Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/June 2008

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:50, 9 June 2008 [1].

[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)

• 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

• Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Refs 9 and 10 appear mid sentence
• Per WP:ACCESS, how will the white text of the table header be rendered if the page was print out or someone has a b/w monitor?
• If the red is used because it's a team colour, perhaps make the header text red so that it will at least print
• In the Key table, explain what "Nat" and "Pos" mean

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)

Comments

• Fix links for disambiguation links: Power forward, Carlos Rogers, Mark Jackson, Michael Stewart

Gary King (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:12, 7 June 2008 [2].

[edit] Russian Music Competition

Well, here I am with another music competition at FLC. This is a music competition which takes place in California, and has pianists travelling from across the world to compete in it. I have been unable to discover why it is called the Russian Music Competition when its based in the United States, but I'm assuming this is because the founders where Russian, or at least part-Russian. I understand this has only been in the Mainspace for a few minutes, but after extensive work, I believe it meets the featured list criteria.

In order to save everyone's time, I feel I should point a couple of things out here. More than one person can indeed win the first, second or third place, and it appears that the competition may skip the first prize, and move straight on to the second prize. I took the decision to make the tables separately, as I believed they would look messy if all joined up. In conclusion, I think this list is ready, and I'm willing to address any issues and look forward to seeing any comments. Qst (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Fully referenced, meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If you mean the tables, there is no need to add the same footnote 100 times. Linking them as a "General reference" in the References section is perfectly acceptable. This oppose is not actionable. Daniel (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So, GreenJoe, you're saying that if an article is completely referenced to reliable sources and has five citations, it does not have enough citations, even though its reliable? As that's basically what you're saying. This oppose, as Daniel said in other words, is superfluous. Qst (talk) 11:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps the source of the claims in the table needs to be more explicit, somewhere. I agree that we certainly don't want the same ref a hundred times. Joe, can you be more explicit?

The prose is OK, but needs sprucing up—one or two ungrammatical sentences. Is their a collaborator who might be able to come to it fresh? TONY (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I can request the assistance of a couple of editors via IRC — they should be able to help. Qst (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyedited. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide. :) Qst (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Shouldn't the article be called "International Russian Music Piano Competition"?
• Do we need any of those flags and the countries linked each time? (WP:FLAG) The list isn't even sortable, so why is the overlinking needed? indopug (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose My main concern being the title/scope of the article. The current title does not fit with the list of winners contained within. A more appropriate title would be something like List of Russian Music Competition winners or something along those lines. As the title stands, it suggests an article about the history of the awards, the people behind it, etc, etc, not a bunch of tables listing the winners. Drewcifer (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, creating a separate article for the actual competition itself would be a duplicate of the info included in the lead, as I've included everything available in the lead of the list. Qst (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. Please see my comments made at this FLC (I'd rather not repeat myself unnecessarily). This article has the exact same problem (and possible solutions). Drewcifer (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so would you like me to create a stub (unfortunately, even with all information available, it will still be stub) and work on the lead a little? Qst (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's completely up to you. In my opinion, the best solution would be to move that stuff out of the lead and into the body, rewrite the lead, expand the new stuff in the body wherever possible, and then see where that takes us. I think it would be a mistake to split it up into two articles since, as you say, it's only enough for a stub. Unfortunately, by the time you've done all of this, the article may no longer qualify as a bona fide list, which might make this FLC a moot point. But I suppose we'll cross that bridge when/if we come to it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I'm also concerned over the title of the list versus the content versus the real title of the award.
  • No need to relink US $ twice in the lead.
  • I'm yet to be convinced of the significance of this competition as a whole. In what sense is it notable? Forgive my ignorance but a competition where prize winners can walk away with $100 sounds little more than a school fete...
  • "Best Performance " vs "Best performance " inconsistent.
  • Asking a lot I know but all bar one of your references are from the competition itself. Are any reliable secondary sources which may help boost the verifiability of notability available?
  • What happened between 2000 and 2002? And are the founders notable in some way or just a couple of Jon Does?

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:33, 7 June 2008 [3].

[edit] List of Houston Rockets head coaches

It's pretty obvious why I put the list here, so I won't bore you with the details. Comment away. Noble Story (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments- Overall looks good. Few small things. The template {{Houston Rockets}} would help the reader move to other Rockets articles. The back/fore ground color in the list of San Diego and Houston Rockets are hard to read. I do know if those are the official colors, but it would be helpful to find another shade of blue/red. Thats it for right now, PGPirate 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've redone the colors and added the template. Noble Story (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Made some minor edits, hope it's fine. The only thing I see missing is the fact that Rudy T won two NBA Championships. It should be mentioned either in the lead or in the table.--Crzycheetah 06:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I did add the info about the championships. However, re-bolded the title, as I think it should be bolded. Noble Story (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good.--Crzycheetah 09:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. It looks good, but it's so short it could be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence. Does the reader have to be told it's a list of Houston Rocket head coaches when he can gather that from the list's title?
• "Rockets" sounds too much like a fan-term

It looks good and all, and meets the criteria but I actually agree with GreenJoe. It's so small that it should be merged. Therefore I'm going to be Neutral on this one. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've removed the bold, and I refer to the team as the Rockets because they were in both San Diego and Houston, and so I refer to them just as the Rockets. I guess I can't change your opinion about the size, so oh well. Noble Story (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

** Yeah. It is good, and I don't want to knock what you've done but I don't believe that it fits as the best Wikipedia has to offer (from WP:WIAFL), rather it is just an easy list to produce because the scope is small. It would offer a whole lot more if this were moved to the Houston Rockets article. That's why I'm not opposing, because it is good, but I just can't support either. Hope you understand what I'm saying. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind. Most head coach articles are fairly small lists. Well written, so Support Changed my mind again. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cincinnati Bengals head coaches where Crzy and Redlands described it much more eloquently than I did here. Neutral until something is decided. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 14:31, 7 June 2008 [4].

[edit] List of Fruits Basket chapters

This is a list of the volumes and chapters of the manga Fruits Basket. In compiling it I followed the guildelines in WP:MOS-AM and the model of other featured lists for manga, and issues raised during peer review have, I believe, been addressed. I believe it qualifies under the criteria for featured lists, the volume summaries are not of excessive length, other relevant information is covered, it is referenced, and it satisfies other guidelines for writing about works of fiction. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - I think the lead should include a mention of the anime series adapted from the manga. :) Perhaps the references linked in the headers of the table could instead be moved to the bottom in a general references section (similar to what is done with ep lists)? Summaries all seem like a good length, though maybe could benefit from a copy editing. I didn't deep scan, but noticed a minorly ackward phrasing and slightly boo boo in the first summary. (steals some of your formatting for the Marmalade Boy chapter list LOL)Collectonian (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Not to argue, but is it really appropriate to mention the anime adaptation in an article about the manga's publication details? For the sourcing, I'm not thrilled with using generalized rather than footnoted, but I'll give it a go. The five manga FLs all footnote, though only one in this style. I'll give the prose another pass this weekend, though I'd hoped I'd taken care of the more awkward phrases this time. *sigh* —Quasirandom (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I was thinking more of having a second person go through, since I know I'm my own worse copyeditor :-P For the anime, I think it is appropriate to mention it at least briefly, if nothing but a single sentence, since it is based on the manga chapters. Much like in the anime episode list, we mention it was based on the manga. For the references, I know its mostly a style thing so not something I'd oppose over (though if you try, don't forget to move them to footnotes section LOL). I like the general myself because it keeps the tables clean, but either works for me :) Unrelated side note, but where did you find the Chuang Yi release dates? I've been struggling looking for those on another list where they were the first publisher. Collectonian (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  There -- how's that for the general style? (I'll have to reconstruct where the SG release dates came from -- IIRC from three months ago, it was a foreign language bookseller, so not a citable reliable source but I had no reason to doubt the accuracy.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  That works for me. I think a foreign language bookseller is fine to use if no other sources are available.Collectonian (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

  Except, of course, WP:RS strongly discourages it. I've been working (as I can -- life's been lifelike this week) on finding citation that better conform to policy, but so far all I've found is library catalog listings which confirm, in each case, the year of publication but don't list the months. Aside from this and an outside copyedit, anything else? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, RS does discourage it, but in the absence of anything else, its considered the "last resort" sort of option.  :) And nope, just needs the copyedit and should all be good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Okay, now you just need the copyedit. Chuang Yi finally added the release dates on their site! Yay! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  *blink* Right. And I'm working on that. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, starting tomorrow I'm going to be traveling for I hope no more than the next few days but possibly longer, and my internet access will be spotty at best. I've requested a copyedit at the project page but otherwise may not be able to deal with issues raised here until my return. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I know nothing about the manga or typical manga-list style, but it looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, for a list of this size, there simply are not enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't wikilink the bold title of the lead section, per WP:LS#Bold title
• Refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Per MOS:NUM, use figures or words for numbers consistently, so not "19", "23" and "twenty-six" in the same article.
• Why is rat and dog wikilinked, but not cat?

And that's all I have. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Actual article has not been touched since May 17. It appears this FLC has been abandoned. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1, poorly written, especially the narrative descriptions. Random examples: "tried to pretend to be". "Conflicted over his growing feelings for Tohru because of the approaching deadline for his confinement"—euuw.

• MOS breach: use "logical" punctuation.
• Overlinked. Why "English", for heaven's sake. And frankly, the messy blue could be reduced by delinking the names of anglophone countries.
• Fair-use justification on the info page needs copy-editing. And can you debold the messy copyright box?

Needs work by you, and fresh eyes to copy-edit the WHOLE thing carefully. TONY (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back online -- thanks for your patience, but life got lifelike. I'll try to deal with the comments above tonight and tomorrow. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, yes, this FLC has been abandoned. Life has remained, er, lifelike (forcing me to take a wikibreak) and I haven't had the time to address the (quite valid) concerns. Sorry to make others go through the effort of evaluating the list without my being able to follow through. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [5].

[edit] List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks

My first featured list nomination, and I think it's a good one. The scope is narrow, the content is clear, the heading is well-written, and it gets bonus points for just being interesting. --jonny-mt 17:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why the repetition of the article title as "this is a list of..."? See also Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Consider this as an alternative

In the days following the September 11, 2001 attacks, many television and radio stations altered normal programming in response to the events. During this period, the rumor spread that Clear Channel Communications and its subsidiaries had established a list of "songs with questionable lyrics"

• "that stations might not want to play after the attacks." Stations, or station executives, producers, etc?
• "and songs done by multiple artists" Consider "songs recorded by multiple artists", "performed by" etc. Anything by "done by"
• Reference needed for final paragraph of Lead
• Is there any information about why each particular song was banned? Which exact lyrics were "questionable", etc
• The first reference doesn't work

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've fixed the repetition in the lead, the verb "done", and the first reference (apparently it hadn't been updated since the article was moved to an archive). While I'm not sure whether or not there's a need to specify to what individuals within a given radio station the suggestion targeted, I'll do some poking around and see if there's anything more concrete on the reasons behind the listing of the individual songs. --jonny-mt 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cool. Make sure you still include a wikilink to Clear Channel Communications though. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ugh. This article is little changed from when it went through two AfD's, neither of which managed to garner a consensus to keep. Much of the information on the "why" behind songs being included on the list is speculative original research (including the statements about only certain versions of some songs being included on the list, which implies that there was a reason for this beyond mere oversight on the part of the list's original author). The article is also repeatedly vandalized and/or incorrectly edited by people adding songs that were never part of the list. On a side note, I find the current table layout to be less professional-looking than the previous alphabetical-heading layout. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 02:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, not enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [6].

[edit] List of ABA champions

I've based this nomination off of both List of Super Bowl champions and List of NBA champions and believe it fulfills all of the FL criteria, including the comprehensiveness and well-referenced criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments-
• "This is a list of franchises that have won the American Basketball Association (ABA) Finals, that is those who have won the championship series of the ABA" - Thats a bit wordy
• Image:IndianaPacersOriginal.png - even though the Pacers won it three times, I believe its a bit POVish. An ABA finals logo would be best or a standard ABA logo would be sufficient.
• "The ABA Finals started in 1968, the league itself formed in 1967 and both ended in 1976." I believe it should read The league formed in [the fall of(i assume)] 1967 and the Finals started in [the spring of(i assume)] 1968. The league dissolved in 1976. Something along those lines.
• "Since its formation, outstanding players in the Finals won the ABA Playoffs Most Valuable Player." - if there isnt going to be any elaboration, which there shouldn't be, I believe this sentence should go. This list is about the teams not the players.
• The key needs symbols included with it. Symbols will allow color-blind people the ablity to follow the list. For example Eastern Division should read Eastern Division #. Than for the 1968 season the Pittsburgh Pipers should be the Pittsburgh Pipers #.
  • I've implemented everything you've requested, but have just removed the logo. I have not been able to verify what the official logo of the ABA is and can't find any other image that would seem to be NPOV. If you or anyone else has a suggestion for this, please say so. Hello32020 (talk) 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No reference in the second paragraph?
• What do the numbers and the #'s mean? You should add it to the key.

Noble Story (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

References added and the numbers and number symbol comment were already symbolized in the key. Hello32020 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support. It looks good, but it's so short it could be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please see Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence.
• Sentences shouldn't start with "However" (Grammatical conjunction)

I agree with Joe that due to the size of the list it should be merged. As such I'm staying Neutral. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done Hello32020 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This page should be merged into this section. There's already a table there that's more useful than the one here, so I don't know why this page was even created. There were nine champions only and that number will never increase. I strongly suggest to redirect this page to American Basketball Association#List of ABA championships. --Crzycheetah 04:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• En dashes, not hyphens, after 2000 at top, and in the first piped ref.
• Basketball-ref.com: the copyright is held by Copyright © 2000-2008 Sports Reference LLC. Shouldn't this appear in the ref list?
• The pink and blue are fine, but the glaring orange at the bottom isn't so nice. Can you select a better match?
• "Key" section: I find this clumsy—"Numbers in parentheses in the tables are used as follows:

Winning team column indicates number of ABA championship wins for that team." TONY (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hello32020 (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [7].

[edit] List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters

This is a complete listing of the Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl manga volumes and chapters along with descriptions for the volumes, and with the chapter titles all verified in their English and Japanese forms. I believe it satisfies the FL requirements and meets the level of quality of similar lists as in List of Claymore chapters and List of Naruto chapters (Part I).--十八 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - what is the purpose of the "Series chronology" section and why have it here instead of in the main article? I can't see what value it adds to the list and it seems out of place. Also, the plot seem overly long, pushing 500 words in some instances. Why use "List of volumes and chapters" as a header instead of the most standard "Volume list" as seen in the FLs you pointed to?Collectonian (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, I didn't catch the header; I initially pattered the list off List of Yotsuba&! chapters which bears the same heading, but it's changed now. Also, I got the idea for the series chronology from the non-FL List of Kodomo no Jikan chapters, but I moved it to the main article as you suggested. As for the summaries, I do realize that they are quite lengthy, but when I initially discussed this here when {{Graphic novel list}} was first instituted, I was told that lengthy summaries were unavoidable with volumes that cover a lot of material; even with one or two sentences a chapter, that amounts to a lot. If I try to shorten them dramatically, than much of the context from a volume summary will be lost, or will be so curt that it won't be adequate enough to provide a concise summary of a given volume. As I said, I tried to seek guidance on this issue, but no one said longer summaries weren't allowed, especially when you consider how long normal novel summaries are supposed to be under WP:NOVEL. Furthermore, the main-part summary for volume one of Kashimashi (not counting the small omake description below it) is slightly smaller than the volume 1 summary of the list you worked on, List of Marmalade Boy chapters. The main-part summaries for volumes 2-4 are also approximately that same length, with volume 5 being the more bloated of all. I could scrap all the omake descriptions that are there, effectively bringing the word count to a more reasonable limit, if you'd like.--十八 09:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to cut Marmalade's down to 300 words or so each :( I think the omake/extra's could be scrapped, but curious as to what the current precedence is. Neither Claymore nor Naruto seems to have extra chapters to give descriptions of, and Marmalade really doesn't either, but I have some other chapter lists that do that I'm also getting ready for FLC, so it would be good to know for sure. And if they are allowed, at what length they should be. Collectonian (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the need for a copyedit. Other than that, everything meets the FLC criteria. The content is well sourced and the formatting is good. A one sentence mention that the chapters were adapted into an anime series would seem to be appropriate, though.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see exactly why. Why should adaptations matter on an article that's only about the manga? And why only mention the anime then? There was also a light novel, drama CD, and video game. I think going into adaptation info would not be focused in terms of providing a list of chapters for the manga.--十八 08:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the anime was adapted from the chapters of the manga. The light novel and drama CDs could also be noted, if they are adapted from the manga itself. It is part of the basic information of the manga, and speaks to the chapters. List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto chapters (Part I), List of Naruto chapters (Part II) (all FLs and together an FT), and List of Claymore chapters (also FL) mention their adaptations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, those articles do, but that was up to editor preference, not convention or consensus, so I don't see a reason for adding in the info about the anime when the main article takes care of it.--十八 10:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The article still needs a good copy edit. I suggest taking this to WP:PR. For example, "After Tomari catches Hazumu and Yasuna kissing, she tries to avoid Hazumu for several days afterwards." After and afterwards in the same sentence is very clumsy. Also read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence and WP:LS#Bold title regarding the repetition of the article title in the lead and the bold text + wikilinks. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I unbold the bolded portion in the lead and make it more like the lead of List of University of Waterloo people (which I just altered)? And if the only other concern is a good copyediting, wouldn't taking this to WP:LCE be the proper place (or else ask help from WP:ANIME)?--十八 06:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, something like that would be fine. LCE seems to be abandoned, so check out WP:PR volunteers and find someone who does copyedits. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough citations. GreenJoe 00:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What more do you want me to cite, if I may ask? If there is nothing else that needs citing, then it has enough citations.--十八 05:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [8].

[edit] List of deaths through alcohol

I have been working on this list for the past 3 weeks: I have fully referenced and expanded it into what I believe fulfils the criteria of a featured list. Al Tally ^talk 17:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment, why does the title say "deaths through alcohol" Wouldn't List of deaths by alcohol, List of deaths caused by alcohol, List of alcohol-caused deaths, or List of alcohol-induced deaths be better? Personally "deaths through alcohol" doesn't make sense. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree; there was an old discussion on the talk page regarding this. I'm personally uncertain of which name sounds best. Perhaps others who comment here may have a preference. Al Tally ^talk 21:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good, although I think it would work better if the table was sortable. Gran² 20:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Which bit would be relevant to sort? I'm not familiar with how sorting works, especially formatting the stuff that needs sorting. Al Tally ^talk 21:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The locations column needs to be expanded to include country. How come John Bonham is just a "Musician", while Steve Clark is the "Def Leppard guitarist"? indopug (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll expand them. The occupation is just taken from the list that was there before I worked on it. I'll make each occupation more specific. Al Tally ^talk 21:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that the title needs to be changed - I might humbly suggest List of alcohol-related deaths is better. Furthermore, I don't think this can be considered comprehensive. Why not her, for example, or any of the other American college students whose alcohol-induced deaths caused new programs on campus or national nonprofits and whatnot? Why not Jimi Hendrix, who IIRC died choking on red wine vomit because a sedative overdose kept him from waking up? That is certainly dying from the effects of excessive alcohol consumption, since he vomited due to drinking too much, thus killing him. That's as much an alcohol-caused death as Ira Hayes seems to be, for example, where alcohol made him unable to protect himself from dying from exposure. I also don't believe that there is not a single documented alcohol death prior to 1869. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Hendrix died from a drug overdose - he then vomited what he had just happened to consume which was alcohol. OK, point taken there are other people. Do these individuals have articles? If they do, I'm sure they can be added to this list. I believe it's as comprehensive as far as you can document these things. Al Tally ^talk 22:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Nevertheless, if not for the overconsumption of alcohol, he wouldn't have vomited and therefore, would not have died (the overdose itself could have killed him, maybe, but didn't). Anyway, my point is not that Hendrix needs to be included - it depends on how you want to set the scope of the list, I guess. But alcohol has been one of the leading killers of human beings in just about every civilization throughout history (citation needed, I know, but I feel confident in it...) but this list includes only a handful of people from prior to the 20th century, and no one who died later than 1869. It also includes a whole gaggle of Americans, a few Brits and Irishmen, and one Canadian and one Russian. Some casual googling for the phrase "drank himself to death" and other terms reveals seemingly notable people named Colin Clive, Agron, Leroy Carr, Güyük Khaan, Franz Kline, Demetrius, Garrincha, Emperor Wenzong of Tang, George Frederick Cook, Guitar Slim, Dylan Thomas (oops, he is on the list), William Holden, Robert Greene, Attila the Hun, Jackson Pollock and Edward D. Wood Jr.. Our article seems to disagree on Attila (our articles also disagree on Mozart and Alexander the Great, though there appears to be a lack of historical consensus), and Pollock apparently died in a drunk driving accident (why doesn't that qualify?), but there simply have to be more people worth adding. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Also Rory Gallagher, Bill Haley, Juke Boy Bonner, Gene Vincent, and John Panozzo, and there are several people on the List of drug-related deaths that aren't listed here (Leroy Carr, Bridgette Andersen, Tommy Bolin, others). Even taking all of my suggestions as fact (and I don't know that they are), the list would still completely ignore all of Indian and Middle Eastern civilizations, the Roman Empire, Australia and Africa - I'll bet any amount of money that there are notable people whose deaths were caused by alcohol in those places. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Suppport, this looks really good. Well done. GreenJoe 23:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

• Biased entries as pointed out by Tuf-Kat
• More work clearly needs to be done. If Tuf-Kat can find 26+ more people through a quick Google, how many have actually been excluded?
• Read Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Table looks odd without borders—never seen it in any other FL
• List is sortable, so all the locations and causes need wikilinking because depending on how it's sorted, an unlinked entry might be given before a linked one.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was not promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [9].

[edit] List of Detroit Red Wings head coaches

Self-Nomination It looks like this is ready for FLC. It's well written, and the lead and the table seem to be well referenced. It meets or so I think... all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Asterisks and table color are both used to show Hall of Fame induction - I suggest lose the asterisks. WP:Colors claims there is a reason for this. Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Jack Adams is not shown in the table as having ever coached the team while it was named the Red Wings. He should probably have two entries - one in each section of the table. The first coach shown under the heading Red Wings is #4 Tommy Ivan. It is only from reading the lead carefully that we realize that the first Red Wings coach was, in fact, Adams. The table itself carries no indication of what year the team name change occurred or that Adams continued coaching through it. Rmhermen (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments The Achievements section seems rather arbitrary. Example would include the mentions of career playing achievements of Pronovost and Park, which has no bearing on their coaching abilities.
• This is especially true of Park, who spent the vast majority of his career with teams other than Detroit. Nearly all his achievements were done with other teams.
• In regards to this, there is nothing mentioned under Ted Lindsay. He won the Stanley Cup 4 times playing for the Wings, led the leage in scoring once, and was named to the NHL All-Star team 9 times. None of this is mentioned.
• I'd suggest either add this, or more appropriately, make the Achievements section coaching-specific. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support All good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Good job on the article, although I have to point out something - there is one other NHL coaches list that is FL, List of New Jersey Devils head coaches. However, the Devils list is in a completely different format from this one, with a slightly shorter intro and extra information (such as playoff records) that could be pertinent to this list. I worry that if this became an FL, we would have two different styles for NHL coach lists, instead of having one unified style for the whole set of team coach lists. Just a thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks good. GreenJoe 00:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I made an edit by replacing {{legend2}} with {{colorbox}}. Other than that I see nothing else to remark on. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, this format is totally different to other FL or FLC. (See List of New Jersey Devils head coaches or List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches. As such I have stricken my support and changing to oppose. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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