Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [1].

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)

• Alright, can't find anything else wrong. Support Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:24, 29 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)

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)

Just noticed Remove that section header called Tours, and make the various tour sub-sections into section headers. Its like how discographies don't have a Discography section under which there would be albums, singles etc. indopug (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good call. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 19:53, 10 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [2].

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)

• 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...."

• Y done. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can you find cites for the music video directors?

• Aside from the credits on their music video compilation release? — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, that works fien, I think Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

• The {{clear}} was there to stop the first table and the infobox overlapping at certain resolutions. It was of more use before I added the extra paragraph to the lead. Y Removed. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I now wholeheartedly support
  • I had some qualms about the prose in the lead, but I'm rewriting that.
  • I don't really think "which has been called the most influential album of all time by Kerrang!" is really necessary here. Is that kind of thing normal in discography articles?
    • I'm not sure. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • To clarify, I don't think we should be including just one critical opinion on that album here, and none that are less enthusiastic about that album, nor anything about any of the others. It's cherry-picking critical response, and I don't think any critical response is needed here. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Y Removed, I also added a part on their many compilation albums to the lead. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Thanks, looks good! Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Tuf-Kat (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Added some fixes, changed some stuff about. Music videos are now cited. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

does this include compilation albums and singles released from the soundtracks? because "The Perfect Crime" was only on the soundtrack and 12 years later on a compilation and "Another Body Murdered" was released as a single from the soundtrack it was recorded for. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 20:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have added them back in but not under the title of soundtrack contributions. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 11 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [3].

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: [4], [5], [6].
  • 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 [7]. The natural england website will tell you if this is the case. Here is one [8] 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)

• Blackhorse Quarry
• Brede Pit And Cutting
• Burgh Hill Farm Meadow
• Buxted Park
• Castle Hill
• Combe Haven
• Dallington Forest
• Darwell Wood
• Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay
• Eridge Green
• Eridge Park
• Fore Wood
• Firle Escarpment
• Hastings Cliffs To Pett Beach
• Heathfield Park
• Herstmonceux Park
• Lullington Heath
• Marline Valley Woods
• Offham Marshes
• Seaford To Beachy Head
• Waldron Cutting
• Willingdon Down
• Wilmington Downs
• Winchelsea Cutting

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)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'll remove the NOTOC. Yes, the PDF links are necessary, as they are essentially the references. Qst (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've redlinked to the links provided above, yet have created about half a dozen or so more, and I'll work on expanding the lead further tomorrow. Qst (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I'd consider linking or explaining anticline (I don't know what it is and I'm dead smart).
• Why is Asham Quarry's acreage N/A?
• I recommend numbers to be right aligned with consistent decimal places.
• Not sure about spaces between the initial letters and the en-dash in the section headings.
• In fact, I'm not sure why the table is split at all?
• Ref 2 - " (August 22,2007)." looks a little odd to me, and not linked - is the cite formatted correctly?

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, that's everything done. The reason the table is split is because it was requested I do this above, but on the SSSI list for Hertfordshire, I was told not to split the table up, so you can see how its jumping around here... Qst (talk) 18:10, 11 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [9].

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)

• 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)

I have made the changes you suggest. Since you were the third person to suggest that the gender column be dropped, I have removed it.-gadfium 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Are the links in References actually used as general references? If so, then have a section called References, and then have "General" and general references under that, and "Specific" and specific references under that.
• The web references are missing access dates, which are required per WP:CITE/ES

Gary King (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reorganised the references as you suggest, and added access dates.-gadfium 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like the way you explained all of the various terms on your table. I suggest, however, that you link "Ministry of Education" to Ministry of Education (New Zealand).--Dem393 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I've linked the first occurrence, in the fourth paragraph.-gadfium 21:12, 11 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [10].

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)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:47, 11 June 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)

• First caption is garbled.
  • Now it is only grammatically incorrect. There should be a second comma for the offsetting the parenthetical phrase "the current head coach for the Buffalo Sabres".--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Second para: rm "only" from first sentence.
  • The sentence is still ungrammatical.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Something is wrong with "... lowest winning percentage of any Sabres coach, with .370 during his 120-game tenure." Try "with a .370 percentage" in place of with .370.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• What was Floyd Smiths record.
  • coaching record s/b winning percentage I believe, but I am not sure with the new overtime tiebreaker point system. Does the term come from a secondary source?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• You should state who the coach was for each Stanley Cup appearance.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• See WP:CAPTION#Wording regarding punctuation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Second caption still fails.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:42, 23 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)

• Specific phrases should not be linked multiple times in a given table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:DASH. There should not be spaces at times and none at others as I see it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am talking about the team column. The spaces are not correct, if I understand WP:DASH.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Object Until you get back to me on the WP:DASHes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support All my issues are resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support, looks good but short enough it could be merged into the main article. GreenJoe 23:55, 27 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)

Done with everything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:39, 9 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.

Done with everything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "the Jack Adams Award [1], an honor " — reference goes after all punctuation per WP:FOOTNOTE
• "See also" section goes before "References" per WP:LAYOUT

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

Done with everything. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well, I've tried hard, but I can't find anything wrong with the article. Good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:45, 11 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 20:26, 9 June 2008 [11].

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)

• Comments from User:Gonzo fan2007

• 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)
        • I have added the colors, but what scientific evidence do you have to back up said claim? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Link, granted it's not a WP:RS, but you're not going to cite it anyway. ;) --Crzycheetah 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Support now the color's been added. Can't see a thing wrong with anything else. Nice work. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:54, 4 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.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One "also" needs weeding out.
    • Removed first one. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • W–L but spaced en dash equivalent ...
    • So it should be W – L? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • 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?
    • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "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)
    • I was meaning to remove these in one of head coach lists I was previously reviewing. I'll go ahead and remove the 0. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 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 promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:52, 8 June 2008 [13].

List of highways in Warren County, New York

I am nominating this article for FLC because 1) I feel it is ready, and 2) it meets all criteria except that needs feedback that there is a non-replaceable source in the article.^Mitch32^contribs 18:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd really like to see a source or two for the Scenic byways section. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the table, at least for me, is not sorting right. The "Year of commissioning" row especially has no form of organization at all. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Moderate support Well done for the most part, but it needs an overall copyedit. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I did everything you listed except the first one because it would turn the article into an eyesore, and I feel detailing things in prose such as in the List of xxx hurricanes articles, is much better than one large, eyesore chart.^Mitch32^contribs 21:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I have noticed one other thing, and that's that the miles in the statistics table should use the {{convert}}, Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool, its done as well. Thanks.^Mitch32^contribs 19:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, although the sorting is messed up now. {{convert}} can be used within one of the {{sort}} templates, though I'm not sure which :-/ Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not nearly enough in-line citations. GreenJoe 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are 15 references and every fact in the article is sourced. Could you please explain what needs to be referenced? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The "length within Warren county" column isn't sorting properly. MeegsC | Talk 19:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above on how to fix it. Also, the "Towns crossed" column shouldn't be sortable because it only sorts by the first town where multiple towns are given. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not ready to support at the moment. Cr. 4 says it must be easy to navigate. With the table not sorting properly, it currently isn't. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I took the sorting out, as it appears it just wasn't going to work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Then I support, although may I strongly suggest that you contact User:The Rambling Man after he returns on June 7th. He knows how to do sort converts. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the sorting problem, though I believe there's an easier way of doing it than what I just did. I just added those {{ntsh}} templates throughout.--Crzycheetah 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1 and MOS breaches. Needs a new copy-editor throughout.

• Joe's oppose appears unactionable.
• Opening sentence: can "within" be just "in"? And again. "30 miles (48 km)+ long highways"—ouch; hyphen required, singular "mile", what's the plus sign for?
• state-signed (hyphen, not en dash).
• Redundant "alsos".
• "Year commissioned" would enable a narrower Column 2, which is ugly at the moment.
• MOS says use the leading zero. TONY (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done except for the last, as i have no idea what you mean. Anything else?^Mitch32^contribs 15:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest Tony means where you have ".2 miles" (for example), the manual of style requires you to use "0.2 miles". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TRM, that has been fixed.^Mitch32^contribs 13:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Gah, Mitch you're such a road addict. Good definetive article, with plenty references. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support — much improved since the FLC was started. All actionable opposed appear fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:32, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:04, 3 June 2008 [14].

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands

• Nomination. I recently stumbled upon this list earlier on, I've introduced a revised lead, fulfilled the list and added a little more here and there. It is based upon other featured lists: List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater London and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Hertfordshire. Kindly, Suicidalhamster had worked to provide a basis for this list, and I will expect he would probably wish to co-nominate this list for featured list. Thank you for your time. Rudget (Help?) 15:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - A few suggestions:

• The last paragraph before the geography subheading, in my opinion, is talking about the areas geography and so could go in the lower section. However overall I'm not completely sold on the idea of having subheadings in the lead anyway. I'm not that fussed about either of these so see what others say.
  • Subheading removed, and sentence shifted. Rudget (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This document [15] about the the west midlands natural area may have useful information for the lead (if nothing stands out as being really good don't worry, the lead already sets the scene well).
  • Will read now. Rudget (Help?) 08:53, 25 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.
  • Done? Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Made the change that I was thinking of [16]. - Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 4 needs an accessed date.
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• West midlands, in the 1974-1996 county system is bordered by three counties, however only two are listed in the see also (I guess this is why they are there?). Additionally are these links necessary as both are listed in the template at the bottom? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure is. But the Worcestershire list doesn't exist at the moment. I was thinking of adding the link when I get around to creating the page, which I will do. Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oddly enough Worcestershire doesn't appear in the natural england's list of counties to search [17]. Not quite sure what that means. Suicidalhamster
      • It's there as "Hereford and Worcester". However as discussed somewhere else (talk:sssi?) Natural England didn't use Hereford and Worcester as an AoS - so separate Hereford and Worcestershire lists WOULD be more appropriate. SP-KP (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 17:03, 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). Colin°^Talk 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done.' Rudget (Help?) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There are more SSSI articles. Good. But there were still seven links to housing estates and nearby towns and villages. I've redlinked them to where they should go. I'll see if I can find time later to create some of those, if you don't beat me to it. Also, I've left notes in some of the other SSSI article talk pages of other potential sources. They could all be expanded with a bit more wildlife text and improved with some pictures if you can find/take some. Also, they should all be added to Category:Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands. Polishing those articles isn't essential to this FLC but we should manage to at least create them all. If we can get a photo or two into this list, that would be great. Even if it was a stock photo of some endangered newt. Colin°^Talk 13:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good, good. I'll look to expand the ones that currently exist later. Rudget (Help?) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All the created articles are in the category now. Will expand/create some when I get a bit more time. Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok all the articles are created now. Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. I support now. Sorry I didn't find the time to create any but well done to those who did. Colin°^Talk 08:34, 30 May 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 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to specify which part of the list needs referencing? This seems an unreasonable request considering the number of PDFs in the referencing section. Rudget (Help?) 09:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: You have commented on more than 37 candidates within the space of an hour. I do not feel at this time you have provided either a sufficient reason to oppose or given a proper review of what is both needed to make a featured list and what is actually contained in this particular list itself. Rudget (Help?) 09:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Referencing the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence, I'd remove the very first sentence, which is a repeat of the title.
  • Had a go at adjusting the opening sentences. Hope its an improvement! Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• How about "In the Areas of Search of the English county of West Midlands, there are 23 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), of which 11 have been...."? (I'm not saying use this one, but find a way to re-word the lead part.)
• Can you wikilink conurbation at the beginning of the second paragraph of the lead
  • It may seem a little crude, but if the reader has found themselves on this page, it's likely they know the definition of conurbation. Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I changed it to a link of Largest conurbations which hopefully puts the fact in context. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Between the West Midlands conurbation and Coventry" but the second paragraph says that Coventry is within the WM conurbation, so perhaps a re-word here?
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• "A smaller piece of green belt between Birmingham, Walsall and West Bromwich which includes Sutton Park in Sutton Coldfield." Missing word? Perhaps "A smaller green belt is located between Birmingham...."

Done. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why are the area figures aligned to the right? Most columns containing numbers look better if centered.

When right aligned it is much easier to compare figure size, especially as they are all rounded to 1 d.p. Suicidalhamster (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please wikilink hectare and acres in the table.
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd remove the two SSSI links in the "See also" section, as there's a navbox at the bottom of the article with the rest.
  • They are relevant to the list as they are the two nearest counties, and it is reasonable to think that if the reader is researching SSSIs in the West Midlands, they may also be doing the same for Warwickshire etc. Rudget (Help?) 10:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Note: The term "Areas of Search" is jargon that doesn't scan well and IMO shouldn't be used in the lead sentence. Try to find a way of defining the list without jargon. Then explain that the geographical area is called an Area of Search by a government body called Natural England, etc. Try to imagine the paragraph without wikilinks--does it still make sense. For example, most readers (including those in the UK) won't know who Natural England are (a company, a lobby group, a charity or a government body) so they need a little help and you shouldn't rely on wikilinks for folk to understand what the words mean. Colin°^Talk 08:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • • Had a go at reducing the amount of jargon and assumed knowledge. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - The list has certainly improved, and I now believe it fully meets our criteria. For the sake of transparency, I was involved early on with setting up the list as well as responding to some of the concerns raised here. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:28, 3 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [18].

The Strokes discography

This is my second FLC nomination. The other one, The Libertines discography, is below without no opposes. Anyway, this is discography is comprehensive, adheres to existing discography standards and meets all criteria. Concerns will be swiftly addressed. Thanks, indopug (talk) 20:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Is there a better way to title the "Videos" and "Music videos" section or is this the standard? In addition, those two sections should have citations, as it isn't clear (to me at least) where that's coming from. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty much self-referential. As for the titles, yeah its standard. (See: MOS:DISCOG or any discography FL). indopug (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Excellent work. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice! Drewcifer (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, not enough in-line citations for 2 of the sections. GreenJoe 23:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

They are self-referential, and don't need citing. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Indopug; all assertions are cited, and anything is expanded upon in the table data. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Read Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Just a suggestion, but how about removing the bolded lead, and moving it to the bit about the releases, making it go something like, "The discography of The Strokes consists of three studio albums...."

That discussion makes a lot of sense, and I agree the current lead sentence standard for discographies is rather dull. The best I could come up with was "The Strokes are an American alternative rock band. The band's discography consists of ____." The advantages of this are that the band's name is linked on first occurrence (as opposed to second occurrence per the current way) and the word "discography" can be linked (important, since it is not a common term). Of course, the downer is thatI can't figure out anything to be bolded.

WP:LS says that if nothing lends itself to being bolded, then don't force it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the US Pop 100 chart from the singles table. As a general rule, component charts shouldn't be used if unnecessary, and in this case it is because it made the Hot 100.

The article you've pointed out doesn't say that the Pop 100 is a component chart of the Hot 100. In fact, Billboard invented the Pop 100 a few years ago because of the perceived unfairness of Hot 100 having mainly Hip-Hop artists at the top.

You're actually right. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd remove the Miscellaneous section. Those songs weren't recorded for those albums, they were simply liscensed for inclusion and I'll bet there are plenty more compilation albums that could be included if you looked hard enough. As a rule of thumb, only include original songs that have not previously appeared on any of the artists official releases.

Done. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Great band though! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Nothing else to comment on. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak support

• " The band eventually signed to RC"—signed up with? "Eventually" is one of those vague words deprecated by MOS. You're the expert: tell us when.
• "number thirty-three"—think I'd rather figures.
• I'd prefer en rather than em dashes for blank squares. I think MOSDASH recommends this. Try it and I think you'll find it doesn't clutter the real info. TONY (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All done; although I don't have an opinion on the emdash matter, standards prescribed by MOS:DISCOG (and all other featured discographies) require emdashes. I'll bring it up there though. indopug (talk) 19:33, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [19].

Boston Red Sox seasons

This is well referenced, and has a nicely written lead. It seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments I'm tempted to oppose based on the team. ;) Joking aside, some of the references aren't in {{cite web}} form. Also, make sure punctuation marks are before the reference at the end of a sentence. Just a couple things at first glance. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • References look good, but ref #2 is still inside the period. Other than that it looks good from what I can tell. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Alright (I know it looks like I'm talking to myself here), from what I can tell it looks good. Seems well-written, and from what I can tell (don't know much about sports) it looks factually accurite. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's good enough to support. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 00:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Support, the in-line citations look good. Thank you for doing this. GreenJoe 01:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't need to include inline citations for every single line in the list when all information comes from one source. It's properly indicated at the bottom of the list. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • However, the information does come from an unreliable source (xx.tripod.com), so it looks like inline citations for each season will be necessary. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Done, every season now cited. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Don't split the bolding of the lead over two sentences.
• Refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• I don't get it.. the opening sentence says "not including playoffs", yet the table has a playoffs column
• "Boston, Massachusetts", rather than "Boston, Massachusetts
• "Major League Baseball (MLB)" should be "Major League Baseball (MLB)"
• No need for "both of" or "itself", so "current champions of the Major League Baseball (MLB)’s American League Eastern Division and the American League (AL)." will do fine
• I think the nicknames should be placed within quote marks rather than being italicised
• Is the season over yet? If so, "Every home game since May 15, 2003 has been sold out—a span of over four years.[6]" might be better as "Between May 15, 2003 and <<the date of the final game of the season>>, every home game has been sold out.[6]
• Image:Pumpsie Green 1960 Topps 317.jpg needs a fair-use claim (it actually doesn't have a single one)
• Footnote [e], "95—67" should use " – " per WP:DASH

That's all I've got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Though you didn't have to remove the image, just provide a fair-use claim. Nevermind, it's no big deal. Everything else is good, criteria is met, so Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [20].

List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches

previous FLC (23:18, 14 May 2008)

Re-nomination

I am re-nominating this list because it was removed as a candidate, despite all issues raised have been addressed. Blackngold29 04:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I supported the last nomination, which I feel was hastily archived, and should have been given more time, so I see no reason not to support again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per last nomination, as I also think it was hastily archived. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • this user was outright asked to support. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I was merely pointing out that it was a re-nomination, not to be confused with the original nomination, which he had already supported. I did not mean to "vote stack" by any means. Blackngold29 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Did I say it was vote stacking? I was just pointing out that he was asked. You seem to be under the misconception that this process is run strictly by votes. It's not. While a nom does need a minimum amount of supporting users, lists with a majority of support can still be failed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't want to make a big deal about this, I was just trying to clarify my intentions. I will ask no more people about a possible review for this list, and if in the future I do, I will make them more neutral. Blackngold29 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good, though it'd be nice if the in-line citations had their own column. GreenJoe 00:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please refer to Wikipedia_talk:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• "to represent the city's heritage, of producing steel." Unnecessary comma
• Use mdashes rather than ndashes for the "empty" table cells

That's all from me! Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. Blackngold29 16:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else to say here. Comments were addressed, and it satisfies WP:WIALF. Support Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:27, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [21].

Geri Halliwell discography

Discography of former Spice Girl member Geri Halliwell. I'm nominating it because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Dweller

• Could the tables be sortable?
  • I don't think so while they use colspan and rowspan.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, should the tables be sortable? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I think the Lead should specify that the scope of the article does not include Spice Girls material and include a prominent link to a suitable list/article for that
• "number one single "It's Raining Men"," includes geographical POV - unless you'd describe a single as a "number one single" if it reached number one in any chart, anywhere
• "Passion did not perform as well as previous releases, failing to chart throughout Europe." - claim contradicted by table stats.
• Why are album titles italicised by Singles in quotes? Even that is inconsistent - see the Singles table
• Were none of her singles released in the USA?
• What's the rationale for the order of the countries in the tables?
• Are videos normally part of a "discography"?

That'll do for starters! --Dweller (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added your comments into the lead section. The version you probably viewed was the vandalized version. I have now reverted all the table back. This now includes her releases in the US. Videos are normally apart of a discography. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style for more information. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is D/CP the most authoritative chart for the USA? Isn't there one based on sales? It would seem to bias in favour of dancey tracks... --Dweller (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the only chart Halliwell charted on in the US. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd remove it. It's misleading, as the others are "proper" charts, it gives this undue weight. --Dweller (talk) 10:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Can't find anything to complain about! Well done. Drewcifer (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. Specifically the video section. GreenJoe 00:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added inline citations for the music video section. As for the charts themselves, they are all cited in the references section. This format has been widely used in other featured discographies (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#Citations and references). -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Did Halliwell debut in 1994? I know that's when the Spice Girls were formed, but their first release wasn't until 1996.
• Typo: "reccording"
• I always find it odd that singles charted in certain territories, but albums didn't. Can it be verified that her albums didn't chart in Australia and Ireland, and the singles didn't in the US?

Fixed the typo. I changed it to 1996. It's true what you said. They formed in 1994, but didn't actually "debut" until 1996 with "Wannabe". I cannot find any reliable sources that say Halliwell's album charted in Ireland or Australia. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right re Ireland and Australia. I've done a big ol Googling of both today with nothing to speak of. I can't see anything else with the discog to comment on, FLC wise, so I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:01, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [22].

List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present)

Alright, I know I only published this a few hours ago, but I firmly believe it passes the criteria. There might be some prose issues that I can't see, but if so they are probably very minor. Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - All resolved, good work. Marrio (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - check for tense consistency. I see several past tense. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I got all of them. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Another problem is lack of 2008 USD's. Also, the dates are weird. How come the first sub-section is split by decade (1980-9), the next section is 6 years (1990-5), the next one is 4 years (1996-9), the next one is 4 years (2000-3), then the last section is (randomly) 2004-present. Grammar in the following sentence could be better; producing reported waves 12 ft (3.7 m) high. Just a little quibble. When saying, produces up to 2.70 in (69 mm) , it implies that rainfall reached up to, but still less than 2.7 inches. brushes the western border - what does that mean? Tense consistency is needed; Tropical Storm Beryl's remnants track over western Maryland and produces. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I fixed the grammar mistakes. I'm trying to keep the sections as equal in size as possible, which is why the time periods vary. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think it would be more important to have the sections equal in size, in terms of time. I can see the argument for keeping the sections in similar lengths, but it distorts the scale of time by splitting it the way it currently is. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
          • What would you say, five years? 10 years? I'm just concerned that one section will have a few storms, and another will have dozens. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Every other featured state hurricane list article does the same, which this article should be based off of. If there are too few, than have a larger time period, such as a decade. If there are too many, then split it down the middle (1990-1994, 1995-1999). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Done, I think. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
                • 2008 USD's still needed. Also, there are several unneeded Wikilinks, like to generator, corn, soy, hypothermia; all of those are common terms that don't add much value. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Done, although I think hypothermia does need a link, and I left it as such. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I just came over to look at some lists, considering the proposal at WT:FAC; this list has a mess of messed up WP:DASHes, using spaced emdashes where it should have spaced endashes. It's also missing WP:NBSPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the dashes, but I only found one or two missing nbsps. Could you please specify if there are any more missing? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support with a few questions. I just made a few changes to the lead. Is "brushing an area with light rainfall" normal in metereological writing? It sounds like a weird construction here, and it's used twice. The last two sentences of the Hurricane Isabel item come off as odd too (the part about DC) but I can't put my finger on why. The sentence The following table includes all storms from since 1980 which have caused reported fatalities in Maryland and Washington, D.C. has an obvious error, and I believe the "which" should be "that". Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, to brush an area with light rainfall means to pass just offshore of a state, dropping light rainfall with the outer bands. I fixed that mistake. Thank you for your support and comments. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still Unresolved

• I'm echoing matthew's bewilderment. What is the difference between a tropical cyclone, a hurricane, a tropical depression, and a tropical storm? I think you should clarify in the lead, or maybe make a key.
• "No storms during the period have caused sustained hurricane strength winds, as only two in recorded history have done so. Hurricane strength winds are sustained winds of 75 mph (121 km/h) or greater." Perhaps you could say "...sustained hurricane strength winds (winds of 75 mph (121 km/h) or greater)..." Just seems a bit more efficient to say it that way.

Noble Story (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I tried again. Any better? Thanks, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 350 mm, use 350 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 350&nbsp;mm.
• "List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes from 1980–present encompasses 54 known..." - Avoid repeating the title.
• "Hurricane Ivan was the deadliest storm, indirectly killing two women when a tree was blown on their house due to a tornado spawned by the system." - Do you have a reference?
  • Other than those minor comments, awesome job on the list. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Hey, thanks for the comments. Added the missing nbsps. Yep, the Ivan fact has refs in the body of the article. About repeating the title, because it tells what the list is and doesn't just say "This is a list of...", I think it should be fine. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comments

• still a bit of over-linking regarding measurements. (Virginia then Charley; Erin then Josephine; Gordon then Ivan
• link ft/m in Tammy/Twenty-one, and switch the in/mm link from Barry to Cindy
• Jeanne has ref [2] placed mid-sentence

And that should do it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:16, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [23].

2004 Summer Olympics medal count

Modeled on FL 1976 Summer Olympics medal count. Marrio (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion I'm currently working on 2006 Winter Olympics medal count and one thing I think you should include is which athletes were stripped of medals during these games, and how it affected the standings. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Marrio (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. There's a mention to the first ever gold medal of United Arab Emirates. You forgot Israel. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Added that in, and thanks for pointing it out, because that sentence's reference was messed up and I found it as I was adding Israel. Marrio (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That reference only states that it was UAE's first gold medal. You can easily find an online source for Israel's first title (e.g. here). Parutakupiu (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ref'd now. Marrio (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Still concerning Israel, I found a photo of Gal Fridman on Commons and I added it to the article, since it's more related to the topic than just the Olympic stadium image. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments—Worth saving, I suppose, after the prose is massaged throughout. Can you find someone fresh to the list to help?

• I was about to pounce on the same "blank" issue as Noble Story, which still hasn't been fixed.
• Where's the boundary between naming numbers and using numerals? "Sixteen" but "36".
  • WP:MOSNUM says "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." but generally I'll spell out any number lower than 20.
• "men's 62 kg competition"—can you pipe this correctly with a hyphen please?
  • Done
• "doping scandals have resulted in a number of athletes being stripped of their medals"—Nope, this is the old noun plus -ing grammatical issue. See HERE for exercises in correcting it. PS the rest of that sentence is yuckie.
  • Done. Thanks for the suggestion.
• If we're going to be so tribal as to compare the count of nation-states, I'd love to see added to the table the number of medals per million inhabitants. That would sort out the sheep from the goats. [Not actionable, of course.]
  • It's possible, I have seen medal tables with this kind of statistic added. I'll ask the Olympics project and see if they agree (as this is a change that would affect every other list as well). Thanks for the review. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The user that nominated this page has been gone for a while and has shown no signs of a return, so I'll take over handling concerns from this nom for the time being. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support The image captions are fragments, so either remove the periods or make them complete sentences.--Crzycheetah 02:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Final Concern I think it would be better to say: "leaving 127 countries without a medal", instead of what it currently says. Noble Story (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Just a couple of questions, really.

• Is the dash in "men's 62 kg–competition" correct?
• Was Israel Jose Rubio the fourth placed competitor? If so, perhaps it should be added
• Same with the other "replacements"

-- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! And it was nice of you to pick up the nomination, too. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:08, 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 promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [24].

List of Harvest Moon titles

This list is based off List of Castlevania titles and List of F-Zero titles, which are both featured lists. I believe I have written this list well and it is of featured quality. Salavat (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• The lead is rather short. Add some information about the popularity or something like that. Why is the series as long as it is?

Added. Added comment from Yasuhiro Wada, from an interview he did from Eurogamer. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add references to the lead.

Added. Ok i think ive added all necessary references in. Salavat (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• The 'e' in english should be capitalised.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you wikilink Japan, you should also wikilink North America.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Wikilink "spinoff"

Fixed. wikilinked one in the lead and one at the start of related titles. Salavat (talk)

• Change "spinoff" into "spin-off"

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 14:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Add Template:Contains Japanese text

Added. Not sure about placement though. Salavat (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Actually, using this template is discouraged by the WikiProject Japan (who had created the template originally), because it has been made redundant by the Template:Nihongo. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Template:Contains Japanese text. I've removed the template from the article, although if you believe it is really needed I guess it could be re-added. Kariteh (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, i read that post on WP:Japan, and yeh it makes sense to remove it. Salavat (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lots of references have incomplete information. Add, where applicable, language, date and author to the references.

Fixed. Added language to all marvelous entertainment links, and date and author to reference #61 Salavat (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• If there is an author, add his name to the parameters "first" and "last", not to the publisher. For instance, your 61th reference says "publisher = Frank Provo, GameSpot". This should be "first=Frank, last=Provo, publisher=GameSpot".

Fixed. Added date and name to seperate fields. Salavat (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's all for now. The list has potential and it deserves an fl status in the future. For now, oppose. Baldrick90 (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)I believe you have adequatly addressed my concerns. Your list deserves a little bright star. :-) Good work. Baldrick90 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This is a good list. It is comprehensive, stable, factually accurate, and well structured. Nice job Salavat. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose
• Criterion 1, for example: "the North America", "maintain a farm over a period of time" (what do the last five words add?). Needs a copy-edit.

Fixed "the North America", and "over a period of time" is just helping to explain the gameplay. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do the Japanese characters add? They appear to be clutter that means nothing on eng.WP. Why the question mark after every kanji item?

The japenese characters are a basic part of all titles, they are used in the above mentioned featured list of games, and the question mark is part of the "nihongo" template for Help:Japanese. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cr 2—the lead doesn't explain abbreviations such as "NA" and "PAL" that appear repeatedly in the table.

Added mention of PAL region, shouldnt need to explain every abbreviation as they are wiki linked in the table. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cr 5—MOS breach in the blotchy use of bold in the table.

The bold is used accordingly for the games titles as is the same in the above mentioned featured list of games. Although per VG GL it mentions "only English title should be bold", ill be happy to change this if someone verifies this (dont no if i read it right). Salavat (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Cr 4—Hard to navigate: what info is it in the top right box for each entry? Lots of white space.

Exactly the same setup as the above 2 mentioned featured lists of games. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Citation requirement—Why the Japanese-language refs? And not all are marked as such. How do we know they're reliable? TONY (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

All references come from reliable sources, either from the developer themselves for the japanese characters or from the game sites such as GameSpot or IGN. Salavat (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please take a read of WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence and WP:LS#Bold title regarding (as inferred) the repetition of the article title with "This is a list of....". Perhaps open with "The Harvest Moon video game series was originally produced by Victor Interactive Software...."

Changed per request. Does make more sense to not be repetitive. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why "North American and PAL"? Surely "NTSC and PAL" would be better, or "North America and Europe"?

Mainly becuase the NTSC region covers Japan as well. Which cannot be grouped together with North America because of the different release dates and language. JP, NA and PAL is the general way that most video game articles follow. PAL is usually used to cover Australia and Europe as the release dates are generally the same, but when different they are listed seperatly. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• "role-playing video games" would be fine, as video game is already linked to in the first sentence

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• "One reason the Harvest Moon series has remained popular is because of the unchanged core system of the games." A claim of popularity should be cited in some way. Perhaps by sales figures?

Im not sure where i could find infomation like that. The main reason that the "popular" part is included was due to a previous request to expand the lead and explain the question of "Why is the series as long as it is?". Maybe, it should be reworded, if so, any help on how i could do that. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the games :( Perhaps it's okay without it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• "it has been the response to the audience's request, which has created the key philosophy of the series popularity." Seems like that comma shouldn't be there

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Again regarding my second point above, in the tables, why not "NTSC" instead of "NA"?

As explained above. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't like how the references are placed next to words because they are fragmented sentences and don't need punctuation. Could you make each table a colspan=2 cell as a third column of each table and place the references there?

Following the same layout as List of Castlevania titles, i dont no if this is neccessary. Im not sure how that would look like either. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's okay to follow that one. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• If not, Back to Nature's ref positions need fixing. For the release dates, ref 14 is placed after a space, but ref 15 isn't. Probably best to remove the space, because it's not there for any other references.

Fixed. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can Harvest Moon Online really be included? It hasn't been released, no platform or date has been confirmed, so I think WP:CRYSTAL applies here.

It is annouced game, as for the lack of a release date and platforms i have left them blank for the main reason to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. I think the game should remain although im not sure if the sentence i have comes under WP:CRYSTAL. Salavat (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Me either. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A few issues before I can support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Comments have been addressed. Seems to be alright now. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 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.