria now.--Crzycheetah 02:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and I respectfully disagree with that point. Why should length be factored in determining whether this article exemplifies our very best work. As long it is comprehensive, length shouldn't matter. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the grounds already covered above by Crzycheetah. I had exactly the same discussion on another FLC in December over what I thought to be a too-short list (though this list is even shorter!). Anywho, the argument was huge but basically my objection was that the list cannot do what an FL aims to do - exemplify Wikipedia's very best work - simply because IMO a list so short cannot be called one of Wikipedia's best. Yes, the list does meet the FL criteria, but it is not implied that being a piece of "Wikipedia's very best work" is limited to fulfillment of those criteria. —97198 talk 06:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've been concerned with the size issues of these head coaches lists. The fact is it isn't Wikipedia's fault if the teams haven't gone through a bunch of coaches. As long as it's well written, can be verified, blah blah, I don't think that shortness is enough to disqualify it. That said, this is the shortest one I've seen so far. And no, the team's main article wouldn't suffer by including this information there. I keep swaying from supporting to opposing. I dunno... <shrugs>
  • In the meantime, use mdashes not ndashes for "empty" cells

And that's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments from Gonzo fan2007
    • First off, I am not going to address the size issue, as others have already stated my opinion, nor will I support or oppose based on size alone.
    • This list, no matter what, will not be featured with Image:New Cincinnati Bengals Logo.png in it. That is a copyrighted, fair-use logo that first off does not have a fair-use rationale written for use in this article, and secondly, no matter how good of a rationale is written, that logo should not be in this article. Remove it.
    • Let's just get rid of the colors, they really don't do much for the article, and actually make it harder for color-blind people to read the table.
    • Right now, there are no references. There needs to be a reference section, and a footnotes section. There should be no references in the footnotes section and no footnotes in the reference section. These should be split up. This requires the use of {{ref label}} and {{note label}}.
    • You only have two references. Even for a list like this, you need to have a few more so that we can verify its content.
    • The coach of the year awards need direct references.
    • "The Bengals are a professional American football team based in Cincinnati, Ohio.[1] and are currently members of the North Division of the American Football Conference (AFC) in the National Football League (NFL)." either there is a misplaced period after Ohio, or the second sentence starts out with "and" either way, these sentences need to be fixed.
    • "Brown and Gregg are also the only two coaches in the Bengals to with the UPI coach of the year." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "Gregg is the best coach statistically, with a winning percentage of 0.561." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "Dick LeBeau, who coach coached the Bengals from 2000 to 2002 is statistically the poorest coach with a winning percentage of 0.261." Needs an in-line citation.
    • "Hall of Fame coaches Brown and Gregg..." no need to repeat "Hall of Fame."
    • The whole last paragraph is unsourced and full of stubby, random sentences.
    • The lead is too short, to uninformative, is full of stubby, random sentences that purely state facts, and that have little to no transitions between the sentences.
    • This list is uncategorized!!!!
  • You know what, going into this review, I figured that it was a good list that just had issues with size. After reviewing the list I find it atrocious that some editors have supported this list for featured status. I strongly oppose this list and encourage the editors who are debating the size issue to maybe focus on actually getting the list up to a status that meets the criteria before debating whether the list is big enough. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Extra line before "Coaches" section.
  • No free image of any of the coaches?

Gary King (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Nine Inch Nails tours

A little more robust then most tour lists I've seen, so hopefully this list will set the bar a little higher. Though with more scope comes the potential for more issues, so I'm definitely open to suggestions. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Looks pretty good. I'd like to see a separate column in the tables for the citations, might look a bit cleaner, but otherwise it's very well done. GreenJoe 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do the table headers need to be coloured? I generally disapprove of colour unless really needed and here it doesn't seem needed. indopug (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I added the grey areas to differentiate the headers from the main table. Usually the difference is fairly obvious, but there's alot of crazy merged-cell type stuff going on in the tables, so I thought it would be best to make them stand out a bit. And I don't think it hurts the list any. Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why are there no authors listed for the Spin and Musician cites? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Both sources are actually interviews with Reznor. So, like alot of interviews, the question part of the interview is just "Spin/Musician" asking a question, and Reznor answering. Nothing is really "written", so an author does not apply. Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Should North America, South America, Europe, Australia, Japan, and China in the lead be linked? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose so (done). Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help and your support! Drewcifer (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure if I can express myself clearly but I'll try: I think the table may confuse a few people the way it is structured now, esp. the Year and Tour leg columns. When somebody sees that the Tour leg cell of the Sin tour is so vertically small, they may interpret it as meaning that the tour lasted for lesser time as compared to say Lolapalooza, instead of realising that a tour's cell height is solely dependent on the stacking of info in that row. (For eg: the Lolapalooza row is bigger because there are more bands in the Other acts section, hence occupying more space).

Another similar problem is that users may co-relate the position and height of a row with the corresponding year and assume that that particular tour happened during that time of the year for that long. For example, looking at the way the Sin tour is placed, people could misunderstand that it occured in December 90 and Jan 91. While looking at the bigger Lolapalooza row, assume that it stretches from February (immediately after the Sin tour ended) to around October 91, before the band immediately began the GNR tour. Another example, Fragility 1.0 happened for the whole of 99. I guess a solution would be replacing the Year column with a Duration column: like Feb 90 to March 90. indopug (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting points. I follow you completely, but I'm just not sure if it's a big enough problem to rework the whole table for. Of course it's impossible to know how many people would be confused in such a way, but I just don't see a very reasonable solution. I could resize the cells to mimic the dates/times of the tours, but that would be a hugely difficult task code-wise, and would pretty much assure that only I could edit the article from now on. Furthermore, I don't know if I've ever seen an article or list at all in Wikipedia with proportional sizing. Maybe this one template? Not that that doesn't mean I couldn't do it, but I'd have no examples to work off of, so the results might not be as expected. I could add dates and what not, but the tables are already jam-packed full of info as it is. What about adding a little prose-based note/disclaimer? That would be simple enough, and hopefully address the problem. Or, a slightly fancier solution would be to add one or more time lines, akin to the time line I put in Nine Inch Nails live performances (towards the bottom). Either one for the whole page or one per-tour, detailing each leg and it's proportional length. What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually there is no need of all that. Just have a separate Duration column with a different cell for each Tour leg. So for the Hate tour it would be August–October 1990 while for Sin tour it would be December 1990–February 1991. This column could replace the Year column. indopug (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Something like it is now? (Look towards the bottom) Drewcifer (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup. I'd prefer full month names, but if it makes it too cramped and ugly, don't bother. I suppose you have difficulty finding durations for the earlier tours? indopug (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, full months names were kind of cramping my style, and they made some of the rows taller then they had to be. And as far as the earlier tours go, I don't think I'll have any trouble, but I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not replace the lead sentence with "Nine Inch Nails is an American industrial rock act, founded in 1988 by Trent Reznor in Cleveland, Ohio." We already know its a list of NIN tours from the title. Nine Inch Nails as a live band → The Nine Inch Nails live band? "Skinny Puppy, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Peter Murphy, and Guns 'N' Roses." and "Unkle, Marilyn Manson, Atari Teenage Riot, and A Perfect Circle." why are these lists of names neeeded at all? If you want to bulk up the lead, maybe you can include stuff from its sister article about the difference between the studio and live sound, the elaborate stage set-ups etc.

(←)The list of other bands was in an attempt to summarize the list as best I could, per WP:LEAD. So, I tried to have every column of the table(s) represented in some way, and the "Other acts" column is best summarized through a short list of the most notable acts that have been associated with NIN tours. As far as describing the band as "NIN as a live band" vs. "The NIN live band", it's a tricky situation semantically, since both the studio and live incarnations are known by the same name, but are inherently different. It's a tricky word game, but I think the way it is right now works best. As for the lead, I've reworked it a bit to reflect your suggestions, including redoing the first sentence, and using a bit of stuff from the NIN live performances article. I'm hesitant to include too much from the other article, especially stuff like visual elements and the like, since it doesn't really apply to this list. So, the main thing I included from the other article is a clearer explanation of the NIN in-studio vs NIN live thing. Let me know if you think its alright. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that image free? It has an OTRS tag but it has a fair-use license (I'm quite confused actually). If its not free, it doesn't satisfy fair-use criteria; you'll have to remove it. There are pplenty of free NIN pics, and any one of them can be used. indopug (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually not 100% sure. The pic itself is GFDL, but technically it's a picture of a copyrighted poster. Do you know how that kind of thing works? Drewcifer (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not use that picture of Reznor from Lollapalooza? It's from a notable tour the group did, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok, for the time being I've swapped them as you suggested. However I'll check with WP:FUC about the posters pic, since I'd much prefer having that one up. But the Reznor Lolapalooza pic will certainly do in its absence. Drewcifer (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I asked about the photo, and got these responses Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Photos of copyrighted material. So, looks like it's cool to use. I've swapped the posters photo back. Let me know if there's still any concerns with it. Drewcifer (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: Great job. More importantly, a model article we can all rip off :) indopug (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and your support. And by all means, steal away! Drewcifer (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Matthew

Support. Meets all criteria. I really like this one. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help and suggestions. Drewcifer (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • It's "Guns N' Roses"
  • You don't need "See also" since you've already linked to that article

Gary King (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed both. Drewcifer (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Faith No More discography

The Discography for Faith No More. I'm nominating it because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. — Balthazar (T|C) 18:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support After chasing down a million of my innane suggestions, I'm happy to finally support. Very nice work! Drewcifer (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • Oppose, I don't see enough citations. GreenJoe 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There are many featured discography's with less citations. I've added some more citations to it. — Balthazar (T|C) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • No need for "This article is a comprehensive listing of all official releases" If featured, comprehensiveness is assumed, and a discog shouldn't contain unofficial releases either,
  • So if anything, simply "This is the discography of Faith No More", but before that, read Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
  • Per WP:LS#Bold title, don't link the bold text
  • Kerrang! is a magazine, so should be italicised.
  • "Number 1", not "#1"
  • But actually, don't do that at all, because they weren't number 1 in every territory they were released. Or you could state where they were number 1, I suppose
  • Move "Throughout this article, "—" in the Charts cell indicates that the selected release did not chart, or was not released in that country." from the album section to the Lead section, as it applies to every section, not just albums
  • Include catalog numbers for the albums and compilations
  • I'd prefer to see the certifications columns combined into one, so for The Real Thing, it'd be something like
RIAA: Platinum
CRIA: Platinum
BPI: Silver
  • Include a link to Music recording sales certification
  • Move the ARIA certification reference from the cell, to the header as they are for RIAA, CRIA and BPI
  • Remove the singles column from the compilations table and move them to the Singles table
  • I'm not sure if this applies here as I know nothing about the group, but make sure only original recordings are in the "Soundtrack contributions" section, rather than songs that have been licensed from albums. Might be worth renaming the section "Other appearances" per other discogs

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed all those, The contents of the "Soundtrack contributions" was "Other appearances" but that got changed. — Balthazar (T|C) 19:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

More comments.

  • Can you find a free-use image for the infobox? If not, this will be the only Featured discog without.
  • For some reason the Header text in the infobox is squashed. See this snapshot image of the page to see what I mean.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, Nation of Ulysses discography doesn't have an image. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh. Well, it'd still be nice! -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The squashed header text is rendering error, no idea what's causing it, I've only seen it a few times and it goes when I refresh or resize the window. — Balthazar (T|C) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

More

  • I'm still not liking the "This is a discography.." as the intro sentence. The reader knows that from the title. How about "The discography of Faith No More, an American alternative rock group consists of six studio albums, eighteen singles...."
  • Can you find cites for the music video directors?

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Extra line after "Studio albums"

Gary King (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks

Self-Nomination copied the format from other first round draft picks pages, and created this page. Put references down at the bottom and the players whose pages don't exist aren't wikilinked. --Gman124 talk 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, not enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 23:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Support Citations now meet my satisfaction. GreenJoe 13:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • added refernces. --Gman124 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The references you've added are great. In the table itself, you have this nice, tidy notes section, but only a handful of the boxes are used for in-line citations. Do you see what I mean? GreenJoe 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I only added notes for picks that were involved in a trade, so do they need to be for others as well?. Gman124 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah, I didn't understand that. If possible, it would be great if you could. If not, let me know. 13:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
    • Y Done cut the opening sentence, since it didn't really give additional info.--Gman124 (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:LS#Bold title says don't wikilink the bold text
    • Y Donemoved the wikilink of Eagles to the next time Philadelphia Eagles is written. --Gman124 (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Put NFL in parentheses after "National Football League"Y Done
  • Per WP:ACCESS, don't use small writing (as in the key table) as it hinders poor-sighted peopleY Done
  • I think other lists are using italics rather than bolding "No pick"s
    • Y Done the other lists use both bolding and italics, so I italicized the "No Picks" and changed it to No first-round draft pick.--Gman124 (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Image captions "Eagles" should be "Eagles'"Y Done

That's it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah
  • Conditional support I will support as soon as those six articles are created. In sports pages like this, all items should be blue-linked(no red links or black text), meaning that all players should have their own articles. Those six players don't have an article in Wikipedia, even though they deserve to have one.--Crzycheetah 02:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • added pages. --Gman124 talk 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Players who played on collegiate level are notable. There was a disamg. link that I fixed, so Harry Jones is a red link for now. I am going to support anyway, though. Thanks for your hard work.--Crzycheetah 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
      • added Harry Jones as well. --Gman124 talk 19:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s

previous FLC (18:54, 21 May 2008)

Renominating this list. Previous FLC was not promoted, though all issues presented by reviewers were addressed and no other objections were given. As before, article is in similar format to previous FLs for Guitar Hero I and II. --MASEM 11:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns have been put to rest, and I think it looks goods. Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
  • Not sure "did" is the correct word in "Rocks the 80s was sold only as a game, rather than a bundle version with a guitar controller as both Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II did."
  • According to What I Like About You (song) which coincidentally, I was reading earlier today, the Romantics have sued the makers for it's inclusion. Perhaps this should be mentioned.
  • Was the title released in Europe? Were any of the songs changed like Rock Band has?
  • I still feel strongly that most visitors to this page probably want to see what order they play the songs in and what is unlocked when, and I think the default sort should reflect that

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Fixed the first two points. There is the lawsuit issue, but this is covered in the article on the game itself. There was a European release, but beyond a name change, nothing else was changed (that can be cited, at least).
    • The last point, again, the argument is that we are presenting these lists as a discography, and not as a game guide (which it would be if ordered in the tier information), See the previous discussion at [GH1 songline FLC]. This also allows for the consistency that is needed in that GH2 and GH3 have two different orders of the songs in the game, likely the 4th game (Guitar Hero World Tour) will be like Rock Band (video game) that also can be sorted in 3-4 different ways. If we go by the approach from the standpoint of just listing songs, and not so much to replicate the gameplay experience, it is much easier to create these more complicated lists. --MASEM 13:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Master recording tab doesn't seem to work in the table. The problem is also present in other Guitar Hero lists. --Mika1h (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer
  • I think I know - there's no "text" in that to sort on. Some hidden stuff will fix it - will do RSN. --MASEM 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This list is fixed (master recordings should be sortable) but I will apply the same to the other two lists. --MASEM 21:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Additional points above have been dealt with. --MASEM 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Following your explanation above re the sort order you're probably right, so I can deal with the default sort order of the table. Unfortunately I'm still not ready to support at the moment.

The Lead section of WP:Lead section says the Lead should "introduce the article" and should also "stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any." I'd like to see a secondary reference for the European game title (from a video game magazine or something for example, rather than a sales website). The article is about the songs in the game, yet out of the two paragraphs, only one sentence discusses the songs: "As implied by the game's title, all the songs were either created during the 1980s, or, in one case, parodies works of the 1980s." The gameplay paragraph doesn't really introduce or stand alone as an overview of the article, because the songs really have nothing to do with gameplay. There should instead be only one or two sentences which include the link to Guitar Hero (series)#Gameplay , and that's it. It should mention the fact that some songs are master recordings, some are cover versions (perhaps mention who performed them if you can find it anywhere, maybe in the game's end-credits). It should mention that the songs are released to play in groups and each group is unlocked by completing the previous. Are the tier's grouped by difficulty, or by genre? Basically a lot of the ==Set list== prose should instead be in the Lede. Re controversies, I still think the Romantics' lawsuit regarding "What I Like About You (song)" should be mentioned here as it relates directly to the songs. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reordered the lead (along with other points), taking out excess information about the gameplay but leaving the general overview, and how the songs are presented (addressing the tier and difficulty issues), I also included the Romantics lawsuit, with the seealso to the main article for more. --MASEM 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The game [...] The game" → "The game [...] It"?
  • "the Guitar Hero series, part of" → "the Guitar Hero series, and is part of"
  • "Rocks the 80s was sold only as a game," → "Rocks the 80s was sold without a peripheral,"?

Gary King (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, though I'm trying to figure out ways to make "80s was sold without a guitar" more clear, if that's possible. --MASEM 14:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of New York Jets head coaches

This list is based off of List of Chicago Bears head coaches and List of New York Giants head coaches, which are both featured lists. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)
  • Support All my concerns have been addressed, great list! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Just like the similar featured lists, I don't see why not. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 01:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think there is scope for more information to be given as prose, not necessarily just as a lead section. For example, Bill Parcells' tenure overlaps with other coaches. Why is this? More background could be included to give the reader a greater understanding of the topic. An example of what I mean by this is given by List of Manchester United F.C. managers. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This was brought up in a previous FLC. Milk's Favorite Cookie created a separate article "History of xx coaches". I can do the same if you wish. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, looks really good. GreenJoe 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I can't see anything wrong. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Me either, although all the other head coach FLs also use a Colour along with the asterisk to highlight the Hall of Fame people. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, WP:COLOR doesn't state that you need to show something in both color and an asterisk as an indicator. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • True, but other FLs within the same scope have set a consensus-by-silence precedence for using colour. If you know what I mean. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Color-sighted people notice colors quicker than asterisks, so adding colors would benefit them a lot.--Crzycheetah 08:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, but ...
    • "Twice in Jets history has there been an "interim" head coach." Word order a little forced.
      • Any suggestions? I was thinking "There has been an "interim" head coach twice in Jets history". That seemed a little off to me, though. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • "The team began as the New York Titans in the American Football League in 1960, but was renamed the New York Jets three years later." Why "but"? "And" is needed here.
    • One "also" needs weeding out.
    • W–L but spaced en dash equivalent ...
    • Suggestion: Why not move the pic up to the "Key" section so the horrid squashy text in the "Awards" column can be given space to breath?
    • "2006–Present": why cap P? And why not "since 2006" (so much nicer)?
      • Well, I'm trying to keep the date range (XXXX–XXXX) format consistent. Is there any reason not to capitalize the "P"? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You sure leading zeros are customary for the averages? TONY (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex

I've based this list off List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire, a list which Rudget (talk) and I collaborated on a few months back. All the towns/villages where the SSSIs are located in are linked too if the article exists, and all the rest are unlinked. Individual articles about each SSSI don't exist, as to be honest, I don't believe they'd meet the notability guideline. I'm willing to address any issues. Thanks, Qst (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been pretty much established that all SSSIs in discussions previously that do meet the notability criterion. Even the least notable ones will be referred to in multiple published sources, which is the basic test we ask subjects to meet. SP-KP (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would be better to link to all the sites, regardless of whether they exist or not.
    • Consensus was made in this FLC that links which would be red should be left un-linked. Qst (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Although that was the consensus there, consensus for featured lists in general is that a substantial majority of the lsited items should be bluelinked, and the remainder redlinked. For this reason, I'm going to have to Oppose, reluctantly. (see below) SP-KP (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Er, link them then. There's no need to oppose. Al Tally talk 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • If there was something to link to, I agree that this would solve the problem. The difficulty is that there isn't - and even the currently bluelinked ones are usually linked to nearby towns etc. The number of items on the list which have articles is very small and as this is a FL criterion, then, I'm sorry, but that is a good reason to oppose. SP-KP (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
            • No its not, you're opposing because probably NN town articles don't exist. So you're asking me to chuck the notability guideline out the window and create them? The only info I could probably get is "xx is a town in East Sussex, England." I ask that you reconsider your oppose. Qst (talk) 10:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
              • No, I'm asking you to create SSSI stubs for a good majority of the articles listed. To quote FLC criteria, a featured list "has a minimal proportion of red links" - this, to my knowledge, has always been interpreted as meaning that the non-existence of articles for members of the list is a problem - and not one to be fixed simply by unlinking or disguising the links. Do you have any examples of existing FLs where the article subject's notability rests on its inclusion in the list but where a significant proportion of the entries do not have articles? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                • SP-KP, how would you feel if I created some of the articles on SSSIs, and kept some of the links to towns? Qst (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • I'd apply the same test - how close to being the "perfect" featured list of East Sussex SSSIs are we? i.e. a list of East Sussex SSSIs for which every entry has a bluelink leading to an article on the SSSI, as is that case for Avon, Somerset etc. Actually, even those are a long way from "perfect" as most of the articles are still stubs, but anyway ... In FLC discussions elsewhere, I've seen two-thirds quoted as the minimum proportion needed for a successful candidate. The actual phrasing in the criterion is "minimal proportion of redlinks" which is open to interpretation. SP-KP (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Okay, I've used the PDF files to find the nearest borough/district to the SSSI, and now, rather than leaving the link red, I have linked to the nearest borough/city. I'll finish up the last few tomorrow morning. Qst (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • All links are now blue. Qst (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be a bold part in the lead?
    • Nope, adding a bold part in the lead would mean linking Site of Special Scientific Interest, and linking in the emboldened part of the lead should not occur, per MoS (I'll find the link if necessary.) Qst (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • That doesn't override the MoS guideline that all articles should have their title bolded in the lead - the correct thing to do here is to mention SSSIs somewhere after the bolded text, and wikilink it there. SP-KP (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I would tend to agree with you here SP-KP, that this is what is normally done. However there is discussion about how sensible this is for lists, not sure where consensus lies.Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia:LEAD#Bold_title, on the contrary. Qst (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks for drawing my attention to that. Last time I looked into this, that wasn't the guideline - I accept I'm out of date on this point. SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "In terms of size, the region is bordered by Kent to the north, and Surrey to the south." How is that anything to do with size?
    • Fixed. Qst (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "East Sussex itself, however, has an estimated population of 757,600..." Why the however?
    • Fixed. Qst (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe something can be "As of 2009". Anything could happen tomorrow, we aren't a crystal ball. Al Tally talk 18:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • That's as maybe, but it means up until this date. If an event were to occur which was relevant to the list, I'd update it. Qst (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. Qst (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - overall the list looks good, however I have a few suggestions:

  • The lead is on the short side, and I would prefer to see it expanded. Natural England have good documents about an areas general wildlife here. These are the ones specific to east sussex: [6], [7], [8].
    • I think the lead is sufficient as it is, and I can find nothing to expand it any further. I had intended for it to be bigger, but I feel its comprehensive as it is. Qst (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
    • Swapped to <references/>, done. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This will probably be picked up by others, but I would like to see a few more of the non-links become blue. (I will try to help out with this as I have created a number in my time!)
    • I'll see what I can do over the course of today. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of the other SSSI lists have a note saying if a particular site extends into another county, see this edit for details [9]. The natural england website will tell you if this is the case. Here is one [10] for this list.
  • I agree with Al tally that as of 2008 is more appropriate than 2009.
    • Okay, done. Qst (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Finally, and I apologise that this is rather petty, but I would prefer to see the list of PDFs in three columns rather than 4, as the 4th only has four in it and looks a bit odd!!! (it would also fit with other SSSI lists, not that that is that important!) - Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've split them up into four columns, each with 16 listed in each. This way, each column has the same amount in. Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

One other comment - can we split the list up into (arbitrary) alphabetic sections, as per the other SSSI lists? SP-KP (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because people agreed in the Hertfordshire FLC that all of them should just be in one big table. Qst (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's just one (restricted-audience) FLC discussion though. The majority of the SSSI FLCs do use this convention, and it wasn't invented for those but taken from other example lists. There are several reasons why this has been done for long lists such as this, to do with editability, readability. Are there some reasons why it should not be used here? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, nice work. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as someone who has been interested in writing these lists for a while now, I believe this meets the FL criteria and is of a standard similar to the other SSSI lists. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Oh, and don't talk about "Consensus was made" in some other list when in fact it was just one reviewer giving in after being pushed. Colin°Talk 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Who do you think you are telling me what to do, pal. And by the way, the individual SSSI articles are not notable, so why would I create them. I'd appreciate some input from you on this. Qst (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of arrogance? I'd say the Cleveland list which you nominated is far from perfect. Qst (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a point, Colin didn't nominate that. :) Rudget (Help?) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
My bad, he didn't. :) Qst (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
And can you please tell me what your problem is with the SSSIs being linked to the town they're in? I fail to see. Qst (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Less of the "pal", please. This isn't a pub and we aren't squaring up for a fight. You're in the minority in thinking SSSIs aren't notable. The word "Special" and "Interest" in the title is sort of a hint don't you think? Stop trying to bully reviewers. I'm entitled to my opinion and nothing you have said makes me want to change it. And to add to the link issue, there should be photos. These are beautiful parts of our country. Colin°Talk 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Bully reviewers? Well, everyone is free to their views I suppose. And no, The Rambling Man brought up in the Herts FLC that a map would be appropriate, and it is, and they're not beatiful parts of the country, just nature reserves with a few trees. Okay, I'll start creating the articles soon, but I highly doubt you will be willing to help, am I right? Qst (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
"Nature reserves with a few trees". "not beautiful". Have you even looked at the entries you are linking? I suppose not when Castle Hill is just a DAB page. It looks like this, which I found after about 10s on Google Images. Or Arlington Reservoir? Or Romney Marsh? Or Newhaven cliffs? You've got to be passionate about the subject to write featured content. If you were, you'd be happy to write about it instead of moaning about reviewers not helping. Colin°Talk 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't say I look through everyone in the list, but of course I have an interest in SSSIs. If I wanted an essay in an attempt to change my views, I'd know you to be the person. =) Qst (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue of whether SSSIs are notable is clearly going to be important for this, and many subsequent, featured list candidates. I would like to point people to Whitton Bridge Pasture which is a good article about a single SSSI. As SSSIs go this is among the least important, notable or interesting; it is essentially a small field. However, I believe (and I should seeing as a wrote it) that it is notable and is a suitable subject for a wikipedia article. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get to work creating some tomorrow (probably) so at least half of the article has links to them in. Thanks, Qst (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's one! :) Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Colin, would you be satisfied if I create half of the SSSI articles for this list? I'm sure you can appreciate the tediousness of one person creating all these articles? Qst (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I've created 10+ SSSI articles? Is this enough for your to offer your support and leave the others linked to the appropriate town/district? I can create more if you like. Qst (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see two-thirds of them done (if that's the solution we're going with now) before withdrawing my oppose (see below). The rest should either be redlinked, or wikilinked to an article with at least a mention of the site. SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm heading off on Wikibreak in a few days, so there maybe a delay. Qst (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I have re-created the first table in my sandbox with the addition of a sortable function. I'd like you to use it for all SSSI tables. First, though, tell me what's wrong with it.--Crzycheetah 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Personally, I dislike it, as I think it makes the columns look weird. It looks as if there is too many, and I just don't find it seems as comprehensive as the current layout. This may seem like bad reasoning, but its hard to put in to words why I dislike it. I'm open to discussion. Qst (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree with Qst in that I prefer the current layout. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I didn't add any columns; even though it may seem that there are too many of them, most of them are short. Sorting by hectares is very useful in such long lists as this one.--Crzycheetah 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I also would like to know why you don't use "!" for the headings and bold the titles manually instead.--Crzycheetah 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Sorting by area and by year are both useful facilities. The two formats don't look radically different. I'd turn off sorting for the map column, though. Colin°Talk 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Personally I think the current format is more aesthetically pleasing, however having sortable columns is such a useful feature it probably over-rides my aesthetic preferences :) Given lack of clear consensus on this issue, the question of sortable columns should maybe be decided on a list-to-list basis, rather than enforcing the decision of this FLC on all lists. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°Talk 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Normally, I'd support any call for full inline citations, but in this case the referencing method achieves the intended result; there is nothing in relation to auditability that inline citations would add, they'd just be a presentational change. Not a barried to FL in my view, therefore. SP-KP (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
One of the FLC directors, whom I know, has agreed to close this early at my request. I shall re-submit the nomination when everything is done, and 2/3 of the SSSI articles are created. Thanks, :) Qst (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Following Qst's hard work on the issues I raised above, I'm very happy to withdraw my oppose vote and switch to one of Support. SP-KP (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And Sunderland06's. Could you possibly strike your vote so it makes it clearer when this comes to be closed? Cheers. Qst (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Just under 60% of the SSSIs now have articles and correct links. Good, well done. But 24 still direct the reader to some nearby town or even a whole council district. This doesn't help Wikipedia or the reader. There's no obligation on the writers of those town articles to develop or even keep any mention of nearby SSSIs. Many of the links listed below make no reference to the SSSI, so the reader does not gain any new information by following the link. In addition, the use of piped links rather than redirects means that this list will not automatically gain when an SSSI is written and it is not obvious which require writing. In the interests of keeping links simple and honest, I suggest the following entries be changed to redlinks. I hope this will have the desired effect of encouraging the writing of the rest of them. These small articles can have info boxes and categories in a way that the current town/district linked-articles can never.
There doesn't seem to be any rationale to why some of the following aren't yet SSSI articles -- just that nobody has written them yet. They're not any less notable than the ones that have been created. Could you do Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay, as is the big one and should have plenty to write about. If you agree to create the redlinks, we'll have about 1/3 redlinks, and I'd be prepared to support that. Colin°Talk 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If I create another 4, 2/3 will now exist. Qst (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Colin, redlinks for these would be more helpful. SP-KP (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please wikilink hectares and acres in the table headers. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Done this for the first table header, probably not worth doing it for all the headers? Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No, I don't think so.
  • I'd like to see the entries sortable too, but I prefer the look of the headers in the article to the way Crzy displayed them. Not sure why...
    • I've changed my mind on this one since no other Featured SSSI list does it.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Weak Support. Comments addressed, but some redirects still need addressing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in Northland, New Zealand

I've listed this article as a featured list candidate because it is a comprehensive list of all current primary, intermediate and secondary schools recognised by the New Zealand Ministry of Education in the Northland Region of New Zealand. The rolls and decile ratings change each year. I last updated them in January and intend to update them once a year. For each school, the information in the table can be verified using the MOE link, and very occasionally if the MOE website is not up to date, using the link to decile updates in the references section. Very few of the schools on the list have their own article; the links are redirects to the local town, suburb or community, which includes a paragraph on the school. I created 72 articles on such communities, some of them stubs, most start-class, and a few B-class.

It is not practical to add a photo of every school, and attempting to do so would greatly increase the size of the article while adding little value. I believe the map of secondary education locations is sufficient to illustrate the article.

I'm not sure whether the incomplete lists of closed schools should remain in this article or be split off. I am not aware of any comprehensive and reliable source which lists closed schools for before 1999, so I have pieced these lists together from the lists that are comprehensive for schools closed since 1999, and the material in several books written on local history of the communities.

There is a recent peer review for the list.-gadfium 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - I believe it meets the criteria. - Shudde talk 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Matthew
  • The gender column is fairly unnecessary as all but two are coed, and those two are explicitly mentioned in the lead section
Gender criteria is one of the defining aspects of a school. For Northland, it isn't terribly important because only two schools are single-sex, and as you say this is mentioned in the lead. However, I think the tables should have the same layout as those for other regions of New Zealand, and elsewhere there are greater proportions of single-sex schools, including some with names which don't indicate gender, e.g. Auckland Grammar School.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
But we're not reviewing other pages. On this one it's not really needed. If more NZ school lists are brought to FLC, I don't think they'll be opposed because they do have a gender column when this one doesn't. Anyway, it's still early on in the process so let's just wait and see what other reviewers think. In the meantime, you've satisfied all my other points so I've hidden those and I've left this one comment open so other reviewers can see it. Otherwise, a great list, well done. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a little python script to reorder columns in the tables to move the website and MOE columns to the end. I can very easily modify it to remove the gender column if necessary. I'll wait for more feedback first.-gadfium 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds extremely handy. Can you respond on my talk page about how that works? Would you be prepared to share it? :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That's very vague. You may want to be more specific, or your oppose could be disregarded. - Shudde talk 01:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How many in-line citations do you believe are necessary, per school? At present, apart from any school website, which is a primary source, there's one - the MOE link. I could add a link to the latest Education Review Office report if necessary, but the MOE link verifies the basic information in the table, and the MOE listing links to ERO reports. Sometimes MOE carries an old school website or misses a new one, but in this case the accuracy of the list is pretty obvious. The decile ratings for schools are updated about October each year, but MOE updates its figures about February. That's why we have a separate reference for deciles. At this time of year, it isn't an issue as MOE is up to date. ERO information would be significantly less up to date than MOE, on average, since ERO reports are only held every few years.-gadfium 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
TBH, I would be inclined to say that this editor's oppose will probably not be counted, considering he has popped up out of nowhere today and opposed every single FLC and supported the removal of every single FLRC. As you said, the school websites are all primary sources, and as WP:PSTS says, an article shouldn't rely on those. The inclusion of the MOE links for me satisfies secondary sources. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I really like this. I can relate to the subject, it is interesting, well written and presented, and it's about something in the Southern hemisphere, something which Wikipedia lacks too much of, IMO. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments I am with Matthew here regarding the "gender" column. It's kinda...weird to see "coed" in every row. Also, what do the numbers mean in the last column? I couldn't find an explanation.--Crzycheetah 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The number in the last column is the New Zealand Ministry of Education Institution Number. It links to the appropriate record in the Ministry of Education database, which verifies the information in the table row.
I'll remove the gender column if consensus is for the removal.-gadfium 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see a note in this page that explains what those numbers mean.--Crzycheetah 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added a note, at the end of the lede.-gadfium 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove total "coed" column and say so in one statement elsewhere with the single exception.
  • "state integrated" lower case in lead, but I in table? Why is it explained twice in the lead?
  • "these are schools formed by a religious body but have subsequently become a part of the state system"—ungrammatical.
  • "at 5 years old"—at the age of five.
  • g for Government, normally.
  • Rolls provided "each year"? Safer to give the actual year, to be updated when the info is updated. TONY (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on these in the morning.-gadfium 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sendai International Music Competition

I've been working on this article for a short while in my userspace, where I moved to the mainspace, though you may have thought I hadn't edited the article much looking at the history, I have through my userspace. The Sendai International Music Competition is a violin and piano music competition based in the City of Sendai, Japan. It is exclusive only to young musicians, working as an attempt to take budding young musicians to a higher stage of their career's. I believe it satisfies the featured list criteria, therefore, I am nominating it for featured list status.

I will be here to address any concerns raised through this disscussion, and will get to them as quick as possible, I will have plenty time during the next week, and so will look forward to your comments. Sunderland06 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good. Qst (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support: There is no need for "lastly" in "and lastly the finals". I think everyone understands that the finals are last no matter what the competition. Otherwise it's excellent. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've took so long with this, I've been away and just there got back, and I've removed the lastly part. Sunderland06 (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose For the same reason as my comments made with the Russian Music Copmetition FLC: the title does not speak to the content of the list. Drewcifer (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I'd also like to respectfully yet strongly disagree with the idea that "The competition itself is a reference." We can get away with this in some articles because the content being sourced is a physical product or something like that, but an event can't be a reference in and of itself. Drewcifer (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My bad. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
In an article such as this, I feel that "List of Sendai International Music Competition winners" would not be appropriate, the article currently describes the history and format of the competition, aswell as a list of all winners. Under the different name of "List of Sendai International Music Competition winners" the article would be solely a list of winners with the current article Sendai International Music Competition needing to be an explanation of the competition itself. In this format the music competition can be described and a list of winners be combined without the name change.
For the second issue raised, the list is fully referenced under the General reference section, the different references there cover the whole section of the article, instead of single in-line citations being repeated numerously at the end of the table.
I understand what you've said, that the article as it stands should be titled as it is. But there's a few problems with that premise. First, that there is a difference between the lead and the actual body of an article. In this case, the body (everything after the table of contents) is solely a list. The lead, well it's kind of a mess. Per WP:LEAD, the lead of an article or list should summarize the major points body of the body of the article/list. So, in other words, nothing should be discussed in the lead that is not discussed elsewhere in the article. So, in yet other words, all of the stuff that discusses anything but the winners of the competition shouldn't be in the lead, since the body of the list discusses only the winners. In fact, that would be the entire lead, since winners aren't mentioned anywhere in it. So, your options are to either a) scrap the current lead completely and rewrite it as a summary of the list contained in the body (probably not a good option), or b) move all that stuff out of the lead and into the body, and then redo the lead to summarize the body of the article as it would then stand. That seems like the better option. But then, the list becomes only a small part of a larger article and (therefore) ceases to be a list. All of that's assuming you want to keep the list's name as "Sendai International Music Competition". On the other hand, if do want to change the name to "List of winners of...", then pretty much all of the stuff in the lead (which hopefully I've established doesn't belong in the lead) doesn't really belong in the list, since it actually has nothing to do with the list of winners.
I hope all of that made sense. I don't think it's all that difficult situation to rectify, it just requires a slightly different vantage point. Drewcifer (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this makes total sense. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to create a decent lead, and will move the part mentioning the rules to a Format section and see where it ends up. Just pick me up if I'm doing anything wrong. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is definitely looking better, but I think there's alot more content that could still be added. For example, a quick Google search brought up this and this, both of which have alot of additional info not on the main competition website. The first one has some history stuff that isn't in the article at the moment, the second has a list of some behind-the-scenes organizers. Obviously you wouldn't want to mention every last person in the list, but it might be good to mention a few of the more important organizers. So, after a quick Google search, I'm not really sure the article is comprehensive at the moment. And of course, there's the bigger issue at hand: is this a list anymore? With the new stuff, and the stuff that I've suggested to add, I would say it does not qualify as a list, and should therefore be nominated at WP:GAN not here. That's not to say the article isn't good – it's looking much better as a matter of fact – I'm just not sure this is appropriate place for its nomination. So, I still oppose. Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support with one comment. It is... isn't a very good way to start off a section. Other than that, I can't see anything wrong. Good work. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers mate, done. Sunderland06 (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose—needs copy-editing. Processing.
  • Shouldn't have to hunt to find where Sendai is. - Mentioned in lead.
  • "awards are given to six contestants each from the violin and piano categories, with first place in each receiving the highest prize"—poor prose. each ... each. Highest prize: you have to look up high to see it? Noun plus -ing problem; see exercises here. Better?
  • "either Europe or Asia"; remove one word. Europe
  • "the violin part"—you're referring to the vln part on the music score, are you? No, I'm refering to the violin category in the competition, changed to category.
  • "As yet" will date quickly. As of ?2008. Done.
  • Convert yen to US dollars too. Done.
  • Sentence case for column keys (W) - Sorry I don't understand this part.

[edit] Toronto Raptors draft history

I've based this list off of other featured NBA draft histories and believe it fulfills all of the FL criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Co-nomination I already contributed a lot to this page, so I can't freely support/oppose. I'll try to help Hello32030 put the finishing touches to this list.--Crzycheetah 02:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Resolved - Noble Story
  • Final Comment How important is it that the crowd expected the Raptors to pick Ed O'Bannon? Other than that, it seems fine. Noble Story (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I feel its fairly notable, it was their first draft, so a pretty detailed account seems like its good to have. Hello32020 (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, looks good. GreenJoe 23:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Thats all I have Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Crzy and I have completed your requests. Hello32020 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer the question on how the white text on red background would look like, see here. There are no difficulties with white text. Right now, white background for heading does not look right to the color-sighted people because usually the contents of tables are in white background and not the headings. Seeing that white text is fine for color-blind people, b/w monitors, and b/w printouts, I suggest reverting to red background/white text. --Crzycheetah 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right. And the red on white looks worse now! Sorry. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I assumed you were okay with my suggestion, so I changed the colors back to the previous version. Any more comments are welcome!--Crzycheetah 07:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No that's it. Support! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

According to this, the Raptors should have had the first pick in 1996, but it was changed. Should this be mentioned? Why did the Raptors not have any picks in 2007? Should this be mentioned? As well, per the other draft pick FLs, the first overall picks (Bargnani) should be highlighted. -- Scorpion0422 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! First, I'll answer your questions here. The Raptors weren't allowed to pick first because of their expansion agreement. All expansion teams are not allowed to pick first for the first 2 years, so I think that information is trivial. Maybe information about the expansion agreement should be added instead. As for your other concerns, I am guessing you compared this page to the NFL lists because other NBA FLs don't mention why there are no picks and don't highlight first overall picks. The 2007 picks were traded to other teams prior to the draft, so technically they're not the Raptors' picks anymore. We list only the picks that the Raptors actually used. I dislike those "no pick" rows in NFL lists because those are already other teams' picks. As for the highlighting of number one overall picks, why should we do it when a reader can just sort the table by the "picks" column and see who's #1? Most NFL lists don't have sortability functions, so they highlight #1 picks. Regards, Crzycheetah 05:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you on the later two points, but I think the fact that the Raptors should have had the first pick should be mentioned. It is very relevant to the topic and is more notable than them not picking a player they were projected to pick. -- Scorpion0422 23:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I totally forgot to add that, thanks for bumping this in my watchlist. I've added that info now.--Crzycheetah 04:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches

Self-nomination - It seems to meet all featured list criteria. It is well illustrated, well written lead, and it is also well referenced. This list seems ready for FL. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 23:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you at T:TDYK, the article has false information, and doesn't match the sources. Why would you list it here knowing that? Or is having correct information not a criteria for featured lists? - Bobet 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really, the source was correct. Gatoclass was confused because this wasn't added at that time. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've no doubt that the source is correct. The problem is, that the article isn't. According to the very source you've cited (this one), both Ted Nolan and Lindy Ruff won the Jack Adams, while coaching the Sabres. The article, however, specifically states that Scotty Bowman is the only Jack Adams winner. - Bobet 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Did not notice this - apologies. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Y Done with the comments above. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Lest there be some confusion, if I did not strike the initial complaint you have not resolved it to my satisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment It should follow the style set by List of New Jersey Devils head coaches, an FL. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't find half the information on the assistants for this list. It would also require a complete redesign table. Furthermore, that list doesn't meet criteria #6. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ( talk / contribs) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Still, you should not sacrifice useful information just for the sake of making a page look nicer. -- Scorpion0422 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I agree with Scorpion over the presentation of the table. See also the head coaches articles of NFL teams that are FLs (and yeah, I know it's not the same sport). Anyway, a precedence has been set, and to change it because the information for this one hasn't been found is a poor excuse. Sorry.. :-/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Support, except I have a few issues.

  • Some way of stopping the "have [page break] [1]" in the lead?
  • Relocate the comma after "record" to after "Ramsay". Possible comma after "2001" if you like it.
  • "Win – Loss percentage"—unspaced en dash; any need for capital L? Unspaced en dashes for year ranges in column three.
  • The top row: unless you open you window wide, the (W–L–T) and W–L % break lines horribly. No space before the %.
  • 'Tis a pity the two lower images can't be repositioned say, in the "Key" section, to allow the table to spread out without unreasonable widening of the window. Might be hard on smaller screens: to get the table functioning properly in horizontal terms, I had to widen the window to 31 cm, which takes up most of my large 24-inch monitor.
  • The "Hockey-Ref.com" site: the copyright owner at the bottom is "Copyright © 2000-2008 Sports Reference LLC." I'm sure that has to be cited in the ref section. Ask User:Ealdgyth, the expert? TONY (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay - working on the comments. Please don't close this FLC until they are finished. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments

Good enough, but...

  • In the first mention of the Jack Adams Award, you should have reference after the comma.
  • The following sentences do not have a reference: "Punch Imlach, Scotty Bowman and Roger Neilson have all made it to the Hockey Hall of Fame...He is followed by Craig Ramsay who coached the team to a .412 record from 1986 to 1987. Floyd Smith has the best coaching record in terms of winning percentage, with a 0.503 record, during his term from 1974 to 1977. He is followed by his successor, Hall of Famer Marcel Pronovost, who coached the Sabres to a .611 record from 1977 to 1978."
  • The third paragraph has no references.

[edit] Nominations for removal

[edit] List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes

Where to start...First off, the lead is ridiculously short for such a long article. It does not mention anything about the shorts of DVDs located near the end of the article. The prose is a little bit short, though not the main problem the article has. For the table itself, it is not very appealing. Every part of the table is a different shade of gray. Even the place where summary text is placed is gray, which is not a good contrast of colors. In addition to all of this, the article has no sourcing for pretty much anything in the article, with particular concern toward the DVD section. Also, the article seems to have mini-trivia sections at the top of each section. — Parent5446 ☯ (message email) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist per short lead, which does not even give the premise of the series; however, this list is very easy to save. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of English Twenty20 International cricketers

This list currently fails Cr. 2(insufficient lead), Cr.4(no section headings), and Cr.6(empty cells in the table) of WP:WIAFL. On top of that, this list relies solely on one source and was last updated in September of 2007.--Crzycheetah 02:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. -- Scorpion0422 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment regarding Criteria 6. There are empty cells in the tables because players who have never scored a run cannot have high scores or an average, and likewise players who have never bowled cannot have bowling averages or best bowling figures. I'll put dashes in the box to make it better, would that suffice? SGGH speak! 06:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Another comment CricInfo is probably the most reliable source for cricket information in the world, so there are worse sources to have only one of. SGGH speak! 06:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • And a further comment I've also expanded the lead. SGGH speak! 06:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments Dashes are fine. A Key section is needed for all statistical abbreviations and an explanation of "*" in the "HS" column. As for the references, where did the info in the lead come from? In that Cricinfo page, all I see is a table with 11 columns of stats while in this article, there are 14 columns. My question is where did the additional 3 columns come from?--Crzycheetah 08:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Information from the lead is from the other articles, but I shall shortly cite it for you. I'll add a section explaining the abbreviations. I'll try to write it in prose but would it be better in a list? I'll check the coloumns too. SGGH speak! 10:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would do if my university connection is messing up my attempts to get into CricInfo at the moment. SGGH speak! 10:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I much rather see abbr. in the table and a Key section where those abbr. are explained. For example, see List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks. Right now, the table is too widened.--Crzycheetah 20:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship

I am nominating this page because of the reliable sourcing criteria. Most of the sources the page relies on, "Strong Style Spirit", "Wrestling Information Archive" and "TitleHistories.com" seem to be rather questionable. Some of these sources have been deemed unuseable on FAs, so why should it be any different here? This is largely a test case because there are several other similar lists with questionable sourcing. -- Scorpion0422 02:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove (De-list)-It's funny how you Scorpion supported the promotion of the article to FL, and now you want to remove it ;). I hate to do this as a member of the project, but I checked out where the sources get their information from, "SSS" gets it from the promotion websites, but also fan sites, which is unreliable. Titlehistories.com also does that, as does "WIA". Since there are new standards to meet for FLC's sourcing wise, the article does not meet that.--SRX--LatinoHeat 02:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • In my defense, back then I didn't care as much about whether the sources were reliable or not. -- Scorpion0422 02:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's ok. I just pointed it out, not to offend you in any way.SRX--LatinoHeat 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest buildings and structures in London

This list currently has only six references, and about 50 buildings listed. On the list, it lacks a catagory for notes, and a timeline of tallest buildings. which is standerd on United States building list. It also has, MoS violations, and lacks a few meters to feet conversions. There is an unclear divide between buildings and structures. In the case of the BT Tower, even though it is listed by emporis and skyscraperpage as a non-building tower, it is listed here as a regular building. The Croydon transmitting station is listed, envn though there is already a List of tallest buildings and structures in Croydon. Also what does "Helter Skelter", "Cheesegrater", and "Walkie Talkie" mean? Alaskan assassin (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of HIV-positive people

Contacted Garion96, Orlady and Trezatium.

  • Keep—Glad the article has been improved during the process. Still a little hazy about the "pragmatic" approach to the requirement for comprehensiveness. I'll shut up about it and watch how the issue is treated. Utterly fails Criterion 3: Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate,...

Since this is of the second type (the "otherwise"), it must include at least all of the major items, i.e., all of the major people who have HIV in each category. It doesn't. It will never be able to to do this, since (1) many many people do not disclose their HIV-positive status, and (2) many many people don't know their HIV-positive status.

A second aspect of non-comprehensiveness is the bias towards American and, to a lesser extent, British people. How many Indian actors, for example, have HIV?

What's an "adult film actor"? If that's coy-speak for "porn star", it should be linked to that article, at least on first occurrence.

A minor issue: why the final periods after non-sentences in the "Comments" column? TONY (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep It does include all of the major items. Of course only published in reliable sources. The fact that many people don't include their status or don't know about it is not a reason to say it is not comprehensive. These are obviously not included in reliable sources so can't be in the list. Regarding the bias towards the Anglo-Saxon world. The reason for that is that it was decided to not use red links in the list per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Only people with a Wikipedia article are included and since this is the English Wikipedia....

I think adult film actor was the name of the article at the time it was featured. I see it is now Pornographic actor so I can add a link to that. The same for the final periods, if it is grammatically correct to have no periods they can be removed. Garion96 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I not understanding something. If it's a "dynamic" or "incomplete" list, it must include at least all of the major items (people, in this case). The way the scope (and title) are framed, this is impossible. I know of someone "major" who should be listed, for example, but it's a private matter. At the moment, it's impossible to guage whether the selection is POV, and that is another breach of the criteria. Just how were they selected? TONY (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
If it is not published in a reliable source how can it be "major"? Only in regards to Wikipedia of course. The criteria for the list are 1: Person has a Wikipedia article 2: HIV/AIDS information is published in a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Regarding selection methods, I have spent quite a while trawling the archives of the New York Times and other newspapers, books on the history of AIDS, and Wikipedia itself (using Google). Given the nature of these sources, some geographical bias is inevitable (and consistent with the rest of en-WP). Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if anyone found a really notable omission. Trezatium (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep WP has always taken a pragmatic approach to judging the comprehensiveness of effectively unbounded people lists. If reviewers can find many more entries for the list, then it is probably not comprehensive. For a list this size, I'd expect to be able to find a few either overlooked or recently made public. You'd also expect to find a handful that might be added if only reliable sources could be found.
The title cannot contain the words "notable" or "famous" because WP guidelines forbid it, and WP lists only notable people anyway. I suggest the scope definition in the lead be tweaked to include "notable" to clarify things. Notability, for these purposes, has always been defined as having (or a reasonable expectation of having) an en-WP article. The HIV status of these people must be known and in the public domain. I think that is reasonably clear from the lead definition + the requirements of WP:BLP.
The list is biased but that is probably a consequence of being on en-WP, requiring reliable sources, the nature of the disease, the freedom to which certain societies allow people to be open about having it, and the extent to which journalists are interested in writing about people with some careers rather than others. If, for example, there are several notable Bollywood actors missing from the list, then that might imply the editors weren't researching wide enough. Some specific examples of insufficiency are needed. Colin°Talk 18:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That might help, but the title is still wrong: "List of known HIV-positive people" would normally be a tautology in this context, but here it's essential, since so many people in the categories chosen do not know.
PS Is there a list of people with Hep-C? TONY (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
List of people with hepatitis C, of course. I know there are missing attributes in the title of these lists, but WP:NAME encourages a compromise between simple, obvious titles and precise but unwieldy ones. Where do we draw the line: "List of people known to be HIV-positive, who are open about it, and have been written about by English-language journalists"? With Hep C, the unknowns utterly dwarf the knowns. That's mentioned briefly in the lead, but a full discussion of the epidemiology of Hep C belongs in the disease article. Perhaps the HIV list could mention some basic stats about what proportion of HIV-carriers are ignorant of their status? I wouldn't oppose changing the name to "List of known HIV-positive people" but don't feel it is "essential". Colin°Talk 08:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
In which case, the scope of the list might be more carefully delineated in the lead. At the moment, "categorised" is vague in the first sentence, and seems to promise that all whose HIV-positive status is known (just to themselves and their doctor?) will be listed below. The second sentence says the list is 33.2 million (which, BTW, I find too precise at one decimal point, given the limits of the methodology).

This is a categorized, alphabetical list of people who are known to have been infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, including those who have died. UNAIDS and the WHO estimate that, as of December 2007, the number of people living with HIV has reached its highest level, at around 33.2 million

TONY (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. 33 million is more appropriate here. Should the "categorized, alphabetical" aspect of the list be moved out of the lead sentence? How would you make "categorized" less "vague" and why? It is just an arbitrary grouping for convenience, rather than any exact scientific division. I'm puzzled about the "reached its highest level" statement. I first read this as "has peaked" but I actually think it means "is still growing". Could we just say "... December 2007, the number of people living with HIV is around 33 million"? Colin°Talk 09:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That number is derived directly from the source though. To be specific "33.2 million [30.6–36.1 million]". Why should it be a round number when the source itself does not specify a round number? Garion96 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That range is a confidence interval, though the source doesn't say what level of confidence they used (probably 95%). The value quoted (33.2) is the mean value of their estimates. Outside of a scientific paper, these number aren't particularly interesting and on its own, 33.2 million makes the reader think the confidence interval could be [33.1–33.3 million]. Saying "33 million" or even "over 30 million" is better. It is just an estimate. Colin°Talk 10:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. I just don't like to change a source derived number. Even for something minor as this. Garion96 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
You could ask Eubulides. He knows far more than I do about what is acceptable and correct in this regard. Colin°Talk 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
We've strayed onto an unexpected issue. There are more things at stake: I'm unwilling to give our readers the idea that the numbers can be calculated to that degree of accuracy, for some of the reasons I've given above. And there's the time problem: the numbers infected are growing at an alarming rate. In a year, how many will be added? 33 point something is very misleading in these circumstances. I'm happy for "well over 30 million". TONY (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The sentence associates the estimate with a precise date, and in any case the growth is perhaps less dramatic than you think - see slide 4 here. UNAIDS have chosen to give three significant figures; why assume we know better? Trezatium (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Eubulides for his learned opinion. Tony, you hint that there are there other aspects of the article that you'd like examined? Colin°Talk 13:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) "Learned"? (Them's fightin' words. :-)

  • I faced the same problem in AIDS #Epidemiology and settled for "Globally, an estimated 33.2 million people lived with HIV in 2007, including 2.5 million children." This says "estimated", which tells the reader the number isn't exact. For estimates where the range is quite wide I also gave the range, for example, "An estimated 2.5 million (range 1.8–4.1 million) people were newly infected in 2007, including 420,000 children."
  • The ranges are not 95% confidence intervals; they are merely plausibility bounds. Please see Understanding the new UNAIDS estimates, reference 4.
  • There is no single right way to present estimates like these; a lot of it depends on the presumed competence (and impatience level) of your readership.
  • Unless there are dueling estimates and considerable controversy (which is not the case here) I think it's better not to put the source in the main text, as it clutters up the text; a footnote is plenty.
  • I reviewed that paragraph in the lead and found a couple of problems. The cited source does not give the estimate "More than 25 million others have died" (at least, I could not find it anywhere in the cited source). There is also an unsourced claim that AIDS is one of the most destructive pandemics in recorded history.
  • The cited source does estimate 2007 deaths, so we can include that. I think it helpful to briefly mention that about 15% are children (this fits into the Ryan White picture) and that the vast majority of deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa (to give a global perspective).
  • I made this change to try to address the above problems. Hope it helps.

Eubulides (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps it's because I'm relatively new to FLC that I quail at the potential for POV (in inclusion/exclusion, whether on purpose or by accident) in the selection process for many lists of people. Even more so for lists of, say, alumni of univerisities, where it's impossible for reviewers to tell whether there's a bias in the selection. Adult film actors is a bad term: could be antonym of "child film actors", an unfortunate couplet. At least a hyphen (adult-film actors), or call a spade a spade. Could the title at least be changed to "List of notable HIV-positive people"? TONY (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
But "notable" is different per the dictionary and per WP:N. A reader would think the title refers to the former while it actually refers to the latter. indopug (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, it looks comprehensive and complete enough to me. GreenJoe 00:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The list is admittedly not complete. However, it's impressively comprehensive, and thus meets the FL criteria. My involvement with it began 3 months ago when I added Terry Dolan, who I considered to be a serious omission. After adding him, I spent a little time searching for noteworthy omissions and did not find any.
It would, however, be helpful to add some words to the intro to clarify that the list is limited to notable people (including some who are notable solely in connection with their infection).
In spite of the "rule" that all names on the list must have their own articles, I see at least one name that is on the list without having an article. The former article about Gugu Dlamini (a woman who who was stoned and stabbed to death for admitting she had AIDS) was converted to a redirect to this list article. IMO, it is reasonable for the list to include people who lack articles if they are notable only in connection with their infection status. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: It will never be complete (we're in for a lot of lawsuits if this can't be reliably sourced) but Wikipedia's policy is that it strives for verifiability, not truth. Therefore, verifiable entries only is enough for an FL, it will never be complete as more people are born/diagnosed every second - but what it has is enough...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of cricket terms

I am nominating this page for removal because it only has two sources and neither of them go directly to a relevant page. One goes to a general news website, while the other just goes to a list of Cricket rules. -- Scorpion0422 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose removal This may be a case of outdated links, new references could easily be found, dictionaries of cricket terms are abundant. Here for example is a CricInfo cricket glossary, and CricInfo is the most used source for cricket in wikipedia I should imagine. This pdf by the ECB also serves as a reference, as does this BBC article, and this article from the Sussex CCC, and What is a Googly by Rob Eastaway. SGGH speak! 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, good. If you're going to add the refs, I suggest checking to make sure every term is covered. Also, the lead could use a little polishing, and it wouldn't hurt to have a lead image. -- Scorpion0422 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It is probably a good time to do a cleanup (is Dweller listening ?) I wouldn't bother if terms that are very common aren't sourced, but there are quite a few which are not well-known - for eg, Xavier Tras, Rogers, Pongo, Popper, Mullygrubber etc. We also need to make sure that these have some popularity and are not one-off usage (even if that one use is in BBC). Tintin 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can do the work yes, but with other things on my plate it may not be for a day or so. SGGH speak! 07:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Let me know if any of the terms aren't covered in your references. I can probably fill in most of any gaps from Barclays World of Cricket, a cricket encyclopaedia which has a glossary section. JH (talk page) 08:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have changed my vote to endorse as I have discovered that the article is in fact a near complete copyright violation of this page. Each entry will have to be rewritten and then referenced to that page, which is in fact a good source. SGGH speak! 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It is almost certain that Sussex site copied it from Wikipedia and is a copyright violation as they haven't acknowledged the source. If you look at the first entry Agricultural shot - "this is a swing across the line of the ball (resembling a scything motion) played without much technique. Often one that results in a chunk of the pitch being dug up by the bat. A type of a slog. This term is thought to have originated in the city-country games in Australia, where the farmers normally had less technique, but more power than their city rivals."
  • The first two lines were added by Hig Hertenfleurst on Aug 6, 2004. The Australian connection was added by an anon on Sep 6, 2005. The scything motion was added by yet another anon of August 25, 2005. What are the chances that all these people separately copied this from the Sussex site, and left everything else there alone ? Tintin 10:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Hmm... perhaps I reacted to hastily. Does this mean that Sussex can't be a source nevertheless? SGGH speak! 13:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we can't use Sussex as a source now. That would be a self-reference. By the bye, should someone contact Sussex County Cricket Club and gently remind them about Wikipedia's licencing requirements? -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay I will remove that source, however I have added loads of citations using the other three, but still more are needed. SGGH speak! 13:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not a copyvio. I helped write many of the terms. The Internet archiev lists the sussex page since July 9, 2006. [11] =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Back to opposing the removal then, however there are some ommissions which I'll help fill, and more references needed. The massive use of the cricinfo reference has left the notes section rather ugly... SGGH speak! 16:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a long process :( SGGH speak! 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support removal

  • Final sentence of first paragraph needs citing - fixed SGGH speak! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Each term needs citing
  • Am working on it SGGH speak! 09:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Have to wonder if it even belongs in Wikipedia at all, per WP:NOTDICDEF.
  • Not really. I don't use Wiktionary the way I do Wikipedia, so don't know if they have Featured content. If they do, this should be Featured there, not here. User:Nichalp's arguments for it staying on Wikipedia don't really inspire me. Sorry. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose removal. Most of the reasons which proponents of removal have given seem readily fixable. As to whether the article belongs in an encyclopaedia, it's surely not unusual for an encyclopaedia concerning a specialist subject to include a glossary, which is what this list is. Indeed, the comprehensive cricket encyclopaedia Barclays World of Cricket includes a glossary section. JH (talk page) 09:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Article needs a lot of referencing work to be due its status, as well as removing OR and tightening up definitions. (I just had a bit of a bash at the "A"s) That said, there's no deadline. I'm very busy with Bradman's article, but there's enough contributors to WP:CRIC to be able to sort this out. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment—I'm impressed that the author(s) has used fine judgement in improving on the definitions in the sources (I was all ready to find copyright breaches, but didn't). However, the whole thing needs a good massage for formatting issues. Some bits need copy-editing; there are a few MOS breaches. I hope it's saved, but can't be without significant work. TONY (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Wikipedia is not a glossary of terms. GreenJoe 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The FAC disagrees, I don't think that kind of statement can be made without discussion. SGGH speak! 10:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of ISS spacewalks

I am nominating this page for removal because it has been tagged for a lack of citations since March (and doesn't appear to have any kind of main reference for the bulk of the list) and its lead is a sum total of one sentence. -- Scorpion0422 21:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support removal, fails the basic FL criteria concerning verifiability through referencing. The layout is also off putting and I'd believe it has a few MoS violations.Collectonian (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal Shame, I like the idea of this one.. :(
    • Layout of WP:LS is strange with contents table to the right and lead image to the left, and does not adequately introduce the article
    • Fails MOS on WP:BOLDTITLE,
    • No references for any of the spacewalk, which considering there is a notes column, there should be
    • No explanation of what the purple rowspans are supposed to mean (my guess is each different mission, but I'm not supposed to guess)
    • Sections are oddly grouped; a 3 year period, a 1 year period, a 2 year period, and a 4 year period
  • In short, it fails WP:WIAFL Cr. 1, 2, 4 and 6, as well as general MOS guidelines -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal Too many MoS breaches like the bold link and the number "6" in the lead, odd layout, and too few references. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove due to lack of citations. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove due to lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of United States Senate committees

I am nominating this page for removal because it has no citations and no references (criterion 1c, it has an inadequate lead (2a) and according to the page (and page history) it hasn't been updated since 2007. -- Scorpion0422 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support removal, fails multiple FL criteria, most notably/concernably is a seeming complete lack of referencing for the actual list contents. Also agree the lead is inadequate, lacking both context and decent formatting. Collectonian (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal
    • The lead is lacking any kind of useful prose to explain the topic and introduce the list
    • Fails the WP:MOS, specifically WP:WAI for having small text
    • The infobox is located at the bottom of the page for some strange reason
    • The entire list (excepting 3 entries) is totally unverifiable

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Remove. Agree with Scorpion. Original nominator appears to have abandoned it. Colin°Talk 20:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per Scorpion and Matthew. Especially, I don't like the small text that is throughout the table.--Crzycheetah 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Sopranos episodes

This list fails criteria 1c of the FL criteria in that it can not be claimed to be factually accurate when it is lacking in references. The two general references cover the episode list itself, but the entire lead is unreferenced. It has been tagged for this issue since February, but it has remained unaddressed. At this point, I feel it should be delisted. Collectonian (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • For hour long episodes, the summaries are rather short too.
  • TV.com isn't a reliable source, as it is user-edited, just like IMDB
  • What does need referencing? I would say the Directors, Writers and airdates. The writers and directors are covered by the HBO website.
  • The TVWoP gives airdates, but is it a reliable source? Who are the recappers? Is it a user-edited site, or are they Bravo employees? Perhaps TV Guide's website would be better?
  • The lead does need citing; I don't mind doing that. I've found a few relevant references already, though I haven't seen a single episode, so if it needs expanding, I'm not the best person for that job.

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I know parts of TV.com are user edited, but are the actual airdates/episode lists? Good question on TVWoP. The recappers are a set group of people who are paid for their work, and new recappers apparently have to go through an interview process just like any other job (I never knew that until I just looked them up, wow). So that would seem to make them professional reviewers and so I'd say they meet the reliable source requirements. Collectonian (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I tried searching the site for an "About Us" or similar section, but didn't see it. I'm not sure about the airdates and episode lists at TV.com. The recaps and everything else in the "white space" are user-edited. I'm not sure about headers and stuff, but to be safe I think it should be replaced with something solidly reliable. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 00:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How does this List stand now? Does it meet the criteria yet? For me, I'd still like to see lengthier episode summaries, but is that a FL requirement. Unfortunately, I can't do them as I haven't seen the show and after today I won't be able to access the internet for a few days anyway. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is looking better (though 86 needs to be unbolded :P). Proper episode summaries are an FL requirement for an episode list. Unfortunately, I've never watched it either, so I can't tell if they are including relevant plot points and resolutions, or if they are teasers. Guess they can be checked against the excessive episode articles, though, to see. Collectonian (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I left it bold because most of the American drama episode lists have the number bolded. It doesn't bother me which was is correct, as long as there is consistency across the board. I'll leave it for someone else to do the summary checks. I'm moving out of my apartment today and tomorrow, but my new one won't be ready until the 9th because the previous tenants trashed it. I do get new appliances, paint and carpet though! :) Anyway, it means I won't have internet access until about the 12th. :( -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 21:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No major changes have been made to this article in the last two weeks. It was brought here based on the fact that it failed the old WP:WIAFL criteria 1c ("Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.). I think this has been addressed, and now meets the revised criteria.

I am still concerned with the summaries. Are they teasers or summaries? I haven't seen a single episode so I don't know. Are the of an adequate length for an hour long show? Looking at the summaries of Lost (season 3), another hour long show (although it's actually 45 minutes because of commercials), I would say they're too short. But that isn't why it was brought here. The newly revised criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope". It does cover the scope, but does it do it comprehensively? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Support removal due to a lack of citations. GreenJoe 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)