Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:Crzycheetah 05:10, 30 May 2008 [1].

[edit] 2006 Winter Olympics medal count

Oh boy, another Olympics medal count (don't worry, I'll try to wait until this one is at least half done before nominating another... No promises though) Anyway, its modelled after the 1928 Summer count and 1976 Summer count and fully sourced. Like always, all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the sentences that describe the most medals or most gold medals of individual athletes is out of place, since these are lists of medal count by nation? Seems like they'd be better placed in a list of athletes who won medals at the games. - Marrio (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per Noble Story. GreenJoe 00:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you please specify? I think Noble Story's concerns have been addressed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support, with a comment Perhaps move, or copy reference 6 to the sentence ending in "but tested positive for carphedon and lost her medal." Otherwise it looks like Noble has addressed everything, and it meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The sixth ref confirms that only one person lost a medal (and doesn't give any specifics). The seventh is a specific for that case. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Look good now, Scorpion. It has my approval. Noble Story (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [2].

[edit] List of NBA champions

This list seems ready to become FL. It is well referenced, and has a nicely written lead. It seems to meet all criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 15:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

No free images available of the teams? Qst (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently looking for the NBA Finals trophy, but can't seem to find one at the moment. I'll keep looking. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I found one within two minutes, on Spurs page. I've put it up. Noble Story (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant free pictures of the teams to go down the side of the list if you could fit them in. Qst (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Seems to fulfill all criteria. It is well structured, adequately sourced, very easy and clear to read, also good lead paragraph.—Chris! _ct 16:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Although I'd want the NBA champ from the Western Conference colored with a reddish tint. --Howard the Duck 05:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you say that again? I think the champions from the Western Conference are already shaded blue. Noble Story (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See NBA Conference Finals. The Western Conference Finals logo is colored red. See also List of Super Bowl champions where the AFC is colored red. --Howard the Duck 11:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but doing that would mean a complete overhaul of the table. It's pretty clear who is from the West and who is from the East, unlike the Super Bowl champs list. I think it can stay the same. Noble Story (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Then use light green or any other color except a bluish hue. --Howard the Duck 14:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you decide to change the table, you might want to implement something like this. Hello32020 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll change the light blue to light green. Blue is the color associated to the Eastern Conference so for NBA enthusiasts it'll be quite awkward. --Howard the Duck 14:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I object! :) Please see WP:COLOUR, and choose one that is a little less trippy Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, that green is yuck. How about one of those nice pastel shade of colours mentioned at WP:COLOURS? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd change the color into light yellow. --Howard the Duck 07:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Last suggestion: the cross is better then the asterisk, but it's awfully big. Howabout ^† ? Drewcifer (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I made it smaller.—Chris! _ct 16:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, looks good. GreenJoe 00:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [3].

[edit] Seinfeld (season 3)

Self-nomination. Looked at Lost (season 1) and copied the format from there. The only image has a fair use rationale. I believe the list has finally reached a point that it's well formatted, and easily accessable for changes. Information that needs to be cited is. --Gman124 ^talk 15:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've got a few more minor concerns after a re-read but I'm happy to support as there's no doubt they'll be addressed rapidly :)
  • was aired of NBC in the US - "was aired on"?Y Done
    • US > "U.S." per MoSY Done
  • Is there a better title for Plot from real life experiences? I'm thinking maybe "Storyline inspirations" or "Inspirations for storylines"; thoughts?Y Done
  • The Elaine story in "The Letter" was inspired - how about "Elaine's story in..."?Y Done
  • Wikilink Angels & Yankees.Y Done
  • Season three received eight Emmy nominations, of these two were won - either use a semicolon replacing the comma or reword latter half to "two of which were won" or something similar.Y Done
  • David Steinberg was nominated for Directors Guild of America Award for "Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Comedy Series" for "The Tape" episode - still need to correct episode phrase to "episode 'The Tape'".Y Done
  • Any reason why Exclusive Stand-Up Material is capitalised?Y Done
• Thanks in advance for the changes :) —97198 talk 07:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Addressed all comments and thanks for the support. --Gman124 ^talk 12:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good now. Meets all the criteria. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [4].

[edit] List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein

Self-nomination. The list provides full bibliographic citations for Einstein's scientific publications, as categorized and cross-referenced in the 1951 bibliography published in the commemorative volume Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Volume II edited by Paul A. Schilpp. Where possible, translations of the German titles are taken from Einstein's collected papers put out by the Einstein Papers Project. Citations of individual publications in Abraham Pais' biography Subtle is the Lord are given as well. The works are grouped into journal articles, book chapters, books, and authorized translations. For each type, the entries are listed in chronological order in a sortable table; the ordering may be changed by the reader to group articles by subject or journal or title. Einstein's collaborative works with others are highlighted in lavender. The WikiProjects for Physics, Mathematics and the History of Science have been alerted. Willow (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Wow. Just wow. Quite a list. Some quick things:

• There are a number of unreferenced statements in the 'Chronology and Major Themes' sections and in the small intro paragraph to the 'journal articles' section.

What would you like to see referenced? I didn't put a reference over every sentence because, oftentimes, the given reference pertained to the whole bullet point. I see that I overlooked referencing general relativity and the Einstein-Brillouin-Keller method; I'll try to get to those today. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• You mentioned the lavender highlighting in your nomination, but the only place you explain that in the text is at the end of the 'Chronology and themes' section. Problem is, if a reader skips that section (because it's not obvious that this is introductory to the formatting of the tables themselves), they might be confused. One solution might be to break off that paragraph and make it the intro to a new section (List of scientific publications) with the current publication sections becoming sub-sections.
• For the lead:

• First, per ongoing discussions, I don't think you need the, 'This article lists...' line, since it's redundant to the title.

I incorporated that and the lavender-highlighting stuff into a revised second paragraph of the lead. Those are both good insights; the article seems much better now, thank you! :) Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• You need to expand the lead to talk about some of the important bibliographical information covered in the lists, e.g. When did he stop publishing in German and why?, What were his first and last publications?, Was he more productive in some periods than others? Were some journals more prestigious/significant than others?, etc. Right now, the lead is more of a lead for Einstein's scientific contributions than his scientific publications.

I can list his first and last publications, although they're obvious from the Index numbers. I can also discuss how many articles he published each year (or make a graph); but scientific productivity is not necessarily well-measured by number of articles, so I don't really see how that would contribute. I haven't encountered any scholarship on the other points, such as why he wrote in German vs. English, and I wouldn't want to fall afoul of WP:NOR by speculating, so it's best if I keep silent. But if you have references for those questions, and feel that other readers would want to know about them, please feel free to add them! Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work on this, though. It's a huge task. Marrio (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Marrio! :) I'm glad you like it. Willow (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added citation needed tags in three places where there isn't a reference for the paragraph, all in the chronology and major themes section. As to the lead, I was just thinking that there might be some way to have the lead address over-arching questions about Einstein's publication history that readers might be interested in. The specific ideas I mentioned were just spur of the moment thoughts, some of which are a little trivial. But not necessary. Marrio (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are these citations OK? Willow (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - they look fine to me. Marrio (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment should the title be either List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein or List of scientific publications of Albert Einstein's Work?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realized that most of the articles at Category:Bibliographies by author use the "by" preposition. I've moved the page now to List of scientific publications by Albert Einstein. Willow (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I love lists like this! They are so helpful! The sortable option is wonderful. I just reviewed the FL criteria since I don't comment here very often and I think that this list more than meets them. I've been following the list's development and am in awe of the work Willow has put into it - this is an excellent model for all of us who make these kinds of lists. Awadewit (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional support I just corrected one minor error and it was really the only one I could find. I do have a few comments though. The article Works by Albert Einstein looks like a mess, seems to give no information which is not exhibited on your list, and should therefore be merged/deleted before this can go featured. Also note that the latter list is placed in categories [[Category:Physics books]] and [[Category:German books]], unlike this one. By the way, is there a reason the "Index" field is coloured? And another thing, which is merely an observation: of all the 106 bibliographies [5], this list is the only one using the adjective "scientific". One might also ask "Did he also publish non-scientific material?", and since I'm pretty sure he did, where can I find it? Are you going to make a "List of non-scientific publications of Albert Einstein"? I think you can't get away with not mentioning his non-scientific work. Anyhow, this is an excellent list. κύδος! Baldrick90 (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Baldrick! :) I will broach the subject of the "Works" article being deleted as delicately as I can. I don't think anyone has devoted too much time to it; it was moved from the Albert Einstein article to the elephant's graveyard. I myself discovered it only months after I'd started with this article, although that's more my fault for not being diligent enough in searching. :(

I don't understand the "books" categories, since the list isn't a book itself and consists mainly of journal articles, not books. I wouldn't want to include those categories here, I think.

The reason that the Index cell was colored but the others weren't, was that I'd been trying to highlight the whole set of column headings in that orange-ish-yellow, which I thought complemented the blue-ish hue of the page. Unfortunately, I was thwarted by the table markup, which seems to require that I assign a colour to each column heading separately. That seemed silly, so I've left all the column headings blue and un-highlighted. Anyway, I daresay readers aren't coming to the article to be charmed by my quilting aesthetics. ;)

Einstein did publish many non-scientific works, and I've added a short paragraph to the lead explaining that. I do intend to write a list of Einstein's non-scientific works (part of a long-term program to restore AE to FA), but it may be awhile.

Thank you yet again for your insightful review! :) Willow (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. The only list of publications I would ever support, but for good reason too! JFW | T@lk 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Support

• Quibble: "the order of events" -> "that the order of events" is probably better

No, you're right; keeping the parallel construction going is better writing. Thanks! :) Willow (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• The description of E=mc² seems a bit off. The connection to the atomic bomb is not that direct, and in the passage from Pais that is cited it becomes clear that much more than that formula was involved before the binding energies could be predicted correctly. I think a more cautious formulation would be in order.

I included that to engage the reader more strongly, but I agree more-or-less. The cited Pais passage discusses the experimental verification of E=mc² by the mass defect, IIRC, but admittedly it's a long way from there to constructing an atomic bomb. Perhaps the present wording is OK? Willow (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good now. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• general relativity "is based on the surprising idea that empty space" – such a characterization should always mention space and time on an approximately equal footing. To suggest that the properties of space are part of the basic idea, and the variability of time a consequence, is misleading.

I was motivated by the idea that readers might visualize warped space more readily than warped space-time. But you're right, we should be as accurate as possible. I added time in parallel with space, changed "act on" to "interact" and a few other minor changes. Does it seem better now? Willow (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• List of articles itself: clearly, an enormous amount of work has gone into this; my compliments. I have not checked this list thoroughly, but I was surprised that the "Collected papers" are mentioned only in passing. Surely, nowadays they are the main reference for Einstein's works. They should at least be cited, and for the article to be perfect, their indexing system should be used for those volumes already published. That indexing system can probably be found in the Einstein archive's online data base, as well. Clearly, this would mean a great amount of additional work, and I think it should not stand in the way of the list's Featured status, but I would think that it would enormously improved the helpfulness of this list to students of the subject.

I'm willing to do this, although I'm not clear on what you mean by the "indexing system" in the Collected Papers. I don't really have access to them, although I did find the Table of Contents online. However, from what I can gather, they only number the articles within each volume; there is no "global" indexing system to Einstein's works. Moreover, the Collected Papers haven't published the final 30-some years of Einstein's work, so I wouldn't want to make a separate column for it. Perhaps you mean that we should note the number and volume in which the article appears, e.g., "Article 2 in Volume 4", in the present "Index" box? Willow (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean the article numbering of the Collected Papers. I think including those (doesn't need to be an extra column) would make the list that much more valuable for those with a serious interest in this part of the history of science. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that I've done this now. Please let me know if you catch anything I missed. :) Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Some haven't gotten a CP number yet. You've done impressive work in getting all the CP numbers up, so I won't quibble, except that Schilpp 9 and 10, seminal as they are, should definitely get a CP number.Markus Poessel (talk) 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Na, wenn alles so einfach wär'. ;) Willow (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a problem with these two in the CP? Markus Poessel (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, no, I meant only that I wished everything were so easy to fix as the oversight you pointed out! :) Somehow I'd missed those two titles on my first pass, despite the fact that I was actively looking for them; when I looked again, there they were! :) Willow (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Entry no. 10 should probably mention that this is what is nowadays known as E=mc².
• I think that, for the works that were part of Einstein's journey towards general relativity, it should be made clear that the journey was still not over. E.g. for #37 - that's not a paper on general relativity, it contains some first steps on the path towards that theory. Similarly for #42, #46, #47, and basically everything designated as "general relativity" until #84, which Pais p. 256 comments with "The work is done". This fact should probably also be noted.
• Entry #107 is the birth of modern physical cosmology. That should definitely be noted.
• Entry #119 and related: please wikilink to gravitational waves. And again, it should be noted that this is the birth of another whole subject (even if it took a while to realize that these waves were indeed real, and not just coordinate artefacts).

These four points all relate to the Classification and Commentary column of the tables, which I've intended to fill in more, if others did not. You definitely point out some important lacunae that I'll try to fill. The "steps to GR" vs. "GR" point is, I think, semantic; I'd recommend that we still categorize the article as pertaining to General relativity, but indicate in the commentary that the theory was being developed until the end of November 1915. Willow (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Classifying them as gr is fine (I assume you refer to the initial, bold-faced, wikilinked keyword for each article), but yes, I definitely think the information I indicated should be in the comments. And conspicuously so. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• General wikilinking question. Shouldn't all concepts and names (Jordan, Kaluza) which have their own entries be wikilinked? If they aren't, you're missing some significant cross-connections. In an article, that would be unacceptable, I have no idea whether there are special rules for lists.

You're completely right; I'll try to catch up with those wikilinks. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Motiv des Forschens and similar articles - are those really "history of physics"? I'd have thought they are more like "philosophy of physics".

I could add that as a category, if you think it's more appropriate. I was trying to keep the categories to a minimum, so that no one accused me of OR. Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, but in this case, an extra category might indeed be in order. History doesn't seem to be the right category here. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right; I added "Philosophy of physics" where it seemed more appropriate. Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• There's at least one theory of "Telativity" flying around there.

I only found one, and I fixed it. Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm unhappy with the translation "Understanding the Special and General Theories of Relativity". The literal translation is "On the special and the general theory of relativity, so that everyone can understand it." The translation I have here has the title "Relativity. The Special and the General Theory. A Popular Exposition" which also captures the essential property: this is written for a general audience.

Yes, I weighed how to translate that title for some time. I knew the phrase "popular exposition" but disliked it, because it seemed not very gemeinverständlich; the reader needs to disambiguate "popular", and to know what an "exposition" is. However, it's admittedly accurate, and I'll use that if you like. The literal translation you give is good, and I toyed with something like that, but we both probably agree that it's too long. The titles "Relativity for Dummies", "Relativity for Beginners" and "Relativity for the Compleat Mathophobe" are already taken (I think). ;) What do you think is best? Willow (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would go for the less elegant, but also least misleading "Special and General Relativity explained for a general audience". Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I used the translation found in the Collected Papers (vol. 6): "On the Special and General Theory of Relativity (A Popular Account)". Willow (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Äther under Relativitätstheorie" - is that half-dutch? If it's German, it should be "Äther und Relativitätstheorie".

How embarrassing! :P My mind must've wandered off while transscribing. But maybe Einstein was making a Plattdüütsch compromise—Ensten kunde en begen schnacken, ge? ;) Alles liebe und viel Erfolg, Willow (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem. But given Einstein's southern-German roots, it's not very likely that he snackt platt. Markus Poessel (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Schilpp reference, and the word was indeed "und". Thanks for catching that! :) Willow (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• One more thing: Schilpp 37 has nothing to do with general relativity. Quick browsing would suggest it's about the molecular basis of a law of fluid dynamics. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're totally right again. :) Fixed, methinks. :) Willow (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All in all, a remarkable list, though. Kudos! Markus Poessel (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support This list is very impressive and nicely organized. Two small comments, though:

• In the list of Journal articles in item 188 there is an unbalanced left square bracket in the title column. I don't know where it should end, otherwise I'd have fixed it myself.

• I am wondering if there is a better place in the list where you could position the footnotes/references. With the numbered references being in the first column right next to the index number of the entry, it is optically slightly confusing and has a cluttered look. I am simply wondering, if it wouldn't be better to have the footnote/reference marker appear at the end of the title, rather than next to the index number. This is, however, merely a suggestion, and not a condition for my support.

Again a very nice piece of work! Alexander Falk (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alexander! I added the square backet, and I put the references into the "Classification and notes" column, which seemed more apt, anyway. Thanks for your support and help! :) Willow (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. Well done :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very impressive.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Filll, as always. :) Willow (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This list looks really great, overall. I suggest that the names that come up in titles be linked, either in the title itself, or better yet, in the "Classification and notes" section. Otherwise, for example, it takes a bit of effort to figure out that the Friedrich Adler in one title is Friedrich Adler (assassin).--ragesoss (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm willing, but this will involve a fair amount of work. I agree that the "Classification and notes" is the best column, since the German title isn't commonly understood and we shouldn't interfere with the color coding of the English translations. That suggests having to write a commentary sentence or two for every publication, to have something to wikilink. Also, I'm concerned about overlinking; how often should topics be linked — once per screen? every time? once per article? Willow (talk) 11:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The classification sections have a bolded topic, e.g. "History of physics." You could just make it "History of physics; Karl Schwarzschild." Most of the history of physics entries seem to be at least as much about individuals as a about the history of physics. I don't see any big problem with just wikilinking names in the English title section, either; the violet for unofficial translations will still remain in part of the title, and the link color could be changed as well if need be. By the way, why is the "highlighted in lavender" explanation mentioned again at the start of the table but not the violet text explanation?--ragesoss (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Support. Fine article. However: In 1905 Einstein published 21 (!) reviews on thermodynamic topics in "Beiblätter zu den Annalen der Physik". For a list of those articles, see The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2. I think those scientific publications should at least be mentioned in the article. --D.H (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was addressing Markus' comments. For some reason, those reviews are not included in the Schilpp bibliography, which was prepared under Einstein's own supervision and which many other reviews by Einstein. Why would he discount them? It seems strange. Nevertheless, I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister. Willow (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Einstein's "Beiblätter"-articles were discovered in 1977. See:

Klein, M.J. & Nedell, A. (1977), “Some unnoticed publications by Einstein”, Isis 68: 601-604, DOI 10.1086/351878 

So Schilpp was unaware of those publications, because his book was published long before in 1951. --D.H (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised only that Einstein had forgotten about his own reviews. But I guess it was ~35 years in the past. I'll try to add those today. Willow (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added all the reviews from volume 2 of the Collected Papers. I may yet "prettify" them; stay tuned. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. --D.H (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, too, D.H! The list wouldn't have been complete without those reviews. :) Willow (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Outstanding. Colin°^Talk 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support
  • Why is there a "pages" column in the Book chapters section? I think it's unnecessary and can be combined with the "chapter title" column.
  • What are the "location" columns for? Is it really that useful to sort the locations where books were published? I suggest merging this column into the "publisher" column.

My interpretation of your first two objections are that I shouldn't have included an extra sortable column for the page numbers, and publication locations, respectively. I understand your point of view, and I'll be glad to comply. However, I feel that both pieces of information are standard bibliographic data that should not be stricken. I also hope that you'll agree that having extra sorting abilities should not disqualify the list from being Featured. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated the columns, as recommended and it does do wonders for making the tables slimmer. The information is denser, but anyone who needs the information will be able to find it readily. I placed the page numbers under the Book title (rather than the Chapter title), since the pages pertain to the book; I wouldn't want people to think that Einstein had written only part of a chapter! Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Why are most of the links in the "notes" column in boldface?

I put the classification in boldface to allow readers to scan it easily, i.e., for ease of navigation of the FL criteria. The classification comes first in that table cell so that Einstein's articles can be sorted (and hence, grouped) by field. However, some readers might wish to sort by another column, and then scan the final column for articles belonging to a particular field. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Per WP:COLOR, color should not be the only indicator.

I'm not sure which color you're referring to. The lavender highlighting of an entire row is used to indicate collaborative papers; the collaboration is likewise indicated in the "Classification and notes" column, immediately following the classification, e.g., "Co-authored with..." Therefore, WP:COLOR has been satisfied for that coloring. The purple titles indicating unofficial translations could be indicated by an asterisk instead; that would likewise allow me to satisfy the requests that I wikilink into the English titles. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now replaced the purple font used to indicate unofficial translations, replacing them with a ^§ superscript. Do you agree that WP:COLOR is now satisfied? Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 21:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

After your latest edits, I now support this list. Yeah, I thought 10 columns in a table was too much and I did mean the purple font was one of the problems. If you just printed this page in a black and white mode, the purple would become black. Great job overall!--Crzycheetah 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeay, thank you, Crzy! :) Willow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Administrative interruption

The nominating user appears to be taking a break, does anyone want to address the opposition? I'd hate to have to fail it simply because there is nobody to address concerns. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

If you mean the message on her userpage, that has been there for a while and she has been addressing comments while that message has been there. I'm sure she will respond to the comments above. Please note that her last post says "I'll add them next week, once I get back from visiting my sister". It is Memorial Day weekend in the US, a time when many people take a vacation and visit their families. Awadewit (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I was informed she was going to be away for a bit, but if she'll be back this week then I'll leave it open. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Resuming commentary and votes

Support: Excellent, useful, and functional! I just have a few comments in order to possibly make it even better.

• How are the scientific publications separated from the others? I noticed that History of Physics articles are included in the list, but would that be under Science or Humanities? You may want to note the criteria used to create the list.

Hi! :) I will try to make that point clearer. The division between scientific and non-scientific was made for me in the Schilpp bibliography, so it's not WP:NOR. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Would "moving objects" be better than "moving rods"?

Yes, of course. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• You gave three counterintuitive predictions for special relativity. Is there room for one more, i.e., mass is also not absolute. Sorry, I had to ask for that being a former particle physicist. :)

That depends on how one defines mass, no? I confess, my physics is rather limited, but my understanding is that the mass m of a particle is usually defined as its invariant mass, i.e., m² = p^μp_μ, which is the same in all reference frames. As part of my research for photon, I learned that alternative definitions of mass such as "relativistic mass", "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" are actively deprecated by physicists, even for pedagogy.

I did mean relativistic mass; my mind was still on accelerators. Concerning the deprecation of those terms, perhaps that gives away my age? Well, better stick to the present! --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that you could be an aged sage, given your spritely sense of humour. ;) Thank you again for your help! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The choice of colours (lavender and violet) are close so for some reason I get mixed up about the significance of one or the other. Would it not be better to use a different colour for one of them? Also if there is a co-authored article that has an unofficial translation (violet text on lavender background), it would be difficult to see. I don't think you have such an example so it is not a problem at the moment, but if another Einstein list, say on non-scientific publications, did have such an example, it would have to use another set of colours.

Very true! I've all but decided to eliminate the violet font for unofficial translations. Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done; I've replaced them with a ^§ superscript. Thanks for the suggestion, Buff! :) Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Related to the last point, the unofficial translation colour does not appear in a black-and-white printout, so some other kind of printable marker (an asterisk?) would be helpful.

You read my mind! :D Exactly what I was thinking of doing. :) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, done, done. Willow (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• You may want to add in the instructions on the sortable list in the lead that a printout will only produce the default sorting and not the chosen sorting.

Excellent point! :) But I think there's a way to defeat that, using the "printable version" button at the right. At least I got it to work early in the writing of this list, and I don't think I used any magic for that. ;) Willow (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact I used the "printable version" button in the toolbox and that produced output using the default sort. I just tried it now (printing the chosen sorting page directly). That one produced the right sorting. So it does work, so perhaps you only need to mention that the "printable version" button will only produce the default sort. --RelHistBuff (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, these are just suggestions. They have no impact on my vote. A list of works by Feynman next? :) --RelHistBuff (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support: I see my index-related concerns were address, and a bunch of other stuff I would never even had thought of.

• I still maintain that English translation should be merged with original title (seperated with a "break") and given different fonts to maximize horizontal space usage, but that is nitpicking and does not cause opposition from me.

I sympathize with the wish for more lateral space, believe me! :) It's just that I want to allow readers to sort articles by their English translation; I'm assuming that most readers won't know German and French. The division into two columns has the advantage for long titles (e.g., this one) in that the length of the translation grows equally with the length of the original title. We may have to agree to disagree here. But if the consensus here is to merge the translations, then I'll bend like a willow. ;) Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely believe that the put-translation-in-italics idea simply won't work, if we hope to get this list passed through FLC. Please consider that this list was about to be failed yesterday for not placing quotation marks around the titles (among other things), and that mis-use of italics was cited above as another reason for possibly failing the list. I propose that we consider another route. I've done as you suggested for the first element of the first table ("Journal articles"), placing the translation below the original title, but in a nested table and in a different color. The bordered box around the translation makes it distinguishable even in black-and-white. if you and the other people here agree to this solution, then I'll be glad to re-do all the others in the same way. Willow (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• The equations in the notes should all be in html not in .png format. .png does not merge well with text.

I wrote out everything in HTML quite nicely, but but was recently reverted. I didn't want to undo that edit on my say-so alone, but thanks to your comment, I feel emboldened to revert those changes. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Math-mode re-formatting reverted. Willow (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Aren't all the (translation:) unnecessary in the book chapters? Just give the translation, it's already mentionned at the top of the table that translations are in parenthesis. Cells are already cluttered enough.

OK, I agree. I was just trying to forestall any possibility of confusion. Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation tags removed. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that French translations were sometimes misspelled, sometimes used the graphie rectifiée rules of the 90's for diacritics (although that is probably just a typo on the author's part rather than an actual style decision), and sometimes not properly capitalized (according to French rules). I fixed that, but it is possible that Einstein made typos and used improper capitalization. You should check if things are properly spelled and capitalized. Remarks probably also apply to German articles.

I'll do that checking; thank you! :) Some of it might be due to typographical errors introduced when the Schilpp bibliography was compiled, but it's probably just me. :P Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Overall, this is a list of outstanding value. It should definitively be on the main page as a featured list of the day thing.

Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 17:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks muchly, Headbomb! Willow (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also authorized translations do not give the title of the original work. I believe this should be included. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 20:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So you believe the wikilink(s) to be insufficient? Please consider that, in some cases, one translation will cover several original works. Willow (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ah. Well perhaps of column explicit for cross-reference instead of placing it in the notes? Instead of "Title of original work" it could be "Original work(s)" with "Schilpp 15, Schilpp 237" in it or something. Just throwing ideas.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 22:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please look at that solution to the double-column problem in Table 1 (Journal articles). Thanks! Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure how this makes it possible to sort according to English translation. A bluebox is too visually striking IMO. A cell split is perhaps best. I'll head on the talk page to not clutter this.Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All my concerns were address, therefore full support. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 10:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is the best list on wikipedia! A small thing that is missing i.m.o., is a discussion (just a sentence or two) about the entry:

"Schilpp 278 1937 On gravitational waves Journal of the Franklin Institute, 223, 43–54 General relativity.[227] Co-authored with N. Rosen."

That article has a well known history that is worth mentioning

Count Iblis (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Count! :D I've added the link and a comment or two about the gravitational waves. Willow (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I know I've already supported, and I'm not yet inclined to strike it, but I've just noticed in the classifications column that all the bold text also has a bold full stop, which needs to be unbolded. Also, for the cells with no other text, the full stop can actually be removed because they are in essence fragmented sentences. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, Matthew! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I was bold and un-bolded the full-stops. I didn't want to remove any, since I wasn't sure which should go and which should stay. Let me also say that this looks like an amazing piece of work; I wish I knew enough about the topics to officially support. – Scartol • Tok 11:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Scartol; your help is always as timely and welcome to me as "the golden apple to the swift girl"; you know how much I appreciate it. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wow. I don't know anything about Wikipedia lists, but I'm sure I'd "support" if I did. The amazing WillowW whomps again.... Gnixon (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Gnixon; it's nice to hear from you again, it's been tooooo long! :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick comment A pic of the great man himself maybe? In the Chronology and major themes section maybe? indopug (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, indopug; I'll add one right away. :) Willow (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [6].

[edit] List of Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo

Self-nom. This is a list of the Texan survivors of the Battle of the Alamo. The list is as comprehensive as current research allows, and I have noted the instances where there are disagreements among historians as to whether an individual deserves inclusion. This is my first attempt to create a FL, and I welcome all feedback to help me improve it. Karanacs (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Certainly an area outside my expertise but I found it an interesting list nonetheless. Some comments...

• Debate is on-going on WT:FLC regarding the simple emboldening and repetition of list name in the opening sentence of the lead. While this one is slightly better than most, you could consider a more descriptive opening sentence to capture the imagination and forgo the emboldening altogether. Just a thought.
• You link Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna twice in quick succession.
• You link Mexican Texas twice in the lead as well and pipe it to Texas. To a non-expert (e.g. me) this is confusing.
• "had huddled together " a little bit POV.
• " two ultimately survived" I think ultimately is a little redundant?
• San Antonio de Bexar is linked twice in the lead.
• I'd prefer to see births and deaths in separate columns.
• I'd prefer names in normal order, you can use the {{sortname}} template to ensure the sort still works.
• Remove Alsbury's period in his status column.
• You use black and Negro interchangeably - is there a preference or is this ok? Just a question...
• Order references numerically, you have [22][20] for example.
• I never find sorting notes is very helpful since it's free text.
• I'd pipe the {{reflist}} with 2 since the footnotes are all very short.

That's a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful comments. I've implemented changes to address almost all of these issues. I would prefer not to separate out the birth and death years; I had it that way originally and it made the notes column too compressed to be very useful. I'm also not that familiar with sortable table script, and I'm not sure how to make it sort everything except the notes. I'd appreciate any advice on that matter. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I've never actually commented on an FLC before; hopefully my comments aren't too out of whack.
  • I'm concerned that the lead may not be establishing enough context for our non-American readers. For example, I'd suggest including the location of the battle in the first sentence. "after an insurgent army" to "after an insurgent army of Texans" perhaps? "freedman" - link?
  • "fewer than 50 of the Texans" Context needed here. "fewer than 50 of the ___# Texans"
  • "Negro cook"??? It's not in quotes. BuddingJournalist 08:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't know what I'm doing either, but I think you brought up good points. I've added some detail to the lead to insert the name of the city in the first sentence as well as the number of Texans thought to be at the Alamo (although that is an estimate at best - historians are still arguing about it). I've also added detail about the makeup of the army, added a wikilink to freedman, and rewritten the description of Ben so that it makes more sense. I've been living and breathing the Texas Revolution for a few weeks now, and I definitely appreciate any other pointers about knowledge I may be assuming people already have. Karanacs (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good. Though I can't check your facts and know nothing about the subject, it appears thoroughly referenced. I had to read the lead a few times before I got it. The first time, I thought "brought to Santa Anna" meant a place and then couldn't figure out how a place could be "impressed with Susanna Dickinson". Jim Bowie is mentioned without explaining who he is. The last sentence confused me. Why would Santa Anna try to impress Joe, a slave? It is a bit ambiguous which "his" is "his army". I'm guessing (from what follows) you mean Santa Anna's army, but the "surviving members" bit causes confusion with the topic of this list. And why is it worth noting that this parade gave "Joe an opportunity to judge the strength"? A quick look at the main article indicates Joe might have been important in relaying his account to others. Did that information prove useful? Colin°^Talk 22:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've revamped the lead a bit more. It's now organized in a more logical manner, and it has a new paragraph that explains why Santa Anna wanted to impress Joe and what the result was. I've also further clarified some of the details that were confusing. Karanacs (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That helped. Colin°^Talk 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Well-organized and interesting list, with a solid lead. One question: Ben is referred to as a "Negro cook"; I'd change that, as it's certainly not a term in modern usage—and it's not a quote. MeegsC | Talk 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I had fixed that everywhere. It should all be changed to more modern terminology now. Karanacs (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, list looks really good. GreenJoe 00:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd like to see the timezone (wikilinked) included with 6:30 a.m. in the lead
• "fewer than 50 of the less than 250 Texans" I know what it means, but "fewer than... the less than" in the same sentence is clumsy. Perhaps "fewer than 50 of nearly 250 Texans"?
• Do you have a reference for the final sentence of the lead?
• Not a deal-breaker, but can you separate the birth/death column into two separate ones? That way the death dates can be sortable, too
• Are three references needed for Joe, Guerrero and Alsbury? Are these people particularly controversial or disputed in some way that extra verification is needed?

That's all I got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The concept of a timezone was only invented in 1847, and only came to the US around 1870. So 6:30 am should be interpreted as local time, whatever that may be. That time, expressed as Central Time might well be quite different. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. The three references are necessary because no one source included all of the information for each person. I've also experimented with separating the birth and death dates, but it made the notes column too short and the table looked very bad. I've reworded the "fewer than ...less than" sentence as you suggested, and added a citation for the last sentence. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can't see any problems, although the image layout in the lead is odd. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Everything checks out. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:49, 30 May 2008 [7].

[edit] List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks

First FLC (00:57, 28 December 2007)
Second FLC (17:54, 16 January 2008)
previous FLC (19:39, 5 February 2008)

I am nominating this list after making necessary changes. Most of the credit goes to Buc. I made the table sortable and I believe this has become a useful page. Any comments/concerns are going to be addressed.--Crzycheetah 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

1)Why is there no bolding in the lead (to justify the name of the article)?

2)Is a key really necessary? I don't think it would hurt to write out all the positions.

3)There are many picks that need to be sourced. Until those are sourced, will this list have a chance.

Regards, --~SRS~ 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• • 1) Per WP:LEAD, If the topic of an article has no commonly accepted name, and the title is simply descriptive — like Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers or Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans — the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does happen to appear, it should not be boldface. 2) I think a key is necessary, but if more people agree with you, I'll change; right now this is just a personal preference. 3) There is a general reference [8] that is used as a source for all picks. Thanks for the comments!--Crzycheetah 23:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also forgot to mention, there's a discussion at WT:FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence about repeating the title in the first sentence.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply

1)I forgot about that, Im sorry.

2)Okay.

3)In the Notes section you put individual references for many picks, but you left many unsourced.--~SRS~ 01:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Oh, the "Notes" column is for the picks that were either received from or traded to other teams. The picks that don't have any notes are the Saints' own picks.--Crzycheetah 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to just write out the note, IMO. However, you need to put under the table, that your main source is that NFL page you showed me.~SRS~ 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think writing out the notes in the table would mess up the table; instead I am going to separate the notes from the refs, as Gonzo fan2007 suggested below. This way it will be more obvious that these are the notes and not the sources. The site I showed you here is listed under general in the references section. --Crzycheetah 05:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nice work, I can finally say I support this list as a FL. Thank you Crzycheetah. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Your comments were really helpful and made this list much better than it was.--Crzycheetah 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Link "expansion team " for non-experts.
• "and first participated in the 1967 NFL Draft" perhaps "first participated in the NFL Draft that year."
• "In the "NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting," which is more commonly known ..." remove "which is"...
• "second worst " should that be hyphenated?
• Why is always in italics?
• "The Saints had been given two first-round picks" how?
• Image caption is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a period.
• "The Saints have selected first overall once, drafting George Rogers in 1981,[5] second overall twice, Archie Manning in 1971 and Reggie Bush in 2006,[6] and third overall once, Wes Chandler in 1978.[3]" drafting needs to be reused here for Archie and Wes...
• Table sorting is all over the place.
  • Clicking on Pick four times gives me four different sort orders. Surely it should either be only ascending or descending order?
  • Names don't sort correctly (i.e. by surname) - use the {{sortname}} template for this.
  • Notes don't need to be sortable.

So for me it's oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I think I addressed your concerns. Could you take a second look?--Crzycheetah 22:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Please read [[WT::FLC#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence]] regarding the first sentence being an exact copy of the title
• A reference is needed for the second sentence of the Lead
• Does the first reference verify everything stated in the remainder of the paragraph?
• Use an mdash (—) rather than a hyphen for "empty" entries in the table, per WP:DASH/WP:HYPHEN
• Why is "no pick" in bold and itallic?
• For some reason the references in the table don't take me anywhere when clicked, although the notes themselves do.

A few concerns to be addressed before I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments!

• With all due respect, the first sentence is not an exact copy of the title.

• Not an exact copy, but it says the same thing in a different word order. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's there to tell readers what this page is about, so that they know that they are reading the correct page. --Crzycheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reference is added to the second sentence.
• Yes, the first reference does verify.
• "—" are used now.
• To catch attention of the reader.

• Does this give it undue weight, then? Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, bolded parts are removed. I left the italics part because "no picks" is not a player's name, so it should be presented differently.--Crzycheetah 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• There are no references in the table, only notes.

• I'm referring to the alphabetised ref notes, but I've realised it's a problem with Firefox. IE works okay. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I hate those "browser" problems, even though I just checked this page on Firefox and it works fine.

Hope to read your comments soon! --Crzycheetah 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I can't find anything wrong with it. Good work. Noble Story (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:06, 26 May 2008 [9].

[edit] List of Edmonton Oilers players

I have rewritten this page, following the style and format of several other NHL player lists which have passed featured list criteria. Actually, I've added some improvements, such as a table in the "Key" section to name the nationality of each of the flag icons, per WP:Manual of style (flags). Also, it has bothered me that many of the other lists in this series only include the current franchise incarnation, so I also created List of Edmonton Oilers (WHA) players linked from this article as a companion list. The latter is not part of this nomination, but might help explain the context of this list criteria. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport
  • All the redlinks need to be fixed.
  • The lead seems rather short and doesn't read very well. A brief explanation detailing that the Oilers weren't exactly an expansion team in the NHL, but rather a former WHA team is necessary for readers unfamiliar with hockey.
  • The Notes section is inconsistent with it's numbering for years (ex. SC 84 as opposed to Conn Smythe 1990).
  • For a list this size more photos would probably be appropriate. There are more Oilers available, notably Gretzky and Messier. While they may not be in Oilers colours, they are specifically two of the most noteworthy Oilers ever, and deserve to be shown here. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

  Y Done, for the most part. With respect to the redlinks, I note that WP:Featured list criteria says that the list should have a "minimal proportion of red links", not a complete absence of them. As of 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC) there are only 10 missing articles out of 396 players, so I would not think this would stop FL promotion. Nonetheless, I shall create those 10 new articles in the next day or so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  A good looking list. The redlink issue is something I came across in some of my FL noms, and just looks better having all that blue. Also helps finish up the task of giving all NHLers an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  I created Ron Carter (ice hockey)‎, Dan Currie (ice hockey), Jim Ennis‎, and Peter Eriksson (ice hockey) today, so there are only six redlinks left. Thanks for your support! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support This list is definately worthy. -Djsasso (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The pictures are hiding the section edit links. Can that be fixed? Maxim_(talk) 01:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  What browser are you using, and what screen size? I see the section edit links just fine with IE7, even on a smaller 1024x768 screen. Do you see a difference between this list and any of the other NHL player lists? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  I fixed it. The problem is that you put them all right at the top...the edits links were there but they are pushed to the bottom of the article when you do that. Atleast in Firefox. The Calgary list does not have this problem and I think its cause they are put on the article in this fashion. -Djsasso (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I don't know about "fixed". Firefox is broken, IMO. The list now looks terrible on XGA displays, since the main player table is too wide and every row takes multiple lines. I originally put the images at the top for a reason, so that on XGA raster sizes only the goalie table would have that problem and the main player table would still look neat. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Nevermind then...you can figure it out. I reverted my edit. I have a bunch of whitespace between pictures and table so I didn't think there would be an issue at any resolution. Personally I think XGA has the issue if the table is too wide as the table is hardly wide at all. Do you have the same issue on the Calgary list of it being two lines? Though looking at that list the notes column is a bit smaller so you might not have that issue. -Djsasso (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I'd still like to fix this, but perhaps a post to WP:Village pump (technical) with respect to Firefox might be in order. As for the Calgary list, no, it doesn't have this problem, as the "Notes" column in that table isn't very wide. They only won one Cup... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  Y Done I think.... I followed the instructions at WP:How to fix bunched-up edit links, and it looks the same for me with IE7, so I don't think I made it worse! But did I make it better? Does it look correct for you Firefox users now? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Very good list. Maxim_(talk) 21:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Hi. Per the MOS's WP:COLOUR, use a text marker as well as coloured shaded cells. Something such as *, †, ‡, or ^ because if the page was printed out, or a user has B&W monitor, the colour isn't going to be printed. . Also, if you could, try to use different markers for Stanley cup winners, NHL award winners, and Hall of Fame electees which would help with the single colour use
• Read WT:FLC#Straight repetitions of the title in the opening sentence, regarding the opening sentence of "This is a <repeat name of article title>".
• Also think that the second two sentences of the first paragraph ("It includes all ice hockey players that have played at least one regular season or playoff game for the Edmonton Oilers in the NHL since the 1979–80 season. It does not include any players who only played for the team as a franchise in the World Hockey Association (WHA) from 1972 to 1979.") should be at the end of the Lead section, so that the rest of the prose describes the team and players, and then it moves on to discuss the list which follows.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. On the first point, I certainly understand WP:COLOUR, and I thought I had that covered. All of the "blue" rows are also labelled with tags in the Notes column (SC, HHOF, etc.) so I didn't think any additional special characters were required, and for the "green" rows, I bolded the names. Do you not think bold text is sufficient? As an aside, I note that several of the other lists in this series that have already been promoted do not conform to this guideline, as the 2007–08 players are only shown in green. (e.g. List of Buffalo Sabres players, List of Calgary Flames players, List of New Jersey Devils players, etc.) so I would presume they need updating with respect to this guideline. (None of them follow the WP:MOSFLAG suggestions for flag icon usage either, by not providing a legend that identifies each flag by country name at least once on the page.)

I understand your point, all we can do as reviewers is push the point that the MOS has to be followed. If you feel any FLs don't meet that, you could always nominate them at WP:FLRC or simply change them yourself which is often what I do with minor things like that when I spot them. Anyway, I initially missed the SC HHOFs, so don't worry about it now. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 16:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On the second and third points, I can certainly improve the lead. I had always thought that lists like these needed to identify the criteria for inclusion very close to the start. Also, as this list is clearly "secondary" to the main Edmonton Oilers article, I will need to make sure that this lead is not written too generally about the team and still focuses on the list itself. Anyway, I will work on this later, but I will address it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Rewrote the lead section. Also added "Details are provided in the Notes column." to the legend key for the blue colour to help emphasize the additional non-colour markers. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A British flag is included in the key, but no player in the list is marked as British. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

  Y Done Thanks for picking that up—it was left over from an older draft that also included WHA players (which I decided to split into a separate article). Chris Worthy was born in England but moved to Canada as an infant. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:38, 26 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [10].

[edit] List of Philadelphia Eagles head coaches

Well written, it seems to meet all FL criteria. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The first sentence, This is a complete list of Philadelphia Eagles head coaches., is basically redundant to the title of the article. Is it possible to make the first sentence more informative, something that would draw a reader in?
• Needs non-breaking spaces.
• I'd like to see the lead expanded some.
• Statistics correct as of December 30, 2007, after the end of the 2007 NFL season. could be worded better.
• Optional, but I like to see a reference for every coach in the chart.

Good work overall, but there's just a few minor issues. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. Issues addressed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support All concerns addressed, looks good to me. Noble Story (talk) 02:27, 26 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [11].

[edit] List of New England Patriots head coaches

previous FLC (20:12, 11 May 2008) Self-nomination Well written lead, and well referenced table. Seems readt for FL. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why the re-nomaination so soon after the first failed? And what is with the arrogant nomination statement of the well written lead when you yourself wrote it? Qst (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm renominating it because the first nomination simply failed because of "lack of comments" « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Qst, he's just trying to highlight why he thinks it meets the FL criteria. There's no penalty against stroking your ego once in a while. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Further: I actually didn't write the lead; Jayron32 rewrote it. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 21:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, no probs - I was just curious. Qst (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Gary King (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• • There is only one one-sentence paragraphs, and it is fine the way it is. It is a completely different idea from the last, which warrents a new para. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me now. However, one quibble: Perhaps the last sentence of the lead could go down as a note at the end of the table (like so). Noble Story (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good work, no major issues. As always, a copyedit wouldn't hurt, but the prose is generally good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:58, 26 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [12].

[edit] List of encyclicals of Pope John XXIII

The List of encyclicals of Pope John Paul II is already featured, so I had a go at bringing this to the same standard (hopefully!). The introduction is much expanded providing some background to each encyclical. Overall, I believe, it meets the criteria. Suicidalhamster (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The introduction says two of his encyclicals are "classic". What in the world does that mean? These aren't records we are talking about :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

exhibiting timeless quality! But I agree it doesn't sound very encyclopaedic and have reworded the sentence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You have? I don't see any difference or changes for today... wierd! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I was almost 100% sure I pressed save, oh well, the change is definitely there now! Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support — I went through and copyedited the prose. Some areas were in past tense, while others were in present—I changed everything to past tense, where appropriate. There were also a few comma problems, but nothing major. Overall, this is a well-written, well-cited, clear, and concise list of a very notable subject. Good work to all involved, and I look forward to seeing it become featured! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edit and the kind words. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC) I actually changed the bit about the encyclical measuring 25,000 words as that seemed an odd idea/use of the word. Hope you don't mind. Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support There are several quibbles, though.
  • The numbers in the table should be centered.
    • Done
  • The "Time" references should have retrieval dates in case the site goes down and people use the wayback machine.
    • Done
  • I wish the "jstor" reference got substituted, but if it stays, it should have a note saying "subscription required" because I can't access it.

--Crzycheetah 04:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the "jstor" reference, it is relevant to the bit about applying natural law to the international community. I would like to keep it as I have not found this analysis anywhere else. I understand the problem of accessibility and so have quoted the sentence of the paper in full in the references. This obviously makes it easier to check what the reference said but does make the ref list a bit more bulky. Hope this helps. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that quotation is very helpful, thanks.--Crzycheetah 22:16, 21 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [13].

[edit] Smoking Popes discography

Self-nomination. One of my favorite local bands that just recently got back together. This list is similar to other band which didn't have material chart on any significant charts. Teemu08 (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support but with a few questions (cleanup):

• What's a "minor punk rock hit"? How's it different from a minor hit?
• Isn't The Party's Over a compilation?
• No pics? Even of individual band members? Even on Flickr?
• An external link to the band's official website or a one to a discography on a fansite would be nice. indopug (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I've clarified the punk rock statement. I searched Flickr, and there aren't CC pictures that we can use that have a non-commercial license. I should have brought my camera last time I saw them in concert :). The Popes don't have a website, but I'll list an external discography and a fansite. I originally listed The Party's Over as a compilation, but changed my mind. Although it was released after the breakup of the band and released on a different label than the one that recorded it, its still the same studio album that the Popes submitted to Capitol. It's a thin line, but there's nothing I can see wrong about listing it as a studio album. Teemu08 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good. Until the B-Side issue is resolved for good, I'll support the nomination despite their inclusion. Otherwise, good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:26, 26 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [16].

[edit] Foo Fighters discography

previous FLC (16:14, 8 May 2008)

Self-nom. Left it a bit late to fix some errors in intro, but I believe all issues have been addressed. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice list! Great work. Drewcifer (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are so many charts needed? They really make the screen look clustered, and many charts aren't that important nor has the band charted much on them. I'd say get rid of a few. Albums: Mexico, Italy, Portugal. Singles: US adult, US dig, Can dig, Denmark, Switzerland, Germany, Austria. For music directors, combine adjacent entries with same director using rowspan. Make Singles, Music videos, Other apps column width the same. Roswell isn't linked in the tables. indopug (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this meant to be a comprehensive discography? Surely its a bit NPOV to remove certain charts? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Think of it this way, if you had easy online access to each and every country this band charted, you would then have about one hundred to include into this article. Would you then still consider not including some of the countries where the band did not chart significantly POV? By "comprehensive" we mean that each and every release is included, not necessarily each and every chart. indopug (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I take your point. My last comment was a bit naive. Which charts should I remove? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already listed them above. Also, I think UK should be next to US because for English rock bands, US and UK are the two most important territories in terms of sales, marketing, promotion etc. Lastly, in the certifications change RIAA to US and so on (but link it to RIAA) because many people wont know the different certifiers (I myself have no clue what IRMA is). indopug (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay will do. I'm not sure about shifting the countries around. Again, I actually agree, it would be knuckleheaded of me to say that US/UK aren't the most important. But then surely all the charts should be listed in this kind of order, and not only English ones. This is something that needs to be discussed more centrally. If a precedent is reached through consensus and reasoned debate, I will implement the edits, but right now it has not been. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if Top internet albums can go too, I haven't seen it used in any other discography. And your method of citing the BPI certifications is wrong; click on the links I provided for each BPI certification reference at The Libertines discography. Like this, so the reader doesn't have to search. indopug (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Good find re: the BPI stuff. I'll get that done. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorted BPI stuff. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: There are an obscene number of US charts in the Singles section. I think component charts like the US Airplay cannot be included along with the Hot 100 anyway, and I think the Adult and Digital charts can go too. For one, I haven't seen them anywhere else. The Pop 100 doesn't have any really notable hits either so I wouldn't cringe to see it go either. It looks silly having seven charts just dedicated to the US. The Hot 100, Main and Mod Rock charts are what are used to mainly to track rock bands anyway. Reducing the number of American charts would leave about 12-13 charts, giving a more pleasant appearance to the whole table and also reduces the overwhelming feel it has. indopug (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm I feel this is a bit of a contradiction to what you said at the Supergrass FLC. Perhaps this needs discussing more at Wikipedia talk:CHART and MOS:DISCOG's talk pages. I'd definitely insist on the removal of US Airplay, Pop, Adult and Digital. Modern Rock and Mainstream could also go for me. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed charts, kept two per Indopug and RHCP and Nirvana discog Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. Wonderful work. indopug (talk) 19:03, 23 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [17].

[edit] Maroon 5 discography

Previous FLC

This is a self-nomination. All comments from previous FLC have been addressed, and that's why I'm re-submitting the list for FL. After working for the past few days, I feel that it now meets the FL criteria. I would appreciate some suggestions for improvement. RaNdOm26 (talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• The third paragraph of the lead does not have a reference.
• It seems the reviewers in the previous nom had problems with the different colors. I see there's only a rainbow in the infobox, so I'm OK with that.
• You link to RIAA certification, but you don't say what it means. Also, what does "Platinum" mean? I would like to see that explanation, in the lead.
• Instead of saying "Label: J Records, Octone Records" and so on, maybe you could change to Record Company? Label doesn't seem very clear.
• Your little note at the bottom of the table "—" indicates albums that did not chart." "Chart" is definitely not a verb. Change it.

That's all, I think. Noble Story (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks, I've addressed all your comments. I've linked RIAA certification in the album and single tables, where the link takes you to an explanation of platinum and gold records. Hope this helps. However, I think you're mistaken that "chart" is only a noun, because "chart" is a verb. RaNdOm26 (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quick little note. This discog is built based on other discogs, specifically featured ones. Simply linking to RIAA is standard. "Label" is the standard field, and the dash and note about charting is used in all discographies as well. Chart in this case is a verb. To chart is to appear on the charts. Hope that clears up any confusion. Lara❤Love 13:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Support After a fresh look, I'd say the discography is looking pretty nice. I'm still not a fan of the points column, and would still recommend taking it out, but that won't stop me from supporting. Good work! Drewcifer (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Support As much as I hate this band, I must say that this is looking rather excellent, what with the sales figures and all. Any, what is the "Points" in the Singles table? It seems specific to one chart (UWC) and since that chart already has a column, I'd say this Points column is unnecessary and would suggest its removal. Two columns for a single chart seems to give undue importance to the UWC. Combine the two adjacent Sophie Mullers into one row. One word of advice, if you've moved around the chart columns (top alphabetize), error might have crept in. Just check it briefly with the original sources. indopug (talk) 09:04, 21 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 23:06, 26 May 2008 [18].

[edit] 1896 Summer Olympics medal count

Modeled on earlier FL nominations. Sorry about the flood of olympics medal count lists. We're making an (admittedly ambitious) effort to get most or all the medal count lists up to FL status by the 2008 olympics. Thanks to reviewers for their participation and patience with this process. - Marrio (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I can only find one thing, just that "Mixed team" is wikilinked in that section, but not in the lead. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Support
  • Why is "mixed teams" in Italic text?
    • No apparent reason. Fixed.
  • The image captions are fragments, so either remove the periods or make complete sentences.
    • Fixed.
  • The ref#3(PDF file) that you're using is missing the page numbers. That book has 241 pages, so you need to be more specific.
    • Page number added.
  • Ref#6 is a note and should be presented with {{ref label}} and {{note label}} templates.
    • Changed.
  • This page states that winners were given a silver medal and an olive branch while that pdf file states that each winner was presented with a bronze medal and a laurel branch. Which one is it?
    • The report says that winners ("first prize") were given silver medals, olive branch and diplomas; bronze medals and laurel branch were presented to the winners of the "second prize", i.e. runner-ups. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 03:52, 26 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:Matthewedwards 08:16, 25 May 2008 [19].

[edit] Highlander: The Series (season 1)

Self-nomination. I think this list is a worthy candidate : I modelled it after Lost (season 1) and it is comprehensive, accurate and stable. The only image has a fair use rationale. I would like reviewers to pay special attention to the external links section, where I have included a link to a site offering free access to the episodes. To me it seems that this site is no copyright violation, but I would like to have your opinion on that matter. Another problem is that this site is only available in the United States, so I am not sure if it should be included in the article. I will follow your advice on that matter. (As a side note, it would be great to have a place where average editors like me could check with experienced editors whether the links they have in mind can be included in an article, or whether the websites they use are indeed reliable sources.) I will of course address all concerns. Thank you very much, have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• 18-49 should be 18–49.
• Link DVD region code in the lead.
• " Executive producers were..." - forgot the The...
• "Richie's break-in in MacLeod " - in in a bit odd reading, and clarify which MacLeod in this first synopsis since you've mentioned the original MacLeod in the lead. And since you have the other MacLeod in this synopsis, be clear each time which one you're talking about.
• "MacLeod fights an angered Kiem Sun and spares him. " - presumably MacLeod has defeated Kiem Sun before he spares him, not just fought him?
• Link SWAT.
• "The Scalper" or "the Scalper"?
• Link modus operandi.
• "...knowing Kuyler's taste for absinthe, traces him back, then fights him. " - consequences?
• Relink Hunter in episode 22 - it's a long way from the original link and people need reminding!

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything Y Done. Thank you very much for commenting. I used each MacLeod's first names in the first synopsis. I hope using only "MacLeod" in the following ones isn't too confusing, or maybe I should use "Duncan" everywhere ? Have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking good, but as with all the other FLC I've commented on at the moment, I'm going to be neutral. I'm away for 2 weeks and cannot see the nomination through. Sorry, but I hope my comments helped. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 06:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Tessa witnesses their and brutally realizes that Duncan can be challenged and beheaded anytime." - There appears to be a word missing in there.
  • A lot of the plot summaries are a tad choppy, the flow needs to be improved.
  • In the summary for "Innocent Man", a character is referred to as Crawley and Crowley. Which is it?
  • "Immortal Felicia Martins (Joan Jett), pursued by Immortal Devereux (Eli Gabay), whose wife and baby she had killed a century ago, seduces Richie to get shelter and fencing lessons from MacLeod, pretending she is a newborn Immortal." That sentence is too long and has too many commas.
  • As someone who doesn't watch the show, I'm having trouble understanding this: "Slade kills MacLeod to blackmail the SWAT commando outside into giving them a helicopter to flee. While Tessa does her best to keep the hostages alive and Randi McFarland reports the event live outside, MacLeod revives" If he was killed, how could he revive?
  • "In the present, Reinhardt's former lover Rebecca (Vanity) recognizes Reinhardt's sword in MacLeod's antique shop and starts stalking MacLeod, thinking he has killed Reinhardt but ignoring that Reinhardt manipulates her." The name Reinhardt is used in the same sentence four times.
  • "Immortal Xavier St. Cloud steals a jewelry"
  • This needs to be fixed: "Amanda then offers a very angry Blaine to partner her to steal a priceless manuscript."
• A lot of the summaries need to be cleaned up further, I suggest getting a good copyeditor to take a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I'm working on them right now. Rosenknospe (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked User:Happy-melon to help with the copy editing. Rosenknospe (talk) 07:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If he was killed, how could he revive? : As I told Matthewedwards, MacLeod is immortal and can be killed and revive afterwards. This is not only me speaking like this, the producers too use the words "dead" and killed" when talking about that kind of situation. It is a temporary, but genuine death. This is a fantasy series; I think "kills" is an accurate description of the plot, and MacLeod's immortality is explained in the second sentence of the lead, so I figured it was enough as this is a list and not the main article about the series. Please let me know if you still find it confusing; I could reword the sentence, but it would be a less accurate description.

I have addressed all other comments. Thank you for your time, have a nice day. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now rewritten two thirds of the summaries, please give me until tomorrow (CET) to finish the rest. Rosenknospe (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon didn't answer, so I did the copyediting myself. I think I have addressed all your comments, so everything Y Done to the best of my abilities. Anything else ? Rosenknospe (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• It reads much better now, but it still wouldn't hurt to have another copyeditor take a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked several copyeditors for help on their talk pages and also made a request to the League of Copyeditors. Rosenknospe (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dcoetzee has very kindly done the copyedit. Rosenknospe (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • The first sentence-paragraph of the lead needs to be expanded a little. I'd suggest to bring some facts from the second paragraph to the first one.
  • In the Production section, the first two paragraphs start similarly. They need to be re-written a little bit.
  • The last one-sentence paragraph of the prod section needs to be incorporated somewhere. Avoid one-sentence paragraphs.
  • Why isn't this page's link available in the "Highlander" template? It should be added along with other "season" pages...then the see also section can be removed.

--Crzycheetah 02:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I have Y Done everything. The link in the template was a good point; I'm so used to it, I don't really see it anymore. Thank you very much for your comments; is there anything else ? Rosenknospe (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what information did you take from the ref #17 that wasn't available in the ref#5?--Crzycheetah 19:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, none, but last time I submitted a FLC the reviewer insisted on providing sources, even for episodes titles, so I gave every source I had. Admittedly it's a bit of overkill (and FLC nerves); should I remove ref #17 ? Rosenknospe (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, remove it along with the ref#1(I assume it's there for the titles too). Just leave refs ##5 and 6. Having two refs only is perfect, IMO.--Crzycheetah 08:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Y Done. What else ? Rosenknospe (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Nothing else.--Crzycheetah 09:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I made a couple of changes, including adding {{infobox tvseason}}, and placing references after punctuation, per WP:CS, and I think it's now ready to be featured. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 20:46, 23 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:Matthewedwards 08:16, 25 May 2008 [20].

[edit] List of German World War II jet aces

The list is complete and feel it could meet the featured list criteria. Please have a look at let me know what you think. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Is there a reason that "Jet" is capitalised? Y Done
• Portraits are good, but need to use upright rather than have their size forced, per the advice at WP:MOS.Y Done
• "The jet aircraft entered World War II" - The jet? Why not just "Jet aircraft..."? And unless they were first used and downed the Mosquito on the same day, this needs rephrasing.Y Done
• Expand RAF, link it, then add (RAF) to it on its first use. Y Done
• What does "W.Nr. 130 017." mean? Y Done
• Perhaps a rephrase but to some it may appear that the Luftwaffe had three jet aircraft in total. Presumably they had squadrons of these? Y Done reworded
• Cite your definition of ace.Y Done it was cited
• "Jet Victories" in the table probably just needs to read "Jet victories", or, since this is about jet aces, just "Victories". Y Done
• "Total Wartime Victories" could just be "Total wartime victories". Y Done
• I would force column widths because right now, the notes in Arnold's row are killing the whole of the rest of the table for me.
• 20+ needs explicit explanation.Y Done
• Many red links...Y Done

That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Woody (talk · contribs)

• I think it looks good at the moment. Couple of comments before supporting:
• Is there a way of highlighting those who died in action?Y Done I highlighted those killed in action and killed in flying accidenet MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Could we add a section header before the table, perhaps named German jet aces.Y Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Currently there are 20% red links for the pilots. Per the WIAFL 1 (a) 1 (brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria;) I think it needs to be at least 90% (that is an arbitrary personal preference I know). I just think there should be a few more links. Y Done created stubs MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• So, great list, just a couple of issues. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• You are going to have to put fair-use rationales on the image pages that aren't freely licensed. Currently they are not licensed for use on this article. Until that is sorted I have to Oppose. Woody (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not done in my eyes. Not all of the information that is needed is there, you simply have a link to the article. You need to explain why it is fair-use in this list, which will be hard to explain. I think the Template:Non-free use rationale could be helpful here. Woody (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done according to spec. Thanks for the help MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Support now. I centre aligned the numerical columns as it looks better and is the standard thing to do. I tried to fix the column widths, but at lower resolutions it destroys the table with the images overlapping. Anyway, I support now. Good work. Woody (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Everything in the notes column needs a citation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Y DoneMisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions Just a couple of question before I can support:

1. Which references actually reference each ace? Can a reference for each ace be included in the notes column? My main source is Morgan, Hugh & Weal, John (1998). German Jet Aces of World War 2. London: Orsprey Publishing Limited. ISBN 1-85532-634-5. You should see this sourced referenced multiple times. I have this source referenced in the lead section but if you deem it necessary I can add it here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
2. Is there a navbox for the bottom of the page?

   No not yet but I like Woody's idea about creating a Nav box for the pilots MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

3. Are there any similar pages you can link to in a See also section?

   Y Done added List of World War II aces from Germany in a "See also" section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

4. Why is this list any different to List of World War II aces from Germany, and why does that one have way more entries than this? -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I may, with regards to 3 and 4, see also sections are regarded by some, me included as sections for items that you are yet to include in the article; points for development. I see a lack of a see also section as meaning the article is somewhere near complete. With regards to number 4, this is for aces who used jet aircraft, in World War II, jet aircraft were the exception, not the norm. As the Lead says, these were only introduced in 1944, so the number will be greatly reduced from the number in the main list. Woody (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• With regards to 3, I meant is there a List of American World War II jet aces or List of British World War II jet aces, and include List of World War II aces from Germany. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• There won't be because they didn't develop operational jet aircraft until 1945, and only then used them for defence against the V1 rockets and a few ground attacks. As such, the Germans were pretty unique in having jet aces in WWII. A navbox for all the air aces articles could be useful though. Woody (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• I added a section "See also" with List of World War II aces from Germany. To my knowledge the Germans were the only ones to produce jet aces in WW2. MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the see also section and added Template:Lists of flying aces. (also indented your earlier comments for readability. Woody (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Support I think this now meets all the criteria. Well done. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:16, 25 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:Matthewedwards 08:16, 25 May 2008 [21].

[edit] List of Vancouver Canucks players

I've been working on this article for a while now, and feel that it is up to the FL standards set by its counterparts at List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, List of Atlanta Thrashers players, List of San Jose Sharks players, etc. Comments? – Nurmsook! (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Was hoping that I would be the one to nominate the article, but it seems you beat me to it. Anyways, in the players table, the years played section is split into two, probably from the image sizing. That should be fixed up. As well, more references would probably be a good idea, notably the list kept at Canucks.com. Other than that, a good list with lots of images, including a few I added. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Response: I added a few references, so that should beef it up a bit. For the split in the years played section, it's not happening on my screen, so it perhaps is an issue that has to do with computer screen size? As for your desire to list this one, take all the credit you like. A while back I put it into the current format, and since then have done a few more formatting related things, but I know this article was heavily influenced by you! – Nurmsook! (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the problem I had with it. There was just to much being listed in the "Notes" column. I replaced the trophy names with a shorter title, but it has no real difference. Also led me to find another thing that should be fixed. Marek Malik shared the Plus/Minus Award with Martin St. Louis in 2004, there should be a note explaining that. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. – Nurmsook! (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Y Done Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
• You may be interested in the current discussion on opening sentences in the lead repeating the article title verbatim for lists, it's at WT:FLC.
• Doing... Lead is weak. Three really short paragraphs. I'd take the opportunity to discuss leading scorers, leading appearances, etc etc, particularly as these lists are never sortable so it's virtually impossible to find these details easily.
• Y Done Defenceman or Defenseman?
• Doing... "Note: This list does not include data from the Vancouver Canucks of the PCHL or WHL." - explain why not, or else you'll need to change the title of the list to include something like "... who played in the NHL"...And while I'm there, what are the PCHL and the WHL? Expand before abbreviation.
• "2000–01 season would be listed as playing with the team from 2000–2001" - why not "...with the team from 2000–01"? Why two year formats?
  • Comment: This one I'm a bit confused on. This is the standard across the other FL articles of this sort (Atlanta Thrashers, Buffalo Sabres, Calgary Flames, and many others). Basically what the "Seasons" column is saying, if put into sentence form, would be, for example, "the player started his career with the Canucks in 2000 and finished it in 2001", so it wouldn't make much sense to say "finished his career in 01". NHL seasons are listed as, for example, 2000–01 NHL season. So this note is just describing that if a player plays a game in the 2000–01 NHL season, his career service as a Canucks will be listed from 2000 to 2001. For most of these players it would be nearly impossible to pinpoint the exact date they played their game, so we're just trying to make due with the information we are given in an effort to best convey it to the reader.
• WP:COLOR says not to use color only to represent something.
  • Comment: For the blue highlighting which represents either a retired jersey number or induction into the Hockey Hall of Fame, the abbreviation of "Ret" or "HHOF" is placed in the notes section of that particular player, so that colour is being used in addition to the "Ret" and "HHOF" abbreviations. As for the green to represent a player who played in the 2007–08 season, I will add a note to show that players whos "Seasons" column end in 2008 are included in this group.
• Y Done GP - Games Played (why not played? Especially since you have GAA - Goals against average. And RW - Right Wing, Right wing?)
• Y Done "...in only two season." - 's' missing.
• Y Done " Todd Bertuzzi became known as one of the NHL's premier power forwards," POV - citation needed.
• Curt Fraser has dual nationality, you selected US. Why?
  • Comment: This article is using the HHOF standard of listing the players by their birth country, regardless of citizenship. Many of these players have dual, but it is often hard to find the nation that the players themselves call "home". I will add a note for this as is used in List of NHL statistical leaders by country.
• Y Done Hodgson has no position.
• Did the Czech Republic exist in 1981? Some of your players were Czechoslovakian I think.
  • Comment: As is the case with the nationality idea, the HHOF lists by current political entity. I will add a not for this as well. The exact note they used at the HHOF is "Note: players are categorized by birthplace based on current geographical regions, not citizenship". I will add something similar to this.
• Same for at least one of the Russian players, Larionov would have been Soviet Union in 1989.
  • See above
• Y Done References can be split into Specific and General and use the semi-colon to avoid them being headings if required.

So, oppose for now, too much to do for me to support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I will have it cleaned up later today to hopefully gain your approval. – Nurmsook! (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Forgot to add my support earlier. All issues resolved, very nice looking article, and plenty of images. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Why is there an empty "notes" column for the goaltenders? If there are no notes to put, then get rid of that column. Also as TRM said above, color should not be the only indicator. I don't quite agree with your reply. It's a lot easier to spot "*" or "#" next to the name while scrolling, then "2008" in the "seasons" column or "HHOF" or "ret" in the "notes" column. --Crzycheetah 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Y Done No need for "complete" in the bold title of lead; if it is featured, it should be complete and doesn't have to state that it is
• See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence, regarding the repeating of the article title as "this is a list of...." in opening sentence

Did it myself Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done Write out PCHL and WHL on their first use. If they are used again, place the abbreviations in brackets, if they're not, don't
• Are other Featured list of players' names in surname, firstname order?
  • Comment: Yes, the NHL related ones are and can be seen here.
• Per WP:COLOUR, don't use only colour to identify. Use a text-based marker alongside, such as asterisk, daggers, carets, or bold text highlighting

Did it myself Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done Per above, remove the empty notes column from the goaltenders
• Y Done The key box for goaltenders has some vertical lines which don't reach the bottom horizontal one.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:21, 23 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:Matthewedwards 02:23, 25 May 2008 [22].

[edit] List of San Diego Chargers head coaches

previous FLC (19:50, 9 May 2008) Self-Nomination I'm re-nominating this list as there was a lack of comments last time. This list is well referenced, and well written. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 22:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Other than a minor grammar tweak, I don't see anything wrong with it. Certainly seems good enough for FL to me. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

• Support After doing a few minor corrections myself, this list looks good. Noble Story (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Reword the first sentence better, don't just repeat the title of the list. Plus, unbold the first sentence per WP:LEAD.--Crzycheetah 05:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Done. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 16:20, 24 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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

[edit] Memphis Grizzlies draft history

I present another draft history list for your inspection. I've taken the comments from the other lists I've nominated and applied them here, so I don't know what can be wrong with the list. But fire away. Noble Story (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Even though I am the only other contributor to this list so far, I believe I have the right to support. Most of my edits were minor, anyway.--Crzycheetah 22:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Nice work on the NBA articles! Geologik (talk) 07:27, 16 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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

[edit] The Libertines discography

Discography of a short-lived, but glorious, indie rock band. Finally got down to writing the lead after months of procrastination. Anyway its complete, fully referenced, and concerns should be addressed quickly. Thanks, indopug (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good enough to me now. Noble Story (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks very nice! One last minor suggestion: similar columns should be kept a consistent width among similar tables. For instance the Details columns of Albums, EPs, and maybe Videos should be the same width. Drewcifer (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

That's odd, they are already of the same size. Thanks for the support! indopug (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you know what it is, it's getting squeezed ever so slightly on my monitory. Never mind then! Good work. Drewcifer (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little comment:

• The album titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Support - Added another chart ;) Also reorganized US. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved US back to the second position because it is a very important territory for English language bands, and most people only want to check US and UK chart positions anyway. indopug (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:CHARTS says home country first, then all other alphabetically. It's not for us to judge which markets are more important, and could be seen as POV. I strongly suggest changing it. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:Chart seems to talk specifically about the way to format tables in song/album articles (notice the style of table)so it doesn't apply to discographies at all, IMO. Also, asserting that for an English language band, the most important territories are the US and UK, in terms of sales, marketing, promotion, popularity and touring is not POV. An important indicator of an album/single's success, esp. for a British band, is success in the US. Brit bands that were mega-selling (Oasis, U2, Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones), have all necessarily been quite big in the US too. In other words, success in the US is almost a definitive indicator of how "big" and popular the band is, making its charts a much more important statistic than, say, Finland. indopug (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I definitely understand your points, I guess I just don't agree with them. That said, I do agree with you in that WP:CHART (at least as it's currently formatted) might not apply to discogs. So, for the sake of this and other current FLCs, I'll let the complaint go, and see what I can accomplish at WP:CHART as far as making it compliant and/or applicable to discogs. Drewcifer (talk) 23:00, 20 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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

[edit] List of East Carolina Pirates in the NFL Draft

I believe this is a FL. There isn't a list like this on wikipedia, so some things will need to become standardized. I am not sure if the naming convention is OK. I took parts from the NFL FL about the first round draft picks to help with the lede. The picture is OK. There is a extra column on the actual table that I do not know how to remove, so help with that will be appreciated. Please critize. Thanks, PGPirate 13:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - as nom. PGPirate 15:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the column for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you sir
• Comment — I've gone through and copyedited the article and put citation needed templates where I thought things should be cited. Most of those should just be re-cites of stuff you've got in the list itself. Let me know if I accidentally made something incorrect while trying to make sense of it, and I'll be happy to take another look. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Citations fixed
• Support — Very nice work PG. I can see this becoming the standard for other articles of its type! Geologik (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support — Extremely well-cited. You made the changes I suggested, and it looks great. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:52, 20 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 17:40, 21 May 2008.

[edit] List of Atlanta Falcons head coaches

Self-nomination Nicely done list. Well referenced, and includes a lead, and a history section summarizing some of the "major" coaches in the Atlanta Falcons Thanks, Milk’s Favorite Cookie ^(Talk) 21:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support as nom. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 20:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, all my concerns have been addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Weak oppose I'd like to see a template or a category that groups all of these NFL head coaches lists to make it easier to navigate. Also, I'd like you to list division, conference, or Super Bowl titles that those coaches won. These two comments apply to all similar lists.--Crzycheetah 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have not seen any replies to my comments, so I am opposing for now.--Crzycheetah 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • You could have replied here instead. A template should be added, though, even if there are red links. Red links give other editors an idea on how to contribute to related pages. Plus, you said there are 15 similar lists created already, so where are they? How can I see them?--Crzycheetah 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Crzycheetah, I created {{List of NFL head coaches by team}} and applied it to all the head coaching lists. I hope this addresses your first concern. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Gonzo fan2007! That's exactly what I had in mind.--Crzycheetah 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Your welcome :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 00:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Try to avoid repeating the title of the article in the lead opening sentence. Read the discussion at WT:FLC ongoing as we speak to avoid others opposing based on this.
• You use NFC and then the expanded version followed by (NFC). Switch it round.
• Numerical record needs en-dash to separate the numbers.
• "Wade Phillips holds the best coaching record"- perhaps statistically but I would have thought a Superbowl appearance was better than just two wins from three games coached?
• " Jim Hanifan, who won no games" again, statistically the worst but only coached four games!
• "who won no games" - who coached the team to no wins?
• "...last reached the playoffs under in 2004 under..." - one too many under's.
• "for former star quarterback" - POV.
• "The Falcons would later sign current coach Mike Smith at the end of the 2007 season." - weird tense issue here. Make it consistent with the rest of the lead.
• "There have only been four coaches to lead the Falcons into the playoffs including Leeman Bennett, Jerry Glanville, Dan Reeves and Jim L. Mora." - including? You mean something more like Only four coaches have led the Falcons to the playoffs– a, b, c and d.
• "...but did not finish the season, leaving after Week 14." - "...did not end the season as head coach, leaving after Week 14."
• No need for the spaces between W, en dash and L, nor between year, en dash, year in the table.
• Was Mike Smith announced as coach in 2007 or 2008 (as his article states...)? And his appointment needs to be referenced.
• Not 100% relevant here but modify the Falcons template to link to here from Head Coaches...

So, oppose for now, simple MOS failures, POV, and some oddly biased assertions need to be dealt with before I can support. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I think I got everything. « Milk's Favorite Cookie ^{( talk / contribs)} 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from RC-0722 (talk · contribs)

*"Norb Hecker, however, who coached thirty games just won four." If he doesn't hold the record for the worst record, then why state is name in the lead?

Other than that, I find nothing wrong with the list, so I say Weak Support. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 19:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Pretty good overall, but there are a couple issues. First, The worst record by any coach is that of Jim Hanifan, who won no games. sounds POVish. The Falcons are yet to win a Super Bowl. seems like it could be worded better. Also, since the references section has a note in it, wouldn't it be better called "References and notes"? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
• Moderate support I copyedited it slightly to fix some grammar and MoS mistakes, but for the most part it's good enough to get my support. The lead could be copyedited more, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment- "After Mora left the team in 2006, the Falcons hired Bobby Petrino who coached for only one year, during which the Bad Newz Kennels dog fighting investigation was under way which ultimately resulted in a prison term for former quarterback Michael Vick, and to Petrino's resignation." First, I do not think information about Michael Vick should be in a list about head coaches. Second, the way its written makes it sound like a direct coorelation between that incident and Petrino's resignation. I don't believe that is true, but what do I know. If it is true, it needs citing. Plus, that sentence is really long. If not, it needs to be removed. -PGPirate 13:10, 20 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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

[edit] List of United States hurricanes

I wrote this a few months back, and I think it would make for a good featured list. I think it's interesting, since it is a nice representation for every hurricane that affected the United States, and I believe it passes the FL criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• In-text external links are generally disliked, and I believe it's a MoS breach..not sure.
• ...the data from 1921 to 1979..' Needs non-breaking spaces.
• Why are Pennsylvania and the South west's sections in prose and not in a table like the rest?
• I'd like to see more sources, but it should be fine.

That's all from me. Overall, good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't see anywhere in the MOS that says the first item was a problem, so I'm leaving it. Since most of the article uses it, I feel it is important to link when it is mentioned. Pennsylvania and Southwest's sections only had one hurricane, so there is no need for a table. The article is comprehensive with those links, so I don't see a need for more sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Very well then, I don't see anything else wrong with the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments

1)The article heavily relies on one source, is there any other sources out there that can verify the information in the article?

2)In some states, there are unnamed hurricanes, yet they still have a link to an article, and they have a name, justification?

3)In response to the comment above about the MOS and internal linking, it is ok to do that, as there is nothing here.

Regards,--~SRS~ 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Alright. For the first one, there are other similar links, but that is the best comprehensive link available. HURDAT is the official database for Atlantic hurricanes. The unnamed storms did not have an official name. A select few had a name provided by the U.S. weather bureau, but even those names aren't the most ideal. Some were merely the place it affected (like if a hurricane hit Florida, it would be inappropriate to call it "Florida" if it also affected another state). Since most of the names were unofficial, I opted to consider them all unnamed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see ok im satisfied with the above, but the lead also requires some sourcing, like the total number of hurricanies.--~SRS~ 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That information in the lede is merely from the body of the article, adding up all of the storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "greater than 74 mph (118 km/h)" why? Presumably on some Scale that means hurricane. Worth a note for non-experts, otherwise it appears an arbitrary cut-off point.
• "Continental United States Hurricane Strikes " -> "Continental United States hurricane strikes" in the caption.
• Some issues over linking single years. The links need to go somewhere to enhance the reader's understanding and enrich their experience of this article. Not sure linking plain years (like 1851 in the lead) does this.
• Remove the in-line link to the Hurricane Research Division. If it's necessary, add it as an External link.
• Like the idea of the clickable US map but it seems strange, just sitting there without a frame, a caption or an explanation as to what it's for.
• Hmm, splitting the table has caused me no end of sorting problems.
  • Clicking on the Date of closest approach and the second of the two Storm headings takes me to the top of the page.
  • Clicking on the first Storm heading
  • Clicking on the category (small c here by the way), brings the last line up to the top - this line should always be at the bottom presumably.
  • You can't sort the two sides of the table together so it only means you can sort half the hurricanes at a time.
• What's HURDAT? Used a lot, never explained.
• Unless I missed it, a note explaining why many "Unnamed" hurricanes link out to hurricanes why, to a layman, appear to have names would be useful.
• Why is this a list of hurricanes and then the heading in the table "Storm"? Again, might be plainly obvious to you, but to a non-expert, like me, if I've asked the question, it probably needs to be answered.

Some opening comments from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I clarified the 74 mph cutoff, fixed the capitalization, removed some year links, and rm'd the inline link. I added a caption to the US map, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Yea, I notice the problems with the tables, so before I do anything drastic, do you think I should turn the tables into single rows? HURDAT is merely the HURricane DATabase, which I added to the top. For the unnamed storms, see my explanation above. If you think clarification is needed in the article, I'll do it. I changed the "Storm" header to "Name", which also makes mentioning the unnamed storms more sense. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd opt for the tables to either be non-sortable (bit of a shame) or in a single column (so the sorting works but the article becomes longer)... your choice! Either way it's unacceptable at the moment. See what works best for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I had tried both of them while working on the article, and I found the single column to be too long. I personally don't see too much value in sorting by name, and there are only five categories, not to mention that a list of hurricanes by strength (pressure) to hit the US is available elsewhere. Sorting by calendar dates would be nice, but there isn't too much variation. However, think of that, I decided to add a table at the bottom of the article. Still, I'd rather keep the list manageable (such as for the more affected areas). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you tell me how accurate and complete Image:Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg is. When I look at Hurricane Katrina (the only name I looked for) it is depicted as Cat 3.
• Have you ever thought of creating a template of Hurricanes so that I can just go to the bottom of any of your hurricane articles and bounce to the other state I want to see or the ocean or category or whatever other logical grouping of TCs I am interested in.
  • Wow! I did not know I had so many states to look forward to. SC, GA, VA, MD, DC, PA and possibly OR, WA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We'll get there eventually! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Hurricanes seem to be listed by where they made landfall in this article. Some hurricanes cause havoc inland. Have any inland states such as TN, AK, or WV encountered TCs at hurricane strength? Do you have articles for such states?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Umm, Katrina was Cat. 3 at landfall... Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the first paragraph of Hurricane Katrina at first.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• I added the template to the bottom of the article. Also, no known hurricanes caused hurricane force winds in TN, AK, or WV. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• I forgot AZ is inland. Also, DC, GA and PA have probably had hurricanes. Am I correct on these?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• GA and PA had hurricanes, which is why they are listed in the article. I have found no info on DC, which is why it's not in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• How is it that only two named storms have affected GA? and none DC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• Georgia used to get affected by a lot of hurricanes, but for whatever reason, they have been largely spared in recent decades. It's not that no hurricanes ever affected DC. There is just no source that I've found that confirms hurricane force winds in the district. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Why is everything in the table in bold? It isn't necessary. Also the image map should lonk to a hurricane article or nothing. There is no usefullness in linking to state articles, and it violated the principle of least surprise to not known where it goes before you click on it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding everything in the article being bolded, before I change it, do you propose that nothing in the article be bolded, excluding the tops of each section? Regarding the map, I suppose I didn't think that through too much. Do you even think it is needed? I thought it would be neat, but I wouldn't mind seeing it removed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I think headings should be bold. I don't think every item needs to be bolded though. It can't draw attention to everything. What purpose does the bolding serve? Rmhermen (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I de-bolded everything but the headings. What about the map? Should I axe it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I went over it with a fine-toothed comb, and I'm satisfied with the quality of the prose to satisfy criterion #1. Support, albeit biasedly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My comments were addressed, Support.--SRX 16:59, 18 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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

[edit] Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons

Self-nomination. I created this page, which follows the previously nominated Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons and East Carolina Pirates football seasons, both of which have reached FL status. I believe this page is comparable with the first two and deserving of FL status. Thank you for your time and consideration. Geologik (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments I think this article looks very good, but a few minor things:

• Don't put links in the first bold sentence, as per WP:LEAD. Y Done
• No mention of that Michigan game? Perhaps you should at least mention that they became "the first FCS team to ever receive votes in the final Associated Press (AP) college football poll on January 8, 2008." (as it says in the main football team article. Y Done

Noble Story (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. Geologik (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• A little bit anal but I'd prefer to see NCAA expanded before it's used as an abbreviation, just as you do with FCS. Y Done
• First image caption is a fragment so needs no period. Y Done
• What's I-AA?
• Playoffs aren't usually capitalised. Y Done
• Use the en-dash for separators of years, scores etc, per WP:DASH. Y Done
• "successful football program" - expand football to the full link so it says college football - helps non-experts (like me!). Y Done
• Jim Duncan links to a dab page. Y Done
• "Appalachian left the Carolinas Conference after the 1967 season and played as an independent for three years."
  • Cite needed.
  • Explain what "playing as an independent" means.
  • I thought they were in the North State Conference, not the Carolinas Conference? Confusing. Y Done
    • Reworded to hopefully be less confusing
• "SoCon" - if you're going to use abbreviations or contractions, put them in parentheses after their original expansion. Y Done
• "in modern times" - what is the scope of this?
• (AP) doesn't need to be in the wikilink. Y Done
• "The Mountaineers received 5 points, good for a tie for 34th" Y Done
  • Five, not 5. Y Done
  • What does "good for a tie for 34th" mean? Do you mean "placing them tied in 34th place in the list" or something similar? Y Done
    • Hopefully I was able to clarify
• Why "Conference(s)" in the table when there's never more than one? Y Done
• What's TSN?
• Why are the two "Poll"s capitalised?
• Get rid of the 2008 row - the lead said "seasons completed..."
• What does "T-1st" mean? Y Done
• What does OT mean? Y Done
  • Added links to Overtime (sports) - can make a footnote at the bottom of box if deemed necessary.
• (only includes playoff games; 15 appearances) - I count 32...
• Not keen on the playoff results section. It needs, at the very least, a little prose to explain what I'm looking at.
• See also section needs to be moved up. Y Done
• "Reference" section probably should be called "References" since there's more than one. Y Done

That's it for now. Oppose simply based on the volume of issues I've found. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support — Extremely well-cited, aesthetically pleasing, coherent, and clear. It's easily equivalent to the List of Iowa Hawkeyes Seasons and the List of East Carolina Pirates Seasons. Good work! JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I can't find where/if it is against WP:MOS, but I do not like stand- alone years wikilinked. i.e. 1907 Y Done
    • I couldn't find anything on WP:DATE, but I de-linked them per your suggestion.
  • Wofford has an athletic page Y Done
    • Colleges should link to their athletic page, if there
  • has had a successful college football program, according to who?
    • The Charlotte Observer ran an article, front page of the sports section, on Oct. 29, 2005 that called Appalachian the Carolinas' No. 1 Division I football team. A .635 winning percentage, three straight national titles and a win at Michigan (all after the original article) certainly helps the case. The original article is archived but I provided a link from the ASU alumni blog with screenshot of the front page.
  • "I-AA playoffs" in the table only should be wikilinked the first time, like the Southern Conference. Y Done
  • Sports in the United States would be a better link than "American sports" Y Done
• That is it for now. PGPirate 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support - much better. congrats, PGPirate 14:06, 7 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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

[edit] Róisín Murphy discography

Self-nomination: This discography covers all the solo released by Irish singer-songwriter Róisín Murphy. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks good! Drewcifer (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Why are repetitions of guest singles in the misc. section? That's redundancy.
• If the # of B-sides is less like here, I'm all for keeping the table there.
• Make the width of the Title columns of the studio albums, live albums, and EPs the same. Similarly for Singles, b-sides and videos. indopug (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This may sound stupid, but I'm a bit confused on what you mean by column width. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Do not wikilink the bold title, per WP:LS#Bold title
• Is ""—" denotes releases that did not chart." necessary for the albums? The — is not actually used in the table
• No album chart position in Ireland? That's surprising
• Any ideas which localised version of iTunes iTunes Live: London Sessions was released to?
• Any information on the markets Live At Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07 was released to?
• Again, that she has no singles chart positions in her home country is surprising. Can this be checked?
• Move "Feel Up" by "Spook" to the Guest singles section, and remove the entire Miscellaneous section

That's all I got

I have checked everywhere and she has not charted in Ireland. As for Live At Ancienne Belgique 19.11.07 album, it was available to order all over the world as anyone from anywhere could purchase it online from Concert Live. iTunes Live: London Sessions was released to iTunes stores in Europe. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should say that, re iTunes, and wikilink or link to Concert Live -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Added your comments into the section. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Since this an article about an Irish singer, the dates should be as [[1 January]] [[2008]]. This is important to do for IP/non-account users who view the date the same way it is typed. The album column in featured singles is unnecessary, remove it and move the refs to beside the singles. The notes in the EPs can be removed and the info (no need of ref) moved to a bullet point below Label --> "Format: limited edition vinyl". Remove the <small> tags for catalogue numbers. Bold the main releases names of albums, EPs, and live albums. Make Studio albums, Live albums and featured singles separate sections. indopug (talk) 10:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added your suggestions into the article. Except for about separate sections for the albums and singles. Other discographies do not split the different types of album releases into different sections (see Depeche Mode discography, Aesop Rock discography and Silverchair discography just to name a few). -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Expand the lead please, at least list every chart position the albums got. Also the wording is every awkward as of now, and could use a rewrite. "Murphy's first solo recordings...Moloko was known with jazz and pop styles." can be significantly simplified, for example. indopug (talk)

I have expanded the lead to include album chart positions and hopefully it doesn't sound awkward anymore. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The date formats are wrong. (see my comment above) indopug (talk) 22:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support indopug (talk) 22:15, 16 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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

[edit] Tool discography

I'm nominating on behalf of Wikiproject Tool's article improvement goals. Lara❤Love 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note Since it appears Lara has retired, I'll do my best to finish the FLC in her absence. So please excuse any ignorance as far as the band itself goes or arguments made so far in the FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looking good! Drewcifer (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Potential conflict of interest given the above? Feel free to disregard my support if you think so. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm here. Lara❤Love 13:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whew. That was a close one! Drewcifer (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments - WTF?! Is it Pretentious Art-Rock Band Discography Week here at FLC? (Sonic Youth, Tool, Pink Floyd...) Anyway,

• "This is a discography for the American progressive rock/metal band Tool."--I'm not too fond of the genres here, its a little too detailed and rather confusing too (by "/" I thought you implied progressive metal, not where it linked to though). Heavy metal should be enough.
  • I fixed it. It should have been as you expected it.
• platinum, gold --> Platinum, Gold (always)
  • All the related articles have lowercase when used in prose, including RIAA certifications and Music recording sales certification.
• split the second para into two.
  • Where do you suggest I split it? Other FLs I looked at seemed to flow with one large paragraph. A split would most likely be between the first and second studio albums, which would be weird.
    • Split up the paragraphs. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Check for Mos -- Bollboard 200 not Billboard 200
• link alternative rock
• Although typically intended--typically? In fact I'm not sure that entire sentence is very clear anyway.
  • I clarified.
• one EP --> one extended play (EP) (for the noobs)
• "October 1996 saw the release of Ænima."--too short a sentence; club with next one?
• #1 --> number one
• 2x Platinum --> 2× Platinum
• Label: Zoo/BMG/Volcano-- wikilink (only first time)
• Why is zobbel.de reliable?
  • I pulled it from James Blunt. I swapped it for everyHit.com which I didn't originally want to use because they don't allow direct page linking. As it only does top 40, I removed the UK column from the singles table.
• please double-check the Billboard charts with Allmusic
  • Allmusic is reliable and Billboard's navigation is teh suck. If someone knows how to search their site without it yielding a few hundred results, that'd be helpful.
• No need to link the music videos (already done in the singles). Also delink them in the DVD section, which you should rename in the plural. The Videos link in the infobox thing at the top doesn't work. Also no mention of the box sets and live albums in said infobox thing.
• peak positions and peak chart positions; standardise.
• "Demo, EP, box set, and other" --> generalise to something compacter? "Other albums"?
• Are you sure "Opiate" was additionally released as a single along with the EP of same name? I don't think so and there isn't a wikipage for the single.
  • There were two singles released from Opiate, "Hush" and "Opiate".
• Make the music videos' and singles' Title columns equal in width.
• The U.S. Hot 100 should come before the other two US charts in the table, cause its more important. indopug (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Addressed all, either in list or with comment here. Lara❤Love 22:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Do not wikilink the title in the lead, per WP:LS#Bold title
  • This should be made consistent through all the FLs because all the ones I clicked had links.
• "This list does not include material performed by members of Tool that was recorded with A Perfect Circle..." perhaps include that these bands are their side projects or something
  • Again, this was written based off of other FLs and this isn't consistent with those.
• "the band was so pleased with theirs that they sold copies to their fans." How? At concerts, through local independent music stores?
  • I don't know. The source didn't say. It just said it was sold to fans.
• "bassist D'Amour leaving amicably to pursue other projects." This is questionable and so should be cited
  • It's covered by the ref that follows the next sentence.
• "a decline in popularity of alternative rock music during the mid-90s in the United States," According to who?
• Per WP:MOS#Acronyms and abbreviations, "In a given article, if the abbreviated form of the United States appears predominantly alongside other abbreviated country names, for consistency it is preferable to avoid periods throughout". So it should be "US" and "UK", not "U.S." and "UK" (or "U.S." and "U.K.")
• I'd prefer to see the peak chart positions in this format:
  • Home country; alphabetical order of English speaking countries; alphabetical order of non-English speaking countries; World chart

I think this is more of a WP:Discog issue at this point. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Are we sure no singles charted outside of the US?

Good catch, they did chart in the Netherlands. I added the data. Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I got -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment to Matthewedwards I think UK/US should come before all other English-speaking countries in the charts. These are the two most important markets in terms of marketing, sales, promotion, media coverage etc. indopug (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my argument to the contrary at the Sonic Youth FLC. Drewcifer (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, to note, I sort of put them by success because I didn't see any sort of standard with the current FLs. So I'll wait until this gets figured out, as it's apparently going to be setting a precedence, as a few of these suggestions appear to be going for, and that's a lot of work to swap the columns. Lara❤Love 20:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment According to the lead "This list does not include material performed by members of Tool that was recorded with [insert bands]", why? It also might not hurt to indicate which albums (if any) won Grammy Awards. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's probably because the other bands are side projects, or second bands that they are involved in, though not together. They're nothing to do with Tool, they just have some members, like The White Stripes and The Raconteurs, rather than Green Day and Foxboro Hot Tubs which is all the same members. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 17:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Which, in this case, would include APC. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
      • THis is a very typical thing in discogs: including every side project would make the discography ridiculously large in many cases, this one included. Drewcifer (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice. You should list the official website or a fansite with a very comprehensive discography (if it exists) in the EL. Also, add how Undertow reached only 50 while Aenima fared much better at 2. indopug (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure why AEnima fared so well compared to Undertow. It was probably just a matter of exposure. They toured extensively during all of those years, singles from both suffered similar censorship... Any addition on this would be speculation. Lara❤Love 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I just meant add the first two albums' chart positions to the lead. indopug (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Recheck all the chart position numbers. I had to redo the singles placings right now because some were simply wrong, or were placed in the wrong columns. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't know what happened with that... I went back through the albums and videos, they're all good. Lara❤Love 13:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Would it be possible to mention which albums (if any) won major awards? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Discographies (at least on Wikipedia) give a quantitative indicator of a album/single's success; chart positions, certifications, sales figures. On the other hand, qualitative indicators like awards and critical acclaim are not mentioned in tables (although they may be mentioned in the lead, if really important) If a band has won many awards, they can have an article for it, see: List of U2 awards. indopug (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I added them to the lead. Lara❤Love 15:06, 14 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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

[edit] Delta Goodrem discography

I've been working on this article for quite some time now. I think it meets WP:WIAFL criteria. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 07:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great! Drewcifer (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Caption in infobox is a fragment so remove the full stop.
• Four paragraphs in the lead is excessive for an article of this length, consider merging.
• You have ref's 1 and 2 in the lead but there are other claims which go uncited. Either cite the lot or none and make sure you cite the information in the list accordingly.
• Don't overlink Sony BMG in the lead.
• "and is currently active in the charts." - this will need a context (i.e. as of april 2008...)
• Note A needs citation.
• Avoid spaces between the text/punctuation and the notes (e.g. you have "I Don't Care" [A], it should be "I Don't Care"[A])
• "I Don't Care" has an em-dash in the Album section - this means album did not chart. Was "I Don't Care" on an album? If not then this note is incorrect, or at best misleading.
• I think citations should be provided for "exclusive" releases.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead is really necessary as it highlights the important aspects of Delta Goodrem's career so far, and to be honest, I don't think we can condense it even further. Also, the citations for ITunes exclusive releases can't really be sourced properly as I can't provide a reference to the Itunes store itself and the web sources consist of forums and lyric pages. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 12:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Avoid bold links in the lead per WP:LEAD#Bold title, boring I know, but WP:MOS rules.
• Caption still a fragment.
• "later this year" just in 2008 will do.
• Remove spaces between notes and text/punctuation.
• A-D have full stops, then E should. Or none of them should have full stops. Be consistent.

End of round 2! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressed everything. Don't know about the caption though. What should it say? σмgнgσмg^(talk) 01:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "she joined the cast of Neighbours and this helped launch her international music career." This needs a citations. Perhaps include the fact that this is because she sung on the show; this would need citing, too.
• "Her 2004 second album Mistaken Identity" sounds better as "her second album, Mistaken Identity, released in 2004"
• "inspired by her battle with cancer," requires a citation. Any idea what form of cancer, too?
• The rest of that sentence should be cited also
• "After a break," caused by what?
• I don't like the wording of "It is to be her first album in the United States and released in Europe in 2008." But I can't think right now of how to reword it
• "Peak chart positions" should be placed as:
  • Home country
  • Alphabetical by every other country
  • World chart
• Move the references for Peak chart postition to the column of the country they refer to.
• I note there is only five references for the ten countries? Where did you get the information for Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK?
• ""Predictable" Live performance at Channel V " Is this a music video, or simply a recording of a performance?
• Why are the singles' B-Sides included? This is a discography, not a songography. If these are so notable, I would think that album tracks are even more so, but they aren't listed...
• ""Days Go By"|Glenn Lyse|Single-only" why not "Days Go By", instead of "single-only" -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have, but as it seems five countries's chart positions are not sourced, and the inclusion of a B-sides section, it's an oppose for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so much to address. I'll tackle one point at a time. The suggestions you have put forward about rewording the lead, I've done that. However, as with your comment on the inclusion of source(s), it will go against what The Rambling Man has suggested. So, now I'm conflicted, what should I do? Should I include sources in the lead or not?

I would say yes. Anything presented as a fact should be referenced. --ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 18:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But the information presented in the lead is verified within the article. So, technically, there is no need to add in the same sources if it is going to be repeated again and again in the article. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, there isn't any much of a singificance in reorganising the peak chart positions in an order that you proposed. So, I think I'll leave it as it is for now. The sources are best put above, since the width of the table is 30px due to the logic raised by Drewcifer. His logic was: "1) the tables are big enough so that on low-resolution monitors it starts to get a little squished, and 2) it would be nice to get the certifications into the singles table, so space is at a premium there." Also, there are only 6 references required for 10 countries. Why? Source No. 5, when clicked to a specific page, such as the Innocent Eyes chart positions, gives information on the chart positions for Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK. So, the addition of further sources isn't necessary.

Thirdly, in regards to the phrase: "Live performance at Channel V" simply highlights that Delta Goodrem's performance on that channel was simply used as the official music video for Predictable. The B-side table has been moved to another page. And finally, the table on her writing credits has simply reworked to suit the use of "single-only". That's done and dusted. Cheers. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I'm not convinced on the need of writing credits to be included. This is her discography. It shouldn't mention her work on other artists' discs.

I hope my comments have helped, but I'm unable to support or oppose because I won't have internet access for the next two weeks. As such, I can only stay neutral. Sorry. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I know her career is not as distinguished nor as lengthy as, say, Metallica, but I feel the lead could do with being beefed up a bit. It currently almost borders on listprose.
• Get rid of the full stop in the caption.
• As for inclusion of sources, Matthew and I don't disagree, not really. You really should not include information in the lead that isn't expanded upon in the main body of the list. Thus, you should, in principle, be able to have a citation free lead, as long as everything you state there is included, expanded upon and cited in the main body.
• Why are you forcing the font size of the certification column?
• And for two of the albums?
• There are a number of directors missing from the video table.

The Rambling Man (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that shouldn't have been like that. Anyway, I've addressed your concerns with the exception of the music video directors. Some of the music video directors' names have not been released, hence it is why they are blank. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 10:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a little comments:

• The album and video titles should not be in bold. It goes against MOS:BOLD (see discussion WT:MUSTARD#Album bolding).

-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 06:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there was no conclusion to that discussion, and an overall change the discography MoS has not been implemented. So you can revert it back because, frankly, it looks much better and clearer with the bolds. indopug (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, what's done is done. σмgнgσмg^(talk) 06:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Did some copyediting, all seems good to me. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:21, 18 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 23:23, 18 May 2008.

[edit] List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts

This list is based off List of acquisitions by Yahoo! and List of acquisitions by Google, a featured list, both done by User:Gary King. I believe I have written this list well and it is of featured quality. Hello32020 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment a couple of the original acquisitions simply link to their derived products. Gary King has done this as well, creating the redirects himself. He's now asking for the redirects to be deleted. I think a consistent approach may be needed across these acquisition lists for such links. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear on what you are proposing. (A few things I think that you could be referring to.) Hello32020 (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • For example, DreamWorks Interactive just links back to Electronic Arts. As does Manley & Associates. As does JAMDAT Mobile. Gary King has removed these redirects and written stubs. That's my major concern that this list won't be consistent and have links to the actual companies. For instance, JAMDAT Mobile sold for over half a billion dollars, it must be worth an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Created articles on all of the original companies. Hello32020 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please see my comments for the next nomination in the list (Yahoo!). TONY (talk) 10:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done, anything else? Hello32020 (talk) 12:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, you haven't at all addressed my misgivings below. I have to say that the lead is far too short and is superficial. Even when it has the chance to round-up the numbers in the table below, it doesn't. It says nothing to position this surge of acquisitions in the industry as a whole, in terms of its US competitors and foreign companies. What was the corporate strategy behind it? Was it a particular CEO or board that was behind this? Is it regarded as a successful business plan by the company and by others? Has it led to synergies in terms of product innovation, etc? There are lots of questions. You don't have to answer them all, but the lead pitifully fails to do what Criterion 2a says it should do. And 28 refs at the bottom: can you do the readers a favour and drag out morsels from them to let us into the topic? (A succinct drawing on highly relevant info in the larger article would be good: only what's strictly relevant, but double the current size of lead would be good. Any room for the company logo? Refs: I see not one author listed. What makes them reliable? You know how clubby and lemming-like the finance industry and journalists are. Do the refs provide, as a whole, NPOV sourcing we can trust? TONY (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fairly hard to find good information on this, I hope what I've done is sufficient. Hello32020 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggested two sources: the related article (which would need to be reworded if you draw on its information—not hard) and the ?28 references you've provided at the bottom. TONY (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Already provided an example of how EA uses a new acquired company to expand its fields, now added practices in EA in regard to newly acquired companies. Hello32020 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I've copy-edited the additions. The nomination is certainly better than it was. TONY (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Seems like the section of the first paragraph (after the 1st citation) that describes the information provided on the list may fit better either at the end of the elad or as an introduction following the section break before the table. - Marrio (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Moved to the end of the lead. Hello32020 (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Support - Marrio (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comments Odd image placement in the lead, and this quote doesn't make sense to me: we intend to build a leading global position in the ... business of providing games on mobile phones." That ... isn't in the quote, so maybe it should be in brackets? Other than that it looks good. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Added brackets for quote and I can't find a better placement for the images, other positions I've tried look more strange. Hello32020 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Quickie review
  • EA's logo can be seen pretty clearly in the free image. Could you remove the non-free one and just use the free one?
  • Add an external link to EA's official website.
  • I've made a few tweaks to the lead, feel free to revert.
• That's actually just about all I can find. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, I have implemented your requests and your edit was good so no need to revert. Hello32020 (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support I've looked it over, and I think it looks good to me; I can find nothing wrong with it. Noble Story (talk) 02:20, 15 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 23:20, 16 May 2008.

[edit] List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Minneapolis and List of tallest buildings in Houston. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and Leitmanp to bring this list up to FL standards, and I think it is now there. I believe it to meet all FL criteria, in that it is comprehensive, stable, well-referenced, well-organized, useful, and complete. As always, any concerns brought up here will be addressed. Thanks, Rai•me 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Alaskan assassin (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • If the tables list buildings over 400 feet, why does the lead mostly state facts about buildings over 500 feet?
    • It is because city skylines are ranked by number of buildings over 500 feet (152 m). This is fairly standard for all tallest building lists FLs. But note that the lead focuses just as much on high-rises in the city general, and notes the completion of 30 of its 32 tallest buildings, which includes all of the buildings in the list and not just the ones over 500 feet in height. Cheers, Rai•me 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even though there is an abundance of as of May 2008 links in the lead, there's still one "currently" remains. There are currently 21 completed buildings that stand at least 500 feet (152 m) ...
    • Y Done, removed "currently", but avoided another mention of as of May 2008. -- Rai•me 21:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)